Skip to main content

tv   Reliable Sources  CNN  January 15, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PST

8:00 am
inaugural addresses all combined. we do not know the length of president-elect donald trump's address but he know his favorite mode of communication clocks in at 140 characters. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i'll see you next week. this is reliable sources. our weekly look at the story behind the story of how the media really works, how the news gets made. this week let's start it differently with some words to live by. really some words to report by. the president should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct. his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering hollywood, able and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. therefore, it's absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts and this means it's exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to
8:01 am
praise him when he does right. any other attitude in an american citizen is both base and servile. to announce there should be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonable to the american public. nothing but the truth should be sfoeken about him or anyone else but it's even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant about him than about anyone else. tell the truth. pleasant or unpleasant. today's program is about this message. later this hour, i'll tell you which american president said this and why he said it. the words are especially important today decades and decades later because president-elect donald trump does not respect dissent. he attacks truth telling journalists and bullies critics. he may think this is a winning
8:02 am
strategy for him but the rest of us lose. let's face it, these are challenging times for journalists, very challenging times and they are about to get more so five days from now. looking live here at the u.s. capitol, preparations under way for president-elect trump to take the oath of office becoming our 45th president. today there's a brand fnew repot saying trump aides may want to e evict the press corps. looks look at the bold journalism that is happening. we all witnessed it this week when cnn reported intel chiefs presented trump with claims of russian efforts to compromise him. these claims came partly from a former british intelligence agent, 35-page dossier. cnn did not print it or quote from it, but buzzfeed did.
8:03 am
was this a violation of journalistic ethics. joining me for a sunday morning interview about this is ben smith, the editor and chief of the website. you made the call when this happened. do you regret it a few days later? do you have regrets about publishing this? >> absolutely not. we're proud we published it. three days later it seems clear it was the right thing to do when we look at how much more we know. i think in three months it will look clearly. >> what is it more know that we know now? >> we know the saga that elected leaders knew of a former british spy creating this document, handing it over to the fbi, john mccain handing it to the fbi of briefings which jake tapper got an amazing scoop on. it's an incredible fight of highest power but away from the eyes of the american people over
8:04 am
this document. over the claims in the headline you showed. the claims that cnn and many other outlets reported and repeated. in the first instance, once you have the document -- >> when did you get ahold of it? >> i'm not going to say exactly but weeks. >> you had it before cnn. >> we ran across in the reporting we're staking out places where we thought we could get information in europe. at some point as harry reid, government and powerful officials are taking little actions based on it. not just sort of seeing it but acting based on it. i think there becomes an argument should we print it. we were having that conversation. we're not close to doing that. when your great scoop puts not just the fact of the document but claims attributed as seeing as credible and specific summaries of the claim in
8:05 am
public. i think everybody's obligation is to say here are the actual claims. >> you say some reason -- cnn was careful not to share the details. >> i thought in that headline, the headline is claims he was compromised by russian intelligence. that's an explosive claim. to say we have a secret document with explosive, dark claims. you guys on the other side of the camera can't see it, but we can. i'm sort of interested in -- i see the case for reporting it out and not sharing it. i see the case for saying here are these claims, here is this document at the center of the fight. i don't see the case for the middle position. i realize you're not a spokesman for cnn and i don't mean to put you -- >> the middle position is journalism. >> the journalism was to try to verify the claims. once you repeat them and not put them out there -- >> the actual claims were not put out there. >> the headline i just saw -- >> this was a topic briefed to
8:06 am
the president-elect and that's was the news was. >> the headline you put up was claims he was compromised by russian intelligence. >> you're conflating these two. you're saying you all published the claims. no, cnn did not. neither did the new york times or others. nobody went into the sordid details. >> i agree. we thought when you had a blanket blame to share the details. i think our audience at this point expects you. this is what you do on the internet with hyperlinks. you show your source documents. the default is if you want your audience to trust you, our job is not to be gate keepers to decide what to suppress and keep from the audience. it's to share. >> you say suppress. journalists make editing decisions. this was a choice a about not putting incompletely verified on the internet. >> you put some on the internet, just not the details.
