Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Former Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Rose Horowitch; Interview with Psychologist and Author and Domestic Violence Prevention Advocate Doreen Dodgen-Magee. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 13, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
A foreign policy hawk and a staunch advocate for the war with Iran. Lindsey Graham's death is sending shockwaves across Washington as the ceasefire
with Tehran falls apart. I speak to former Republican Senator Jeff Flake about what this means for the GOP.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMEL MUSALLET, FATHER OF AMERICAN KILLED BY SETTLERS: The Israeli army should -- right now, should be here and kicking them out. It's illegal for
them to be there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A father's quest for closure. One year on from the killing of a Palestinian American in the occupied West Bank, a report on the impunity
Israeli settlers still have there.
Plus, is the end of reading here? As younger generations read less and scroll more, Atlantic staff writer, Rose Horowitch, joins me to explain
what a post-literate world looks like.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOREEN DODGEN-MAGEE, PSYCHOLOGIST AND AUTHOR AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION ADVOCATE: This can happen to any woman and child. And I think it's very
hard for most people to stay focused there and realize that these are preventable deaths.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- torn apart by gun violence and domestic abuse. Prevention advocate, Doreen Dodgen-Magee, speaks to Michelle Martin about her family's
tragedy and how gun laws can protect women from the deadly consequences of violent partners.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin with a sudden death setting off a scramble in the U.S. Senate. Senator Lindsey Graham, a foreign policy hawk and an emblematic figure of
the Republican Party, passed away on Saturday at the age of 71.
Once a scathing Trump critic, he turned into one of the president's strongest allies. He was also one of the loudest voices backing the U.S.-
Israeli war with Iran. Here's President Trump's reaction to his passing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: He's a great politician. He was a natural. There are very few of them. He was a natural politician, got along with
everybody. There was no better advocate. He was a fantastic advocate in the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A deaf politician, Graham often crossed party lines to secure bipartisan agreements. His latest, a proposed sanctions package on Russian
oil, announced last week.
But no such breakthrough is on the horizon on Iran, and it's pushing President Trump into a corner. After the U.S. hit more Iranian targets over
the weekend, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is grinding to a halt. Oil prices are rising, and the ceasefire is crumbling.
Our next guest used to work alongside Senator Graham, but has significantly different views on President Trump. Jeff Flake is a former Republican
senator for Arizona, and he joins me now. He's also ambassador to Turkey. Mr. Ambassador, welcome to the program.
So, let's just talk about the passing of your longtime colleague. I know he was a friend as well. You told NPR that your friendship actually began with
Locker side by side in the House gym and that Graham, with no family in Washington, quote, "was always looking for people to have dinner with." Who
was Lindsey Graham when the cameras were off?
FMR. SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ), FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY: Well, he was the funniest senator by far, and he was a joy to be with. He just -- he
didn't like to be alone. He liked to be with people. And so, we spent many evenings together when he was in the Senate. He'd give a call. What are you
doing? If he didn't have any plans, he wanted to be with people. And that was Lindsey.
But I think that -- Lindsey is an old politician in the in the sense of, you know, an institutionalist. Everett Dirksen once said, I have unbending
principles. And that first principle is to be flexible. And that certainly personifies Lindsey. And that's why he was such an effective legislator.
GOLODRYGA: When was the last time the two of you spoke?
FLAKE: Oh, a couple of months ago. It was a couple of months ago. I had dealt with Lindsey a lot while I was ambassador to Turkey, particularly the
effort to get Sweden into NATO.
[13:05:00]
There were some things that Turkey wanted the U.S. Congress to do. And Lindsey was very effective in bringing that about. So, we had a lot of
discussions while he was in D.C. and I was in Turkey. And we've talked a few times since.
GOLODRYGA: And he was effective objectively in trying to persuade the president repeatedly to keep the NATO alliance together with the U.S.
leading the way. The most recent NATO summit just last week also highlighted that push from Lindsey Graham.
The president over the weekend, when he was speaking to a number of networks, including CNN, and talking in morning about the passing of his
friend, noted some of his brightest moments in his view. And one of them was when he said that the senator excoriated you during the Brett Kavanaugh
hearings. It was in a committee room. It was in private. But he excoriated you for pushing for an FBI investigation into some of the claims of sexual
abuse and violence.
And then you said that same night over dinner, he told you that you did the right thing. So, tell us more about what that story says about who Lindsey
Graham was.
FLAKE: Well, that was Lindsey. He's adaptable and he's -- you know, he was very much opposed to prolonging the investigation or to launching an FBI
investigation. I felt strongly that we needed to do that. And he did go right after me in the committee room and then in the anti-room, even
louder. Saying, you can't do this. You can't do this. But I did. And within a couple of hours, he was back at me saying, hey, that was the best thing
ever. And let's go have dinner. And we did.
