tv Reliable Sources CNN October 3, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PDT
good morning. it is time for "reliable sources." our weekly look of the story behind the story. about news and pop culture. team trump verses, well, the entire media. his latest week of whoppers has some beat reporters say that his lying is getting worse. we'll ask two experts and this question, do newspaper endorsements still matter. we'll look at the red states papers speaking out against trump. plus, sean hannity was the subject of jokes on "snl" last night. first, let's peel back the curtain of this first surprise of october.
trump's taxes are the story of the day, all over television, all thanks to this "new york times" headline. trump tax records, he could have avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades. this landed on the front page of this morning's paper. how did "the times" get ahold of these records. september 23, reporter suzanne craig walked over to his mailbox and pulled out a pile of mail and spotted a manila envelope. it said "trump tower. ' she was astonished. she wasn't sure if she believed it. here to tell us the rest of the story is reporter suzanne craig. so you received this envelope in the mail. what were the three pages inside and what did they tell us about trump's records of taxes? >> there was three pages, and tay tell us, in short, there was a very large number with a negative in front of it, and it was his net operating loss. that number told us in short he had racked up enough losses over the years to essentially move
that forward into future years, and be able to reduce his taxable income to zero, so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. we obviously haven't seen the future returns to see what he did with it, but it gave him almost $1 billion of leeway in which he could have income that he wouldn't have to pay taxes on. >> are you having to make a lot of assumptions where you have to say he may not have had to pay faxes for many years? >> you can say he had this number he had to carry forward, and it's safe to say for at least several years, he didn't pay taxes. it's extraordinary. >> what did you do to verify these documents? >> we got a group of people together, i talked to a colleague of mine, david barstow, and we got a group of reporters together. we had two tracks, one, let's verify them, and let's just see what they are and try to dissect
it. obviously, there was large concern that they weren't real. we had no solid where did they come from. >> so you thought someone might be trying to strike you? >> they could have been very much so. that's why we wanted to verify it. >> i've been asking -- eventually you reached out to his former accountant. >> tax returns are hard to verify. there's only a few people that can verify him. the signatories were marla maples, donald trump, and his former accountant. and david barstow went down to see jack and had a long discussion about the taxes and jack said they're legitimate. >> in other words, when you see a story like this on the front page of "the times," weeks of work had to go into this. this is what fox news said this morning. and then your reaction. >> a bold move from "the new york times" trying to take down donald trump with a front page story claiming that he's not paid taxes in years.
but the evidence and how they got it raising a lot of questions this morning. >> raising a lot of questions. so fox had some doubts about your sourcing but said you're trying to take down donald trump. is that what you're doing? >> i think he's running for president and whether or not he's paid taxes, it's an important issue. there's pressure on him to release his tax returns. i think it's called reporting. it's as simple as that. >> you think fox doesn't understand that? >> i think i guess they have an opinion. we think we're doing our jobs, and part of that is to look for things like donald trump's taxes and find indications whether he's paid taxes or not, it's an important issue and that's sort of what we do. >> there was a legal threat from the trump organization before you published this story. i've been asking the trump campaign this morning if they are going to follow through. they haven't replied. are you expecting legal action? >> i don't know. i don't think it's a crime to check your mailbox. that's what we did and we did
some reporting. but they told us that they may sue. and we're comfortable with the story and went ahead with it. >> are you sitting on more documents? >> we're doing a lot of reporting around this. we're going to keep going. >> so that's a yes, you have more documents besides the three? >> that may be a no comment. >> do who you think sent the documents? the return address was trump tower. >> they could have come from any number of sources. >> do you know who? >> again, i'm going to "no comment" that. >> i appreciate your willingness to talk about the story and make us more curious what you have coming next. thank you. here to talk more about these new revelations and what they mean for the rest of the campaign, let me bring in the editor and chief of the daily beast. john, let me ask you, do you expect any legal action from trump as a result of this story, of course, keeping in mind his
