This evening speaker. She is an associate professor of history at Purdue University and a Senior Editor at the made by column at the washington post. Her research and teaching focus on the intersections between media politics and Popular Culture with a particular emphasis on american presidency. Her first book, showbiz politic ex hollywood in american political life, which was published in 2014 by the university of north press, examines institutionalization of entertainment and structures in american politics and the rise of the celebrity presidency. And this book will be available for purchase and signing after the event. Her second book, 24 seven politics, Cable Television and the fragmenting of america from watergate. Fox news will be published august by Princeton University press. It excavates how the growth of Cable Television, transformed political life by tethering politics to profits and catering to narrow audiences, rather than finding common ground. Please me in welcoming dr. Brownell to the president ial library and museum. Good evening. Thank you so much to the Gerald Ford Museum for inviting to speak today and to all of you for coming to hear about my work and a special thank you to brooke and morale and the entire staff of the museum and foundation for of your hospitality and your support of my work. Ive spent a lot of time at the Gerald Ford Library in ann arbor, and its wonderful to be back here in, grand rapids, as well as native michigander. I love any opportunity to come up north and be in my home state and it was especially wonderful to get a private tour of the museum today with morale and i learned so much more about president ial history, but i also loved all of the history i learned about the university of michigan. I and ill wolverine and it was great to get to see that history as well. One of the other really great things about, the current traveling or the current exhibit on guitars and kind of using guitars and culture into a lens into American History and presidency more broadly that i really admired. Is that it takes entertainment and takes Popular Culture, things people enjoy consuming. It takes it seriously as part of politics. And i think that its very common to treat popular and politics in one of two ways. The first is to treat as merely fluff in the political that something is fun and inconsequential its a distraction. If you will or theres another way that people frequently about Popular Culture and cultural development, especially if theyre linked to technological changes in the media. So when you think about the rise of the celebrity presidency or perhaps the current emergence of political echo through on cable news channels, many people assume that these things happened naturally, that perhaps they were preordained because the nature of that particular medium, jack valenti, a former aide to johnson and president of the Motion Picture association and once reiterated this this way of thinking when during the 1990s, he observed that quote movie stars and politicians share the same dna in their search for a desire to perform for an audience and search of applause. But my research in both of my books shows that this intersection of media Popular Culture and president ial politics that turned the president into an entertainer in chief is actually has been a very controversial development. Its thats rooted in decades of negotiations between professional performers Business Leaders and politicians. It is also rooted key policy shifts as well that have shaped how Media Industries and interact with elected officials and democrat institutions. And this is something that has long been neglected how we think about the politics of Popular Culture. Patrick clearly, when it comes to understanding industries and their products as clay whitehead, who was a director of the office of Telecommunications Policy under Richard Nixon, he was frequently frustrated, by this lack of Public Knowledge on how tv functioned and noted during one eye, one congressional hearing when hes talking televisions, regulatory policies that people spend hours day watching, television, but they have little understanding of what he called the corporate and Government Forces behind the medium that so fundamentally shaped their lives. And think this is still true for Many Television and viewers or streamers or social media users today, Popular Culture can serve president ial priorities, certainly as administrations can use it to shape news agenda and even circumvent the press corps and speak directly to the american people. But it is also essential to remember that the television industry, social media and Tech Companies that their businesses and they are more concerned about profits than anything else. Executives in both in all of these worlds have long looked to curry favor with politicians to advance their bottom line. And this can be selling their product or having legislative friends when regulatory or tax issues come up. So its important not to dismiss Popular Culture and especially Media Productions merely fluff or distractions in politics. Rather we should think of it as something that shapes and is shaped by pressures. Campaign and economic structures. So to show you how of these issues intersect, i want to focus on several questions that center on the rise in, the transformation of the entertainer and chief. And so i want to dig into today three main questions. First, how did politics become so central to the presidency . And then how has the of the entertainer in chief changed and evolved as the broadcasting era