cain did, you would be wrong. it's important for the united states with a location crucial for supplying u.s. troops in afghanistan. thank you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. good morning. happy easter and happy pass over. it's time for "reliable sources." there's so much to cover this morning including the sunday morning exclusive. for your information about rolling stone magazine ands what it is doing that columbia university is about to release a damning report about the article you see on screen. it is error-filled uva investigation. a story of a well known journalist who said he was wasn't nice enough to harry reid. on a lighter note we know who is replacing jon stewart. trevor knownoah.

new choice or bad decision? perhaps the biggest news story of the religious week is the battle over religious freedom. the phrase used for controversial laws in a number of states and most recently in indiana that give individuals a defense in court if they feel their religious rights have been violated. by now i'm sure you have your own opinion. this morning we have two guests here who have unique perspectives about it. maybe voices you haven't heard, including perhaps the most influential journalist in the whole state of indiana the editor of the indy star. the big question is whether major media outlets have given the law and the supporters a fair shake. conservative media heavy weights say no. some are even depicting this as a war on christianity. here is rush limbaugh talking about democrat's response to the law. >> they view christianity as the evil majority. they hate christianity. they hate it.

they hate what christianity is. >> they hate it he says. on the same day bill o'reilly tied the backlash with the awful terror attack in kenya. >> link everything together. we just heard about the terror attack in kenya on christians. you have two things in play. you have the muslim extremists jihadists. they want to kill chasristians and are doing it all over the world. and in the united states and western europe you have a civil war between the secular con grexal movement. in both cases christians are targets. >> that is one frame for the story. and the other frame, frankly, the dominant frame everywhere from cnn to msnbc was about gay rights and the potential for discrimination. >> governor pence has

simultaneously simultaneously turning the state's government tension to the pressing need making sure it's legal to discriminate against gay people. >> to say the law is not discriminate story is disenginous. when you break it down it's a bunch of discrimination. >> this story is fraught with complications. molly hemmingway is a senior editor at federalist. she focuses on media criticism sometimes. she said this week there was a whole lot to criticize. >> thank you for joining me. there it's great to be here. >> you said there was an inkwa suggestion going on. the media is hunting for people who don't agree with it. who are the people? >> first off, what a disappointing week it has been for media coverage for an important issue. religious is one of the topics that the media struggled to cover without bias. but this week was unlike anything we've seen before. >> let me ask you about that. why is that you think the media struggles to cover religion?

>> there are many reasons, i'm sure. news rooms tend to be less religious than the general population. religious people tend to be on a opposite side. news room cuts make it hard to have devoted religious reporters and whatnot. >> that's an interesting point. we don't have full-time religious correspondents. to the extend we used to. >> right. and that does it crops out there's a problem at times like this when you have witch hunts going on and almost like a complete adoption of the framing used by the most strident opponents. >> the issue about the amount of coverage and tone of coverage. a witch hunt happens that a lot of journalists don't believe in what religious people believe. >> i think that the big problem was that there was hysteria based on ignorance. there is no way that the media accurately understood how it works if they're going to cover

the issue the way they did. the big problem they never explained that religious freedom bills only allow you to raise religion as a defense if you're accused by the government of having done something wrong or if your property is seized by the government or some government enabled action harms the religious person. they made it seem like it was an aggression posture from religious pooem people. >> you're saying they didn't read the bill. >>well they clearly didn't understand the legislation. they didn't understand it because you raise the defense in no way means you're going win the case. plenty of people raise religious freedom defenses and still lose. >> you wrote an article about americans helped by the law. it's extended to the people who are from at least someone's perspective completely wrong. if anyone in society agreed on religion there would be no need to protect it. >> exactly. the point of religious freedom is that it protects people who you disagree with. there was a obsessive focus on

imaginary situations. >> we've heard about the bakery and now the pizzeria. >> right. those are not religious freedom cases in play. the actual people who benefit from religious freedom legislation are people like are robert soto. he got the sacred eagle feathers back. or a woman the irs fired because she carried a small ceremonial dagger. she was able to use the religious freedom fwoil fight back. those are the people whoa benefit from religious freedom legislation. >> i wonder if there's a disagreement. there's a truth you're getting at the language of the law. but then there's so many people a larger truth here which is legislation like this presses all the right buttons, says all the right things for conservatives who are concerned about let's take for example, polling that shows americans supportive of gay marriage or polling that shows more