And that was Lindsey. He adapted. He adapted to the Trump era and he felt that he could influence the president. And as you mentioned, in particular,
in terms of American leadership abroad, Lindsey has had a tremendous effect, I think, in keeping NATO alliance together, making sure that
American leadership, you know, goes on in Europe. That's important.
GOLODRYGA: Well, that adaptation that you just noted, he was really emblematic of the sort of arc that we saw with the Republican Party and how
initially there had been fierce criticism of Donald Trump when he set down those that that escalator at Trump Tower in 2015, announcing his bid for
the presidency to today.
In fact, in 2015, Lindsey Graham said that the answer to making America great again was to tell Donald Trump to go to hell. He's changed quite a
bit since then. Listen to the joke that he made just last month about the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I want to start with a bunch of thank yous. I want to thank the big guy, God. Trump comes later. This president, you're
not far behind God, but we're going to start with him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And that was Lindsey Graham celebrating his primary win again just last month for a fifth term, seeking the Senate's position there in
South Carolina.
Jonathan Martin of Politico writes this morning that that what we saw was an example of a cynical capitulation, but maybe it was worth it, as you
note, because that embrace of Donald Trump, while still maintaining his hawkish support for alliances, for fighting against Russia with sanctions
and for keeping the U.S. with NATO, that that worked.
Do you believe that this capitulation, if that's what it was, was worth it ultimately?
FLAKE: Well, I just say I couldn't do it. I'm not a good enough politician, apparently, but I was always glad that Lindsey was there. It
was always -- I always knew that he believed in strong American leadership. He believed in our alliances and that he was influencing the president. And
he did. So, I can't speak to whether it's capitulation or not. I'm just glad he was there as long as he was.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Lindsey Graham, to his credit, I guess, was very transparent when asked why the change. Why was he constantly embracing the
president? Why was someone who was such an ardent critic become such a supporter? And he said that it came down to being relevant, that Donald
Trump called him. They spoke frequently, even the hours apparently before his passing, that he played golf with him, that he made him feel important
to be in the room.
As you just noted, you were different. And we recall your speech on the Senate floor in 2017 when you said that you would not seek another term.
You said I will not be complicit. And that ultimately cost your career.
[13:10:00]
Watching how Lindsey Graham's story has ended now. Do you ever wonder back about your own choice?
FLAKE: No, not at all. Not for a minute. You know, I had to face my family and I had, you know, said that I didn't agree with the president's policies
and couldn't condone his behavior. And for me to just flip on a dime and say, hey, you know, those policies I disagreed with, they're growing on me
or the president's behavior, I kind of like it now, I just couldn't do it.
But I mean, there, you know, are a couple of ways to influence. I don't pretend for a minute that I can have as much influence outside of the
Senate. But I -- you know, I just couldn't turn on a dime and do that. I don't think I would have been effective at it. And I certainly wouldn't
have slept well at night.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we do know that Lindsey Graham was very public and supporting President Trump. Some say even convincing President Trump to
strike Iran to take out the ayatollah. That had been one of his most pressing policies that he had been focused on is bringing down the Iranian
regime, even if that meant a kinetic war.
He spoke at the Munich Security Conference with Christiane Amanpour just two weeks before the war started. And here's what he said about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: Here's the day after I worry the most about the day after we blinked, the day after we made promises that we didn't keep. We made
assurances that fell short that day after day after his generational damage. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, they don't go away. They come back
stronger. The Arabs go back into their corner and the people have been protesting will be systematically destroyed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, here we are today. The regime has not changed. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. The president just today threatened to
reinstitute the blockade and charge for the U.S. to charge a toll now for any ships passing. The ceasefire is all but dead. I'm just wondering where
things stand right now.
Do you think that Lindsey Graham was right in trying to persuade the president to take these actions?
FLAKE: Well, I think we can get in the back rooms and know who had an influence. But I don't think that it was the right thing to do the way the
president waged this war. I think there are other ways we could have gone about this. And I think the fact that we're in the position that we're in
today speaks to that. So, I don't know. I wasn't in those rooms to see who influenced whom on that. But this was the wrong choice by the president.
I don't know how anyone with a straight face can look at the situation and think that we're in a better place now for what has gone on. This is going
to be very difficult to get out of, you know, keeping the position of the U.S., you know, strengthened and attached. It's really going to be tough.
GOLODRYGA: So, what do you prescribe now? What do you think the United States, if President Trump, I don't imagine he would do this, if he decided
to pick up the phone and give you a call and pick your brain, get some thoughts from you on what he should do now, given where things stand, what
should the U.S. do?
FLAKE: Well, obviously, the president is trying to negotiate, but we don't have a very good hand. He talked about Ukraine and President Zelenskyy not
having a good hand not having any cards. That's kind of where we are with regard to the Strait of Hormuz. It's so easy for Iran to keep that closed.
