tv Stephen Soukup The Dictatorship of Woke Capital CSPAN April 25, 2021 7:55pm-9:01pm EDT
then former republican speaker of the house john weiner of ohio reflects on his time in congress and the future of the republican party. an investigative journalist amanda ripley shares her thoughts on how people can engage in healthy conflict resolution. that all starts this evening at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. find more schedule information @booktv.org or consult your program going. >> hello everyone welcome to the book forum i am can't i have a pair of exceptional guest to discuss the infiltration of political objectives into market systems like finance and the accumulation of capitol. before we get into the program i've to quick reminders for the audience. first, we are recording this and it will be made available on our website and youtube. we encourage you to change the presentation to give us feedback.
we have an opportunity end of the hour for quick three or four question survey. and seconds, i want to share your questions with our speakers. in fact that is my primary role today. i encourage you to use a q&a function found the bottom of the screen or to send me an e-mail at email@example.com make sure you can get in as many questions today in business generally how it works and where it intersects or touches with political movements and political objectives. joined by steven from the political former his research and consulting is targeted toward the institutional investment community. he's the author of the regionally published book, the dictatorship of woke capitol. how political correctness captured big business. you are looking for it online, it looks like this. i encourage you to pick up
always known that the idea of wall street is owned by republicans and conservatives and my hope and experience but over the last several years there's been a very significant push to the left. it became clear that they saw this push to the left and they were frustrated by it. roughly two years ago, i had a conversation with the director of the free enterprise project at the national center for public policy research and he shared with me the work he does in fighting back against activist shareholders. it was a very interesting
discussion. as i said i worked in the business almost a quarter century and i was not aware of just how thoroughly left-wing politics had, what was once upon a time free and fair capital markets so i was very intrigued. i shared that information with my clients. i believe we put together the information directly to the clients and a lot of them, and again these are sophisticated asset managers, people who've been in the business for a long time and they were surprised at how thoroughly the left-wing politics has captured financial markets. so from that point on, i made it my personal mission to expose this. we will get to the question of
what do we do now and the first part of the answer to the question is to raise awareness and that's been my job in this battle against the politicization of the capital market to raise awareness and so that's what set me down the track. i felt myself on mute when i was trying to hand over to richard and let me just ask you as steve puts his finger on the first step forward, which is raising the issue. can you name it for us the problem like how do we put our arms around what do we mean by the politics getting involved in things where previously they were not a dominant force? >> people were trying to control
america's corporations without investing in them. the point of the corporation is to take capital and make products and services and get a return back on that. it's pretty straightforward in the institution and the idea now is in order to be a corporation, you can't just follow the rules and follow the law and make a product. you now have to be on the right side of a very specific and contentious list. that is what corporations are for and to require assistance to sign up to a list of left-wing policy positions in order to, you know, be a citizen there's no reason we should expect the corporation to do that, so it's one thing if the investors in a company genuinely decide they
want that company to invest and embrace in the political expense. ben and jerry for example are famous. they were famous for and bracing because they owned the company. what we have now are political actors who don't own the company or her own tiny token parts of the company trying to force the corporation and all of its shareholders to adopt that idea that has nothing to do with profit or even providing services but it has to do just with politics. and that is something that violates our rights of freedom of speech and association and really strikes at the heart of what the market economy is supposed to be. >> host: let me ask you, we
spoke briefly about the book reviews in the green room. what do you think is most valuable coming out of the book and i want to get the two of you talking about this with each other. what do you take away that is most valuable in the community, these are folks working on capitol hill or agencies if they are not following these issues and raising awareness, what comes out of the book that strikes you as an important? >> this is a problem in the first place it is a threat to property rights and it isn't just sort of a suggestion that everyone do nice things because of course that's what has kept a lot of people from perceiving the politicization of seeing it as an actual threat and also a