americans the same sex rights. don't you think laws on this hit on the larger truth in. >> certainly the government has laws regulations, rules that intersect with people and all sorts of different places response, you know for the evangelical christian it might be another. at different points in time it will affect different people. the beauty it protects everybody. >> where did it come from? if you believe the framing was wrong. in your mind because journalists are inherently pro gay marriage and pro gay rights and aren't able to put on the frame of pro religious frights? these are inherently in conflict? >> there's a almost certain religious like zeal which the media have taken one side. you're not allowed to have any doctrinal expensions. >> i keep mentioning gay rights

or religious freedom. you're not engageing on whether the press shoulded a advocate for same-sex marriages or equal rights. >> i think they should cover the story fairly. it's true there's going to be competing sides. there's a massive coordinated campaign right now to cast doubt on religious freedom legislation. and the media took part in that. but, you know, it's not that shouldn't be covered. it should. it's that the other side should be covered. it should be covered fairly. >> you're saying media i'm saying media. surely you think there's some outlets done have a better job. are there certainly outlets more fair? >> i thought across the board when you look at main stream media we didn't see good coverage. >> from fox news even conservative media outlefts? >> i didn't sense any media outlet told the story that benefitted. i didn't get a sense that the

most people understood it. >> i think molly is on to something. we didn't hear enough from ordinary citizens during the coverage. and just look what happened when a local tv station tried to change that. tried to go out looking for the voices. looking to do good work. they found this pizza shop. whose owner said they would, in fact, choose not to cater a gay wedding. you know whaptdt happened next. the owners are avoiding all press. they said they have had enough of it. but local point of view the local perspective is critical. look how the big paper the indianapolis star got everybody's attention with the print newspaper cover on tuesday. fix it now. a rare example of when an ed terror area becomeial becomes front page. jeff taylor is the editor of the star. he joins me this morning. >> good morning. >> i love to hear about the decision to put that on the front page. it was a reminder of the power

of the front page but it was also an ed terrorialeditorial. >> it's not a typical move for us to publish a front page editorial. we had a lot of discussions about what we thought was important for us to do in herping to move or community forward, move our state forward, our publisher karen ferguson and i talked about this for, really almost a couple of days. and deciding what we wanted to do and what direction we wanted to go. we brought in our opinion director and other top editors as we decided ultimately we thought it was important for our community, for the state, and us in a leadership position to publish this on the front page. >> there must have been some blow back? >> there was an enormous amount of positive response. much more so on that side than the other. we heard from people in our community who are in our state

who are conservative republicans who appreciated the fact we tried to say in a moment of crisis for our state it's time for us to act now to send the message this is a welcoming state that is embracing equality for all. >> a moment of crisis pretty strong words. i want to play what the governor said at the coverage. he was pretty critical of the media. here is a bit of it. >> the gross mischaracterization about this bill early on and some of the reckless reporting by some in the media about what the bill was about was deeply disappointing to me and millions of hooisers. i don't want to let the indiana press off the hook here. but i will anyway. i think the indiana press h it right from early on. some of the national reporting has been ridiculous. >> is governor pence right?

has the national reporting been ridiculous? what is he referring to specifically? >> i'm not in a position to comment on the national reporting on this issue. i was focussed in this last week and the week prior to that -- focussed on our news room and the coverage we were doing locally. we produced coverage that was fair and accurate and presented all sides of the discussion. brought the voices of real people into this. we tried to cut through the noise and get people information that they could use to understand what the law is what it say, and what it means. >> you must be frustrated to see the report ersers sometimes clouding over whalt story is and summarizing it too much. >>well there's always going to be an enormous amount of coverage around any kind of big issue like this. you'll get varying disagree inging degrees of accurate reporting. on a local level we focussed on giving people information about what the law says and what it

means. >> a few months ago governor pence got a lot of bad press because he wanted to launch the government controlled news. is this why? he thinks that the press is out to get him in miscovering stories? >> i don't know that i would say that's the case. i don't think that the state news agency and this issue were really interrelated. the issue here for us in the moment with the religious freedom debate was really focussed on trying to explain to people what the impact would be and helping people understand that laws that were in place in places like indianapolis that had local human right ordinances would have been severely eroded and maybe even stripped. >> i know a lot of people were concerned about that whole idea that state run news outlet. it's been pretty much bagged. >> right. the governor made the decision not move forward with that. >> jeff thank you for being here and sharing the local advantage point this morning. >> thank you.

