Host this an spendded look on booktv at marsha black burys reading habits. This is booktv on cspan2. Now october boon tv the weekly after words program. This week, Mark Thompson discusses his new book enough said what gone wrong with the language of politic which looks at the eerosion of public language. Er viewed by ariana huffington, founder of the huffington post. Host mark, thank you for joining us congratulations on the book. I loved reading how it started as a series of lectures you gave at oxford and will you tell us about that. Hough it happened and guest i was running a cleave exec tv of the bbc and was going to be leaving but right flight the middle of the job and i got a phone call from one of the heads of Oxford University and said would you like to be a visiting professor and the art of public persuasion, said no, dont know anything about them and kind of put the known down. Then i kind of thought about a week this thing sticks in your head and you kind of just let it i thought, you know, i spent by this are this point 30 years in journalism, broadcast journalism, a lot of political reporting myself of myself, edits a lot of political programs and i had seen the changes in the way politicians speak, in way the media reports, what they say, how the media works, and change inside Public Attitudes and that maybe there was something to say. So i said yes, and i thought, ill be living the bbc after the Olympic Games in 2012, they were in london. I promised my life i would take six months. A hectic eight years at the bbc so civics months to calm down. We philadelphia oxford. I thought giving three lectures in octoberford and a seminar worked very well with all of that. So that was the plan. Then just before the Olympic Games i was asked to become the chief executive of the New York Times so suddenly the whole thing was a flurry of organizing schools and apartments and moving furnish. So kind of crazy but it was essentially the idea that not maybe a conventional definition of rhetoric, but i had something to say about modern public language and political language, and heat how it standard. Host you said in fact you really do talk a lot in the book about the more conventional ancient definition of rhetoric, including my fellow greeks, dividing into it the argue. And the character of the speaker and then part of the emotion that the speaker brings to the argument. So, before we get to the modern politicians and their corruption of language, tell us about rhetoric at its best. Guest if youre entitle to anything, ask a greek is a good place to start. Again, i hadnt i got a phone call but i had quite a good grounding in the classics. I spent a lot of time with latin and greek at both school and university and grew i was with a Jesuit School and very particular with a jesuit way of doing humanities, and each year was named after different steps in learning a classical language so you started off in a year group called lower grammar, then grammar, then sin tax and upper sin tax and then poetry and the final year was rhetoric. So aid been in class called rhetoric. So what is interesting is i think our air to the until police and plato and other greeks fascinating, 21 2 thousand years ago theyve essentially understand how human beings try to persuade each other. And so aristotle is he writes a book called the art of rhetoric which is mention tour of study of rhetoric and a howto guide and partly also if you were an orator, you could look at the book and maybe learn some tips from aristotle. Aristotle really simple but important observations to make. Philosopher goes through every bit of the argue. So they want to be slur theyre sight they have long, painstaking arguments and they die dialect where you can marshal your argument very clearly, but orators havent got time for that. Theres a crowd, jury, who are getting hungry, ready to go to lunch or its political crowd and they want you to ghetto point. So one of the basic points about political language, public language, when youre trying to persuade someone of a policy or win an argue inch a court case, you have to cut to the chase, and that of course obvious. It what we want. Were very. Patient when we listen to argue. But its dangerous because it means arguments get simplified. So thats something that aristotle spoke of. Its very relevant because attention responses feel so pressed for time today Attention Spans feel so pressed and politicians are so anxious to find formulations of political language which work for twitter. They work for the strap of the bottom of the screen of msnbco cspan, the few words that theyre trying to come press and come press and compress, and that means you get a lot of impact but maybe you lose some of the expanse. Get loss. Host also what youre saying the book is something more profound has been lost. Beyond the fact that the internet and twitter and the compression and our Attention Span requires that because if you look at the solid, you could say an imposed fracture on language guest the structure helps at the the profun diddy,. Host its not just that its 140 characters. Its something more fundamental that has changed and has been diminished. Guest Something Else has been lost. Its risky because is in can sound like you think it was once a gold host like make America Great again. Guest exactly. People are being complaining about political language ever since it started. But the other thing is some ways an ideal rhetoric would balance the words you you, arguments. It would balance the clarity of the propositions and the evidence youre bringing to that argument. They balance that with oethos, which i character and the whole way in which the speaker presentes. Thes and the its very human. The emotional state of the crowd and these will be held in balance, and it seems we part oft what happenedes the balance has been lost. Why . Good question. I think first i want say, dont just blame at the