>> hello, i'm llewellyn king, host of "white house chronicle," which is coming right up. but first, a few thoughts of my own. winston churchill said a decision not taken is nonetheless a decision. and, you know, our country, day after day, we see the results of decisions and not taken. i am thinking today particularly about the infrastructure, and quite possibly about the space program. we decided not to pursue serious manic-space exploration, not to go back to the moon, for example. whether that is good or bad does not matter, but a shock will come to our country when people from another country, probably from china, walk on at the moon, where we walked all those

decades ago. it is going to be a shock, a decision not taken was the decision to but more so, it happens all the time with the infrastructure. we take decisions and not to build this, not to repair that, not to tax something else. in europe, whether it was right or wrong, they took decisions to build a lot of trains, to build a lot of public transportation, and on the whole, it has quite enjoyable public spaces. we have put our national resources, our national inclination for how we shall live in other places. by not taking actual decisions to do these things. nonetheless in the negative took decisions, and they are coming to root, bad bridges, bad roads, bed sewage systems, and the electrical grid we now learn is in awful shape. decisions and not taken. yes, mr. churchill was right,

are nonetheless decisions. with those non decision decisions, they need re- examination. i have a special program today with one of the great men of broadcasting, one of the giants. you're going to enjoy this a lot, i know. we will be right back. >> many have spoken out on the need to transition to a clean energy future. we are acting. by 2020, we are committed to reducing offsetting or displacing more than 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually from greening our operations, helping our customers and communities reduce their emissions, and offering more low carbon electricity in the marketplace. we're taking action, and we're seeing results. >> "white house chronicle" is produced in collaboration with whut howard university television. >> and now the program host, nationally syndicated

columnist, llewellyn king, and co-host, linda gasparello. ♪ >> hello again, and thank you for coming along. i want to introduce somebody very special, somebody that i admire enormously to the sitting right in front of me is tim farley, the early morning host on sirius xm channel 124, the potus channel, but also the director of the channel. i want to say with pride that the and from this program is broadcast three times on sirius xm channel 124, the potus channel, and used a privileged to have a half-hour or so every friday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on that program. 10, welcome to the broadcast. >> thank you. >> this is not praise for praise's sake. this is somebody i believe.

first of all, for somebody who gets up at the hours that you get up -- >> that is what it is? >> what time do you get up? >> usually about 2:00 a.m. in the morning. >> when do you go to bed? >> about 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. >> how does this sit with your family? >> you know, the less i am in the house, the better. it is a wonderful. no, it works out fine. everyone has different requirements with what they do. i just happened to have a job that is doing something that involves being on the air from 6:00 a.m. in the morning onwards, and sometimes i stop at 9:00 a.m., sometimes i keep going. >> i catch you just a shade after 6:00 a.m. as i drive to my commuter train. it is a 35-minute drive, get a good chunk of it. you have the ability to read it slowly and well. >> well, it thank you. >> i tried my hand in radio 50 years ago and realized i was not a natural leader. i am slightly does less skit --

dyslexic, and it was not for me. in those days, you cannot even record things easily because there were only wire recorders but as long things with a wider which you could clean with your fingers. but you cannot edit it. if you had five minutes on the air, you had to read without a mistake anything for 5 minutes. the standards for more rigorous. >> i absolutely agree with you. >> now it is more casual. >> i do like though, and this is something i think you do -- you do a lot of what you do without a script. i like to talk the news. i like to speak the news. i like to deliver the news as if we were sitting across the table. i like to imagine that you or somebody else is sitting across the table from me and i am telling them about what is taking place. that is the way to the newscast. i am also no good without words being written, i do write a lot of my own. i change it, but i use a lot of sources. i never did a lot of things. >> you had this ability that

radio people have, but also people who read on television, to pick up a document or newspaper, something you had never seen before, and read it, apparently without messing up. i think that is a great talent. it probably has more to do with the way the eyes work and wow -- than the mouth. >> and i have been added for a while. >> they say that a poet could read it to eight lines at a time, which is frightening. >> some consider five things at once and do all of them well. i tried to do one or two. >> one of our friends, a greatly talented person, joe matheny, who founded the channel, was the first person in your job on the channel. he would do about three things. sitting, running the board, editing something here, talking to me. i thought it was stunning but this really was a man -- and

effortlessly. none of these things are any good if you have to put effort into them. but if you can seem to do them without effort because they come naturally. radio is changing. it is changing back up, isn't it? >> it has changed a lot. >> radio went through a terrible down time. >> it has always gone through downtimes. for those who remember in the 1950's, there was a sense it was going to disappear because of the entertainment programs of the 1940's like bob hope was gone away because of television. that thought it was the death of radio. then radio discovered music and discovered top 40 radio. it made its way into the 1960. then it started fragmenting again. there was a sense that all radio was going to die. then fm came along in print fidelity. and fm and a.m. are two different things. at one time, a.m. radio was the king.