constructed consensus gave way to the cable era of fragmented shows. And since we are at the Gerald Ford Museum, where does gerald ford, a president popularly known more for his media struggles, then triumphs . How does he fit this broader narrative to answer these question . I want to dig into three key, very memorable moments in the evolution of the entertainer in chief over the past half century, and to show how these wellknown moments reflect shifting ideas, the power of media in american politics and the very policies that shaping the business of television in on the surface. Richard nixons decision to appear laughin as a last ditch effort to win votes in 1968 may appear the same as ron. Nothing. Gerald fords press secretary. His decision to appear on night live and bill decision to appear on mtp. In 1992. And i certainly the argument in the conclusion of my first book that involve a strategy of using to bypass the press and speak directly to voters to sell their personalities on the campaign trail. But my new book shows that theres actually more to the story. Well, and unpacking the shifting media landscape from nixon to ford to clinton illuminates changes in how Popular Culture is used as a political and as a consequence, how embracing such political entertainment has changed, how the public interacts with president and how the public consume arms political information information. My first book show this politics, examines how new technologies, notably get Motion Pictures and. Then television brought alternative for president s to win elections and to govern. It opened up opportunities for political to rethink Communication Strategies and Party Building strategies. I define show biz politics as the reliance on the active of celebrity persona as a path to claim political legitimacy. Say something that John F Kennedy did very controversially in 1960 as he took to the primary trail to appeal to voters as jack kennedy fans. And that was one of the really fascinating documents that i found in the kennedy library, is that its a memo saying we need to appeal to voters, fans first. He defeat the more powerful insider, Lyndon Johnson and winning the president ial nomination with a strategy. And he narrowly beat out Richard Nixon that far. But such a strategy generated as much criticism as it did a claim for being too much style and not enough about substance. And thats why while kennedy experimented with such a strategy, it was a bitter and defeated Richard Nixon, who actually truly ingrained in president ial politics. So heres how. Two years after richard lost the 60 race to kennedy, he suffered political defeat. This, the california governors race in the Beverly Hilton hotel. He lashed out at reporters and what he called his last press conference where he infamously made that declaration. You dont have nixon to kick around anymore. This moment captured nixons anger at the media and his belief that a media bias had personally targeted targeted him and had undermined his political career as he was wallowing in this. He thought long hard about the 1960 election. He thought long hard about the Television Debates and the his poor performance on tv. But he thought more broadly about nick kennedys approach to politics through the entire and he attributed kennedys political success to his embrace of showbiz, of turning himself into this dynamic celebrity that people couldnt get enough of. He thought that was how he won the presidency. And so nixon is studying and he saw the possibilities revamping his political strategy to emulate kennedys approach as he wanted to resurrect his president aspirations. In 1968. For political entertainment, solve the issue of media bias, which he defined both negative coverage and of coverage. Entertainment could create opportunities to appear television and to do in ways that allowed him to control more of the narrative and how or his personality was. As one adviser. This is another great finding from the Nixon Library as one adviser wrote to him, he said, biggest challenge in 1968 was the fact that people a gut instinct that they didnt him. So the mission was how do we change this . We need to make him more likable. And if we make him more likable, people trust him more. And so he revamped political career by trying turn himself into a celebrity. The same way that kennedy had. He started appearing on entertainment like the jack paar program, where he didnt talk about policies. He the piano. He then to the mike douglas show and daytime entertainment talk show where he met producer roger before appearing on that program. Nixon to ailes that he had to engage in gimmicks like this in order to get elected. And ailes shook his head and he said, television is not a gimmick. You need to take seriously and make it a centerpiece of your campaign. And then he brought ailes on board to his campaign. With ailes help, he. Thats why he went on laughin and a very awkward ten second clip and i wanted show you the video of this and snl and mtv. But unfortunately because of technological considerations. A, we cannot play video. So ill do my best to reenact it. Its very simple. Its very it took many takes. And if you dont remember it or havent it, i encourage you to google it when you home where he used the shows catchphrase it to me. But he said in a very interesting way. I said almost as a question, sock it to. In nixons mind. This helped deliver the election for him. He truly believed that his transformation from loser to victor. 