Reliable Sources CNN May 15, 2016 8:00am-9:01am PDT
only planet with life in the universe would be inexcusably bigheaded of us. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hey, good morning. i'm brian stelter. this is "reliable sources," our weekly look at the story behind the story, of how news and pop culture really get made. we're coming to your live from cnn's los angeles bureau today with fresh reporting on this week's huge facebook controversy and an interview with nate silver. he's famous more correctly forecasting so many elections. now silver is being asked why he failed to see donald trump coming. that's ahead this hour. plus, did you hear about this? the hollywood reporter banned from a woody allen press event after publishing this scathing column about allen's alleged acts of sexual abuse. top editor janice min is here to take us behind the scenes. and later, a very special
interview with the one, the only larry king. but up first, a question we all need to be asking this election season. are members of the news media helping to produce the trump show? and is it warping our democratic process? it is easy, maybe way too easy, to rely on reality tv troeps to describe this election. even one of trump's top aide's did it on "hardball" the other day. he was talking about the convention. i thought this quote was revealing. >> do you have movies? >> we're going to put a program together. it's not put together yet. >> a reality show of some kind? >> this is the ultimate reality show. it's the presidency of the united states. >> the ultimate reality show. i guess even bigger than "the apprentice." this show is airi ining on ever news channel, happening afternoon every website. i know you at home have mixed reviews.
watch this. >> our nbc team is staking out today's meeting. >> just one hour away. >> donald trump and paul ryan meeting in a few minutes. >> here we go, everybody. >> trump has just arrived. we're going to take you there live. >> you see mr. trump. >> we know paul ryan is in the building. we know donald trump is in the building presumably. they're in the same room together. >> that meeting just wrapped. katy tur, what can you tell us? >> basically just that right now. the meeting has wrapped up. >> the second meeting donald trump is having has ended. those children were not part of that have meeting. >> yeah, it was good tv at points, but was it good journalism? we have to think about how every day the story lines of the show get wilder and crazier. it really is the kind of stuff you see on reality tv. in fact, another reality tv star was recently recruited to challenge trump. mark cuban from "shark tank." i talked to him about that last night. i'll show you what he said in a moment. to lay it out here, how should journalists handle this fusing of politics and entertainment? are we responsible for this reality show narrative, and are we capable of resisting it?
let's ask our panel of media insiders, starting with long-time political analyst jeff greenfield. also, dylan byers and brian lowery, cnn's senior writer from media. thank you all for being here. jeff, let me go to you first. do you think this is the inevitable conclusion of the melding of tv and politics? go back to the first televised debates and how that created a narrative. >> the first thing i have to say is looking at that hyperventilation, jon stewart must be sorry he gave up his daily show because he was an expert in piercing that. to your point, as soon as the first debate happened with 24 million viewers, every news executive, you know, like the old cartoons saw dollar signs in their eyes. there was a huge audience partly because of "the apprentice," partly because trump was so
different from normal politicians. when you talk about the media, it's way too broad. there were sharp criticisms of trump from the beginning. there were others who just rolled over and let him have his way. without the political discontent, particularly within the republican base, all the reality television in the world wouldn't have made a difference. it helped. it was a fuel. but the fundamental part of this fire was lit by the discontent among large numbers of the republican party with how their lives were going and how their party was handling that. >> let me go to brian lowery on this. you've been covering the television business for decades. you covered "the apprentice" when donald trump was on. now arnold schwarzenegger is about to take over. do you think some of the coverage kind of comes across as entertainment? has there been an irresponsible blurring of the lines between news and entertainment in this election psycycle in particular? >> absolutely it comes across as