organization did threaten to sue. >> sure. trump's first impulse is to threaten legal action and he can file whatever suit he would like, but he doesn't have much grounds to stand on. if you look at his try of failed first amendment lawsuits, to even the "chicago tribune" where he sued them because the architectural critic described trump tower as being lousy. it's an intimidation tactic, but it can have a chilling effect. >> tim, you're a frequent critic of "the new york times." do you see something in this story that feels off base? >> once again, we have all kinds of anonymous sources. this story just call it plain reporting is wrong. >> what do you mean by anonymous sources? they published the documents from 1995 in the newspaper. >> they have the anonymous tax expert there on the front page
of the paper today say he benefited from his vast destruction, like he was hurricane donald. this paper has all the restraint of a pack of flesh-eating zombies. the idea that anyone would take them seriously when they've announced on the front page that their job is to take him down, when they've done repeated editorials about how he needs to be defeated. today, it's all about how the -- >> the editorial page is separate from the newsroom. having worked there, the editorial page is produced upstairs, the newsroom is downstairs. don, do you want to chime? >> yeah, let's have a reality check here. i understand this comes from many conservatives, because so many conservative and republican papers have declined to endorse the republican nominee. this document reached out to the accountant who filed these taxes, who added explanation and
the trump campaign has not denied them, just simply threatened lawsuits. partisan spin, and the story admits itself that the evidence is fragmentary and it's clearly -- you're talking about trump being intimidating. this newspaper is trying to intimidate trump into releasing his tax returns. they're out to get him defeated. >> that's a tradition in the presidential politics for reasons of disclosure. and donald trump in january of 2012, encouraged mitt romney to release his taxes for reasons of transparency. >> and hillary clinton has never violated a standard? >> she's a deeply flawed candidate -- >> -- and goldman sachs. i don't remember the networks coming on that morning, bombshell, explosion story that's really going to damage hillary's campaign, because
everybody is out to destroy trump. that is their job. that is why the american people are saying we don't trust the media. [ overlapping speakers ] >> i'm trying to find the quote, we're referring to an anonymous expert. i can't find it -- >> right there on the front page. >> i'm looking at it right now. i do want to make sure i verify this. i don't see a reference to the hurricane that you were mentioning. do you believe that "the new york times" was wrong to try to obtain information on his taxes? >> i'm saying nobody believes when they're hooking for this information that they're not partisan or disinterested journalists. yes, anybody who is running for president, you want to look above their background, and in this case, the candidate's business record. that's fair. but everybody understands "the new york times" declared we're not here to be fair but here to beat this man. they're basically suggesting that he's a threat like hitler or saddam hussein. that's the level of restraint
we've seen in this campaign. >> this is simple, taxes, stats, and facts. it is objective news -- >> it's not objective at all! >> -- potentially paid no taxes for more than a decade in its wake, which is not denied by the campaign, rooted in documents that are there in black and white. i know that's uncomfortable with people with idealogical agendas. >> but you don't have one. you're as much a republican as lester holt. >> i'm an independent, but what i am not is a right wing idealogue who profits from polarization. >> let's take a break here. donald trump's week of whoppers and this wheeling of team trump versus the entire media. we'll be right back after a quick break. anything happen.y to me neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works... ...in one week. with the... fastest retinol formula.
that's a good thing, eligible for medicare? but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit
any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead,
look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. donald trump says so much that he overwhelms news cycles. we really cannot keep up as if he goes on media benders with rallies and fox interviews and tweets. we're the ones that can barely strand up straight at the end of the day. last weekend, several newspapers tried to study a week of trump's statements. all concluded that trump lies more often than hillary clinton. yes, lies. politico, "the new york times," they all use the "l" word. trump's whoppers about iraq and
birtherism were a theme. as it turns out, the debate commission said on friday there were issues regarding trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall. it did not affect the tv broadcast, though. this weekend, he's taking a truth that there were audio issues and spinning it into a conspiracy theory, using the debate commission is rigged against him. trump keeps saying that every institution is rigged. first the commission and all these other issues. now even google. >> in a new post debate poll that just came out, the google poll has us leading hillary clinton by two points nationwide, and that's despite the fact that google search engine was suppressing the bad news about hillary clinton. how about that. how about that. >> in 22 seconds, there were at least two falsehoods. google did not conduct a poll.