And so, I just don't know how we do it without kinetic action going forward. But that has its own problems.
So, you know, part of the problem is we've kind of shelved, you know, true diplomacy. And I don't see any real diplomats there who can actually put an
MOU together that means something, or can see beyond an MOU. That's what we're really hurting right now. We just don't have the people, the
president, the people that he's relying on, I don't think, have done an adequate job.
GOLODRYGA: Lindsey Graham's last trip to Kyiv was just last week, last Friday. I think this was his 10th trip since the larger scale invasion of
February 2022. He was on the cusp of a sanctions deal, finally, that he had been pursuing that perhaps could have changed Putin's calculus.
Speaker -- Senate majority leader, John Thune, just said today on our air that he thinks that passing the Russian sanction package would be an
incredible legacy for Lindsey Graham. Do you think there's enough support in the Senate right now? Do you think the president would sign it?
[13:15:00]
FLAKE: There's certainly numerical support. I think the last count was 85 co-sponsors. So, yes. The question is, will Republicans in the Senate and
the House, you know, actually override the president if he threatens a veto?
But this speaks to Lindsey Graham's effectiveness. He worked with Richard Blumenthal and others and pushed this hard. So, I hope that they do move
forward with that. I hope the president will sign it. But if he doesn't sign it, I would hope that the Congress would simply override. That rarely
happens these days. Presidents, you know, see the ground shifting and comply. I suppose he would here. But that would be a good tribute to
Lindsey Graham.
I can tell you, Ukraine would not be in the strong position that it is today without Lindsey Graham. He has been dogged in this and has mentioned
10 visits since the invasion in 2022. That's a lot of commitment.
GOLODRYGA: So, what happens to Ukraine without Lindsey Graham?
FLAKE: Well, gratefully, Europe has stepped up. But Lindsey's help was really needed to help Europe step up. So, I think that we're beyond the
time that Ukraine is in the danger they were before. And that is much owed to Lindsey Graham. But still, it would help if President Trump would be
committed and actually cross President Putin here. And actually, move forward and use the position that Ukraine is in to our advantage in
negotiations. But the president hasn't seemed willing to do that yet. I hope he changes his mind.
GOLODRYGA: Jeff Flake, we'll have to leave it there. We appreciate the time. Thank you for joining the show. And again, our condolences for the
loss of your longtime friend.
FLAKE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Do stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, it has been one year since the death of Palestinian- American, Saif Musallet, who was killed by Israeli settlers in the West Bank while visiting relatives. Seeking some desperately needed closure, his
father has returned to the site for the first time in a year. But his journey quickly turned dangerous, as armed Israeli settlers ambushed and
attacked his convoy, facing few consequences. Jeremy Diamond was there, and he has this report from the occupied West Bank.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kamel Musallet hasn't been able to reach this land in over a year. This is the hillside
where his son, Saif, an American citizen, was killed.
DIAMOND: It's like it's down here, if you want to walk.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Beaten to death by Israeli settlers exactly one year ago. Since then, settlers have illegally occupied the area, preventing this
father from getting the closure he so desperately seeks.
KAMEL MUSALLET, FATHER OF AMERICAN KILLED BY SETTLERS: We have to keep an eye, because usually they'll come down that way.
DIAMOND (voice-over): We've come here in an armored vehicle, wearing bulletproof vests, because of how violent these settlers have been. But
we've made it.
DIAMOND: What does it feel like to finally be here after a year?
MUSALLET: It's just like I'm -- to be honest with you, I'm imagining -- no, just imagining him, you know, like -- so, it's just a thought log going
on in my head right now, like just what he went through at that moment.
[13:20:00]
DIAMOND: I'll let you take a moment. Come on.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But this solemn sacred moment won't last. Within seconds we spot a car speeding towards us. We start to leave, but as we
drive away, we see that four settlers have set up a roadblock. Armed with clubs and rocks, they try and block our way first with their bodies and
then --
DIAMOND: And now, it looks like he's trying to slash our tires. He's trying to slash our tires.
MUSALLET: Oh, he's got a knife. He's going for the tires.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God.
DIAMOND (voice-over): A group of independent journalists and activists are in the car behind us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Move. Move, bitch.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But their vehicle isn't armored.
MUSALLET: Without an armored car, without a bulletproof vest, how do I get to my land? The Israeli army should -- right now should be here and kicking
them out. It's illegal for them to be there. It's frustrating. It's -- you're so angry and you can't do nothing about it. It just kills you from
inside.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But the settlers aren't done. More arrive, blocking another road before chasing us and attacking us again.
DIAMOND: Now, they're trying to stop our car again. They're hitting us.
DIAMOND (voice-over): We finally make it back to safety where I get on the phone with the Israeli military, which is responsible for security in this
area. But settlers have also called the military, and these soldiers are only interested in harassing us, refusing to take action against the
settlers.