>> time for a quick break here. there's going to be big news tonight in the media world. when the external conversation into rolling stone's uva rape story comes out at 8:00 p.m. i've been working the phones. i can give you a preview. i'll show you what my reporting is revealing right after this. denver international is one of the busiest airports in the country. we operate just like a city and that takes a lot of energy. we use natural gas throughout the airport - for heating the entire terminal generating electricity on-site and fueling hundreds of vehicles. we're very focused on reducing our environmental impact. and natural gas is a big part of that commitment.

let me talk to you about retirement. a 401(k) is the most sound way to go. let's talk asset allocation. sure. you seem knowledgeable professional. would you trust me as your financial advisor? i would. i would indeed. well, let's be clear here. i'm actually a dj. [ dance music plays ] [laughs] no way! i have no financial experience at all. that really is you? if they're not a cfp pro you just don't know. find a certified financial planner professional who's thoroughly vetted at letsmakeaplan.org. cfp -- work with the highest standard.

will you help us find a house for you and your brother? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ woooooah you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow today is the day. the day we finally get some answers about what happened at rolling stone magazine with its rape on campus story.

columbia university has been investigating for months and the report comes out tonight at 8:00 p.m. i've been digging around and i have a preview in a moment. the editors of rolling stone, let's be honest they committed one of the worst journalistic sins in recent mystery by publishing a rape story that appears to be have been partly made up. the police can find no evidence that the rape actually happened. but like i said we're finally going to hear what went wrong at rolling stone and we're going it hear from the story's author sabrina. this is what she said in november. >> i met a young woman named jackie. when she was a freshman she was invited on a date to a fraternity house where there was a party, and while she was there, she was lured upstairs into a bedroom where she was gang raped by seven men while two other men including her date watched and gave encouragement.

>> butteredly never spoke to the alleged attackers. jackie asked her not to. once the story began to unralph started pointing out contradictions in it and once rolling stone called in columbia to investigate the journal i guess -- journalist disappeared. she'll be breaking her silence tonight and apologizing for her rors. rolling stone will be fessing up too. columbia's investigation concluded there was a systemic failure at the magazine. in other words everybody was at fault. my sourgss say the magazine will be taking down the discredited story from the web. so the story will be gone. columbia's report will take its place. so are these the right steps and are they enough? geneva is the right person to ask. a journalist professor. thank you for being here this morning. there's a lot to unpack about

what wents wrong and maybe some closure coming. we haven't been able to see it yet. it's being held by embargo until 8:00 p.m. what do we need to know or find out? >> first of all, i think we can be glad it's an external review unlike nbc with brian williams. >> nbc are doing a internal fact checks of brian williams. they didn't bring in outsiders. >> a more credible thing to bring in outsiders. we'll see what columbia thinks happen and how well the rolling stone own it is. i understand it's going to be published at the columbia journalism review and rolling stone magazine. that's good. i think it will be very interesting to see if anyone sort of takes a hit, as you suggest, a staff was all sort of all implicit. >> right. the editors going to lose their

job or be disciplined. >> yes. it was egregious journalism. there was all kinds of problems. >> it starts with the writer and some people suggested she was trying to go out and find the most extreme case she could. the most extreme allegations. that can seem troubling on the face. sometimes you start out with a headline before you have the story, it can get you in trouble. >> absolutely. and that seems to be what she did. i think it's absolutely essential that we keep in mind it's a terrible plague really sexual assault on the campus. >> across the country. >> absolutely. some 100 campuses being investigated under civil rights by the administration. it's a very serious thing. and i think rolling stone thought we've got this story. and it broke with great power. >> it did. >> in part because of the personal narrative.

the personal narrative, though, with a not fully named individual and no corroboration with police friends, witnesses nothing. >> one of the questions whether there was real deception on the part of the source. it's so dangerous to get into that territory. it starts to sound like blaming the victim. if she was not a victim if the police say they can't find evidence of the rape occurring, then so you to ask why rolling stone's editors and fact checkers didn't do more to protect her. and the issue about sources. is it our job to protect our sources by keeping them out of their own harm's way. if it's an unanimous student maybe it is our job to go the extra mile and protect themselves from themselves. >> i think our primary job as journalists and the best way to protect our sources is to be sure we abide by our ethics. one of the fundamental ethics is verify verifiability. it's naming names enforcer of truth. that's how the public can figure out whether something is true.