book by frederick [inaudible] the title was who will control the corporation. the question, should we send 5% of the profits on so after the 3% or should we build a coal-fired power plant the question is who gets to make those decisions, is it the people who own the company or people outside the company that don't have any stake in it, so understanding that is really what is at issue is the most important thing and secondarily
this morning 10 a.m. the senate banking committee held a confirmation hearing and it may be going on now because they are going through two rounds of questions with the nominee to be the new chair of the securities exchange commission. the question is what policies is he going to put forth when he is presumably confirmed and are they going to go further in the direction of the environmental social governance policies, the person that is the head at this moment has said absolutely she thinks it is absolutely necessary to force more of these disclosures and pile these regulatory requirements on. the point in these disclosures means that somehow either
through more regulation you're going to punish the companies that are traditional energy companies. >> host: before we get down into the institutions of government like the fcc and the mandatory disclosures of things, you go through a lot of these acronyms, corporate social responsibility and as richard mentioned, environmental social governance questions, who gets to decide these questions when companies are making decisions about where to invest resources, where to engage philanthropic
lady how to organize the business itself. >> one thing about the message to government officials and bureaucratic officials i would add the message that there are players in the game who don't care about you. they don't care about the sec or about any of the governments officials that make the technical rules. their intention is to go around the government and to impose their own clause like governmental regulatory regime on the financial market. in fact, that's taking place at this moment with help from the world economic forum and michael bloomberg and so i would warn
the government officials that there is a very serious and concerted effort on the part of players outside of government to usurp the power of the people including the power of the administrative branch and bureaucracy. so, i would add that. now as far as this goes, the idea basically is that activists, be they activist shareholders or external activists want to be able to make these decisions for corporations themselves. they don't want the board of directors to make these decisions. they don't want the managers to make these decisions unilaterally. they want to be involved and the way they are involved is they want to either punish, remove,
replace managers, directors or change company bylaws and meet their specific political ads. if, for example a manager chooses to invest the company's resources in a political campaign by donating money to the republican candidate that he thinks will win and that will be able to aid the company as a senator, for example, there are a lot of activists that don't want that to happen. they want to be able to punish the managers who make that decision, and they are very aggressive and serious about what they are going to do. >> for either of you, you are talking about forces from outside of government. sometimes it's activist
shareholders with publicly traded companies, so typically talking about large companies, but do these pressures affect companies of all sizes? do they affect companies and all industries, publicly and privately held companies? is there a demarcation or line to draw around the problem? >> i would make the case that this is mostly a publicly traded corporation problem. i don't think that's necessarily the way some of these activists want it to play out in the future. just a couple weeks ago, the ceo of black rock which is probably the biggest force in this movement right now made a statement to sort of offhand at a conference he was at that he
doesn't want them getting involved in their practices. he doesn't want the sec or the government more generally to pay attention to them and about writing regulations for them. he would pay for the government focus on the privately held companies. now that's a double threat not just to the government, but we don't want you to miss in our sandbox and also the privately held companies that what we do want is for the government to put you on equal footing with us. privately held companies probably have the advantage that they can focus directly on their business, but that's not the way these activists want it to play out going forward. >> traditionally the financial regulations in the united states focus a lot more on the publicly traded companies which is why
when anyone tries to write and expose, they don't have it as much inside financial data. the other thing to the extent that this is a sort of pr war and activists are trying to name and shame the corporations going along in the program, the companies that are the highest profile companies and also consumer credit companies. you can't boycott raytheon no matter how much you dislike them because people are not going to pay attention to that. there are companies and businesses being shamed and that sort of negative publicity. tactical level when it comes to different activist groups going after the corporations are more vulnerable.