entertainment. there's a strong precedent for it. i think the media certainly should be doing some soul searching about this. yet -- >> about what in particular? >> about the notion of covering it as a reality show. to be honest, when the campaign is being conducted very much like a reality show, it's not surprising or necessarily inappropriate that it would be covered that way. >> you bring up the idea it's very different from any other campaign we've seen. i think this whole issue of a fake spokesman is an example. dylan, you were right about this on friday. pretty clearly trump is the one on the phone. we're hearing people now say that maybe it was made up, that he was impersonated, but there's no evidence of that. this is an example of a reality show type behavior. >> yeah, no, totally. it's him manipulating the moo ed ya, and it's him trying to call the shots at every stage of this campaign. you know, look, i think jeff
made a couple really good points, one of which is we have to think about there are different kinds of media. the most -- i think the one that's covered this the most like a reality show is television media. there are actually precedents going back in the history of presidential campaigns that have been building us up to this point. go back to 1960 and the kennedy/nixon debates, but the recount in florida in 2000 was a huge media moment. the obama v. hillary, the sarah palin 2008, huge media moment. we have been building up to a point at which media and politics coalesce and become the same thing. if you look back at donald trump's campaign and look back at the 2016 election, you're not looking at a political campaign so much as a media campaign. everything he has done has been about manipulating media, about sort of navigating media in order to -- >> right, but we have to understand that in order to understand his campaign. to that point, there was this interesting story on friday about the sheer volume of news coverage of trump being a
factor. think about just what happened on thursday and friday. there were a dozen story lines about trump. his butler sounding like a racist. trump flip-flopping on taxes. his seemingly play acting as his own spokesman. "the new york times" wrote about this on friday. how much bad press does it take to cost donald trump a news cycle? gabriel concluded that trump won. the clinton campaign press secretary took exception to this. he tweeted at me and wrote this. mark us down as feeling confident trump did not win the day. it's nihilist to equate lying nonstop with winning. don't you think there's splg to this idea that trump saturates the news world? he has so many story lines going on simultaneously. if something negative is going on, he creates a new story line. don't we have to acknowledge that maybe the clinton campaign faces a problem because trump is playing this different kind of media game? >> yeah, and for me, the fundamental question here is are
all of the assumptions people like me have made about this process somehow been rendered inoperative? that is, starting with trump's first comment about john mccain way back last spring or summer where a lot of us assumed, well, that's the joe mccarthy moment. he's doomed. there's something. and this is what i said earlier. there's something about how trump supporters respond to this where the question has been asked is, what would it take for them to say, gee, maybe i'm wrong. we may be in a situation that has changed every rule about how we think the press works and what the impact the press coverage -- i mean, critical press coverage, is. >> do you think the rules were, in effect, so to speak, in 2008, or were the rules never really in effect at all? oh, that's going to ruin mitt romney, that's going to hurt jan mccain, that's going to ruin barack obama. were they never rules a the all, jeff? >> that's the point.
in the past, critical stories have had critical impact. so this notion that donald trump has got $1.9 billion of free publicity, in my view, is way off the mark. a lot of the coverage, even early, was highly critical, the kind of coverage that would have upended any other campaign. one of the questions that 500 media conferences will be asking in the years to come, it's full employment for folks like you, brian, believe me, is what is different about this year that the normal impact of very sharp negative stories does not so far seem to have an impact. other than his high unfavorability ratings. we're going to have to wait until november. >> i think part of the answer to that, dylan, is that trump says the media is dishonest. don't believe what you read. even this morning on twitter he was telling his supporters, do not believe us. >> this gets to a key point, and i don't think it's one we've spent enough time talking about. there are two different reality shows. there was the republican primary reality show. now there's the general election reality show. when you're dealing with a
republican primary audience, you're dealing with a lot of voters out there who hate the system, who hate the establishment, who really don't care whether or not the media is critical of donald trump in all this coverage or says he's lying or not telling the truth. they just like donald trump and like the spectacle of donald trump. the general election audience is a much different audience. it's one where you have negative ratings among women at 70%, negative ratings among african-americans and hispanics at higher numbers. those people are going to be looking at the coverage. on a day when donald trump is offending the nation, that's not donald trump winning the news cycle for them. that's yet another reminder that they're not going to vote for this guy. >> speaking of negativism with women, that's why the megyn kelly interview is coming up. mark cuban was recruited to run as a third-party candidate, but