>> should we be granting an anymore toit most -- >> i hold a position that is not common. i have for 25 years since the paper i edited won a pulitzer. the woman who wanted to be named who had been raped. while there has been a agreement for many years we won't name adults and only this one case -- >> only crime. >> that's the exception because we want to protect them. for understandable reasons. a horrible crime. the worst sort of crime. violent, invasive in every way because we wanted to protect them we won't name names. i believe it resulted in underreported. it's robbed our reporting of credibility. i think it lead directly into what the rolling stone did. they did a completely unsourced, essentially, piece, and the editor suspended her best journalist judgment and said we're going to go along with

this and jackie's request we not talk to the assail i can'ts? that creates an unbelievable situation which fights the claims of people who say women are making this stuff up. >> right. it was a 9,000 word story. the report is a 12,000 word story. speaking to student alex pink lton. her concern now is people's impressions are still when they think about rape they think about the rape that jackie alleged which is a horrific gang rape over a course of hours. as opposed to the date rape. she said there's damage done in other words by the article. so what more can be done to fix that? >> well, my view is that we should follow the league of the very brave young men who are writing about their rapes.

there's a piece in the sunday review this morning in their own words naming themselves obviously. and that we in journalism should be at least as brave. i think the rolling stone's best move would be to say we're not going to go along with this waiving of journalistic ethics in whichin which most journalists are reporting. we're going to name names and we make sure our reporting is credible. that is the way journalism will bring it to the public attention. it's the public that has to solve the stigma and the violent crimes prevalence. >> thank you for being here and i appreciate it. i mentioned to nbc at the beginning of the their internal investigation still going on with brian williams. tomorrow that man will be taking over nbc. he'll be the chair of nbc news and msnbc. one of his first decisions has to be about what to do with brian williams whether to

disclose the information. i'm working on a story on this on cnnmoney.com. cooling up a very important journalistic question out of nevada. can one of the state's top newspapers one of the pubbishers kill a columnist story because it was too critical of one of his friends who happened to be senator harry reid? the columnist will join me with his story. next. the pursuit of healthier. it begins from the second we're born. after all, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned... every day...

using wellness to keep away illness... and believing that a single life can be made better by millions of others. healthier takes somebody who can power modern health care... by connecting every single part of it. for as the world keeps on searching for healthier... we're here to make healthier happen. optum. healthier is here. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern.

did one of nevada's top newspapers spike a column to protect the state's powerful senator? harry reid said he had no regret regrets about attacking mitt romney months before the 2012 presidential election. remember how he claimed he didn't pay taxes? nevada's top political reporters

heard enough. when i went there in 2010 he's the first guy i e-mailed he wrote a critical column about the tactics. now a couple of years later he's accusing the paper he worked for, the las vegas sun, of pulling his story because of the editor's close ties with reid. john joins me now from nevada. good morning. thank you for being here. >> you said you were motivated to speak out now because of what reid said to cnn in an interview earlier this week. let's take a look at that and i'll hear your reaction. >> so no regrets about mitt romney about the koch brothers? some people called it m mccarthy-ite. >> they can call it whatever they want. he didn't win did he. >> that was enough. you frustrated you decided to speak out >>well i had already reported on my own site, brian, after i left the sun that brian killed

the column. i never published the column before on my own site. i thought about it. i was waiting for the right time. i saw that interview and i had two reactions, one, that was classic harry reid just being totally unrepent end about the mack villain tackics to hurt someone. i was outraged. i said it was time to show what i said back then. not because i wanted to look like i had -- to show what the column said and that brian was willing to kill the column to protect his friends. >> you mentioned greenspun. this is getting a lot of attention. we've been trying to get ahold of him. we put his statement on screen. he mentioned the other channels covering the story hasn't gotten ahold of him. i found that more curious. i would love to hear his side of

the story. why was he able to charge and say that? >> he was never going it say i did that for my friend marych harry reid. it was well known before i went work for the las vegas sun that harry reid was a sacred cow at the las vegas sun. his mentor used to be the executive editor. greenspun consistently tried to protect him. he changed a headline on a column i wrote in 2010 during the race when i said reid lost the debate. i got the call from inside the room saying brian changed the headline. it was innocuous. i let it go on i was upset. he had come to me in 2010 and asked what he could do to help harry reid. i had a contentious phone call with him. out of the hundreds of columns i have written for the las vegas sun, this was the toughest one i had ever written about harry reid and suddenly greenspun is