google's algorhithm is not biased about him. just google hillary clinton lies and you'll see all the stories that google is not suppressing. in the wee hours, he tweeted about the stories about his aides telling him to study about the next debate. he wrote, any time you see a story about me or my campaign that says sources says, do not believe it. there are no sources. they're just made up lies. he says if we don't name our anonymous sources, the sources don't exist. this is untrue. it's flatly untrue and troubling to say, because cnn, "the new york times," all these news outlets have important policy where is we have to tell our editors, our bosses who our sources are, even when they're trump aides trying to communicate with trump for news stories. these false claims by trump have serious consequences. back with me now, don avolon, cnn political about list, and tim graham, executive editor of
news busters. tim, your position is anonymous sources are what, not acceptable to be using for stories? >> anonymous sources are for important information. when you have information you can't get any other way. what we see too often today, as i just suggested in the previous segment, you use anonymous sources to say incredibly nasty things, often from political consultants who have clients they're trying to be friends of. like i can't say nasty things about the other republicans, because they might hire me later this year. what you're saying when you're a news source is, trust us, this person does not have an agenda. well, when the newspaper or the network has a partisan agenda, then you're not going to tend to trust their anonymous sources either. >> john, what do you make of trump telling people not to believe the media? it's been a theme for 15, 16 months, but it seems to be heightening in recent weeks. >> absolutely. he's been very clear that
attacking the media is a core strategy for his campaign. it's been expressed by surrogates like newt gingrich and expressed to other surrogates in particular. trump has a twisted relationship with the media, because he simultaneously craves media attention and then attacks media when it holds him accountable. i think we need to confront the fact that part of the reason trump's line of attack works is trust in the media has been on the decline for decades. that's a larger and different problem, it is deeply service, the ground on which trump's success on these line of attacks run. but in the long run, it's about trying to diminish the idea of truth itself, and that is incredibly dangerous to democracy. my favorite quote, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. >> on monday, after the debate,
donald trump praised lester holt, but later in the week he had choice words for the moderator. let's take a look. >> when he first did it, i was fine. but when i reviewed it and saw all the commentary, because a lot of people thought he was terrible. i looked at all the commentary, i realized he was much, much tougher on me than he was on hillary. it was like day and night. >> tim, tell me why you think trump is bringing this up repeatedly? do you feel that this is a smart strategy for him? >> if lester holt was refereeing a football game, he would have gotten thrown out of the stadium. >> why? >> i think the saturday night live skit i would have done, if i was running the show. it would be like the end of "top gun" where he lands on the flight deck after beating the russians and everybody applauds him. obviously, the whole news media spent before the debate was telling lester truth squad trump, truth squad trump. >> truth squad both of them.
fact check both of them. >> he obviously did this in a way that -- >> it's not lester holt's fault -- >> the whole assumption of liberal media is hillary never lies. >> who's saying that? >> the fact of the matter is, hillary -- why is her trustworthy level so low? because people have watched her over decades lie about everything, including "i gasped for air, i had no idea he cheated on me with monica lewinsky." nobody buys that. >> go ahead. >> look, just a couple things here. we know that donald trump is at the end of the day a hype man. he admits he engages in
hyperbole. hillary clinton has problems with honesty, we know that from polls, in part because for 25 years she's been demonized bipartisan media. it is the job of journalists to insist on a fact-based debate. it is increasingly -- we are recognizing it is also our job to call out lies and to call them lies without -- and not default to this moral relativism. those of you who say that the implicit bias of main stream media over the years can only be corrected by explicit bias, you carried the day for a while, but now people are hip to your tricks and it's a fundamental problem undercutting trust in the media. >> nobody buys this pretext that john avolon and the daily beast are the soul of objective media coverage, when you sat in the studio and made fun of dick cheney's heart problem.
>> while you're sensitive about things -- look, the bottom line is you guys have a real credibility problem, and there's a need for a place like you, to call out whatever implicit or explicit bias exists on the left. but you sacrifice your real credibility because you only focus on one side of the problem, that perpetuates the polarization. [ overlapping speakers ] we will hit the left or the right as the facts indicate. we will report without fear or favor. >> the daily beast does not do that. >> let me say i want all media to exist, i want news busters and the daily beast to exist. gentlemen, thank you both for being here. john has written a perfect companion, "what news needs to do now ahead of the election." up next, how polls are used
and abused. this is a segment you have to see right after this. i'm claudine and i quit smoking with chantix. by the time i was 30, i said "that's it, i'm a smoker for life." i wanted to be a non-smoker and i did it thanks to chantix. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. some had seizures while taking chantix. if you have any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse or of seizures. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you have these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have heart or blood vessel problems, or develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery.