he says, i can't do it, it would have been fun, but he also hints maybe there's a chance in the future. i think the time is right for a technology literal entrepreneur to run for president. the issue for any such candidate is that the process is broken. it's a circus rather than a learning process for all involved. so this amazed me, brian. here's the reality tv star saying the political process is broken. his point about the election this time is it's too late to run as a third party, probably wouldn't win anyway. do you think we'll see mark cuban type candidates in the future? >> i don't think you can discount the performance quality trump has brought to this. it's one of the things he's been able to do throughout the campaign, which is he can say things which are outlandish because that's really a troep of reality tv, which is that you play the game, you say what you need to win, and then everybody can be hugs after the boardroom and tribal council. that's really what's been going on. if you see it, there's often a pivot as soon as someone drops out of the race. i really liked little marco, but
i was just trying to beat him. if you've watched enough reality tv, and i've watched more than is healthy over the years, people talk all the time about playing the game. you play the game to win. trump is very clearly playing the game. >> it's helpful to think about that reality tv language when we apply it to this campaign. >> mark cuban is also playing the game here. we're talking about mark cuban right now. he just bought himself a day, maybe a few days of free press. just bay saying he's not going to run. >> that is true. he won't say who was recruiting him. probably bill crystal. >> or his agent. >> dylan, brian, stick around if you can. jeff, thank you for being here. coming up, did you see this story trending on facebook? an explosive story alleging that facebook suppressed conservative news stories. proof that facebook has too much power? i'll tell you why this report should alarm and impact everyone in media despite your political persuasion right after this. this is brad.
what's the most powerful name in news? you might say cnn or fox news or the ap or the bbc, but i would say it's facebook. not because facebook does any actual reporting, but because it's the single biggest social network on the planet. it's where hundreds of millions of people see lots of links to news. in fact, facebook is the single biggest source of traffic for many sites. sites either thrive or wither away because of facebook. that's why this next story is so concerning. facebook is on the defensive
this week after an explosive report by the tech blog dgizmod. the trending topics box, that it was sometimes manipulated to suppress conservative news stories and inject other news stories, for example, black lives matter protest news. now, other former workers deny these claims. it's important to say there's no proof and these were only anonymous claims. but that single spark on monday started a huge fire. by the end of the week, ceo mark zuckerberg had to weigh in. he wrote a post about this saying we've found no evidence this report is true, and if we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment we will take additional steps to address it. i'm told by a spokesman at facebook that glenn beck has been invited to a meeting with zuckerberg, others as well, conservative thought leaders who will be meeting with the ceo. let's go back to what zuckerberg said. he said principles. what are facebook's news
principles? how can we trust it to wield that power responsibly? my next two guests have some answers to that. kelly mcbride is at the pointer institute. molly hemingway is from "the federalist." thank you both for being here. molly, let me start with you. we're in the middle of an extraordinary election season, and here's this report that facebook might be burying news favorable to conservatives. a, do you believe it? b, what are the ramifications for a website like yours? >> i think the reason why this story resonated so much is that it confirmed the suspicions that so many conservatives and conservative media outlets had going back quite some time about suppression of conservative news stories and sites and also elevation of other topics. we've certainly experienced this at "the federalist," not just in terms of the trending topics issue but other suppression where stories that are completely academic are deemed unsafe. we had a story on trigger warnings and microaggressions that couldn't be posted because it was deemed unsafe, which was