1968 hinged on priorities in television and controlling his images through these types of appearances. I want to hammer home a point here that this was a belief. There many reasons why squeaked out a victory that fall in a very close Election Year in which the Democrat Party erupted in chaos at convention in august. And George Wallace was running as a third party candidate. But nixon his media advisers and journal is chronicling the campaign repeatedly pointed to a shift in media strategy as the determining factor and it altered how paula ran their campaigns in the 1970s as they sprinted to Media Consultants like ailes and a variety of pollsters to create their own nixon. Miracle. This belief in the political and necessity of also shaped how nixon then governed. A story that is at the core of my new book 24 7 politics. While its not available here, you can preorder it online. Shameless plug. But heres the ironic thing. Nixon took advantage of an Entertainment Television system that he also wanted to destroy. He believes that the last instant was powerful because he could make himself likable to millions of americans without having to get tripped up by any question about policies or how his his vision for the future and laughin the highest rated show on a dial in which only three networks competed for viewers. But he that reach as certainly advantageous advantageous on the campaign trail and he he would use it. But he very problematic as president because he felt that Network Television had much power and that it was fundamentally against him. The networks abc nbc and cbs did dominate the information that americans received about the world around them. Viewers had only three choices to watch and the news affording networks a huge huge amount of political power. So when nixon was in office, he felt he worked to break down the economic and political power of the Big Three Television networks because he thought their programs, both news and entertainment, but especially early news, were liberal, biased and inherently out. To get him to do this. He is savaged the office of Telecommunications Policy, headed by clay whitehead, pictured here. The other two, he pursued what. Am i . One of my favorite archival findings is this document that i came across in clay white house papers. And its the project that the otp pursued following reelection in 1972. They called it project button, which later learned stood for. Break up networks. And it was a very thorough, very comprehensive way. To change policy and to turn to a new media technology, Cable Television as a tool to wage his war against Network Television. At the time cable was a highly regulated medium and per fcc it could not compete with television and, even enter some of the Top Television across the country. So they overwhelmingly just extended the reach of broadcasting into areas that couldnt get the signal perhaps because of terrain or they were in rural areas far away from a city. And so they extended the reach of broadcasting initially and didnt actually offer alternative programing to compete against Network Television. This began to change, Richard Nixon, because viewed Cable Television as a politico weapon to undermine the power of Network Television and to also advance a free market policy agenda. In doing so, nixon changed the political and structure of Cable Television, helping to shape its development as a disruptive media medium designed to tear down media gatekeeping with market forces. And so this is the media environment that gerald ford inherited. And in his efforts to restore integrity to the presidency, he actually advanced these two components of Richard Nixons media politics. His show style and his cable agenda. Heres it worked. Gerald confronted the challenge how to communicate, govern and then win an election in political environment that won journalist characterized as a disillusionment that had turned into ridicule. He faced a cynical press corps who had witnessed nixon lying. The extensive efforts he went into to manipulate the press and he faced a public that had lost faith, trust in the presidency. For ford entertainment became a way to restore that trust by personally seizing and humanizing the presidency. But he notably wanted to do it differently than nixon and to use Popular Culture, bring that celebrity making apparatus that nixon had so carefully hidden. He wanted to bring it into conversations about how the presidency operated so people could understand it rather than be an manipulated by it. He wanted to transfer over secrecy, so his new press secretary, ron nathan, frequently shared stories about the behind scenes production working to dispel suspicions that any tv performance or address was just about manipulation. The goal is to show that you could use tv, you could use a staged event to actually convey a sense of authenticity. And yet, time and time again, nelson struggled to counter. He called in his memoir, quote, biggest continuing problem in the white house. The portrayal of him in the media as a bumbler. Of course, no one is made so powerful quite like chevy chase, when first saw chevy chase performing the bumbling gerald ford, the edgy news show saturday night. Its called saturday night, its first season, not saturday night live. It took on that third word. Later, he cringed, but he also wondered if this actually might be an opportunity to use humor to embrace it and advance the administrations goals. And so i, gerald ford, invited chevy chase as a guest to the Radio TelevisionCorrespondents Association dinner in march of 1976. And there he made this announcement that ford send his own representative to to join