welcome back to "reliable sources." there's a rare, clear media consensus after monday's debate. most commentators in every poll, from cnn's instant poll on monday, here it is, to a new abc poll released this morning, shows the same result. hillary clinton prevailing over donald trump. but this is often example of trump seeking an alternate reality. all week long he cited these online surveys showing he won the debate by huge margins. but these are not really polls at all. he's misleading you when he says they are. they're kind of informal, unscientific surveys. on thursday, msnbc's chuck todd
was visibly frustrated by the trump camp. watch this. >> you know those are bogus! you know these are bogus! they're beyond nonscientific. in fact, you have evidence, there's some evidence that there are computer programs that help refresh. all you have to do is empty your history and you get to vote again. >> the energy and the enthusiasm of this race is all with mr. trump. >> the surveys do perhaps show enthusiasm, but nothing more than that. let's ask the two perfect people about this. these are the co-hosts of "the pollsters." you're a democratic pollster. margie, let me start with you. why should people, when they hear trump talking about these online surveys, not take them to
mean trump won the debate in the eyes of the american people? >> right. the fact that they're online is not the issue, because there are a lot of outlets that are experimenting with online surveys, news outlets. there are lots of great online survey work out there. the issue is whether or not you have a representative sample. whether you're asking people to participate or whether people are going themselves to participate. when people go online to take one of these quizzes or reader engagement tools at these various websites, you don't know what kind of sample you're getting. and they are -- there's a self-selected bias to participate based on whether or not you want to give your input and making sure you have a poll sample that looks like america. >> these are also vulnerable to manipulation, meaning people can vote thousands of times. kristen, ask a republican pollster, should kellyanne
conway step in and tell her cd to stop citing these bs polls? >> this is one of the biggest challenges you have, on the one hand, you have a deep understanding of how the data works, you have a deep understanding of what it means. and there's always this debate about how much do you put yourself in the position of -- sometimes people want to shoot the messenger. if you push too hard, if you try too hard, you get folks to be statistically correct and understanding the data in a right way. a candidate like trump might say he doesn't want to listen to you anymore at all. so is it better to soft pedal through this, and make sure that he's still listening to you, so that you can try to influence him if you're on the inside. i would certainly love to see kellyanne come out and say yes, i understand these polls are wrong, because i think she knows they are. but trump is the kind of candidate that's very hard to control. >> i've asked news outlets, they're going to keep posting these surveys. so far it seems they will, which is part of the problem. part of the problem is news
outlets giving credibility to these uncredible polls. do you see the clinton campaign or democrats doing the same kind of misleading thing with polls? >> the big story right now is the trump campaign tout thing stuff. trump's brand is all about being a winner. if he's down in the polls or down anywhere, if there's a perception he has and won, that undercuts the core piece of what he's trying to sell to the american public. >> margie, let many ask you maybe a provocative question. are we all paying too much attention to the real poll data about this election? >> it's funny to say as a pollster maybe we are paying too much attention to the polls. we talk to pollsters on our show that say it's like the game is always on, and people just want to check the score. but i think the thing to remember, there's a lot more to
polling and understanding public opinion than simply a horse race question. so internal polls, practitioners like myself and kristen, we do a lot more than test the horse racing. it's qualitative focus groups, hearing respondents in their own words. there's a lot more than just who is up two points and who's down one. >> kristen, what should viewers keep in mind for the next 37 days? they're going to continue to see lot of these horse race polls. what should we keep in mind? >> follow the trends, follow the trends, follow the trends. it can be easy to see an individual poll that seems to change the narrative, it gets everyone all excited. i encourage people, look how an individual poll, say how has abc's poll changed month to month. look at those trends within polls rather than panicking every time an individual new poll comes out and seems to change the game.
[ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp...