ridiculo ridiculo ridiculous. or perhaps the worst example was when the planned parenthood story broke and went viral within minutes. it took a long time for facebook to acknowledge this was a trending topic. when they did, they didn't link to the conservative sites that were breaking the news and doing the investigations. they linked to a few plan the parenthood sponsored items instead. that really affects the way public opinion can be shaped and how other media figures respond. so this is not a healthy thing, particularly since they present this trending topic thing as if it's just an algorithm and if they're neutral. >> yeah, the eye-opening part of this, this week, was the trending topics is reviewed by editors. kelly, let me ask you about this. there's good reasons to have editors. facebook editors can take away spam and scam and hoaxes and help not get people misled. if they're also removing or down playing stories, links to sites like the federalist, that can be a real problem and can go right to the heart of facebook's credibility. but these words like credibility and editors, they're not words that facebook is used to because facebook says it's just a
platform. >> right. facebook sees itself as a technology company, as a social media platform, when in fact they're doing the work of journalism in distributing journalism to the masses. for facebook, this is a turning point. they're asking themselves questions as a company about what their responsibilities are. every time you ask facebook in the past about their obligations to democracy and to the marketplace of ideas, they've always had the right answers. but proactively, they haven't had any of the policies that companies like news companies have had in place, policies of transparency, policies of accountability to the public, and now i think they're at a critical point where they're asking themselves some questions about whether they need those policies. the statement that facebook put out this week was the most transparent i've ever seen
facebook about any of their policies, and it was a really good first step. >> yeah, i think it's still pretty much -- still very opaque. you're right, they'v been a little more transparent, but there's still so much we don't know. it's concerning because facebook is so darn big. we should mention here the company also has big relationships with lots of news companies. they have a new product called facebook live, a live video streaming. we've tried it here on "reliable sources." recently facebook started paying cnn and lots of other news companies in order to create lots of facebook live content. they're not saying what to create, but they're encouraging quantity, encouraging to do it often. there are all these relationships with news companies. it's such a complicated situation here. molly, i think what facebook would say, to your point about the stories about planned parenthood not showing up right away, is that's why they need editors to make sure it shows up. otherwise, the algorithm wasn't working fast enough. what do you want to see facebook do? >> that's the point. our data showed that story went
viral immediately. i cannot convey how many people were on our site looking at that. that it didn't show up on trending topics is bizarre to the highest degree. and there are so many problems that were revealed even as facebook was denying these allegations. they said they only -- they have a list of sources that they consider decent and worthy of -- if three of those sources are talking about something, they'll put it on trending topics. some of those are state controlled. some are communist news organizations out of china. there are all sorts of ways you can manipulate that using state-controlled media. we need to see much more transparency. one of the things zuckerberg said, who has been made very wealthy by facebook, $4.4 million a day for every day he's been alive. he says they keep a list of things that have been blacklisted from trending topics. i'd like to see that list. i'd like to see much more, even the statement saying we have policies and procedures. the former facebook employees themselves said they were directed to block certain sites
and to block certain stories. so it doesn't really matter if the policies are there. if the culture is such that it suppresses conservative news and news figures. >> really quickly, kelly, i have to run, but you suggested facebook should have a public editor. you used to be the ombudsman for espn. if they call you, will you consider being their public editor? >> oh, i don't think they're going to call me, but i think it's a fabulous idea. >> i do too. i think it's a great idea. and we'll keep following this meeting on wednesday with zuckerberg and conservative media figures. kelly, molly, thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thanks, brian. coming up next, while the media continues to seek access to donald trump, every interviewer wants time with him, one broadcaster has never had trouble getting a sit-down with him. tv legend larry king joins me after the break to talk about what makes trump tick.