>> it seems that there is a whole another dimension. i don't want to suggest we are missing it. i think there's a discussion to be had, and i would love for you to explain it's not just the companies, but it's also all the relationships they have. a decade ago at the height of the wake of the financial crisis, the wall street, occupy wall street movement there were people parading around and not boycotting but holding signs in places like greenwich connecticut in front of the homes of the financiers and bankers. so, this movement the question is not so much who should make the decision of how to run the business, but what are the relationships that business can have either with their suppliers or vendors or the type of talent they can choose to hire or not.
how big are the circles and how far out does this reach? >> may be richard first and then we will go to steve. >> one of the ways activists with these types of goals try to make their influence so is with these sort of relationships that go outward. there's been plenty of activist demands that accompany and only do business with certain suppliers so often times it even comes with the colleague that would say you made a point about the activist demand you don't turn a crocodile into a vegetarian. when you appease people making these demand you go back and you
are proving you've already been willing to compromise. so a company will say yes we will adopt the amendment, but that then the same activist will come back and say you forced all of your suppliers, what about their suppliers and everything on the second, third, fourth quarters if they think that any of these suggestions are reasonable [inaudible] if they are trying to have it both ways and pay lip service to something that they don't really believe in it's only going to create more negative publicity going forward. >> is that the case if you have apple or nike or any apparel
company if they are trying to monitor their entire supply chain is that a reasonable request to ask of them to know what's going on halfway around the world? >> yes, it's reasonable, but in the case of apple, they don't do it. they don't care, and nobody else cares. in large part because apple ceo tim cook is a very prominent and outspoken social progressive. anytime there's a social justice issue in this country, tim cook can be expected to be the first to speak out. the first to write an op-ed and pledge shareholders money to address the problems, so he gets a pass. apple is considered one of the
darwin's both for the social activism and its environmentalism. apple claims to be the corporation itself is a zero net carbon corporation they produce no net carbon. but when you take that trip across the pacific ocean to the people's republic of china, you find that the social justice aspect of tim cook's personality tends to disappear because they need the chinese communist party because it is the second largest market and because it is the home to all of its manufacturing. additionally, what you will find is that the overwhelming majority of the energy used to design and produce market and distribute apple products is not used by apple. it's used by the subcontractors that are headed in taiwan and
that don't have quite the pressure to be as environmentally friendly as apple is. so it's very much -- >> the customer base as well. every product apple makes has a battery and electrical outlet. >> and built in [inaudible] , and apple has been under fire for years for its excessive packaging and the fact that they more or less build more and you have to buy a new phone every two or three years whether you want to or not. so yes, apple is not quite the green friendly company they claim to be and it is probably the single largest company in actively managed esg portfolios. >> so, tell me, steve, you shared with me earlier that you enjoy the q and a part of these programs. so i'm going to jump right in.
i have questions here. paul asks do companies and fiscal situations, the well-being do they tend to improve or worsen after they go woke or is there no trend? what is the practical effect of the companies when they take this step? >> well, i think at this point, the results are sort of mixed. there are some companies that make an enormous production of going woke. dick's sporting goods is one that comes to mind where a couple of years ago after the shooting at the high school in florida, the ceo announced a they wouldn't be selling certain guns and they wouldn't sell them to people under 18 and then they wouldn't sell them at all and that affected the bottom line. so, it can affect them very directly and very quickly. i think -- i am drawing a blank
on the author, but it's there's a piece out of there today therg about how coca-cola has -- daniel greenfield has a piece out about how coke went woke and is going broke, and so you know, that's demonstration of that principle as well. but a lot of this stuff takes place behind the scenes, and a lot of it that doesn't take place behind the scenes is revered by the customer base and some of these companies which, to address for example, apple wants either the contemporary versions as their customers and these people are really grateful to apple for being a zero net carbon emissions company. so, it really depends on the company, on the issue and on the market. >> now, is there an example of a company or an industry that
you've identified that has stood up to the mob? this is a question for nancy. how did those companies do when they failed to see the alligator? does that work out for companies? >> i think it certainly has in some cases. nevertheless they continued to doing a good job. in some ways you see this in companies that really don't have a choice. if you are exxon mobil the environments for never want you to see the program at all so there's no.