monday was the most watched debate in american tv history. there were references to rosie o'donnell, sean hannity. last night, alec baldwin has some fun. >> i was against the war, ask anyone in the world named sean hannity. >> you told sean hannity on his show and there's proof? >> no, i told him in private. it was just me and sean, late at
night. i leaned over and i whispered in his ear, sean, i'm against the war in iraq. and then he whispered in my ear, i'm against the war, too. the next thing, i knew i was kissing sean hannity. >> there you go. let's talk about "snl" and hannity and fox and trump with margaret sullivan and david zurich. david, you wrote that snl came out blasting. what did you like and what disappointed you? >> you know, nothing really disappointed me, brian. the most interesting thing to me about that opening was i remember when i first saw tina fey/sarah palin. i had to put down my notebook and enjoy it as a fan. it was this liberating experience. i didn't feel that. i thought they did everything fine. baldwin was good in performance, the writing and makeup was great. all of that worked. but then i started thinking what
changed? in 2008, late night comedy was saying the things main stream journalism couldn't say. that palin was one of the goofiest candidates we ever had, and by the way, she would probably be a disgrace if she's elected. we couldn't say that. they could. it was liberating. now everybody, from editorial writers to people on the campaign trail are saying all the things about trump that were sort of revealed in baldwin's satirical take on him. so it's not anything that snh did. i thought their weekend update was really funny in terms of nailing how disappointing each of the candidates is to many americans. >> conservatives like sean hannity are saying, they feel like all of the media, to the extent the media is a singular
thing that can be summed up in a word, is trying to take down trump. do you feel there is some truth to that, that most journalists are inherently afraid or concerned by donald trump as president? >> you know, i don't think that "saturday night live" or the media at large is trying to take down trump. but i do think that there's a -- you know, there's a kind of way of thinking that many members of the media share, and it does creep into the -- it creeps into the comedy and it creeps into certainly commentary and sometimes news stories. yes, i think it does. >> is that a bias or is that a kind of a reaction from the fourth estate, whenever it senses a threat to democracy? >> i think one of the ways we can look at this is in the recent ways in which main stream media has begun to call out lies, and to actually use the word "lie," and you talked about that and written about that a lot.
i mean, that is a break from what has been done in the past. i think it's fine to call it what it is. >> david, what about trump's fox centric strategy on fox? he gave more than a dozen interviews in november, almost no other international tv interviews off of fox. is this a problem for journalists that we can't directly question trump? >> i don't think it's a problem for journalist, and he's certainly entitled to try that strategy. but i have to tell you something, when i was thinking of sean hannity in connection with this, i went back and i found the piece where hannity interviewed sarah palin on september 18, 2008. and in it, he's serving up softballs. he never follows up. and they made the set with this china cabinet and american flags, looked like it might be
an executive office building so she would look normal in this setting. and it was so pitiful to see the way this was going. you remember, she was only doing those enter views. last line of my review was, look, she couldn't even handle the softballs from servile sean hannity. next week she's supposed to talk to katie couric. maybe she better rethink that. i'll tell you what, you saw this in the debate, when trump kept saying, i don't know why the media won't call up sean hannity. they should call up sean hannity. you know, i'm going, who would care what sean hannity said? if i went to my editors and said sean hannity said donald really did say iraq, they would throw my out of the window in the newsroom. but he's in that bubble. he's in that fox bubble where he believes that sean hannity's opinion or that he could verify
your story. he's already too far in that bubble and it really hurt him in that debate. it was a strange, strange moment when he kept saying sean hannity. >> isn't that the problem, hannity doesn't have credibility across a vast swath of the country, so it doesn't matter what he might have been told by trump years ago. >> we all understand that hannity is an arm of the trump campaign, but i don't know the extent to which the fox audience or the general public really knows or sees that. i mean, i think we have a different view of it. and we don't see him as a journalist, and i think he has said that, he doesn't see himself as a journalist, and there are hard news reporters, and there are commentators. but i think hannity in this case is in a class by himself. >> even folks at fox see him as kind of a -- i think he makes
even some of them uncomfortable. >> i'm curious to see when we get to election day how rupert murdoch is going to feel about hannity's role. up next, death threats against a major newspaper over a presidential endorsement. while one of the most prominent papers in the country launches into editorials how president trump would harm the country. we'll talk about that right after this. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's,
and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
new word this week, dis endorsements. that's what several papers are doing, warning against trump's presidency. these are not just blue state papers. "usa today" saying trump is up fit for the presidency. and "the cincinnati enquirer" saying it has to be clinton. the arizona republic is another example, a pain they are's never endorsed a democrat before,
endorsing clinton. that's a move that was meant with subscription cancellations and alleged death threats. "the new york times" is out, targeting latino voters urging them to exercise their right to vote. that's not all. "the washington post" this weekend, starting a new editorial series, aimed at looking at the harm trump would do if elected. the first one says this -- if you know that donald trump is ignorant, unprepared but thinking of voting for him any way, this editorial is for you. all these papers distancing themselves from trump and supporting clinton, perhaps an activist role we haven't seen before. let's talk about it with the editor of "the washington post," fred hyatt. he joins he this morning from washington. great to see you this morning. >> hi, brian. >> this year, as fundamentally different for editorial pages like yours, and many others that are supporting clinton and going
a step further in warning against trump in express it ways. >> i think it is fundamentally different, because this election is fundamentally different from anything any of us have ever known. you know, first i think we should just remind your viewers that what we do on the editorial side is separate from what the news side does. when we're writing our editorials, and this is true for most of the papers you just cited, we're not speaking for the reporters covering the campaign. but on the editorial side, "the post" did something, which was back in july, right after the nomination of donald trump, we wrote an editorial saying no matter what happens in this campaign, no matter what happens in the debates, we are not going to be able to endorse this republican nominee for president. because we look at him as an unprecedented danger to the country, to the democracy, and in a lot of ways, to the world.