Minutes later, the commander of a different battalion arrives, and sends his soldiers after the settlers, detaining them until the police arrive.
The Israel police said they arrested four suspects and seized clubs and a knife. They vowed to, quote, "Bring them to justice accordingly."
A full year later, Kamel Musallet is still waiting for his son's killers to be brought to justice.
MUSALLET: No one's been arrested, no accountability.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Saif was just two weeks shy of his 21st birthday when he was killed. A Florida native, he had been visiting his family in
the West Bank. At the time, U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, condemned Musallet's killing as a criminal and terrorist act, and vowed to
pressure Israel to bring his killers to justice.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I reached out to the U.S. Embassy. I sent them a list of questions, and this is the response they gave me. They said,
the Trump administration has no higher priority than the safety and security of Americans. Due to privacy considerations, we have no further
information to provide at this time.
MUSALLET: I just feel if that was true you know, they would do something about it. You know, at least open an investigation. You know, that's the
least that they could do. If it was anywhere else in the world, an American citizen was killed by a mob of extremists or terrorists, what kind of
outrage would there be? You know, how disappointed would Saif Allah be right now that, you know, his U.S. passport did nothing for him?
DIAMOND (voice-over): Saif believed in that blue passport.
SAIF MUSALLET: Blue is blue. Not because he's Palestinian-American. He's just American.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But his family is still waiting for it to mean something, anything, in their pursuit of justice.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Jeremy Diamond reporting there from the West Bank. Well, now, are we witnessing the death of reading? Our next guest says so, and we
endlessly scroll through TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. We're also seeing attention spans at the same time declining, and fewer people are reaching
to pick up a book.
In her new cover story for The Atlantic, writer, Rose Horowitch, argues that we're heading for a post-literature era. It presents an existential
challenge, particularly for younger Americans and educators, with college students now unable to easily comprehend a text that would've been standard
reading in years gone by.
To discuss all of this, Rose Horowitch joins me now from New York. Rose, welcome to the program. Don't take offense to this, but this was a, an
utterly depressing read, and also very important, so I'm glad we're having this conversation. And the headline itself is a pretty bold declaration,
"The Age of Reading is Over," not declining, but over.
And as noted in the introductions, Americans, one could argue, have access now, whether electronic to the number of bookstores, a library, they have
access to so many options and so many books, and yet we're reading less. How did you come to that conclusion?
ROSE HOROWITCH, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes. So, it is clear from the data that Americans are reading much less than we used to.
[13:25:00]
You know, the share of Americans who read a book or an article on any given day declined by 40 percent over the past 20 years. You know, in 2022, which
is the last year that we have good data for, you know, fewer than half of all Americans read a book of any kind. And, you know, we know that now
gambling is a more popular leisure activity than reading is.
And so, what I argue in the piece is that, you know, this data represents a broad shift in society. You know, when reading and writing first appeared
6,000 years ago, it fundamentally changed the way people thought, the way politics and culture worked. And I argue that we're now seeing, you know,
that shift happen again as reading goes away. We're seeing shifts in our consciousness, in how we elect candidates, in what our culture values. And
so, I try to point out, you know, where those shifts are all around us.
GOLODRYGA: And you have some pretty striking statistics here to back up this argument. Fewer than half of American adults have read a single book
in 2022. Daily reading for pleasure has now halved since 2004. And as you just noted, last year, more Americans placed a bet than read a book.
But you're careful to say that America isn't illiterate, it's post- literate. And we see that word throughout your piece. Just explain to our viewers what post-literate means.
HOROWITCH: Yes, exactly. So, people might be reading more words than ever before when you think about emails and text messages and social media
posts. And so, it's not that people are illiterate or that they actually can't, you know, read words or a sentence. What's changing is our ability
to actually persist through, you know, a complex work.
And so, that's what I meant by post-literate, that reading is no longer the primary way that people sort of acquire information or, you know, transmit,
you know, culture or news or entertainment. And so, that's what I meant by post-literate.
GOLODRYGA: And we're seeing an actual change in our brain function as well as a result of this. You cite UCLA neuroscientist, Maryanne Wolf, who
argues that people aren't just forgetting how to decode words, they're losing synthesis and comprehension.
HOROWITCH: Yes. So, we know that one of the bedrock principles in neuroscience is that people's brains master what they practice. And so, if
we aren't reading, you know, we're going to have a lot less background knowledge to aid in comprehension.
We're going to be much less accustomed to kind of persisting through, you know, a challenging work and much more accustomed to switching our
attention. And we also just aren't going to really develop those, you know, skills of complex synthesis and analysis. And, you know, that shows up in
tests. You know, we know that American adults' ability to, you know, decode logic puzzles and analyze patterns and do complex reasoning has declined
over the past two decades.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned that this has impacted many facets throughout society, including politics as well. And you actually called Trump our
first post-literate president. And you reference sort of the juvenile signature nicknames that he had as he was campaigning, especially in 2020 -
- in 2015 for presidents that was the Sleepy Joe, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary. And you say these weren't just acting as insults. It's how leaders
were acting and communicated before the written words. So, something short, something catchy, something memorable.