i do not believe that it is a good idea. there is a horrible idea to impoverish the world of energy. but if i wanted to put companies out of business that produce energy, would putting exxon mobil out of business is going to end the marketplace and empower the sovereign countries that are producing energy. i don't have any sort of oversight or transparency into. i don't know what the saudi's are doing. i don't know -- >> who knows what they are doing up there. >> not only do we think that they are bad for the market economy or undermine but they
are sometimes going against the interest themselves which is a little crazy to think that it really is true. in this traditional company they said what we want is solar wind and geothermal, we don't want oil and gas. as you alluded to, the most you have poor people in developing countries who want to have light in their village for the first time ever. it is irresponsible i would say to force them to pay twice as much that is less reliable when they could be getting affordable energy through the traditional
sources. but also if you are looking towards innovation and a company that has the history and manpower and brainpower and the capital resources to finance the next generation those are the big incumbent companies. all of them have huge investments in renewable. there's stories all the time about that. it's not the tiny startup who are going to produce a billion-dollar generator for cleaner energy. it's the big guys and if you have exxon mobil you will be left with -- >> let's pick up on the business communities. there's a great discussion in the book and we have a question
from stephen he asks where is the chamber of commerce on this when it comes to the business roundtable and they had a big announcement last year you referenced financial leaders. where is the business community and what are they doing with these calls for action if you will? >> to be honest the chamber of commerce to the best of my knowledge has been involved in this. they had a conservative reputation but i'm not sure that reputation applies and i don't think this is an issue on their radar. so i'm not sure that a lot of the traditional business trade groups and organizations are
necessarily focused on this or believe that this is something that they should be involved in. >> we've talked about black rock and there's a discussion of jamie diamond. what's the distinction you make between their approaches were first of all, what are the two different approaches they have towards this pressure and how do you distinguish the two of them? >> in introduction to the book i distinguish them in the position of saint augustin who isn't a true believer and wishes to be made holy but not yet. >> lord take away the billion dollars i earned running someone else's company, but not yet.
the ceo is a believer in the idea that he can leverage my money, your money, richard's money, whoever has money invested, he can take our money to achieve the political goals and believes that those, by achieving those political goals he can save the business and save the world. jamie diamond i believe is more somebody who has seen what larry has done and how well it's worked for black rock and said sure let's be involved as well. i don't think jamie diamond is woke but i think he will play woke on tv because he believes that is what is most profitable for j.p. morgan. woke or not woke what about the folks at the world economic
forum and davo's and i don't mean it as pejorative but a descriptor, people operating at that level of global finance. are they playing woke or living it? >> some people perceive that as pejorative and they are free to do so. this is something steve talks about in the first half of the book which is all about the intellectual history and where we are now and it goes back quite a ways. at least 100 or 150 years or so but the outlook is a progressive view which is p-uppercase-letter
tank. his view in the outlook is the signing needs to be governed and improved by the small technologically savvy set of people and i think a lot of this makes more sense when you realize that is where this is stemming from. we will see if steve wants to talk about this for a second. the background that you did charting the intellectual history in great detail at a quick pace i was wondering if
you had done all of these deep dive research as a way to wrap your head around these ideas for the book or something that you had been working on for 25 years. >> i would say it's more the latter than the former. when i started in the financial industry 25 years ago i probably would have considered myself a classical liberal and at the urging of my then boss and my current business partner, mark melcher, i read a couple things that changed my perspective and it made me a conservative.
among these were russell kirk ann a tear who in particular is a takedown of the enlightenment and the moral disorder upon the western civilization that is a very important thing and that formed intellectual curiosity for the past couple of decades at least. >> coming off of that, we've had a big narrative change we've referred to a couple of times in the idea business and corporate america is an inherently conservative institution between big c and small c and not overtly political sense but sort of temperamentally conservative
which is not prone to fly off the handle on the new ideas and straightforward and practical minded and yes that is still the narrative a lot of americans have every corporation is run by a an old white guy and there's no new ideas. yet as the book shows, it's dramatically changed and we have the sort of bizarre looking glass of the companies in the world led by anti-company businessmen and to invoke. he's had a theory that it had to do with the self-esteem of business people at large that
they bought into the narrative of the capitalism so they felt the need may be not explicitly but somewhere in the back of their head they need to buy back their self-worth with the progressive virtue signal. do you think that is part of the problem? >> absolutely that is part of the problem. in the book i make the case that the notion that the big business have always gone hand in hand has been almost entirely a myth. it has its foundations in the great crash when the republicans are in at the same time and three years later, roosevelt could basically say this is a publican problem.