chases show the following month. And so ron nelson did exactly that guest hosting saturday night on april 17. The episode begins with a pretaped by gerald ford from the oval office. He opened up episode with its signature live from new york. Its saturday night. And so he did inject himself slightly into that show. But it was really ron nessen, who was the guest host who was the star of many of the different skits that he was in. And its a really fascinating episode that i encourage you to watch the entire episode. I think the most significant part is scene where hes in the oval and hes playing himself and chevy chase is playing president. And in this scene, theyre actually discussing his decision to rejoin the show and the guest hosts show. So kind of fabricating, perhaps what actually happened. And theres a really powerful moment here where says and thats why i want you to the show to demonstrate that this administration has a sense of humor. You may remember that in 1968, nixons sock it to me on laughin and that may have made the difference in that election privately. Nixon had discussed how nixons laughin stint had actually hurt the former president. He called it undignified. And actually, in the first year of fords they emphasized that he is the president he is not to. They wanted to really distinguish as Something Different from what nixon had done. But then he goes on the show and public statements where hes crediting laughin as giving nixon that win is ultimately it contributing to this growing political belief that media image mattered more than anything else in american political life and entertainment could make a difference. It also really elevates visibility of shows like saturday night live. Again, whether or not this actually did make a difference, that didnt matter as much as this growing belief that we need these types of shows in order to get elected or get elected and to govern. And indeed, that year at that moment, ford was not alone in his search for free media. And the use of political entertainment to advance president ial aspirations. At that exact same time, a former actor, Ronald Reagan, was launching a substantial battle against ford for the gop. And he used his experience as an actor, an asset, not a liability. And this is a shift because in 1968, when i when people talked about reagan and maybe him running for president at that year, people dismissed him as. But hes an actor. Can he really be president . That had changed by 1976. That november, jimmy carter beat ford at the polls with a groundbreaking media operation that included many things, starting with the primary where he decided, ill go to iowa because no one else is there, and then i can create. A media story of momentum that that then will shape the entire nomination process. So it began in the primaries, but then it continued through an incredible early, wellorchestrated Democratic National convention, and that was dismissed by many journalists as 11, because there was no controversy or actual political work being done to using rock concerts and a variety of celebrity to campaign for him and to money. So fords efforts to restore integrity. The policy process is the other layer of this. It also unintentionally advance nixons media agenda in to Cable Television. So hes really furthering this idea of the celebrity presidency. But hes also seeing as a viable option. And in making people see the of Cable Television. When he took office pledged that Straight Talk would be a pillar of his administration especially around the issue Regulatory Reform which he wanted to make the centerpiece of his administration because the Cable Television debate had previously shaped by nixons media war Network Television. Ford had economists take the lead to study issue of cable reform in a way they tried to constantly focus the attention to the Economic Statistics of deregulate, deregulating, Cable Television. And he constantly said, lets not have fear. Drive these regulatory debates. Lets have facts. And his domestic policy took this very, very seriously. And they advanced a lot of research on the issue to show Cable Television didnt necessarily mean it would undermine Network Broadcasting, but rather it could expand the entire of television. But this fight really folders and folders. Research on this at the ford, there are many efforts. It seems like its gaining way and theres a momentum search efforts. Then suddenly in march of 1976 and its for two reasons. Broadcaster is continued pounce on the entire media legacy nixon to constantly any type of cable reform perhaps significantly broadcasters privately threatened that advancing cable legislation which they understood to hurt their pocketbooks might influence their their News Coverage of ford who needed tv access for his campaign. This had long boosted the economic of broadcasters, as ford had, economists noted. In one memo, politicians were unwilling to, quote, assault the Television Establishment and, thus conceivably jeopardize most important of individual objectives. The reelection reappointment or future employment by the industry. And so in the end, despite months and months of meetings and all of this research and summits with economists it just stopped. And ford didnt push forward on the cable and this this is a cover tv, a cable trade magazine from after the after everything stopped. And the Ford Administration said that they didnt they didnt need to actually do more. They were ready for legislation. They needed more research. And theres a bubble there that says its an election. The