>> when we hear comments like that, which we've heard from many corners of the media, do you interpret it as media elites obviously criticizing trump, and potentially bolstering him, supporting him among his base, which is just opposed to elitism as he is? >> you know, i don't really -- i don't think it's my job to kind of think about what are the politics of what i do. we have an editorial board that's quite diverse ideal logically. we're not on one team or the other. over the years, we've voted for both parties. our job is to give people the arguments as we see it, and let them evaluate it. that editorial i referred to back in july was the most read washington post editorial in history. i'm sure there are a lot of people that dismiss it, but what
we try to do is present arguments, particularly for people who are still thinking about it, that may be useful as they make up their minds. >> trump tweeted over the weekend, saying people are really smart canceling subscriptions. the people have lost it. have you had subscriptions canceled as a result of this anti-trump stance? >> at first, i say i admire these papers like "the arizona republic" that are following principles without regard to the business consequence. i think that's to be respected. in our case, no. i mean, we have certainly gained readers this year. we have, as a newspaper, as a digital publication, we have more readers than ever, and that's definitely true for the opinion side and it's definitely true for our editorials. >> let me ask you about something i'm worried about here at cnn and "the washington post"
and everywhere else, so much conversation about trump. you look at "the washington post" which is mostly news, 26 mentions of trump this morning, six mentions for hillary clinton. if you ran the numbers for cnn, you would find the same thing. do you feel the press is focusing too much on the person not likely to be president and not enough on the person likely to be president, according to polls? >> i think that's a good question. we said in july that we would continue to cover hillary clinton honestly and criticize her when called upon, and we have done that editorially. we still have not written our endorsement traditionally we would do that in the middle of october. and so we're covering both. the series that we started this week is aimed at people who, you know, might realize that trump is -- they might not agree with
everything he says, but they might think how much harm can he do? we felt one thing an editorial page can do is be thoughtful, look at what could a president do unilaterally, without congress, without the courts interfering that people might not have thought about. i think that's a useful journalistic exercise. we have to continue covering both campaigns, and we do. >> fred, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll be right back with more "reliable sources" in just a moment. when you ache and haven't you're not you. tylenol® pm relieves pain and helps you fall fast asleep and stay asleep. we give you a better night. you're a better you all day. tylenol®.
approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs.
you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend.
don't care because it's the right thing to do. you have a choice. america lives or dies in 39 days. that's how i look at it. >> it would be easy to make fun of this. in fact, it would be too easy. let's take is seriously instead. is there the straight line to the end of america to the rise of trump. straight line from hannity saying america lives or dies. don't get me wrong. polarization is aiming on both sides of the race. some supporters of clinton are also saying things they will regret. the more fearful and anxious, the more you are. what can we do to make things better, not worst? it starts with sympathy. sympathy to the other side. attempts to understand and
listen. attempts to build trust. i know what doesn't help. name calling and death threats. i want to explore what we could do to heal these wounds. send me a tweet @brianstelter. see you next week. the trump campaign hits back after leaked tax returns showing the $1 billion writeoff shows his genius. hillary clinton heads to ohio and on the way picks up a royal endorsement. hurricane matthews closing in on haiti, jamaica and cuba. could florida come next? we have weather on the way. good morning. welcome to "early start." i'm christine romans. >> i'm john berman. it is monday, october 3rd. 4:00 a.m. in the east. this morning, the tax information of donald trump he wanted so