HOROWITCH: Yes. So, Trump, you know, as I said, that he was our first post-literate president. You know, he actually retrieves a lot of the
conventions of pre-literate eras. You know, he uses those epithets that you were just mentioning, like Sleepy Joe, that are almost a callback to Homer.
You know, the repetition aids in remembering. They're easy to repeat.
You know, Trump also speaks with a lot of emotional resonance, which is easier to remember than dispassionate information. You know, he also kind
of just, you know, goes full steam ahead and contradicts himself, which is, you know, similar to the way people communicated in pre-literate cultures
where there was no record of something that you said before. And so, he has really figured out how to kind of seize on a lot of the conventions of the
post-literate age and how to be a really successful politician in this moment.
GOLODRYGA: But you're also clear to point out this isn't just a Trump story. You quote David Plouffe, who was the architect of President Obama's
campaigns, and he's advocating that candidates can't fit an Instagram post or a 10-second TikTok. If they can't get their message across within those
10 seconds, they need to go back to the drawing board. You call this a disaster for self-government. Why?
[13:30:00]
Because it is memorable and catchy, and it stands out when people are trying to figure out who they're going to cast their vote for.
HOROWITCH: Yes, exactly. So, you know, people -- politicians are more successful now if they kind of simplify things, if they are very, you know,
spread a very emotional message, if they spread a populist message and kind of seem of the people.
And so, that is a really good way to get elected. You have 10 or 15 seconds in a video to kind of grab people's attention. But for governance, you
know, policy issues are often very complex. And, you know, if you only have 10 or 15 seconds to communicate something or grab people's attention, you
know, it is difficult to actually present something.
And so, I think that's now what we're seeing in, you know, this post- literate politics is that, you know, the politicians that are successful at getting elected, you know, are the ones who are able to grab attention and
sort of seem authentic and entertaining. But it's, you know, not clear that it's going to be a good thing for informed self-governance.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it's not just for reading that we've seen a lot of conversations and concern about a waning attention span, particularly in
younger generations. You cite a pediatric researcher who compares scrolling TikTok to a lab rat pushing a button for cocaine. And a psychologist found
that our attention spans actually fell from two and a half minutes in 2004 to 47 seconds today. That is stunning. Are the experts able to answer
whether or not this is reversible?
HOROWITCH: So, it does seem that it is reversible. You know, the same thing as I was mentioning earlier is people's brains get good at what they
practice. So, if we started practicing something different, if we started reading again, you know, then our brains would sort of get more background
knowledge. They could be more accustomed to kind of focusing for a lengthy period of time. So, nothing here is permanent, though we are seeing sort of
convincing changes.
GOLODRYGA: And so, this is what the most alarming part to me in this piece of yours is the fact that, and I don't want to put all of the burden and
all the responsibility on teachers and schools, but this is where many families are expecting that their children will be first introduced to not
just learning how to read, but a passion for reading. And you cite that the teachers, on average, are assigning fewer books each year, sometimes even
three or so or less than four.
I remember reading a book maybe once a month when I was going to public school growing up. So, what has changed?
HOROWITCH: Yes, so there's been a real change in what teachers assign. You know, as you mentioned, there was a survey of middle and high school
teachers from last year that found that most assigned between zero and four books a year. And so, they've steadily pulled books from the curriculum in
favor of excerpts and practice, you know, answering reading comprehension questions that might come up on standardized tests. And so, that's sort of
one side of the coin.
And then at the same time, we're also seeing that as books have left the classroom, you know, Chromebooks and tablets have really entered it. You
know, in a survey of elementary school teachers, 80 percent said that students receive a digital device from school, you know, by kindergarten.
And so, we're seeing, you know, this huge change in just how school works and what happens there, you know, with far fewer books and much more time
spent on these devices.
GOLODRYGA: I want to play an excerpt from an interview that Christiane just conducted with renowned American author, Ann Patchett. She's the
author of "The Dutch House" and "Bel Canto," the new book, "Whistler." I just finished that last week. Really enjoyed reading that. She owns her own
bookstores as well. And she said that she's an evangelical campaigner on the importance of reading. And here's what she said to Christiane about the
declining rates of reading in this country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANN PATCHETT, AUTHOR, "WHISTLER": If I just went by the news and what I heard, I would think, oh, well, reading's dead. Books are dead. It's very,
very bad. People aren't reading. Young people aren't reading. And yet, every morning at the bookstore, there they are lined up waiting to come in.