it has gone through different iterations. i think that radio is still an important medium for delivering information to a local audience. there are national programs, and they are entertaining. mine is a national program that happens to be life. there also live syndicated national programs like rush limbaugh as a lead the dodgers. of course, there's national news. there's nothing better for getting to people in their cars are in transit, but the growth of the internet has changed the dynamic of what whereas a lot of newspaper as it cut back, but radio has been hit hard by the same thing. the staffing has gone down, the requirements of radio a very different than what the word say 30 years ago. it is little bit of a different thing. >> something else came along while it was struggling, particularly on a.m., which was the setting political show. i suppose the best known is rush limbaugh and many others from right and left. probably more right. let tad more difficulty finding

a dedicated place on the dial -- left at a more difficult time finding a dedicated place on dial. suddenly we find radio has very high ratings. in washington, we had -- we haven't all news station called wtop. we now have two. but wtop dominates the these two are the top of the ratings, and they are not shouting. they are balanced. they're down the middle. on your program, i like how you manage to take issue with someone without criticizing them are joining them. >> i appreciate that. i tried to challenge a the disagreeing. it is not my job. >> in the end, happily, do not know what your politics argue that is probably a good thing. >> i appreciate that. what you mentioned there with an all news station and something like npr -- npr is a very recognized brand. they tend to go slowly and more in depth in the news. an all-news station is like a

utility. something people put on like a toaster. i used to tell my staff at one station that we're like a toaster that talks. people push the button down and get the toast that they want and they are fine. people use that as a utility. with the talk shows, it is a little different. what i would also differentiate is the 26 as walruses the unsuccessful programs. what i mean by -- rush limbaugh, for example, is successful launches because of ideology but because of the structure of the show, because of the float the use of music. the use of language. rush limbaugh can speak extensively on a topic. he can make sense. he is engaging. other talk show hosts that scream at you and taking the position, they're being polemical, that is not something that is going to necessarily when listeners. and for the most part, the shows that have come from the left have been that way. i think there's the sense that we need to get on the air. there have been changes. ed schultz had a successful

radio show, and he has turned into a successful tv show. rachel maddow had a successful show, and now it is is successful tv show. >> what do you think about the situation in television, where we have dedicated channels on the right and channels on the left? you just mentioned two of them. commentators on the right. you have a few others. does this bother you? it bothers me. >> it does and it does not. because i think one of the challenges is trying to find ways to get people out of -- i have heard you describe this, out of the silos they are in. they tend to aggregate in congregate in these little church is a news delivery dithat they will not get out of. they listen to their own gospel and nobody else's. that can be dangerous. but there are so many opportunities to find out news and information everywhere. i do not think is a great danger. frankly, those of us who are in washington tend to overestimate -- overestimate their importance to the people who listen to a

program on fox or msnbc anaya. take bill reilly, and others. >> this is an interesting point. how many channels are there on sirius xm? >> 150, 160, depending on the time of day and the time of year. >> enormous. yeah, you take no advertisements. i am sure that you keep no records of the viewership. >> correct. >> listenership. how do you know what to put on? >> welcome a part of it is instinct. part of is is you have to have a sense -- >> i know that potus channel 124, people listen to, because the right to me about it from all over the country. >> we have a mission but you have to state rigorous -- you have tuesday rigorous about what people expect. >> this is a throwback to the old bbc. >> that is a point. we do what is right.

we do what we think we should. "we're going to interrupt here for a commercial. this is actually for the benefit of your listeners, to tell them that they're listening to "white house chronicle" from washington, d.c., with myself llewellyn king and with tim farley, the host and program director of sirius xm radio's potus channel 124. this program, we're glad to say, can also be seen around the world on english language channels on the voice of america and on about 200 television stations, public and public access here in the united states but i am talking with tim. how did you get into radio. what is it about radio that said come here? >> i worked as a co editor-in- chief of my high school paper in college. >> where was this? >> in maine. i said i would like a job in your news department. i was told we do not have the news department, however, we need some part-time disc jockey

board operators. that is how i started doing announcements for the metropolitan opera and running the board. >> the board is this huge thing in front. it takes great skill. it is used for different programming, sounds, your predecessor and joe matthew and the house ofg comments is not always very polite. there are enormous pieces of debate. and sit down, you fat faced twit. and every now and again, he would push the button and you would hear that. i wanted to go away. i do not want to hear it again. >> one thing i will say is the difference between where i started in radio and where we are today where i work at sirius xm is like the difference between driving a model a and driving a rolls royce. >> which is which? >> sirius xm is definitely on the rolls-royce said.