holding a column that never happened and saying it was too harsh in the tone. >> i guess what i'm thinking about is this is how it works. there are cases like this where political influence can get a story canned? viewers at home, you know this is a last thing they want to hear. >> yeah of course it's absolutely outrageous. i knew what i was getting into. the sun is a family-owned newspaper. brian greenspun protects his friends all the time. there are plenty of instances like this. i had a conversation before i went to work and i said i know what you do and have done in the past. if you kill one of my columns that will be the last column i ever write. that's what happened. to his credit he didn't interfere with me at all. he called me when i wrote critical things. he made me meet with a couple of his friends but he had never spiked the column before this one. that's how it works at the las vegas sun. in is not a secret.

it's just that i was the first person really to speak out about it. >> and you now write for a competing paper, we should mention. i guess i'm wonder dog youing do you think it's a broader problem in politics and media? >> i can only speak to my experience. when i worked for the review journal. i wrote a column for the reno newspaper. there was clearly the editor had friends. i never had a column killed at the review journal for any reason. even though i knew the editor had friends. it doesn't matter whether it's the washington post new york times, las vegas sun people who are at the publisher editor level have friends in the political world. the question is what do they do when the friendship comes up against journalistic imperatives. that's what makes great editors. >> less about the friendships and more about how they're handled is what you're saying. >> yeah. >> jon, thank you for being

here. i appreciate the time this morning. >> thank you, brian. we have a semirelated case i want to tell you about. we covered a story of tucker karlson accused of pulling a column. this one from the daily caller website. the writer said that carlson is a host on fox news had pulled down a piece of this because it criticized fox news. that wasn't acceptable. this week we heard from tucker karlson on the topic. he said it's true. listen to this. it's from changing lanes. an interview show that happens to be shot inside a car. >> i have two rules. one you can't criticize the families of the people who work here. and the other rule is you can't go after fox. only for one reason. not because they're conservative or we agree with them. because they're doing the lord's work. nothing like that. i work there. i'm an anchor on fox. i had a couple of employees say isn't it a conflict. i said yes, for sure. it's a conflict i'm the owner of the daily caller. and i'm an employee of fox. that's a conflicted situation.

but i don't know what to do about it. >> maybe he gets points for honesty and transparency now he talked about it publicly. time for a break here. when we come back. there's been a lot of head scratching over the changing of the guard at the daily show. when we come back i'll tell you about the internal drama about when stewart is leaving and when trevor noah is taking over. financial noise financial noise financial noise

i'm one. i'm one. i'm one. i am one of the ones who discovered always discreet underwear for sensitive bladders. it makes me feel secure, confident and i feel protected. i mean i feel comfortable to move in them they move with me.

i love always discreet underwear because of the fit. the fabric is very soft. i can wear whatever i want to wear. always discreet made me a very happy woman. join over 500,000 women who've discovered always discreet underwear. for more stories and your free sample go to alwaysdiscreet.com so bladder leaks and feel like no big deal. just imagine having to follow jon stew art. that's what trevor will be up against. that's what he's doing this week. comedy central said the 31-year-old will take the reigns of the daily show once stewart steps away. noah has been touring over seas. he's about to land in the states. he's found a lot of humor in coming to america. >> soifs happy when i -- >> since the apartheid ended now we're being killed by black

police. pro race. i didn't know this but apparently i'm mexican. >> now within hours of that big promotion, he did gate taste of what comes with a highly coveted gig. a handful of his old tweets were dug up that offended a lot of people and caused a backlash and a backlash to the backlash. that's how it work these days. the daily show is one of the premier satires out there. i think it's a home for media criticism thanks to stewart. it was a bad choice for comedy central to cast a virtual unknown or a bold decision? let's welcome back host of tell me everything. thank you for being here. >> happy easter and pass over. >> absolutely. bold decision or bad choice? >> a bold decision and practical one. you won't get a major headliner to give 12 hours a day on a