People of all ages, people who love books, people who care so much about reading and all of the authors who come and debut authors and young writers
and famous writers and everybody wanting to get together to come to the book club, to come to story time. There's still a very strong group of
people who want to love books.
I'm out on book tour right now. And every night I go to a different city and I meet so many people who love to read and love books and find
tremendous solace in the community of readers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:00:00]
GOLODRYGA: So, how do we scale that?
HOROWITCH: Yes. So, you know, it's interesting. If you look, print book sales were actually higher last year than they were a decade ago. And so,
you know, Ann Patchett's experience kind of lines up with that data that there are these positive signs that people are reading.
And I think when we look at the data, what we find is that the people who do read are actually more invested in reading than ever before. They spend
more time reading than they used to, but they're just becoming a smaller and smaller minority in society.
So, last year, 20 percent of Americans accounted for 80 percent of all the books that are read. So, there is this community of readers, but they're
just shrinking and sort becoming a subculture. You know, one historian I spoke to compared reading for pleasure to gardening orchids or collecting
stamps. So, it's just sort of becoming a niche hobby now.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And as you noted, there are ways of countering that. And there does seem to be a correlation between book bans and more reading, an
increase in reading. And nearly two dozen states have banned phones in schools. After Texas is banned, one Dallas district checked out 200,000
more library books. So, that's a 25 percent jump in just one year. So, hopefully that is something that other states can pay attention to as well.
I do have to ask you, because full disclosure, I listened to half of this article on Audible because I was watching my daughter and her sports
lesson. So, multitasking has really enabled me to read more books while I've been able to do other things and other priorities just that life
throws our way. How do you view and how do experts view audio books here?
HOROWITCH: So, experts are largely pretty positive on audio books. You know, audio books have become a billion-dollar industry. So, clearly, there
still is an appetite for stories. And, you know, it's much better than people not reading or taking in books in any way.
But I think, you know, what you mentioned, part of the reason that audio books have become so popular is because they allow you to multitask. They
allow you to, you know, do the dishes or drive while you're reading. And so, you know, your comprehension isn't going to be as high if you're doing
something else than if you were reading a book where you have to devote, you know, sustained focus to be able to take it in on the page.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I think I do have to retain. I retain more focus, though, better focus when I'm actually reading the page. Sometimes I have to go
back and rewind. What did I just hear? What did they just say? So -- but I do enjoy a good audio book. Rose, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
Fascinating piece.
And we'll be right back after this short break.
HOROWITCH: Thank you for having me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, homicide rates in the U.S. are at an all-time low, and yet domestic violence killings have stayed persistently high. Our next guest
says these crimes are predictable and preventable.
Following the painful murder of her sister-in-law and nieces, psychologist, Doreen Dodgen-Magee has spent the last three decades advocating for more
protections against domestic violence. And she speaks to Michel Martin about what policymakers can do to intervene. A warning, this conversation
contains topics such as rape and familicide that may be disturbing for some viewers.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Dr. Doreen Dodgen-Magee, thank you so much for talking with us.
DOREEN DODGEN-MAGEE, PSYCHOLOGIST AND AUTHOR AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION ADVOCATE: Thank you so much for having me. I'm really honored.
MARTIN: And it's such a difficult subject to talk about, but I think we have to talk about it because there have been a number of very difficult
stories in the news in recent weeks and months of individuals killing a spouse, in some cases killing their entire family.
And just to start our conversation off, one of the reasons that you as a scholar and a researcher and a practitioner are interested in this subject
is that you've had this experience in your own family. Do you mind telling us what happened?
DODGEN-MAGEE: I have had this experience in my family, and I think the way that you mentioned that we need to talk about this is something I always
want to highlight, because when this did happen in my family, one of my first thoughts was, oh my gosh, we're that family now. There is such stigma
to this reality of familicide, and it is really difficult to talk about and really difficult to hear about.
In my family's situation, my sister-in-law, Laura, had been married to her husband for a while, and they had two children together. We could tell that
there was a lot of coercive control, some emotionally and verbally violent language, and definitely behaviors that were troublesome. Laura was finally
able to kind of see those things and understand them, and what we know now from her journals is that she was already dealing with a great fear of
being killed.
We helped her move out of her home in Seattle, and she and her two daughters moved to Oregon, right near us, to live with my mother-in-law.
And things were going pretty well until he broke into the house and raped her one day when the girls and my mother-in-law were with me. That is what
resulted in the pregnancy that brought us my youngest niece, April.
Before they were killed, I hosted a backpacking party because it was my oldest niece's, Sarah's first day of kindergarten the next day, and she was
so excited to have this new start. And by this time, because of the violence that had occurred, we had helped Laura get a restraining order,
which was a hard-fought legal process. She had gotten that, but that morning, angry over missing this big monumental event of Sarah's first day
of kindergarten, he was able to purchase a gun, drove across state lines, came to the home.