"daddy doing work",d it's funny that i've been in the news for being a dad. windows 10 is great because i need to keep organized. school, grocery shopping. my face can unlock this computer. that's crazy. macbooks are not able to do that. "hey cortana, remind me we have a play date tomorrow at noon" i need that in my world. anything that makes my life easier, i'm using. and windows is doing that.
the name on the top is larry king. we're actually sitting in his studio. for so many years here at cnn in los angeles. larry always got the impossible get at cnn. he interviewed a who's who of celebrities, dignitaries, and politicians over the years, including the man of the hour, the man of the year, the manage who might be the next president of the united states, donald trump. >> people are going to presume things. >> well, they can presume whatever they want. i have no intention of running for president. i doubt i'll ever be involved in politics. i'm going to form a presidential exploratory committee. >> you consider once running for the presidency. >> i didn't consider it long. >> you don't want to run for office? >> i'd rather not, but i also want this country to be great again. >> it's not a toupee. it's not a comb over. >> don't mess it up too much. >> he checked. he says it's not a combover. joining me now is the tv legend himself, larry king, who's online now. larry, thank you for coming in. >> my pleasure. welcome to the west. >> absolutely.
i wanted to ask you about interviewing trump. we've seen so many interviews of trump this year. you were talking to him decades ago when he was still kind of becoming who he is today. was he an easy figure to interview or a hard figure? >> very easy. he was fascinating because he was trump. trump was trump. and is trump. what you're seeing is a true reality star figure who was -- even though he's burst on to the scene, he was very well known. it's not a shock that people are attracted to donald trump. >> was it easy to book him even 20, 30 years ago? >> easy? sure. >> you just call up. >> yeah, he loves the media. >> do you believe this fake spokesman story, by the way? this idea he was being his own spokesman. he once admitted to it, but now he's denying it. >> it's kind of weird, isn't it? why would he need to do that? i'll have to ask him about it. i talk to donald a lot. i like him a lot personally. he's been a friend for years. he's been good to my family.
in fact, we were fathers of the year together. >> where? >> in new york in the mid-'90s. >> so you talk to him nowadays about his campaign? >> yeah. >> any advice you've given him? >> i don't give advice. you don't give advice to donald trump. but he's a fascinating person. i wonder if maybe you could answer this. chicken or the egg? is he famous because we covered him, or did we cover him because he's famous? what happened first? >> well, at some point he had to become famous in the '80s. this is the tabloids maybe in the '80s. >> but did we, the media, build him, or was he the attraction first? what started it? was it the mccain thing? i'll give you an example. >> yeah. >> if -- was it jim, whatever his name was, the guy who was
governor of virginia who was in the race for two minutes. >> jim gilmore. >> if jim gilmore had come out and said, i don't want to let muslims into the country, would jim -- would we have rushed to jim gilmore? would we? >> i look at the polls from last july. trump game number one so quickly in the polls. that tells me it wasn't just a media creation. it was something in the public, in the country, where trump resonated. >> it was a combination of that, right. if gilmore had said it, would it have resonated? we don't know. >> maybe it would have been a one or two-day story. but we're still talking about that alleged muslim ban because he's walking it back, saying it's just a suggestion. what's been the most disturbing part of this campaign? >> the whole thing. someone called it the other day, this is electoral dysfunction. it's a good line. >> on both sides or just on the gop side? >> well, hillary is -- she's a
very, very bright individual who's not a great campaigner. she's fine in one-on-one situations. she's extraordinarily bright. in fact, the debate, her and him ought to be on paid tv. >> you think people should have to subscribe. >> that's super bowl. >> but that gets to what we were talking about earlier, the idea of this reality tv campaign. isn't that fundamentally back for democracy, that it is so entertaining, that it is so wild, that we would pay to watch it? shouldn't debates be kind of boring? >> i don't know. were lincoln and douglas boring? well, they had no moderator. >> well, your nafta debate wasn't boring, and it was about very detailed topics. >> gore clearly won. now, that -- what will happen issue this is a great thought. what will happen in the hillary/trump debates? >> you tell me.
you're the boss. >> i'd love to moderate them. i moderate id that debate between bush and mccain in south carolina. that was some night. after mccain had won new hampshire and they had come to south carolina. that was a tough -- they were really mad at each other. but the clinton -- will trump get vicious in that debate? will he get personal? will he talk about her being an enabler of her husband? it's up to the moderator. >> it's up to the moderator to keep control. >> stay on the issues. will he keep trump on the issues? what's hurts trump? he hasn't released his taxes. does that hurt him? i'll never raise money from anyone else. does that hurt him? nothing hurts him. he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue. >> you're making me think he has a real shot at the white house, unlike the data, which indicates clinton is the favorite by far.