8:07 am
>> no. they reported the existence of this concern inside the intelligence community and the existence of this briefing. >> the summary. i think it was worth -- there was a big difference between saying there are these dark and explosive claims that we're not going to tell you about. i think reasonable people can disagree on this. i think you're acting like a trump aide. i don't think you are either. this was a close call. i'm not suggesting otherwise. >> i'm trying to figure out if you're washington post or wikileaks. seems you're trying to be both. you all aspire to be a news
8:08 am
organization. >> we're well within american journalism which is every time you use the world alleged on your air, every time you see alleged in print or saying we're repeating a claim we can't verify. it's a totally, within the standard particularly of covering law enforcement. you'll hear that dozens of times. you'll hear that word quite a bit in coverage. from our perspective if you're going to say that, your obligation if you have the indictment, even if you think there's lots there that's false and the fact you can point to things that are false, if i can see it, if it's not going to scald my eyes out, it's a question to ask your audience. if i have a secret document, i'm not sure i'm comfortable showing it to you because i'm not sure i can trust you with it. >> it's not about trusting the reader. >> what do you mean it's not about trusting the reader? >> you said americans can make up their own minds about the allegations about the president-elect that have
8:09 am
circulated around the intelligence community. how can they make up their own minds without providing reporting to them? how do you expect your readers to make up their own minds? >> if you're going to report on a document, the presumption is you share the document. >> big old fashioned established news organizations start from the premise of why should we share this? we start with the premise of why shouldn't we. you use the word suppress. that's a profound difference that we're describing between legacy media and digital media. >> i don't think it's a difference of values. we're trying to be true to our audience, treat our audience with respect. i think you are too. i think these are differences with that.
8:10 am
with put this out with a very clear summary. we stressed there were false things in this document. >> why not publish a full rep t reportrepor reported explanation to the reader. why not help them understand what they were seeing in this memo? >> i don't think you or i or the fbi can say with great confidence they have to do this up or knocked it down. >> there were some details that were false. you could have annotated that and put some redactions. >> we put out things that were false. >> you rushed this out. cnn published and you published a couple of hours later trying to get this on the internet as fast as possible. >> it's both of our jobs to be fast and accurate as we can. >> accurate and then fast. >> of course. >> sean spicer tried to conflate
8:11 am
what cnn published. let's listen to sean spicer. >> the fact that buzzfeed and cnn made the decision to run with this claim is sad and pathetic attempt to get clicks. the report is not an intelligence report plain and simple. >> were you trying to just get clicks? >> i think sean quoted me in saying it was unverified. there's obviously an attempt to divide the press, to turn us on each other and turn reasonable differences about editorial decisions into screaming matches between us on this show. i think that's a trap that the media has repeatedly fallen into. >> there's attention between there's reasons to have unity and the other hand as jake tapper said what you did is irresponsible and that hurts us all. >> i wouldn't say it was irresponsible to say we have a
8:12 am
secret document and we're not going to share it. >> it's not possible to have unity in the press corps if buzzfeed is acting like wikileaks and telling the audience to decide if it's true or not. >> i think we reported a story -- >> there's a difference between publishing and reporting. >> we explained the origin of the document. we described the extent to which it was accurate and inaccurate and we shared information that was being -- by the way that not just the head of the cia, dozens if not hundreds of journalists, intelligence officials, elected leaders were seeing and acting on. when you have a document in that kind of circulation among the country's elites at the center of an incredibly heated political battle, the argument of keeping it away from the american people has to be really strong. >> i think for the audience at home it's hopefully educational. >> i would have them ask themselves do i not want to see this. do i not feel that i can handle
8:13 am
the notion that this document is not verified, that i can't trust the claims but it's the document at the center of this fight. >> in 2013, you wrote about a decision not the go with a story about allegations of prostitutes and a u.s. senator. this was a democratic u.s. senator. you decided not to go with it because it wasn't verified. here is what you wrote we felt more or less vindicated in making the traditional don't touch it call when the story appeared to fall apart or least to get murkier. what's the difference now? is the difference that donald trump is a republican? >> no. they were being briefed on the document. i'm not going to mention the case because i don't want to get it wrong but i'm pretty sure i know which u.s. senator we're talking about here. had that document been picked up
8:14 am
by the fbi and briefed, i think it would be inappropriate to say we're not going to show it to you. i guess conversely, you and i get e-mail every day making outlandish charges against people. sgr the big difference was senator, intelligence officials all have this. >> not just seeing this but acting on it. people are making decisions on it. >> has anyone from the trump transition team threatened to sue buzzfeed this week? >> i cannot identify who they are. >> no legal letter? >> no. >> there's been threats of suits in the past. we haven't seen that from trump this week. >> it's also you don't report on
8:15 am