As soon as Sarah was home from school, shot his way into the home at the back door, forcing my mother-in-law, Laura, and all three girls out into
the front yard, where he proceeded to shoot them and kill them all. My mother-in-law was -- had one of the girls kind of standing with her and was
shot. He did not shoot her, I think, to kill her, partially to punish her for her role in Laura leaving.
And now, in America -- this was in '95, and now in America, we know that 70 women on average are killed in a month in America by intimate partners. And
we also know that guns are the number one killer of children.
MARTIN: One of the reasons we're talking about this is that we are in a moment when homicide rates have declined again. Overall homicide rates have
declined, but family and intimate partner killings now account for 21 percent of all homicides. That's up from 15 percent in 2020. And the
attacks in which someone kills four or more relatives, which is something that happened in your family, have already surpassed all of last year's
total. And this year is just halfway through.
So, it just seems as though we are in some kind of strange moment. And I wanted to ask you as briefly as you can, you have to have noticed these
numbers yourself. What do you think is going on here?
DODGEN-MAGEE: I think as a person who has worked within the gun violence prevention movement, I can tell you that we have taken seriously the issue
of community violence. And there has been a lot of work around the country to address that. And we are seeing the impact, which means that when we
pass common sense gun laws and legislators have the will to and the fortitude to enforce them, violence goes down.
The issue with domestic violence killings is that the issues related to those kinds of violence are things that are deeply private and in the home.
They're things like substance misuse, prior abuse, financial and economic concerns. And I think it's very hard for people to stay focused on the
issue of the fact that this could be their family.
One of the biggest things we hear with gun violence is, well, people were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. My nieces and sister-in-law were
in their mother and grandmother's yard. This can happen to any woman and child.
[13:45:00]
And I think it's very hard for most people to stay focused there and realize that these are preventable deaths if we work hard to make them so.
MARTIN: One of the other insights that you have shared is that a lot of people talk about these terrible crimes, incidents, things that happen as
if it's just out of the blue, just totally unpredictable. Who could have imagined? And I think that one of your insights that comes from your work
is that actually it's not.
What are some of the things that people could be looking to, the people who perhaps aren't thinking about that they could be aware of?
DODGEN-MAGEE: Yes. I think the first thing I would say is that we need to listen more to women. This is just a huge issue. Typically, there are
indicators that you can notice, things like coercive control. You can also often, if you listen well, you can hear women's fear. And I think sometimes
people don't know what to do with that.
Once there has been kind of either a disclosure that a woman feels afraid, or if a woman continues to talk about the fact that their partner has
firearms and that concerns them, if people around them are willing to dig in and find some resources, it can be helpful.
The other big thing to know is that when there is a marriage difficulty, a separation, a divorce, or again, those coercive control signs, typically if
there is a large moment happening in that couple, or like for instance, their wedding anniversary, or in our story, Sarah's first day of
kindergarten, a graduation, any of these large moments can really peak an abuser's feeling of missing out. And if they have -- especially if they
have access to a firearm, that is an incredibly impulsive and effective method for carrying out their frustration and violence.
MARTIN: You used the term coercive control. Can you tell us what you mean by that for people who may not have heard that term before?
DODGEN-MAGEE: Yes. In the domestic violence world, there's a lot of shifting toward talking about coercive control as these small
microaggressions that happen within relationships, where a partner begins to understand that they are at risk if they diverge from what their partner
wants them to do, or who they want them to be, or who they want them to be around. This can often lead to a lot of isolating of the partner. That
happened in our situation. Like Dave really did not want Laura having contact with us.
It could be, you know, choices about no longer going to church, or family groups, or school socials, anything that kind of makes one person in the
relationship in a one-down position and the other in a one-up.
MARTIN: You indicated that you've -- in the family, you got hints that your sister-in-law was -- that there was something not right in the
relationship. What about the kids? Did the kids show signs of being ill at ease with their dad?
DODGEN-MAGEE: They did. They were very hesitant to be with others. They were afraid. They talked about being fearful of their safety when they had
visits with dad. Visits were supposed to be supervised, but they talked a lot about fear. They were always quite distressed after visits with their
dad, and of course, one of them was only five months old.
MARTIN: Did the dad show signs of violent behavior before? Because the reason I asked that is, why was he allowed to see the kids at all?
DODGEN-MAGEE: This is one of the frustrations. This is -- restraining order is a very hard-fought, hard-won legal requirement that women have to
work hard to receive, and even with that restraining order in place, after a very violent act, he was still awarded very short, and with another
person present, visitations that made absolutely no sense to us. I personally believe that this issue is what it is, because women are still
not valued and protected in the same way.
MARTIN: But why wasn't he prosecuted? He broke into the house. There's evidence that he committed violence. Breaking into the house is itself a
violent act in order to commit another act of violence, which is raping his separated spouse. So, why wasn't he prosecuted for that?