>> if you can make anything predictable in campaign, you're a better man than me. >> i'm going to live by those words. larry, thank you for being here. great to see you. >> thank you. >> and a great transition. coming up, nate silver, the founder of 538, he said trump had only a 5% chance of winning the gop nomination last fall. now he's going to join me to discuss what happened there and why he got that wrong and whether we should believe his new prediction about this fall. stay tuned. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ (charge music) you wouldn't hire an organist without hearing them first. charge! so why would you invest without checking brokercheck? check your broker with brokercheck. when age-related macular have degeneration, amd we came up with a plan to help
reduce my risk of progression. and everywhere i look... i'm reminded to stick to my plan. including preservision areds 2. my doctor said preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula that the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd... after 15 years of clinical studies. preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything.
this cit added this other level of clean to it. it just kinda like wiped everything clean. my teeth are glowing. they are so white. i actually really like the two steps. everytime i use this together it felt like leaving the dentist's office. crest hd, 6x cleaning, 6x whitening. i would switch to crest hd over what i was using before.
how is this for media accountability? here's "washington post" columnist dana milbank literally eating his words. he predicted last october donald trump would never be the gop nominee. so this is what he gets. now, that is one way to follow-up on a faulty election forecast. here's another way. nate silver made a name for himself by using data to
correctly predict 49 out of 50 states in 2008's general election and all 50 in 2012. he and 538 have predicted 52 of 57 states and various territories in this year's primary contests correctly. but many are saying he and his colleague the dropped the ball this year. that's partly because of this prediction that he made right here on cnn with anderson cooper last fall. >> do you put the chance of donald trump or ben carson actually getting the gop nomination around 5%. >> maybe about 5% each. somewhere around there. >> 5%. so i sat down with nate silver, editor and chief at 538.com, to ask him what happened. >> we were skeptical of trump's chances early on because he went against history. you'd seen a lot of candidates, newt gingrich, hermann cain, george wallace way back in the day, who had ridden high in the polls and flamed out because they lacked backing from their parties. i guess you can blame us for
sticking too much to history, but i think it's a better excuse when, number one, we have a good track record. if any time you get a prediction wrong, when you say sometimes we live in an uncertain world, we don't know. if you're right 9% of the time, you shouldn't be thrown off the boat for the other ten. >> do you feel like people are trying to throw you off the boat? >> for sure. there are not a lot of people who expected trump to be the republican nominee. if you go back now, it's kind of like woodstock. everyone now claims to have attended woodstock and would have known back in june or july that he'd be the nominee. this is one of the crazier things we've seen in american politics for a long time. i think it was fair for us to be skeptical early on about the odds this could occur. when we saw polls in iowa and new hampshire and how much disarray the gop was in, we became less skeptical. you adapt with the evidence. >> he was always number one in the polls. people like you just didn't believe it. >> it's not a matter of belief. it's a matter of looking at historical evidence. you know, everything is obvious
in retrospect when you know how something turned out. we have a method that both this year and historically is right way more often than it's wrong. i used to play poker. in poker, you can play a hand well and lose, play a hand badly and win. it doesn't mean you shouldn't reflect. we've seen so many honest self-reflections from empirically minded journalists. i think we could have a few more about journalists just as skeptical. >> so you think it's good you're being held accountable. >> it's good we hold ourselves accountable. in my opinion, someone who is a demagogue, won a major party nomination, we should all be saying what happened to our institution? someone who ran on a lot of misinformation and we're the information industry and became the nominee of a major party, that's a big problem. if we're a part of that problem, i'm happy to be at the table discussing what happened and what comes next. >> because you're so critical of trump, were you predicting what