party you dont like. Its easy to say its the republicans are democrats or [or the brexiters, and politics has changed in substantial way and the kind of natural shape of politics, based on class and very clear ideology, has become more disrupted and all over the western world you can feel the big traditional Political Parties, the mainstream puts, under pressure. Breaking apart either explicit explicitly or implicitly finding it hard to keep their unity. I went to the Republican Convention in cleveland, and its partly wrestling with unity. So theyre underunder and facing new competition from antipoliticians like donald trump and many others. Secondly, policy and the work of government has become incredibly tactical. And the economists, the planneres, the experts, are so involved in policymaking and their language can feel very distant from the language of ordinary people. So, in a sense sense the rulers, the policymakers and the way they speak, the kind of terms they use, is very distant and theyve fort forgotten sometimes to make an argue. The worlds elite in governments, in business, broadly believe that free trade is a great thing. Free trade between nations helps. Helps open up economies, helps the developing world. Helps competition, all boats reese. But they havent made that argument to the public for decade, and if you think youre job is at risk and you and your familys livelihoods at risk bus of globalization and nobody hayes ever trade to explain to you why free trade is a good thing, not surprising you reef bell against that and want to reject it, so policymaker and tech knockcracy has push people generally hear political language through media. Cspan is a good example of that. Were doing disrupted, too, and Competitive Pressures on media are having their effect in editorial choices, and in the style of media, and the devices that people use now, again, they are you know, instead of maybe a big, broad sheet newspaper you have a smartphone. That also has an effect of favoring shorter, pithier, punchier phrases which may be, again, very good at making impact but not good at explanation, and finally, the last thing id say, is that over 100 years, marketing has grown very sophisticated, and its a kind of quasiscientific exploration of how persuasion works. Using empirical testing. This goes back to the 1930s. Quote in my book a rather wonderful volume from 1937 call otested senses that work and the idea is beginning with kind of economics the idea that you can by saying something in the right way youre much more likely to persuade somebody to buy something. Over time that all got drawn into political language as well. So those are some of the reasons. Not any one cause. It is an interlocking sect of factors which go beyond any one party or country and you can see it happening all over the we were world. Host as you say in the book it can be beyond what is discussed in the 10930ss tested phrases to using algorithms to test your phrases or politicians doing polling to come up with the best way to present an idea. But theres Something Else which is famously talking about campaigning in prose and always an assumption that governing is more technocratic, horrific indicated, but enough what is happened is that we have lost the campaigning let alone governing and being able to explain free today or any other politic free trade or any other politics, and your become is come ought at a moment when wherever you are in the political spectrum, youre aghast at the nature of this particular president ial campaign. Was that intended obviously we started thinking and writing years ago, long before you knew what would be happening in the 2016 president ial race. Did you sort of speed up the book to come out of this guest no. I my publishers wouldnt use the word speeding up for what happened. Its about six months later than was plan, but what i want to say is this. When i gave the lectures, the my friend asked me whether i wanted to do them. He is a modern historian, my friend, and mark said to me at the time, this is good stuff. Youre writing. But is it really you . Are we really seeing things which are different from the past . And i think you could argue that in 2012, by the time you get to 2016 im winning the argument. I think thises to feel i want to say both about brexit, i talked to a number of europeans, politics beyond the uk, current politics in france would be an example, current politics in italy and also in the president ial cycle issue think were hearing things and were seeing a kind of clash of different styles of political language which feels new, and in particular obvious point to make but i think donald trump really does represent a dramatic break with the conventions of political language in the past. Although we can thing pop lists in the populists in the past throughout American Democratic history, some of the stuff that trump has been saying feels new and from my point of view very interesting because it illustrate as lot of the things im interested in. Host one of the themes you illustrate, a complete sort of break between language and reality. And basically repeating things, even after it has been recognized that their theyre completely false. One example, the president of the United States was not born here, and which is a repeated claim, for which theyre absolutely no evidence. Guest its not true. Its factually not true. And by the way, although i think he his actually pull back from that, he has president obama preempt presented his birth certificate there are some people oust in digital nonsense land who want to continue to believe it host what is interesting he has never gone back and said, oh, actually, he was born here. He tolls not repeat is a often. Guest in the loved only to the next thing. Host but never actually said i was wrong. He was wrong here. So, that to me is kind of facinating in terms of where we are at the moment, and id like to ask