daily news show. you're not going to get a ck or chris rock. you couldn't go with a big star. jon stewart was better known when he got the gig than trevor. that seems like the john roberts supreme court. let's make the new guy in charge! i think it's a good choice. he's a funny guy. he's going have a different perspective. the trials he's endured will make him a better comedian. will it be a great truth telling show or joke telling show. >> when you were on the program in february that's what you said. take a look. >> if they hire someone a great joke teller it will be a funny show. it will lose the social relevance relevance. i want to see them a media watchdog as well as the watchdog in the two-party system. >> your hair looks better. >> oh god. >> that's the point. it's not just about having cunning one-liners about politicians. they have to take on you and everybody at the other places. i think that's the great gift the daily show has given us. it was a good show when jon

stewart took over. he kept the staff and writers at first during his transsuggestion. i think we'll see the same thing there. most of the writing staff and those great men and women will be staying, as far as i know. >> that's what i've heard as well. trevor knows them. he's been on the show a few times. >> we're hearing our friends at fox saying who is the outsider with the funny accent criticizing our politics. they didn't say it when john oliver was a funny outsider. i think he's stirring the pot and making the right people uncomfortable. >> the tweets got a lot of attention. one said south africans know how to recycle like israel knows how to be peaceful. there were several others pointed to. it is one of the mild ones. several others got attention as well. he said that a few out of context tweets doesn't show my evolution as a comedian. you were saying it will help him in terms of being prepared.

>> i think we're capable of walking and chewing gum. we don't have to judge their career talent and character based on a few old tweets. you cannot like some of the old jokes. he's a funny guy and if you're going judge every media figure by the duchlmbest things most will be out of a job. this is his response. now the issue is when he's going to take over. comedy central supported him after the twitter storm. i'm told stewart wants to leave sooner and comedy central wants him to stay later. i wonder if it's better to get started as soon as possible or have some lag time in between. you know because we saw letterman announce he's stepping down this spring. but colbert won't take over until the fall. >> the hype will help the ratings for the beginning. i think at the end of the day we have to realize whether he begins now or six months the

show he does for the first week is not the show it's going to be six months later. he's going need time to find it and make his own. i have no doubt they'll be able to do that. and it looks, you know, i'm hoping it will be a place that take on the media as well as the politicians. >> i am too. >> i don't want to see weekend update five nights a week. >> there's a lot of places for. that it would seem owning a niche is a way to go. >> that's what i think the best talents do. and that which makes you a freak as a child makes you unique as a grown up. that's the story of the stand up act. i think he'll bring a nice international perspective to. it. >> thank you. it is a new mantra among republicans among the potential 2016ers, that is i'm pretty fired up about it. i'll tell you what it is when we come back.

don't just visit orlando visit tripadvisor orlando tripadvisor not only has millions of real travelers reviews and opinions but checks hundreds of websites so people can get the best hotel prices to plan, compare and book the perfect trip visit tripadvisor.com today

there is a new litmus test for republican presidential candidates but it's not about religious freedom laws or obamacare or taxes. it's about the new york times. i'm going pretend to be a political adviser here in a minute. i have handouts. i'll mail it to every candidate who wants one republican or democrat. in order to explain what is going on we have to go back in time to what was, for some journalists, one of the saddest

moments of the 2008 campaign. that was the moment when sarah palin would not name any news sources gazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world? >> i read most of them again, with a great appreciation for the press, for the media -- >> but like what comes specifically? i'm curious. >> um all of them. any of them that have been in front of me over all these years. >> can you name a few? >> i have a vast variety of sources where we get our news -- >> that was a frustrating answer for a lot of journalists because, well we like to think of ourselves and our news stories as helping to inform politicians and the people who vote for them. that's part of the whole idea of a democratic society. forget about journalist' feelings for a moment. as voters don't we want our representatives to be exposed to

lots of news lots and lots of sources, ones that they agree with ones that they disagree with but especially ones that we disagree with? that's why this latest litmus test is ridiculous. have you noticed our gop talk about the "new york times"? here is a great example. >> isis actually quoted me accurately compared to the "new york times" which is sort of a remarkable comment on the state of the media today. >> you know it's mildly amusing and we're sort of all in on the joke. right? politicians have been trashing the press for as long as there's been politicians and there's been a preftss. the whole newspaper is worse than isis thing appeals to conservatives and others who strongly believe that "the new york times" and other papers are always liberal, biased. of course i used to work at the "times" so i see it somewhat differently. some reporters at the "times" are left of center. personally some are not left of center. but no matter what that doesn't automatically disqualify everything they write. that's why this from chris christie back in february is