lawsuit threats been they have been filed. >> do you worry or care that this sort of inoculated donald trump? it conflated a lot of these news outlets and a lot of them call you failing pile of garbage? >> i really didn't understand this. i saw the next morning people saying this was the moment after two and a half years of really getting totally rolled by donald trump and many cases apologizing for coverage of donald trump that this was the morning that we were going to -- this was the morning the media was going to turn it around and do a fantastic job and hold him to account and had only buzzfeed not published this. i really think that's a fantasy. >> what's the buzzfeed motto for covering trump going forward? you wrote a memo saying all story comes back to trump. what's your strategy for covering trump in the weeks and months ahead? >> i don't think it all comes back to trump. i think it comes back to a broader, globalization in the uk. i think it comes back to this
8:16 am
broader rise of global nationalism and that's the story i feel like is at the center of things. i'm really proud of how we covered him through the campaign. we were fair. we were tough. i think we never engaged in the kind of fantasy of the trump pivot that he was somebody other than he was going to be. i think we reckonned with this challenging fact that he and his spokes people say things that aren't true all the time. i think you have to engage that directly. i think we plan to cover him like that. >> do you expect that in the white house? >> i don't know. we have not had any trouble covering donald trump since october. >> last june trump said no, he will not be banning reporters from the press briefing room. we'll see what happens. good to see you. >> thanks. coming up next, an all star panel of media observers and decision mangers standing by with their thoughts on buzz feed decision and later in the hour
8:17 am
fox news now in the news. fox settling sexual harassment claims. how is he being treated by fox? we'll cover that in a few minutes. encouragement and milk. with 8 grams of natural protein, and 8 other nutrients to provide balanced nutrition. moms know kids grow strong when they milk life. anthe mistay connected.elps us provide balanced nutrition. the microsoft cloud offers infinite scalability. the microsoft cloud helps our customers get up and running, anywhere in the planet. wherever there's a phone, you've got a bank, and we could never do that before. the cloud gave us a single platform to reach across our entire organization. it helps us communicate better. we use the microsoft cloud's advanced analytics tools to track down cybercriminals. this cloud helps transform business. this is the microsoft cloud. anyone ever have occasional constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating?
8:18 am
she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health. (vo) what'scorn? dog food's first ingredient? wheat? in purina one true instinct grain free, real chicken is always #1. no corn, wheat or soy. support your active dog's whole body health with purina one.
8:19 am
8:20 am
welcome back. we're just getting started here. we heard from ben smith about the controversial decision to publish a 35-page memo involving unverified allegations about donald trump. let's bring in an all star panel of media critics. margaret, you wrote this week that buzzfeed crossed the line by publishing this dossier, tell us why. >> for me it's fairly simple. there's a time honored and wise rule in journalism that we try to get as close as possible to
8:21 am
the truth, and in doing so we don't make huge information dumps of unverified material which is what this was. >> david, do you agree? >> i totally agree. i think it cuts even deeper than that. i thought at first when i wrote about this the first time, i thought was i being too hard on smith, ben smith. when i heard him now with you trying to say this is respect for the intelligence of the audience and all that, i thought we haven't been hard enough. they jettisoned one of the most important principles of journalism, which is verification especially in case like this. dan rather who had a storied career up to that point lost his job in 2004 because he went on the air making a claim about
8:22 am
george w. bush that wasn't ver veri verified. terrible price paid by cbs news. they did it. that's how important verification is to us. when he sits there, you correctly called him on it. when he said we felt we had to report this. they didn't report anything. they did what margaret said, they dumped this on the public. how is the public going to know what is true and what isn't. then to say some of it is fall. why don't you tell us what is false. they could have called him up. how hard is that to call him up. >> isn't this always what's going to happen. we're in a digital age where someone, somewhere is going to publish a secret document like this. >> you're so right. i looked at how many people
8:23 am
viewed it at buzzfeed and he won. by his standards he won. >> would you publish this memo? >> we had access to the same information going back for a while and we didn't. i was trying to figure out if it was true or not. clearly, i made a decision not to go forward unless we can verify information because i think that's what we're supposed to do. i think ben is a great journalist. i just disagree with his decision. we're supposed to help the reader understand what's true and what's false. that's why we exist. i don't want to work ourselves out of jobs. once this document worked its way into the official blood stream of washington, if you will, once cane can took it to various other officials, i think
8:24 am
it was inevitable this would come out. the pressure becomes inevitable to tell people what's in it. >> all the mentions of fake news by the trump team this week. >> you are fake news. >> for all the talk lately about fake news. >> some of the media outlets that i deal with are fake news. >> this fake news. >> that fake news. it's all fake news. it's phony stuff. fake news was fake news. >> molly, isn't this a cynical attempt by trump to appeal to his base labeling face news. all the real reporting about the topic this week. >> i want to say about ben smith, his original note he said that this is what journalism is in 2017. i think sadly, he's right.