you, what this role of the media here . How much of a culprit . Guest i think its surprisingly hard for the media to debunk some of mr. Trumps statements in ways which he people who believe those statements will find convincing. One of the things i talk about in the book is about a movement which is essentially reaction to enlightenment if focused on the use of reason, and his most happy where argument is based on evidence and fact. A reaction to that, which is part of the broader romantic reaction to the enlightenment which says, no, when we talk in public to each other, what matters most is identity, and solidarity with the community. What matters is my relationship to you. Which very quickly becomes is key in this, an association with authentic language with nation and with the national community. So we talk honestly, and authentickism being authenticking something to me eye of the obee holder, but people who struggle to appear authentic and who want to, if you like, leverage or complete the idea of authenticity, this really begins in 19th century, and famously in the 1930s, the european fascists across europe, in germany and it lay, awe awe then tim becomes central to their pets and they try very hard to distinguish themselves in the way they speak from traditional, rational, politicians. And they focus much more on stories and turkly stories. Us and then. Were together, im like you. Im not like all these poll politicians. Im like. You speak like. You understand what youre going through. Together we can ward off the threat from them, whoever them might be. Today, them might be the elites, but i. E. Host im a greet immigrant. Guest im an economic migrant myself technocrats, and us are in the context of true americans, we their honest, hard working middle classes who have been left behind by globalization, whose contributions to this country is not properly rewarded or accepted or understood, and whose values are being undermined by multiculturalism or undermined by Political Correctness. You see, donald trump really has to mention the phrase, Political Correctness and theres a spontaneous cheer. Theres a sense of a culture and valleys being stolen. A six in that context what matters to audiences does the story ring true . Does what the speaker is saying feel emotionally true . And if it feels emotionally true, its kind of factuality, whether rate literally true or nat may not matter much. And the trouble with the media is die bunking, Fact Checking and debunking individual statements by donald trump may well absolutely convince the readers of your newspaper or the viewers of cspan, but they never believed him in the first place probably. Those who do believe him think its the elite media trying to shut donald trump up or to damage him because he is telling the truth. Host is there something about the assumption and by the media that our job is to present both sides to the story, which automatically assumes that the truth is somewhere in the middle or hard to find, and so, therefore, seems that you trace that in a way but grammar, that anytime theres a fee debate on tv about Global Warming and the producers feel compelled to include somebody who thinks Global Warming is a hoax or not manmade or whatever. That sense of the idea of balance, what is called the view from nowhere, what role has that played in the corruption of language that you describe so are articulately in the book . I think its unfortunately quite complicate. We have got in both the United States and in the uk two traditions, which are relevant here. One tradition is a fiscal hustling, maybe a town hall with a number of candidates for a particular office. Where each candidate is given ten minutes to make their case. And the audience can i agree that can often feel like maybe the truth lies between the candidate us but thats one example. The other example is court of law, though, and in the court of law, both the prosecution and the defense, are given time to lay out their case, and a jury decides which way to vote the verdict. Not because they think the truth is halfway in the middle but somebody is half guilty of murder because they have to decide theyre either get to of murder, lets hear thed and get to a firm conclusion. And i think that the role of the media is to use a phrase from the bbcs editorial guidelines in uk, is due impartiality. So not impartiality defined as absolutely balanced but an appropriate balance. So, si a simple exam would be, smoking. There is an overwhelming majority of medical evidence and opinion that smoking is seriously dill tierous to peoples health. Its not appropriate to give a smoking advocate equal time over with the surgeon general. Youve calibrate how much time you give the skeptic. It seems to me that silencing skeptics on climate change, a few publications have taken the decision not to allow any climate skeptics to be heard aft all. Some scientists believe that the skeptics should not bev allowed on the air at all. My honesty that is thats how you start conspiracy theories. Start trying to cent sore your opponents completely, i think you begin to start the public will start saying whats doing on here . Theyre not allowed to speak in maybe because theyre telephoning the right . So i dont think they should be silented but i dont think that in the case of climate change, it is appropriate for it to be 5050. But i have to say, the challenge in the relation of the president ial election is, it has to be 5050 essentially terms of, example, the president ial debate. You cant have a president ial debate where the producer of the program say, we think candidate a is far more sensible than candidate a so well geoff candidate a three times as much air time. You have to be more even in terms of politics. Host in terms of time given but its more in terms of the reporter, and taking a clear stand as to where they see the truth is, as opposed to impartially presenting both views