DODGEN-MAGEE: And that is something that we will never know, other than the fact that Laura, again, had been, you know, over time, very much taught
to believe that her boy should be questioned. She, it took us a long time to convince her to even seek a restraining order.
And so, a lot of that also happens where women are fearful of bringing forward what is going on, because of the ongoing abuse that has occurred
and coercive control that just leads them to believe that they are worth nothing, and that they have no power in protecting their children.
MARTIN: I want to talk a little bit more about access to guns, because the research shows that access to a gun does make an abusive partner five times
more likely to kill a woman.
[13:50:00]
85 percent of intimate partner homicides, suicides involve a firearm. And I just wonder what that tells us about the relationship between domestic
violence and gun access.
DODGEN-MAGEE: Yes. Well, we live in a country that has the most guns. We now have more guns than we have people per capita. And we have very
permissive firearm laws. And so, it's not surprising, again, that the presence of this particularly intimidating and effective method of causing
death increases the chance of that occurring in a situation that is already potentially volatile, and where a person can be angry and impulsive.
So, while that statistic of 70 women on average in America are killed a month by a firearm, hundreds more are threatened and injured but not
killed. And this is why common-sense gun laws work, they are lowering community violence. If we could pass specific common sense gun laws, that
would lower the chance of family homicides, that would be incredible. And there are at least four ways we know can do that.
MARTIN: Well, what are those ways? Yes, tell me about that.
DODGEN-MAGEE: One of them would be extreme risk protection orders, which this is when, when an abused individual knows that their partner has a
firearm and feels concerned, they can go to a judge and petition for this extreme risk protection order, which then allows someone to help that
abuser rid themselves of their guns and helps them be stored until safety can be re-established. This is a very effective law.
We also -- universal background checks or background checks for all gun purchases would help. Making sure that every state has laws where
individuals who have been, as you referred to, convicted of either misdemeanor or felony domestic violence charges are not allowed to have
firearms, and then that any firearms they already have are actually taken and held.
And then, the final legislation that would be very effective is safe storage or child access protection laws, which make sure that a firearm is
kept in something like a biometric safe even just that small action of having to put your hand on the safe to open it, it could give people time
to flee or could give the person contemplating, which this is usually a very -- I mean, it is planned, but at the end of the time it is adrenaline
fueled and, you know, somewhat impulsive when you pull that trigger. And so, those, those laws could also be a huge help in this situation.
MARTIN: How would having to get a gun out of a safe keep somebody who was on a rage, who was in a kind of a rage tantrum like your relative was, stop
them? And you're saying -- just because you're saying maybe that rage tantrum could pass or that rage tantrum could give the other party time to
figure out an exit strategy.
DODGEN-MAGEE: I think -- that's very emotional. I think all the time about the fact that, you know, if he would have had to have a safe in his car
that he had to get that gun out of, and if he -- or if he would have been - - you know, if he would have paid attention to the fact that he was looking into the eyes of his five-month-old baby, maybe he couldn't have changed
his mind.
But again, when we just have easy access and nothing that interrupts that process, we're going to have increasing amounts of deaths. And when we also
aren't protecting women in the ways that I believe they deserve to be protected.
MARTIN: Before I let you go, is there -- if someone were listening to our conversation and was worried about someone in their family and thought,
gee, I think that something's not quite right and I want to be helpful here. What are some of the ways you could open up that conversation?
DODGEN-MAGEE: Thank you for asking that. The first thing to do is to look within your state to see if you have an extreme risk protection law or
there are also sometimes called red flag laws. There are people within each state who can help a person move through that legal process. And it is a
quick legal process, but it is a fully vetted and safe legal process.
I would also encourage people to seek out sources like Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, Newtown Action Alliance. They oftentimes have resources that
can help people tap into how do you begin to talk about the reality of fear of potential death at the hands of your partner in such a way with
therapists, because a lot of therapists aren't also aware. So, you can gather resources there that can help empower that person.
[13:55:00]
And I think, finally, the thing that I would just say over and over and over again is believe women. If you have a niggling feeling that something
isn't right, ask questions, come with a few resources, listen well, listen over time until a woman feels safe to tell you, and then find the resources
in your community that can be of help.
MARTIN: Well, Dr. Doreen Dodgen-Magee, thank you so much for talking with me.
DODGEN-MAGEE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And if you or someone you know needs help in the U.S., call the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Around the world, U.N. Women or The
Pixel Project has a list of resources for you.
And finally, we remember a titan of the silver screen. Actor Sam Neill has died at the age of 78. Best known for his role in "Jurassic Park" as a
paleontologist, Dr. Alan Grant, Neill worked on more than 150 film and TV projects in the last five decades. Tributes have described him as one of
the greats and a national treasure, crediting him for being a trailblazer for fellow New Zealanders back home. Loved watching him onto the screen.
All right. That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