8:25 am
pushing unreliable stories to advance a highly partisan story is what too many journalists are doing. he did have a good point when he talked a about how this information did add context and meaning to the story. the original cnn story sounded so unbelievably bad like russians had the goods on trump and cia was taking it very seriously. buzzfeed publishes the dossier and people could see how ridiculous, how immediately debunkable some of the most important claims were. it cast doubts not on cnn but the intelligence community. they are leaking like sieves in an ongoing war. buzzfeed pulled the curtain back showing how the intelligence community and the more partisan brass, not the intelligence officers who do the good work, how they use the media to punish or destroy their political
8:26 am
enemies. it should be covered as journalists are cooperating with this intelligence community campaign. >> let's save the fake news part for later. you're saying intelligence sources are leaking trying to discredit trump? >> i think it's rather obvious there are these stories we're seeing they come from not just the intelligence community but high levels of the intelligence community. as we report on them, we should maybe not be so gullible or accepting of these stories. he lied under oath about whether he was collecting information on hundreds of millions of americans. we had the intelligence community get in trouble about political decisions about releasing information on syria, creating an echo chamber. as we take this information from them, we should be applyi ining skepticism. it's a lesson we keep on failing to learn that we should be skeptical and understanding of how they use information to
8:27 am
detroy those they oppose. >> taking a quick break here. after the commercial we want to talk about how trump aides addressed this story and what they said about the cnn and buzzfeed story. afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me. ever tryou get hungry good, just thinking about it? at red lobster's big festival of shrimp, get your perfect pair for just $15.99. choose 2 of 6 new and classic shrimp creations, like bold new firecracker red shrimp. exploding with flavor?
8:28 am
yeah they are. or try new creamy shrimp linguini, and new sweet bourbon-brown sugar grilled shrimp. flavors like these are big. and for just $15.99, they can't last. so hurry in. ththen out of nowhere...crying. third time that day. i wasn't even sad. first the stroke, now this. so we asked my doctor. he told us about pseudobulbar affect, or pba. it's frequent, uncontrollable crying or laughing that doesn't match how you feel. it can happen with certain neurologic conditions like stroke, dementia, or ms. he prescribed nuedexta, the only fda-approved treatment for pba. tell your doctor about medicines you take. some can't be taken with nuedexta. nuedexta is not for people with certain heart conditions. serious side effects may occur. life-threatening allergic reactions to quinidine can happen. tell your doctor right away if you have bleeding or bruising. stop nuedexta if muscle twitching, confusion, fever,
8:29 am
or shivering occurs with antidepressants. side effects may include diarrhea, dizziness, cough, vomiting, weakness, or ankle swelling. nuedexta made a difference by reducing my pba episodes. ask about nuedexta and go to
8:30 am
welcome back. deny, deny, deny.
8:31 am
when that doesn't work, conflate and confuse. that's what spin doctors do. they've done it for decades both democrat and republican. that's what president-elect trump and his aides are trying to do. number one, deny. this is kellyanne conway reacting to the breaking news about russian efforts to compromise trump on nbc late night with seth meyers on tuesday. >> the press report was -- >> it was an allegation. >> going to the president. >> said they never briefed him on it. they appended two pages. >> i believe it said they didn't brief him. >> he said he's not aware of that. >> he's not aware of that, she said. in fact, cnn said it had confirmed a two-page summary of the allegations was included but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs. the difference between this paper and a verbal discussion. that was on tuesday.