we have so many things at our fingertips now. now, with the efficiency of 10 people, i can do what would take me so long to do 25, 30 years ago. >> there is also sending interesting. you have all sorts of archival pieces. recently, my wife and i were driving to the train, as we do every morning. we were delighted to hear john f. kennedy and one of his speeches i have never heard before. where do you find stuff like that? >> it is out there. the kennedy library is amazing. there is also a place called the miller center in virginia which has a lot of archival audio. we have a lot of it. a lot is available at c-span. it is public domain. >> how do you look for it? how do you decide, i want to say what to the newspaper publishers? >> this is what i do. i research. >i look in fighting other calendars. sometimes i find things -- i have found different pieces of information in books i have read. and i found it interesting and

wanted to find out. the associated press has a great date book. you can go back in time. i would think, i wonder if there's a piece of audio of that. >> what did you think of call- in radio? >> i think the best thing that ever happened to call-in talk shows is the invention of the cell phone. it is also the worst thing, because it puts everybody on the same level. i have often tell people that host call-in shows, people that have worked with me and for me, i said, look, you are a rock band, the number one bid. imagine you're the top and in the country, and you're up on stage plan your hit songs. somebody in the audience wants to come up and play with the. as soon as they do, you hope they keep up the level of expectation for everybody, keep up the level of the performance but when you are running a talk show, everyone that comes on or the person coming from the audience, they're coming up to

stand and play with the. >> i think it has important social value. it is a way of letting off steam. my father used to write newspapers. he would write these letters on all sorts of topics. he did it. what he really needed was to be a protocol to the talk-show. >> well, you can comment online. it is the same thing. it is not adding to the con -- it is not all the time added to the conversation, but at times it can be. >> instead of commenting on what the caller said, the host find out who the caller is and what their life story is. then it becomes interesting. otherwise, it is like, my goodness. i once said timothy in at rhode island, did you take your medicine today? you can get very tired of the crazies. once i was doing a show with one

of your guest hosts, and it was after the death of princess diana. they knew about him and tried to keep him off, but he had wasted -- ways of getting in. having the kids call or whatever. she was a prostitute -- she was a prostitute. before they cut him off, i tried to find out what made him think that. you know. >> the big thing here, i think one of the things that happens is that it depends on what people are after at the end of the day with their radio station. a lot of times the goal is to get ratings. sanding with television. for many individuals, the best way to go about that is to get noticed. you have to discipline outrageous and be noticed. what happens is that individuals who would normally have an intelligent conversation, the woods across the table and throw ideas back and forth, they would do it for

the sake of doing it. if you are doing call-in shows, it does not require, but it actually encourages that kind of miss behavior. because the miss behavior will result in people reacting. then they remember. then you get ratings. i think at the end of the day, to your point about what call- ins mean, it depends on the kind of show. if you're doing a call-in show about home advice or real estate or sound like that, it is very different from a call-in show about what is your opinion. >> the other thing is the we should take the medium seriously. where it sits in the market. i worked for tabloids the major english tabloids in london. and i started them. everybody thinks they can run at tabloid. no, they cannot. it is a craft. it looks obvious, but it is not. it is not just big headlines and salacious stories. it is about the community.

it is about residents. >> i have talked to people wanted to host a talk show. they say, my friends say i can talk a lot. i say, but can you listen? that is the key. that is the most important thing in an interview. do not say anything. let them fill in the blanks. in radio, we have to move a little bit more than that. in washington, d.c., it is much more of a challenge. >> i have interviewed people that we have both interviewed separately, you on radio and me on television, and they have said that you are a brilliant interviewer. two of them have done this. they did not say, by the way, he is as good as you or anything like that. they said you are brilliant. >> well, flattered. >> tell me about how you do this. you do not pre-prepared questions, do you? >> well, i prepare ideas. i do it -- when i have an autho r, i tried to read the book, first of all.