on whatever topic. Guest if agree and i think in the uk theres been bitter criticism of the media for not critiqueing in particular the brexit side of the argument more closely. Have to say, though, i also think that much of the elite was horrified by the results in the uk, and the thing rare really cross about is the way the public voted and i think to some extent the media its blaming the messenger. The media to some get get monday of the criticism in the fact that actually honestly in that referendum process, the brexit side, the leave side, fought a much more Effective Campaign than the reman side. Host also, is there something about the medias refusal, whether in the brexit case or in the donald trump case, to use very simple and direct language . You know, that has contributed to the toxic political at atmosphere. For example, instead of calling where Donald Trumps views racist, there was a story, actually in your own newspaper that described him as an elegant way to not say racist. So, is there something about all establishment media that makes us hold back from using very direct language which would make it easier to preserve those kind of language. Guest George Orwell would advice to us use the simplest possible lack you can. I want to say, though, again, i think with labels racism i accept racism means something and its also a label and famously on sensibly used as an insult. Maybe justified or not but racist is one thing people shout another each other. I think if you start allowing yourself to use emotive labels, its not obvious to me youre glowing to increase understanding, or that youre going to make the divisions in this country easier to work through. So as a im no longer an editor, im an executive now, but i was quite resistant to labels like racism. Think that racism if politician a calls politician b a racist, report that, of course. But i think for journalists to themselves use label like that, the risk is that as a journalist, youre beginning to tell people what to think. Actually if we believe they are undesirable and morally unacceptable but out and out barbarism, murder, to disadvantage and the issue in is with politics principally with their own best judgment and of course, but if if we start to trying to speak the language of love politician to take part in the debate, with the nea are times or other publications. As you write about that in the book but with some of primary the way that it is only 12 percent of the coverage to be bipartisan basically invisible primary to donald trump long before in the polls. So with the use of language with that process. Certainly with unsafe television with American Media tell you how to cover donald trump. He does represent an unexpected development. We will put it that way. But in the context of television we should be straightforward about this. Compelling viewing for a while. Most politicians have the very good idea. They are very familiar presence but not many surprises but that could be a very good thing. Because he would say it as it came into his head. So particular television but it is an extraordinary phenomenon. Was never meant to work. With the play book but people thought that jeb bush had a good chance to get the nomination of. But there was the assumption to marco rubio. So when they thought it would be found out but absolute new developments since politics you can see by this summer donald trump is more thoughtful and less critical and i think there is a better chance that the u. S. Media will bien of former formal election or the formal campaign. So why that report is onto something. And with those general election campaigns that the public is asking questions about or to talk about but for example, with the elections of the first decade so they didnt really want to talk about immigration but we thought it did quickly verge into racism and so forth. But the trouble was we do talking to members of the public looking in opinion polls sometimes with the interviews actually there are days to focus on immigration. Because the public was concerned and how it would address the of publics concerns there is a responsibility to be there on behalf of ordinary voters. I dont want to save more broadly, but just to be clear, we have not done as good of a job. And part of that responsibility and breaking apart with the relationship is partly because to assist that the dialogue takes place. But you write in the of book of of a disappointment with the league of expectation in which forces that are they wrong to except those solutions from government . For that cycle . But politicians are over promising. I can see why ecorse in a campaign day given politician may try to bid up to build a war in guantanamo is another. But promising things that you have no idea almost certainly if you get elected you will disappoint those people so promising more than you can deliver, politicians have always done that. And i am assured and so widely is the problem but politician have made the mistake if one accuses one of light were failing to me is like one dr. Accusing another of malpractice and the of politicians have not realized that the example running for republican senators or the house of representatives as if they were not part of washington. They shouldnt be surprised if people think less of the maxwell as part of the problem so standing up for the u. S. To say i hate to washington what did they think will conclude from that . But in many ways the unrealistic promises to get rid it of every equality or injustice looking at the major programs of the was intended to stop the advantage of minorities to be very, very limited as a limited results to become fairly cynical about promises. That will lead it was allowed them to come up with solutions to problems. But with the Israeli Program but to be absolutely amazed that in order to create a consensus of of growing inequality and that is an amazing example. And i agree