8:32 am
deny. now for number two. conflate on wednesday trump press secretary lumped buzzfeed and cnn together wrongly suggesting they dumped the allegations from the 35-page memo online. conway seized on a story that further muddied the water. trump was not told about unverified russian dossier. will tv anchors and networks correct story. that brings me to number three. we have deny, conflate and now confuse. listen to how conway did confusion. >> what's inaccurate about what cnn reported? >> the whole headline. go read the entire story. four bylines and a story that's not true that president-elect was presented with this information and appended in a two-page document to the briefing. nbc has said it was not. other people have said it was not. >> cooper challenged her at
8:33 am
every turn but conway glomed on and confused people. the new york times and washington post and other news rooms did confirm the thrust of cnn reporting and so did government officials on the record. journalism really is a process. sometimes a long and frustrating process. you pull information from sources while you push other sources to talk. sometimes it's wise to be transparent and tell the audience what you don't know. case this point, cnn originally said it could not confirm if the summary was verbally discussed in trump's meeting with the intel chiefs. on thursday there was a reporting breakthrough. >> as we just learned tonight the information actually came from mr. comey himself directly to mr. trump. that's not fake information. that's not fake news. that's accurate reporting. >> the conservative news site red state called this more evidence cnn was right. i would add it's more evidence
8:34 am
that the denials and conflations were wrong. maybe team trump wants us talking about the media and not that a russian country has information about the u.s. president. i thought it was said really well on thursday night. >> i worry about a broader issue which is a hostility to facts in an effort, a conserted effort by donald trump and his team to call into question the very existence of facts. the very existence of non-partisan news. it seems to be part of its strategy to attack information it finds inconvenient or critical. that's a problem for the way this country functions. >> jim's right. that's why it's absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts. i read these words at the start
8:35 am
of the program today. these words came from a republican president, theodore roosevelt in 1918. after leaving office he was disturbed by woodrow wilson's efforts to tamp down on dissent. roosevelt said free speech exercised individually and through a free press is a necessity in any country where the people themselves are free. those words were true 100 years ago. they are true again today, and i think we've all got to be reminded of that. coming up, our a list panel back to discuss trump's treatment of the news media and this breaking news today. talk about what's going to happen with the press corps at the white house. if they're going to move from their current location in the west wing. the details right after this.
8:36 am
y282ty ywty i've heard it all. eat more fiber. flax seeds. yogurt. get moving. keep moving. i know! try laxatives. been there, done that. my chronic constipation keeps coming back. i know. tell me something i don't know. vo: linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain, and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children under six and it should not be given to children six to seventeen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea sometimes severe.
8:37 am
if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. talk to your doctor about managing your symptoms proactively with linzess. the possibility of a flare was almost always on my mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go... and how to deal with my uc. to me, that was normal. until i talked to my doctor. she told me that humira helps people like me get uc under control and keep it under control when certain medications haven't worked well enough. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,
8:38 am
or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. raise your expectations. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.
8:39 am
welcome back. let's turn now to donald trump and his treatment of the press. take a look at this breaking news from esquire magazine. this story published overnight. it says the trump administration may look to evict the press corps from the white house. this is a little more complicated than the headline makes it sound. there is conversation going on between sean spicer who i just spoke with via e-mail here telling me there is conversation about looking for a new setting for press conferences and for news briefings. the daily briefings of the current white house administration has. spicer is saying maybe the room is too small. maybe we need room for more journalists but there's a deeper, deeper concern among
8:40 am
white house correspondents and others about how trump will approach this. he's being aided, egged on and encouraged by conservative commentators like sean hannity and newt gingrich who wants donald trump to ignore and dismiss the press. listen to what newt says on fox. >> journalism is dead. did donald trump bury them today? >> he didn't bury them today but he began to draw the lines for the fight that's coming. they can close down the elite press. they can create totally new venues for informing the american people. they can go to facebook and youtube and to skype and have average citizens asking questions. you'd have a much richer dialogue if you broke up the monopoly of the elite news media. >> journalism is not dead.