you wanted to have happen as o posed to what would happen? >> one thing that's ironic about the trump prediction is we didn't have a model. the minute we had a model in iowa and new hampshire, state by state, they showed trump doing very well. it's a strange case that, you know, the polls were right and therefore journalism was wrong. that seems like a strange case to make. >> so you know what i have to ask you before we go. as we look to the fall, what are trump's chances? >> so we always make things probablisticly. if you look at betting markets, they say trump has a 25% chance. i think that's sensible. if you held the election today, there's enough polling to know clinton would probably win. but you can have recessions. you can have terror attacks. clinton is not a very popular candidate herself. maybe trump is a black swan. i don't know. i put trump's chances of becoming president at 25%, much higher today than a year ago. >> why should we believe the 25% figure, given the errors last
summer, last fall? how do we regain people's trust, perhaps, in what you do? >> first of all, i think we have lots of readers who do trust us and forecasts are not the only thing we do. but we have a track record that goes back years and encompasses hundreds and hundreds of predictions, thousands if you count sports predictions outside the political realm. when we say something has a 75% chance of happening, that means it happens 75% of the time and doesn't happen 25%. >> that's what makes this fun. sometimes the unexpected does occur. >> this election has been the most amazing election that i've ever seen. i think trump's rise to power is inherently kind of amazing and remarkable. also scary in some other respects. i don't know. in politics, i think people think very dogmatically. as a result, i think, you know, we should have known all along what happens is obvious from the start. i've done enough things in sports and poker and covering enough campaigns now where
things seem much more obvious in retrospect than they do at the time. if you have a method and process that focuses on data and evidence, that beats the alternatives in the long run. even this year it has a good record, apart from the early predictions. >> nate, great to see you. thank you for being here. i'll have more at cnnmoney.com/media from nate later today. up next, trump attacking "the new york times" this morning. our panel is back with details. plus, a hollywood story about power, access, and retaliation. what ronan farrow is saying about his estranged father woody allen. we'll be right back. of predictive analytics.tuh because of optum. through population health data, they provide insights so doctors and hospitals can identify high-risk patients. like me... asthma... potential hospital visit. so now thanks to optum, this asthma thing's under control. gravity not so much. this is healthier, powered by optum. from health plans to providers to employers.
cannes film festival, his else stranged son ronan farrow published a column. this essay was in response to previous coverage. he reiterates his support for his sister and takes himself and the media to task for not asking allen about it again and again in interviews. he described this kind of silence and as a result of publishing the article, the hollywood reporter was barred later in the week from a lunch event by allen's publicist. she said this to them, according to the hollywood reporter. it's only natural i would show displeasure when the press, in this case the hollywood reporter, goes out of its way to be harmful to my client. now, woody allen's films can be complex, nuanced, but it seems his own story is one of access, power, celebrity. we have to think about the manipulation here of the media. joining me now to discuss this is janice min, the chief creative officer of the
hollywood reporter. nice to see you. i think this is a really revealing story about how the media works or doesn't work and what ronan farrow thinks about that. you all published awoody allen feature. he and others criticized for the second year in a row had the opening night film at cannes. on so it was a logical choice for the cover. the interview made a lot of news for what he did say, which is part of what sparked ronan. he talked about siun yi, and talked about his compartmentability, what he wasn't directly asked about was, though the scandal question, he
was never directly asked about dill tend farrow. >> was that a shortcoming. >> the writer, a wonderful reporter, he was -- i have i was talking to him yesterday, and he said the frantic nature, the publicabist is popping in, you have three minutes yes, he would have liked to have asked it. >> did he feel he could have because of publicist? >> not at all. >> you invite him to take an ess essay. it's an incredible essay about how the press, by being silent about thinks allegations really hurts dylan farrow and possible victims of sex abuse. do you agree with his assessment that the presses sometimes complicit? >> i think there's a perception because we had ronan farrow write this piece we agree with every single thing he is. we are happy to be the messenger. one of the things that was important was to own the