broadcasters are the screaming and we need them. Weve got save the president from himself. Just tell. We need more research. That should put an end to this thing and the documents in the ford library do reveal that he was concerned losing broadcasters support in the aftermath of the election. His team said, do you want to revisit this . And they thought, no, that would actually make it. All of these reports look true because we dont want to look like we just cater down to lobbying. Nevertheless, others on capitol hill found the that fords team had produced compelling and too began thinking about the possibility of expanding Cable Television and their own quest to gain more access to television which. They saw now as indispensable to their own political success in the house in the senate, but also nasas for congress to counter the president s television bully pulpit. And so when tip oneill became speaker of the house following the very election that ousted ford from office, he made televising a priority savvy cable leaders, pounced on the opportunity, believing that Regulatory Reform demanded ingratiating cable industry into politics the way that broadcasters had. They just watched on the fold. And indeed, since the mid 1960s, cable advocates identified political coverage as a Public Relations strategy, with one businessman, even proposing to fund congressional television in 1969. And you can see here in the highlighted area, it says congressmen are mainly concerned about what seattle which used to be the term Cable Television can do for them. And then the following it really emphasizes that our findings indicate that congressional his proposed program will represent a significant and meaningful breakthrough in legisla relations. But it took the right moment and the right person to ultimately make this a reality. Brian lamb, who had actually worked for Richard Nixon, the office of telecommunications, he understood media policy. He understood capitol hill and he understood the white house and he got buy in from congress and the industry to finally push forward cspan in 1979. As lamb later explained an oral history, his sales pitch was simple if you want to be taken seriously in washington and or in the country, you will have to build a of doing something other than entertainment and sports. The way that cds and abc became powerful and important was through the news news. Yes, it was a Public Service by a private industry and still is. But operators recognized they bought into this idea because they thought it could. A Public Relations tool to make legislators aware of the possibilities of cable and then to become invested in expanding that business. It was good for them politically. And the dramatic expansion of Cable Television in the 1980s reshaped modes of political entertainment by introducing the concept of narrowcasting political ideas to niche audience. Was daytime television had news programs that targeted women and evangelical programs. Pat robertsons 700 club had a news that geared all of the information about the world around, them and Public Affairs to social conservative hopes. One observer noted in 1984 that this pro liberation of lifestyle cable shows and networks posed a, quote, new and disruptive marriage between Television Politics with substantial consequences in this article for the wall street journal, dr. Monroe price, someone who had studied Cable Television extensively for the past decade and indeed involved in many of these experiments here, he predicted that quote the ability to marshal the inventive and magical power of carefully edited images to create an intensity of emotion for a particular point of view will yield television to a new heights television propaganda to new heights or new depth. He certainly was right, but it took another key moment to get there. And that is the 1992 election. And bill clintons turn to mtv. Certainly this follows in nixon and ford steps. But i would argue that it also illuminates key difference in the nature of the entertainer in chief in the age of Cable Television. Clinton accepted the invitation to appear on the program of sheer desperation. It was july 1992. He was waving in the polls and his campaign was just hemorrhaging money and struggling to raise any money. And he he wanted he was to try anything. He went on talk radio. He went on all sorts of daytime talk shows. And he even accepted an invitation by mtv to in this town conversation and a program called choose or lose. And it was on this show that seemed to get his groove back. A according to one observer. Clinton was, quote, click so quick, not slick, sympathetic, condescending, imaginative, not wordy. His appearance on this show uplifted the entire campaign, argued many observers as theyre watching this because it is dated the elitist news programing of Network Broadcast television and it had real conversations they were framed again this idea of authenticity. Real conversations with the voters. But there is a difference between nixons on laughin and clintons appearance on mtv. Nixon appeared for less than 10 seconds to a massive audience in this effort to make himself more likable. Its just a very cameo appearance. He doesnt talk about policies. He just promotes his personality to let people know that hes here and hes fun. Clinton, however, spoke on mtvs town hall for over an hour. He had little pushback from tabitha soren, who is hosting the event, and he fully dominated of his policies and some of the controversies that his had encountered in the recent weeks. While framed as a news event, it more like