8:41 am
jeffrey, these reports this morning about changes to the press briefings room, there's a lot of uncertainty and curiousty, wanting journalists to be on edge about this. what's your take? >> my take is for generations presidents have allowed and the word is allowed, allowed the press corps to have space within the white house. it's an important signal to the country that this is the people's house. it's an important people to the press that we treat you with respect and you're an integral part of governance. you're here to check us. the optics of moving the press out of white house. no one wants a battalion of
8:42 am
reporters living on their first floor. most people wouldn't. this is the price you pay to have a free country, a democracy, a system of checks and balances and so the optic of moving them out to some other more distant part of the white house complex is just terrible, in my opinion. >> i posted a full story about this on you can see the reporting from jim acosta and jerry diamond and i. what i see the trump administration doing and trying in a very purposeful way to disrespect the press. that's something many of trump voters like to see. >> right. there's this larger context where our profession has very low credibility with republicans, in particular. i think only 14% of the republicans trust the media. only 30% of the independents. that's a really dangerous thing. we need to hold trump accountable. we don't really have the
8:43 am
credibility to do that. he's exploiting that situation. i think it's really incumbent upon us to really get our house in order and think about how to cover him to be in a position to hold him accountable. much of our reporting is designed to whip half the country in a frenzy and get the other half to tune out. we need to figure out what's the appropriate battles to fight to regain credibility with our people. >> you say designed. you think it's intentional? >> is what intentional? >> to have reporting that tears the country apart? >> there's all sorts of reasons why we have gotten to the point we're in. donald trump provokes this response in people. it's our credibility on the line. it's our profession we need to uphold. we're not doing a good job. the more we freak out, it's like we have a temper tantrum. >> where is the freaking out happen something. >> the twitter conversations but even in the press conferences. we need to think about how we
8:44 am
will pursue questions and how we will deal with an administration that does a good job of avoiding precise language and also in showing good faith efforts. i don't think the media community has responded to our failures with any changes. or the type of changes to regain that credibility with a huge section of the country. >> margaret, what's your view on what molly is saying? do you see authoritarian tendencies from trump or is that an example of a journalist freak out? >> there's reason to be concerned. we're in for a combative relationship. he's made his scorn for the press center piece of his campaign and his time during the transition. i think there is a lot to be concerned about. the thing that i'd like to stress is the press here does represent the public. it's not really about where the
8:45 am
press is going to sit and whether there's going to be enough room in a particular briefing room and all that. it's about the press being the representatives of the people and to the extent we can drive that message home, i think it will be very important and it's very true. >> molly, you have a more conservative audience at the federalist. i think your inbox is different from mine. margaret is describing how we represent the audience, the public. i get a ton of e-mails from viewers asking us to hold this new president accountable hoping that cnn and other outlets will stand up to this president. molly, what are you hearing from your audience? >> i think your inbox is difference. you're getting a lot of people complaining that the media are unnecessarily hostile to them, their way of life, their views. the things they care about and value. this has been going on for decades. when they see donald trump fight back, it makes them feel like he's fighting back for them.