i'm going to fix it so this idea of the wall street banker being a republican has almost always been a mess, but over the past two decades or so, it's disappeared almost entirely. they are very, very few conservatives in the higher echelons of the big wall street firms, very few. in large part it's because of a cultural shift that you just noted. the two streams of intellectual history that i trace in the book, the first we talk about is a sort of administrative theme, this belief that started with woodrow wilson that society needs a professional class insulated from politics and professionally educated and trained to do the things that force society, the voters, the people, the masses are not
intellectually capable so that's one of the streams. the other is the development of cultural marxism which starts essentially in the 1920s at the end of world war ii and lends its way through the political institutions up until the 1960s roughly where the two streams meet. i devote probably has a chapter in the book and i am probably not talking about it publicly at all because it seems obscure. one of the key people in this is a man named dwight waldo. unless you read the administration or took it a degree you probably never heard of, but for the longest time this dichotomy between politics and administration this is what
wilson wanted and the public administration functioned. we argued administrators are in nonpolitical non-value oriented positive scientific operation that is doing what's best for society based on the scientific administrative principles. waldo comes along and says this is nuts. you cannot have a science of administration. there are values involved. you cannot take values out of this. when he is generally taught in the administration, he's taught as a hero because he says we have to put democracy back in this. we can't continue to have this value free pseudoscience, but what they failed to mention is that waldo didn't put the democracy back into it. he said we need values involved what he meant is we need administrators to use their values to determine what's going on, not the people's values, not
to assess, but to take their own value and let it fly and to do what they thought was moral and imperative for society. and that became the point where these two streams meet where the cultural marxism and the positive progressive administrative stream combined. so you get a professional bureaucratic class that uses its own values as opposed to the values of the people to make the decision that they believe are most important and that eventually spilled over into the business administration as well. >> i want to pick up on this first stream, the positivist notion and progressive sort o scientific management approach
we have seen in politics with wilson and later fdr and business. as we see it today, it seems to me that it lends itself to extreme versions of anti-democratic behavior and so when you are describing substituting their own values, the bureaucratic professional class or the people, what we are talking about here are the people who own a future state or future profit for the future revenue stream of a company so they are substituting their values for how the company should be managed, social goals, environmental goals et cetera for the values of these are pensions and shareholders and stockholders, these are people invested in mutual funds and they may not know the names of the companies. that sort of anti-democratic
tension, is it enough to blow this up if people become aware of it or is it something that can be managed? >> i think that it depends on how well they perform. as you say, larry and black rock has $9 trillion in assets. none of the money is his, well, a very small amount, but most of it is mom and pop and every other person who has a 4o1k and ira. it advances the political lens. it's antidemocratic and essentially he usurps the will of the people particularly the
will of the shareholder and ability of the shareholder to affect corporate behavior. now he usurps that power. at this point i don't think you can get the public to care because if you are getting eight, nine, 10% return on investment every year or more, that's all that they care about. and the esg in particular has done really well over the past couple of years but then in an environment like ours where money is free and the fed is running the printing press, everybody's making money, eight, nine, 10%. at some point, investing is going to become a little bit more difficult than making money and it isn't going to become quite as easy. at that point i think we will see just how willing people are to allow people like larry think
to exchange their political views for the people's needs to say for the retirement. there's a bubble because any sort of losses or gains that were not otherwise made were being taken over by these factors. richard, i want to turn to you and get back to something in the first part of the hour about the benefit corporations, mission driven companies. some three dozen states allow the corporation in this way. why is that not a viable alternative for the activists who want to see different management objectives than simply a profit maximization strategy? >> that is a bit of a mystery if
you believe the hype. it's possible now to turn a new company and corporation including the number one they have a corporation legally distinct from other corporations which you will prioritize all of these other stakeholders not just shareholders and so you can do what a lot of them claim you can't do in the traditional which is spend your money on all this other stuff besides the shareholder business. for spending money on something other than them. these should give you the opportunity to do that and it's even possible to recharter if
you want to embrace you should be able to take a large successful corporation. however -- >> right up the road here in baltimore, very successful company the last decade or two under armour they make shoes and clothes and locally they are noted for sponsoring all the athletic activities at the university of maryland. >> i used to live at college park. >> if under armour as a company decides to devote money to words brain science because they put kids on the football field and they are worried about the long-term trend of collisions, could i sue them because they are not pursuing profits, they are spending money on brain science at the university of johns hopkins or something of the sort?