i will have points to ponder from of a but. when i am doing an interview on a news story, i will try to be as prepared as possible part of it is that if you're paying attention every day, and the work in a small world with politics, and it does include international affairs. i feel like i am fairly well- read on that and i stay up-to- date. so i just stay where i need to be to the downside is that i lose some of what used to have, which is i used to be much more aware culturally of what is going on. i cannot tell you what is being played and music stations now. which i love, but what i do makes me a little less grounded then what i used to do. >> and you had a good interview with bill clinton. >> i did have a good conversation with him. >> did you have that printed? this man was president and the united states. >> of course. >> the lead that interfere? >> what is the worst response? no, i have been asked that many times. but he is a gracious guest,

especially now that he is out of office. but i think you also do not have to ask many questions to bill clinton because he can talk pretty well. i think the biggest thing is -- those folks in on the event. it was the clinton local initiative and a university. i thought long and hard for several days. that is how did the interview with bill clinton and with chelsea clinton also. >> on this program, we have a problem with politicians. >> america has a problem with politicians. >> well, said -- well-set. >> but they will not say anything. they're terrified. >> or they will say the same thing every time. >> so they say the same thing. you cannot get them off the talking points. if they are in government or supporting of the government, they will say this president and just to repeat something that has been repeated before the same thing with people in the bureaucracy. as a result, we tend not to interview them or they come with a battery of people to check on

what they are saying. it is quite different. i did a short interview with someone about wave power. i mean, far removed from politics and controversy. they wanted to see it first. i said they could not. so the heads of a stand in the room. this is a technical thing about how you harness the energy in a wave, like at the beach. i thought, how preposterous that we're wasting public money with a minder plus the person speaking for a five-minute interview on an obscure technical subject for a youtube broadcast. >> how long? for the whole thing? >> he watched very carefully. we have a problem at the white house. we cannot go and interview people any more the way we used to, because now there is always a minder, and the whole dynamic is unchanged. the minder, by nature, is a

double agent. they will report on what the subject said and what you said. so the subject will not say anything. >> their golden interests are different. the white house is out to make itself look good. >> and not getting the feedback. >> absolutely. i also think it is also one of the things we have lost is our ability to have relationships, whether it is because we're so tied up in our smart phones or iphones or whether it is because things moved so quickly. because of that, we do not spend time sitting down talking, and as a result we worry about what is shiny and new right at this moment, and 10 minutes from now it is not shiny and new anymore. it is rare to see a story last three or four days now. >> we do not talk about the things changing our lives unless something goes wrong. >> i spoke to the general in charge of the marines in afghanistan this week. how much we heard about the war in afghanistan over the last several weeks? we hear occasionally when people get killed. >> but we do not hear the

totality of the story. >> absolutely. >> it is hard for us as journalists to do anything about it. >> short of going there and finding out. >> and you go there. you're lucky enough if you have time. a commercial channel will not have time to remember, on television, four minutes is an eternity. >> absolutely. >> i once was on a news hour for eight minutes on the subject, and people said, how did you manage that? that is a long time. they thought i was there for half an hour. that is one of the games that television plays. television seems more complete. radio, i always thought, is a marvelous medium because it makes people think. >> four people in the car listening to the same thing on the radio will think four different things. each one is engaged in a different ways, and it becomes an intensely personal experience which is not the same as when you're in a room watching tv, because you are seeing the same thing, sharing it, and it is very personal and individual when you're listening to radio.

it has to do with the songs come talk companies, commercials, whenever you're listening to. it is sending that makes you might work, and that is why i have always found it fascinating. >> you have one point of integrity and try to read the books before you interview on the subject. >> i do. >> sometimes i do not read all of the book. sometimes i do not like the book that i am committed to doing it. but do you try to respond to listeners? >> all of them. >> i tried to. >> we have an e-mail. and we're broadcasting on potus, potus@siriusxm.com. i tried to respond to all e- mails did a quick and you can write to us at whchronicle.com, and we will respond see if we can. thank you, tim farley. it really is my joy. i find radio very exciting. come back and we will talk more. >> always. >> lovely, super. we will be back next week, same

time, same station. cheers. ♪ captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- ♪ ♪ >> many have spoken out on the need to transition to a clean energy future. we are acting. by 2020, we're committed to reducing, of setting, or displacing more than 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually through greening our operations, helping

our customers and communities reduce their emissions, and offering more low carbon electricity in the marketplace. we're taking action, and we are seeing results. ♪ >> "white house chronicle" is produced in collaboration with whut howard university television. from washington, d.c., this has been "white house chronicle" -- a weekly analysis of the news with insight and a sense of humor, featuring llewellyn king, linda gasparello, and guests. this program may be seen on pbs stations and cable access channels. to see the program online, visit us at whitehousechronicle.com.

>> funding for "to the contrary" provided by: the cornell douglas foundation committed to encouraging stewardship of the environment, land conservation, watershed protection and eliminating