with that. To break a world to life. To use the language to be the public. And what happened to that . There is a moment if there is a uh great tradition of sending the Founding Fathers of labatt to Abraham Lincoln even kennedy it is hard to talk about in that language has spent lost. And it just cannot do that. But whenever the politics with voices and brutal to be informal humor, constant humor that is a wonderful thing in the language. But the shining sea . I am a man of the people imi underside but going from there to the head of state to turn the phrase with uh challenger disaster magnificent and by the way many people think of Ronald Reagan and sometimes he was but it is entirely written by him. So is this possible and i think bill clinton is an exceptional public speaker talking about muhammed ali as a campaigner and some ways n louisiana modern world the answers to questions, and that gives an area where the gap and that feeling of changing is very sharp. But on the language of National Politics there are things happening and i am ignoring that. Where the program has been made the slightly clearer of media attention. Of the Political Parties of the ideological purity so the ability of compromise is greater. And then the grade is lower for your opponents but in this memorable in these circumstances. Those that are extremely well spoken in public. And that and some days the moments where he became a National Character and with that persona but it is quite close to who Boris Johnson is. With those who would speak his mind. As one of those interesting figures of mazing politicians that the members of the establishment are the opposite of that. But to me comfortable with the english language. And the interesting thing of the antipoliticians like cruz and johnson to say what they may later regret very controlled and focused group but i want to say my book is about the zero language and other things matter. I would rather have a Competent Person to is not a great speaker running a Government Department or country than the speaker felt could not deliver. You have a wonderful chapter in the book of politics and the english language. For what they famously wrote and in many ways it is the central thesis. Many people want to think about the languages of the of policies and ideologies of the deep importance. But if you think about it is all table that. Tinkled take gold up with his essay he says that about a political subject you cannot care about health care policy. And with that change, and terms of the internet and how o could that have been different . That is essentially was communism or ultimately across the entire world with a ruthless totalitarian as some. If that was a real because it did not happen. And he doesnt talk much inhibited is an essay at all eat even though he does have instincts. He worked and radio but certainly in britain and here as well people paying of npr as rather highminded in terms of the awful mess and culture and idea but to say that would be terrible to destroy culture and everybody feared because they felt it would be even worse. But also worries about mass media, but the idea to give everyone that power for their opinions to be put up to share the entire world of good things genuinely with so much hatred gamble leading. Idle day he quite saw that. He saw the threat to be political and governmental. Canned of plurality in a way to let everyone say and do everything screw canada without having dealt with that dangerous and it would be anonymously. So with the new deal. Or the extensions that would dramatically change. Is complicated. But said chapter at the end with the classical times and preinto meant its cement is one of the few a s as they walk past it, but of course, it is complicated. We might rather support protester who leaves the city. The emperor has no clothes. Only the brave or loyal go and say that. Without the definitions of freedom of speech to feel that they should be allowed that when you start mechanizing them the rage as each side encourages the other i am pretty pure with freedom of speech. And to push yourself on the ground. So i look more to whether something can be done over time with media and civics. But one of the things with any concept of politeness. And on the subway people lender stand to give up your seat if they are disabled or helping somebody. People will do that routinely even if they dont see each other again. And that is just a convention. The thing about the internet about the virtual nature of the experience and for them to pick their noses to cut off from the rest of the world david do things they would not do people simply forget and find it very hard to be empathetic and did emails you cannot see the other person to be genuine the hurtful and rude i think all of that is greatly intensified of anonymous social media and to decide if this is a whistleblower the somebody is spewing off hatred. So as we are ending all of the legitimate concerns, you have modest help and the internet is small 24 carriage. So what are the elements . There is the care about knowledge to preserve that and help that flourish and expand the entire world. There are signs of the rebirth in the language of fairness or how that should be applied to apply to the samesex marriage to a. And the bid to of the hamilton using hiphop through politics. And as well as the forces of destruction but the cause of what is happening that are complex and must simply be resolved. But not for certain part of that timing is massive disruption and languages catching up to performance of with a new conventions and 80 is so i and hopeful about the future that is not clear to me. Hearsay with the acknowledgments with the amazing publisher who was a friend of ours, and what type of instrument that led to this. And to have bois as you describe them. As i decided to move from one did to do your. To give me the following advice. They say ignore the man when