conversation surrounding woody allen and not let ourselves by a bystanding for something we started. >> does this mean having your cake and eat it, too? >> no, it means recognizing covering wooly allen probably means covering all sides of the story. i thought the essay was magnificent, and we do as institutions, we do tend to ignore these voices of sexual abuse victims, we take the words of more powerful men more seriously than the people who are their accusers, and dylan farrow has made a compelling case through the years, that woodie allen doesn't help himself through the movies where there are inappropriate relationships with older men and younger women. he has not helped himself. his own comments are weird and troubling. you would have those in hollywood who would argue that
lots of people signed petitions for roman polanski, including woody allen that somehow you can separate the art from the personal behavior of the person you're writing about. i think in the post-cosby era, this never would have happened hadn't cosby happened in the last year, woody had the opening movie last year, giving a lifetime achievement awarts at the golden globes at nbc. >> and by the way a correspondent will be covering there more. what happens when a publicist bans you. >> nothing. it doesn't matter. the fact that hoyer film editor didn't sit next to woodie al listen makes no difference how we cover any of her clients going forward.
on. >> it does tell us a bit how hollywood works, right? >> yes. she had to make a public stance. that's what publicists do. they are out there to create a narrative around their influence around their clients, and leslie dart is very influence wall, but i think it's -- i can't believe she would keep him as a client if she truly believed he was a pedophile. >> janis, great to see you. thank you for being here. up next, "the washington post," "new york times" publishing tough investigations digging deep to donald trump's life. some critics are calling foul. stj a case of liberal bias or the press doing its job? right after this. this is joanne.
it was all pencil and paper. started out, the surface pro is very intuitive. i can draw lightly, just like i would with a real pencil. i've been a forensic artist for over 30 years. i do the composite sketches which are the bad guy sketches. you need good resolution, powerful processor because the computer has to start thinking as fast as my brain does. i do this because i want my artwork to help people.
♪ no, you're not ♪ yogonna watch it! ♪tch it! ♪ ♪ we can't let you download on the goooooo! ♪ ♪ you'll just have to miss it! ♪ yeah, you'll just have to miss it! ♪ ♪ we can't let you download... uh, no thanks. i have x1 from xfinity so... don't fall for directv. xfinity lets you download your shows from anywhere. i used to like that song. wog wog has 20 reporters
investigateling trump's past for a book, and "new york times" out with a story crossing the line, how donald trump behaved with women in private. he's lashing out at the times this morning tweeting that the paper is a failure, and saying that everyone is laughingty hit piece. you see him saying this kind of thing. this is typical criticism from him, but are we sees the press doing what people wanted them to do for nine months. if you're someone like "new york times" or "the washington post," you see trump rising, but you're prepared for the fact if he's the nominee, you've got six more months you have to cover him. now is the time -- you're dedicating all your resources to hillary clinton and donald tr p donald trump. >> this is what we should be seeing? >> i do. i think some of the historical stuff will probably not stick very hard.
it's pretty clear he was not living his life like he was running for president 25 years ago. we're out of time, unfortunately, but it's a good reminder we're starting to see six more tons. "stust union" starts right now. trump 2.0? the outsider candidate makes nice with the establishment on capitol hill. >> i was very encouraged with what i heard from donald trump. >> and seems to back off his controversial muslim ban. >> i'm always flexible on issues. >> is the trump strategy shifting? we'll ask his top aide in minutes. plus ghosts of trump past. >> he's a good guy and not going to hurt anybody. >> reporter: did the presumptive republican nominee really pose as his own pr agent? >> doesn't sound like me. >> reporter: will the tabloid king's old antics come back to haunt him?