partizan television that clinton used to cultivate this loyalty to him. Mtv news had a different objective. Sure, they wanted to add to the civic conversation, but their goal was to keep viewers from turning channel. They also were aware as many other Cable Operators were, who watched a variety of other political entertainment experiments on shows like Comedy Central and nickelodeon. They were aware that congress was debating at that very same time a bill to reregulate the industry. And so the. Were profitable the cable industry and politically advantages to the president ial. So what is the relationship between Popular Culture and president ial. What is the legacy this shift of the entertainment in chief from the broadcasting era of constructing a consensus to the cable era of fragmenting fashion during the 2016 election . Tabitha soren looked back very cynically on this legacy of the mtv presidency. She wrote in this op ed in the New York Times that despite its best attempts to engage voters, it was what she called out the pretense of political, the pretense of a lot of political coverage today. Is that it aims to improve an edifier civic life. The reality she wrote is that its just pouring for our attention. As a historian. I think that the key lesson to understand is Media Entertainment and Political Institutions shape one another and they evolve to alongside one another as one media scholar put it. Early in the field, in the 1960s, we share our tools, and thereafter we shape our tools. And thereafter they shape us president s, their team of savvy advisors make choices on how to use for political communication. They also make policy and the rules structure, media, businesses, something executives understand as they make their programing choices. All of these decisions are intertwined and consequential but they arent always obvious to viewers. And this is the important takeaway . Entertain ment is everywhere in politics. Its in the white house. Its the News Coverage. Its on the campaign trail. Its in your social feed. Its everywhere. But understanding how it works is essential to be able to decode it and not to be deceived and manipulated by it. Thank you very much. And im happy to take any questions as well. And im told that we need to wait till you have a microphone before asking the question so that people are streaming and then cspan can hear the question. If you look at who changed tack thats going on today, whats your prediction . If its like this, were like in 25 years. The great question. And as always, tell it, i had a conversation with a reporter just two days ago who said whats going to happen with the cable news industry now that streaming is really upending it and i said, well, im a historian. I dont make predictions, but i do think that something to think about is that the of television has has changed with this subscription that the that cable didnt introduce. And so we have streaming which is about loyal to right. Youre loyal to a particular channel a particular app that youre getting all of your information from. And so i think that this fragmentation is becoming more and more individualized, more and more personal lives. And i think thats another development that we and that will continue even as the business structures change even as streaming maybe cable news will will look differently if it exists at. But i think that some of these key features of how it functions in terms of that business, that idea catering to individual keeping in these echo chambers its a its profitable and that what was really shocking when i saw and executive who would not remain or be named but actually to a reporter after the 1992 that this is all about profits keeping people so they dont leave the channel is really Good Business for us and delivering entertainment thats personalized to them is a way to do that and i think that will continue to intensify as people have all of this choice. But they have to pay for those services. Theyre not paying carriage fees now. Theyre paying out of their pockets in a way thats a little bit more clear that that their their purchasing. Im surprised you skipped right over the gipper. You know, the other politician she kept all of, you know, with planes in the economy and they saw politicians trying to use the media, whereas reagan was already in media and in hollywood before politics. So that gave an edge in already being a national theater, being known. What are your thoughts there . Yes, its actually one of the surprising things from my is that i came to the first book project, actually, and the second book project thinking that these are stories about ronald, right . Ronald reagan ushered in the celebrity presidency Ronald Reagan. The era of deregulate it and the growth of cable in the 1980s. Thats got to be because Ronald Reagan. Right. That was my assumption going into it. And research actually shows that reagan capitalized on these changing cultural values, these changing ways in which campaigns in the 1960s going to the primary, appealing to people as fans. This ultimately created a political and a cultural system in which he could say that he represented the people that his performance, his ability to perform with part of his qualifications. And so he makes that when he runs for governor in 1966 he calls himself citizen politician. That because he was an actor. He understood the People Better and thats why he should win election at that time you know his acting background was still controversial but the really fascinating thing is that nixon helps make it not controversial. He