ridiculous. >> i don't care what they write about me in the "new york times." they can keep it. i don't cub scribe,subscribe, by the way. >> the "times" is one of the biggest papers in the state that christie governs. now other potential candidates are also being asked about "the new york times." here's jeb bush. >> i don't read "the new york times," be honest with you. >> well here's where i break out my "snl" impression. really? really? even if you think the "times" is out to get you, you don't ever read it? there was just another example this week. ted cruz. listen to what he calls the "times." >> "the new york times" and other leftist rags they give their advice to republicans on who we should nominate and it is almost always the republican who is most like a democrat. >> well? sounds like at least he sometimes reads it. you know my cnn colleague michael smerconish was interviewing mike huckaby this

week another prospective candidate. i asked him to bring up the "times." >> governor there is an emerging litmus test for republican candidates for the presidency so now i'd like to put it to you. "the new york times." are you a daily reader? >> no. i don't read "the new york times" every day. >> you're not. >> no. i read it occasionally depends on what the article is but i don't. ic it up and read it every day. i read the "wall street journal." i read my local newspapers. i read a number of other online publications but i try to get the best information i can and that doesn't always mean that the "new york times" is going to deliver that for me. >> now here's why i respect what huckabee said. sure he took a shot at the "times" but he said "i try to get the best information i can." he said he reads a lot. and that's why it's silly, at best and dishonest at worst for candidates to say they don't even read the nation's paper of record. whatever its faults are -- and it's got faults -- "the new york times'" reporting is vital for

our country. it is one of a handful of major news rooms that makes news that breaks news that holds people in power accountable, including democrats, as we were recently reminded when the "times" broke the news about hillary clinton's private e-mail server. so when a candidate says they ignore the "times," it comes awfully close to sounding like they're proud to be uninformed. like they can't even admit to even glancing at a news source that might challenge their beliefs or merely just give them some new information. maybe reporters should start ask something democratic candidates if they refuse to read the wall street or if they refuse to watch fox news. if they do and if anyone asks any other republican possible candidates about their media habits i've taken the liberty of writing an all-purpose response. i've even printed it out so it will fit in a wallet. okay? here it is. yes, i read "the new york times," because i also read the "wall street journal" and the economist and the weekly standard and red state and the daily caller around "the huffington post" and salon and mother jones and buzz feed. sometimes even tmz.

i read as much as i possibly can so i represent every citizen. even the ones who will never vote for me. no i know it's not a very satisfying primary season response but at least it's honest. i am biased. i'm biased and in favor of a more informed pool of candidates ones that read as much as they can. so anyway that's my suggestion for all the candidates out there. coming up a quick turn here because the proposed deal to limit iran's nuclear program could benefit several americans who are being held in the country. i'll tell you what the family of the jailed "washington post" reporter there has to say about it next.

the pursuit of healthier. it begins from the second we're born. after all, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned... every day... using wellness to keep away illness... and believing that a single life can be made better by millions of others. healthier takes somebody who can power modern health care... by connecting every single part of it. for as the world keeps on searching for healthier... we're here to make healthier happen. optum. healthier is here.

this week a major breakthrough in the talks to limit iran's nuclear program. but what about the americans who are being detained there? here at "reliable sources" we want to make sure people stay aware of the plight of a "washington post" reporter who would have been covering this week's news from tehran but he has been sitting in a jail cell for the past eight months with little information being shared about the charges against him. this case keeps getting more frustrating. "the washington post" has heard nothing new in the past few days which of course bad news. jason's family weighed in this week as well. they said "now that the framework agreement is in place, we call on the iranian leadership to review the

evidence their underlings claim to have against jason. if they do we are certain they will see that jason has done no harm to iran." i just spoke with jason's brother, ali. he says the lawyer has still not been able to meet with jason but they are hopeful he will be able to soon. we will stay on this case. that's all for this televised edition of "reliable sources." "state of the union" starts right now. israel's prime minister blasts a deal he says threatens the country. is the ncaa cheating student athletes? and finding faith in a world of turmoil. this is "state of the union." israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu slams the new deal with iran. senator dianne feinstein says give iran a chance. easter and passover collide with religious controversy. the ncaa faces new scrutiny on a huge weekend for college sports. good morning from washington. i'm jim acosta.