8:46 am
that's why this whole conversation is happening in a larger context. there's a reason why our ratings are so low, our credibility ratings, and our favorability rating. people don't trust us to do a good job of reflecting the views of a huge swath of the country. there's no reason to deny that. we're not going a good job. if we want to represent the people, we need to represent the people. we need to have news rooms full of diverse arguments. we're not doing a great job with that. it's causing us major problems that donald trump is able to exploit. that's dangerous because the media are important for holding all politicians accountable. >> both sides of this are -- i'm sitting here, both sides are true. jeffrey is right. you move the press out of there, it's beyond optics. it's deep cultural symbolism. the representatives to the people moved literally off. president obama did a lot of
8:47 am
this himself. he limited the photography from inside the white house from independent sources. that's number one. he did all the things that trump is taking to the exponential level of trying to go around the press. there's truth to what molly says as well in terms of the kind of coverage during this election. if you think back to the cnbc debate where the first question from john harwood is isn't this cartoon campaign. some people in the press were thinking that way. it was a brilliant campaign that trump was running. he was spending almost no money. he was using social media. he was using television, but yet we came at him at that tone. a lot of us in the media wanted to ridicule him. he does need the press as an enemy so he's going to do things
8:48 am
to infuriate us to his base just as molly said, and it's not justified. we have to stop him before he moves them out. >> that's the most important part of the esquire story overnight. there's a quote saying the media is the opposition party. that's maybe the trump view. i asked sean spicer. he said i respect the role of the media but that unnamed quote is crucial. jeffrey, i'm almost out of time. last word to you. what are you telling your journalists with regards to all of this we're talking about here? >> the general instruction, i think, is we're not here to take cheap shots. if they are hard shots that are justified by the facts, take the hard shot. i'm telling them that access is important. i want to interview people. i want to cover these people fairly but we're not going to beg for access. we're going to just cover things as fairly as we can. i think we're talk about
8:49 am
something that's still theoretical. he's not president yet. i don't want to go into this conversation about authoritarian quite yet because it's all prospective. let's take this one day at a time and cover this white house vigorously the way we would cover any white house. >> 120 hours until inauguration. thank you very much. david, stick around for one more block. let's take a quick break. afterwards a story that might have slipped under your radar. it's been a busy news week. fox news settled a sexual harassment charge against bill o'reilly made by a former on air colleague. the details right after this. and 10 grams of protein. and look where life can take you! boost®. be up for it.™ anyone ever have occasional constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating? she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily
8:50 am
with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health. 90% of the world's largest supercomputers run on intel? that means you can take a universe of data - in your case literally - and turn it into medical discoveries, diagnostic breakthroughs... ...proof that black holes collapse into one singularity. i don't know what that is. but yes. innovation runs on supercomputers... ...and supercomputers run on intel. you are super smart. and super busy. ♪ ooh! ufo! false alarm, eyelash!
8:51 am
8:52 am
8:53 am
>> welcome back to reliable sources. i'm brian. so much media news you might have missed this development. this is fox news settling a sexual harassment allegation made by former on air colleague ho juliette. now this is not the first time allegations have been bright against o'reilly. he settled in a story in 2004. the question here on the table is about o'reilly in the context of the former fox news boss who resigned under pressure last july. it is charges of harassment but resulted in his downfall.
8:54 am
what about o'reilly? is there a double standard? media critic, david, one of two things may be going on here. there was this quiet settlement disclosed this week. either she was harassed by o'reilly or a boss had been taken down. what's your read on this story? >> my read is that there has been so much of this from kelly to this case. it's impossible that that was not the culture of fox news that roger ails established. it's a sick culture. it's a troubling culture that talented women journalists. you know how hard it is to do a
8:55 am
show five nights a week. at the level of excellence that she did it. now imagine doing that when you were sexually harassed and in her book she talks about being sexually harassed by him. how can you expect somebody to achieve and now it's like penn state at fox news with jerry sandusky. nobody knew this was going on for all of this time with all of these women. >> i don't think so. >> one theory here is maybe she decided to write this letter because he was trying to take down o'reilly. that's a theory. another theory is she felt she could bring this allegation and talk about what happened. there were inaccurate things in this letter from her lawyers. it says the letter contained
8:56 am
substantial falsehoods. along with o'reilly the other man here was a co-president of fox news. o'reilly's own lawyer said there was no basis for any claim of sexual harassment by huddy. they are talking about this broader issue of harassment in news rooms. david, i'm almost out of time but what do you think viewers need to take away from these kinds of allegations? >> it's really troubling that it persisted to this day. it's not just troubling. troubling sounds like a high minded word. it's really painful to hear their stories. i >> i'm out of time but it's not just about fox. it's about an industry wide and
8:57 am
culture wide problem. we'll keep this going in our newsletter. thanks for tuning in today. i'll see you next week. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me.
8:58 am
what are you doing? getting your quarter back. fountains don't earn interest, david. you know i work at ally. i was being romantic. you know what i find romantic? a robust annual percentage yield that's what i find romantic. this is literally throwing your money away. i think it's over there. that way? yeah, a little further up. what year was that quarter? what year is that one? '98 that's the one. you got it! nothing stops us from doing right by our customers. ally. do it right. let's get out of that water.
8:59 am
9:00 am
ber. ally. do it right. here it comes. in five days donald trump will be sworn in. john lewis says he is boycotting. >> i don't see the president-elect as a legitimate president. >> will other democrats revolt?