he really hes studying reagan and there are boxes and boxes at the Nixon Library that are just labeled reagan research where nixon is studying and seeing that wow hes got this ability to connect with audiences. Theres a line that says, well hes saying isnt necessarily new. He makes it news worthy. And so hes he is emulating and emulating reagan. And so but, you know, i really argue i conclude the first book with nixon rather than reagan because i think these changes that nixon to usher in then paved the way for ronald and the same thing with the Cable Television its there is a fascinating document in the Reagan Library where actually this very thick plan that is a plan for a president , a reelection cable that this this producer wants to produce that its an entire cable channel that theyre going to develop just to reelect the president. Its very thorough, very thorough. And it says that this is going to be most revolutionary thing since the 1960 Television Debates. And his team, reagans team ultimately debate it. They go back and forth prices with this producer and then ultimately they reject it. And i argue because reagan is very much of the broadcasting era, he was grew. He was raised in the broadcasting era. He was groomed the broadcasting era. And he thought television as a way to of generate consensus. And what he wanted to do, especially in the 1984 election was to make conservatism popular. He didnt want to slice and dice the electorate to kind of motivate a more impassioned minority. He wanted to make his agenda popular. He was very concerned about popularity of his ideas and himself as a person and. So i think broadcasting actually met what. He wanted to do politically as well and so he he does have a Good Relationship the cable industry he sees its expansion as proof that deregulation works but in fact the deregulatory impulses are come a decade before him and just are very much on display and by the 1980s and by. Okay so until 1985 all the Major Networks were under what was called the fairness doctrine. And in 1985 the fcc kind of self terminated the fairness doctrine, allowing kind of in an open, open, open world with regard to equal time in your in your in your opinion how did that affect the country kind of Going Forward with kind of what we see now on cable cable news and on network tv . Mm hmm. Great question. And so one of the really interesting things about the fairness doctrine is that the fcc starts to pull back. So deregulation was not just about markets. It was about deregulating the rules so that the fcc in the 1930s imposed over in 1940s imposed a variety of different rules that kind of regulated programing behavior that unfair the fairness doctrine that you had to present our issues of public importance you had to present both sides of that they mandated things like equal time for the different candidates running for for office that if gave it to one candidate as certain time or at a certain rate, you had to give the same time, at the same rate to another candidate. So there were all of these different rules that i call kind of these guardrails on kind of this commercial lies public sphere. So i would argue that cable tell or sorry broadcasting ushers in this commercialized public sphere where there are expectations that there should be some some rules regulate writing discourse and regulating programing so people can be more informed those ultimately start to disappear thanks to mark fuller fowler yeah he he kind of doesnt it says that hes not going to enforce them initially. He kind of does it like a wink wink to the networks, like im not im not really paying attention to this. And then ultimately, when there is kind of a he makes a serious move on congress, actually a Bipartisan Coalition in Congress Comes together to try to pass to reinstate the fairness doctrine because they actually see that as really important as a way to get other different voices. This is that both liberals and conservatives could agree on. But that legislation ultimately vetoed by Ronald Reagan because he says, again, the marketplace can deliver this diversity of perspectives and then people can choose in there. And so i think part of the decline of the fairness is this reliance on the marketplace to deliver a democratic debate discourse and and in the end, it does not it generates it. It allows what sells. It allows whats a higher rating to dominate the conversation rather than here is an informed analysis of the different issues and the different angles. And so i think thats one of the things thats at the heart of my book is that what happens when we have this deregulated media environment and what i call a privatized public sphere, a public sphere in which there are there are none of these rules regulating civic or m a, eating civic contributions. Rather, its just a reliance on the marketplace to deliver democracy. And i think ultimately that can in theory. But the profits have ultimately undermined having an informed citizenry. Well, ive been out of the Gerald R Ford president ial library museum. I would like to thank you very much for coming here. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank our who. People who. So we have a little gift from both the Gerald R Ford foundation as. Well, as the Gerald R Ford president ial library, a couple of nice things in here, including the new Gerald R Ford christmas. Oh, so excellent. Enjoy that. Great. Thank you and thank you so much. What you do as archivist and a museum to encourage these conversations and to encourage the study of history. Its incredible. Thank