>> not really because it's one of those things where there's a cliché version of this. there's articles in the magazine which a lot of people pointed to as an example of the traditional shareholder value and a lot of people that refer to it i expect have never read it and the strict and unyielding it's 100%. in reality in american law, corporations have pretty wide latitude to spend money on all kinds of stuff and it's low to interfere under armour could ard easily say that by funding
medical research on traumatic brain injuries we would require a positive pr value we will let that fly. it's very unlikely the case like that would end up with under armour spending on the wrong things because it doesn't directly [inaudible] >> let me bring this back for either of you. if we have these options, people can voluntarily take their company's public or they can keep them private. we have options for how to organize your company. you can be a public benefit the charter company in most states. in these philanthropic activities are describing whether it be the study of brain
injuries or other things that might be associated with the company's products or services. why is it that the discussion we had at the beginning of the hour there are policymakers getting interested in this? why do they think we need to have more mandatory disclosures about esg? >> under the current system the shareholders and managers still get to make the decision and the people who are most excited about more regulations and laws and disclosures are people who are not managers and board of directors but still want to control what the corporations do and allow us to do. i think this also goes back to historically to the anti-democratic nature of this whole administrative process. people particularly in
government and in the esg movement decided that there are certain problems that are so important that they sort of supersede the will of the people. also the workforce diversity and things like that. they believe that these issues are never going to be solved by a democratic chelation or democr through a democratic system and they have a responsibility therefore to bypass the system and to take it into their own hands and force this change on the nation, whether it wants it or not. >> before i asked for closing remarks, let me ask a quick question. we talked a lot about advocates of different social goals.
these esg goals and the way they used shareholder or other processes to try to manage the companies that they are not responsible for managing. what about the inverse flex what if i'm a consumer and i don't like to spend my money with companies that are woke? i want to spend with companies that provide excellent products and services, and that's with a focus on. how can i push back? what are the alternatives going in the other direction, what pressures are available? >> i think that the most important pressure that we have at our fingertips is the ability to engage. this goes primarily to people that are involved in the capital markets or who are invested in various different ways.
but customer service departments hate to get phone calls. the corporate managers hate to have these things go public and so there is an opportunity for people that are upset with the direction that the company is taking or are unhappy about the way the politics is seeping into corporate behavior the pushback. and that's essentially to reverse engineer with the activists on the other side have done. that's to get involved. the proxies don't allow the proxy advisory services to direct your vote and take advantage of the leverage you have as a shareholder to pushback. >> do you have closing remarks on anything that we have covered
or failed to cover on these topics during the last hour? >> we could probably go on for eight to 12 hours and still not cover everything. in this question of can you sue a company that spends money on the wrong thing in general you need only the barest whisper of an excuse to get by with those decisions but there's an interesting and along this with a virtual event very much like this one with fcc commissioner alan roseman and the chief justice of delaware, home to so many corporations byron steel.
one of the questioners asked him can we sue the corporate managers for going woke, probably not and probably not at delaware and he's kind of an expert in that area but as you said, the traditional expectation is you can sue a company for spending money it creates a financial conflict of interest so if they find a contract with the sisters nephew and doesn't disclose it the traditional understanding doesn't let you sue them for wasting money that is in a non-financial conflict of
interest. the law isn't set up to recognize that and while i am in a temporarily conservative way to monkey with the distinction between the sort of corporate governance law but i think it's something that maybe we should look at in previous times it didn't occur to most people that corporate executives would misappropriate for ideological reasons that didn't benefit him personally, but we are very much in that era so that is one of the -- when we have the policy recommendations normally it is along the lines of don't regulate, reform of the regulations that you have now,
make it simpler, less expensive, less onerous. this is one of the rare times when we might say that we need to expand the substance by which we look at these conflicts of interest because it's not just financial, it's ideological conflicts of interest. >> falling under the broad rubric to provide an environment where there is no fraud. the common law tradition of preventing fraud enables that sort of behavior. let me ask you real quick we have a book of the era. closing remarks anything you want people to take away? and i will remind you, i have a habit of scanning through the subscription events and we have a lot of folks that have via organizations and e-mail addresses. so, what do you want that community to take away from our
discussion today in your book? >> i think probably the most is that this is not a problem that is going to solve itself or at least it isn't a problem that's going to solve itself without a lot of gain. i think markets are even surely self-correcting and misallocation of capital is misallocation of capital and eventually, if a company is misallocation capital for ideological reasons it's still going to come back to haunt them. the problem is that when that happens, the $9 trillion that larry has invested in these corporations is going to slowly but surely disappear and the $9 trillion depends on mom and pop through the united states and that is going to be a very, very serious problem
economically and financially if we don't address this before that becomes the case. >> steve, richard, i want to thank you for the discussion and for being with us, and i want to thank our audience for your time and capital in the form of attention. read more about this. be engaged. you can find his work at at the political forum institute in the political forum. richard's work of course we featured across our website at cei.org. i'm going to remind everyone we take very seriously and pay attention to your feedback so please, fill out the 50 to 92nd survey that will pop up on your screen and mark your calendar. we have two events planned for next month. first on wednesday the 17th there will be the release of cei's agenda for congress. i will be joined for the keynote remarks by senator rand paul and then we will be back with another book forum on march 205th. a pair of authors, johan and
patrick moore. thank you all and we will see you again soon. >> during a virtual event hosted by mother jones magazine, doctor yasmin discusses the dangers of misinformation about public health and medicine. here's a portion of that program. >> a couple of years ago there was an outbreak in eastern europe, i think in romania, and at the time they had tweeted something like the largest in decades, [inaudible] don't worry we are disseminating, something along those lines. i'm paraphrasing. and i thought are you kidding me? we have these vaccine hesitancy's. they don't need a pamphlet to get their point across. because she's convinced her 3-year-old became autistic from a vaccine. are you telling me with a video
like that that some person has a story about a child crying, you are going to counter that with a bullet point on a leaflet? that does not meet people where they are. i trained in medicine and medical school and around the world but we don't practice evidence-based communications even though we know the communication is make or break when it comes to facing an individual patient and as an academic response [inaudible] even though it's fact, it was delivered in a one-size-fits-all message and that is rubbish it
has an expectation that isn't just about history, medical racism but also if you talk to people that are vaccine hesitant it's more of a friend's i think the majority of people are like i got my flu shot last year, not sure if i should get the covid-19 vaccine this year. they would have different reasons. all of that is vaccine hesitancy so we have to meet people where they are. to watch the rest of this program, visit the website, booktv.org. use the search box at the top of the page to look for the title of the book "viral bs."
♪♪ booktv on c-span2. every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors. funding for booktv comes from these television companies and more. including media calm. >> them mediacom was ready and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went virtual. we powered them because and mediacom, we are built to keep you ahead. >> mediacom along with these television companies supports booktv on c-span2 as a public service. now on booktv "after words," "washington post" staff writer john woodrow cox reports on the effects of gun violence on children in america. he is interviewed by columbia university health education associate professor and mailman school of public health adjunct professor of epidemiology, so