thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hey, good morning. i'm brian stelter. this is reliable sources, our weekly look at the story behind the story of how news and pop culture get made. this hour, trump says is you're fired, cnn says you're hired. is this network crossing the line by hiring trump's former campaign manager, corey lewandowski? we'll talk about it. plus, this week's protest by house democrats, when the tv cameras were turned off, their cell phone cameras with r turned on. in just a moment, congressman scott peters will tell me how he live streamed this historic sit-in. and later, a sit down with the ceo of "the new york times." with trump continuing to block some news outlets from his events, including "the washington post," could "the new york times" be next? we'll get to all of that coming up this hour.

plus, fareed zakaria and dan rather are both here to talk with me about the brexit decision and the media coverage of that vote. let's begin a little counterintuitively with what happened in washington this week on the floor of the united states house of representatives. this is something i was watching all the way over in europe on my phone, on the periscope and facebook live apps. it's something we've never quite seen before. this was a protest by the democrats in the house of representatives. it was clearly a publicity stunt, but it was also unprecedented, an attempt to force votes about gun legislation. when the house leadership decided to recess the house, trying to stop the protest, the television cameras up in the top of the balcony were automatically turned off. that's what the rules state in congress. when those cameras were turnedoff, the democrats turned on their phone cameras. these lawmakers were basically acting like citizen journalists, broadcasting the demonstration. they gave networks like c-span

and cnn visuals they can broadcast from it the house floor. congressman scott peters was one of the first to start streaming. i wanted to ask him, what did he learn from this experience? >> i know one of your staff members attended a periscope training exercise. is that what prompted this? >> no, but i'm glad she knew about it. we were sitting there about to have an amazing conversation about congress and about gun safety. we realized that the cameras that the house usually feeds from had been turned off, as had the microphones. so quinn suggested to me i download periscope and try it out. so i did. >> did you find it to be easy? take me behind the scenes. how did it go? >> i downloaded it on the house floor. i just -- there's a button that says start broadcast. i hit it. at that time, actually, i had

promised my daughter that i'd talk to her at, i think, 1:00. i wanted to run out and talk to her, so i shut it off. i already got these amazing responses like, what happened to peter's feed, i was watching that, turn it back on. a couple times the sergeant at arms asked me to turn off the camera because it was against the rules. again, i got this voluminous response and really emotional response. turn it back on, we're watching. i just decided that the better thing to do was to make sure that america could see what was going on. it was an amazing event, but it would have been almost nothing had not people been able to see it. that amazing technology gave it to us. >> what did you learn from your first live streaming experience? >> well, you know, what was interesting -- because the app has realtime comments. first of all, people are clearly concerned about this issue. they're emotionally invested in it. orlando is very recent, but i was elected just after sandy

hook. people really want us to do something. the other thing is, i think that they sense that we share their frustration about the inability to get these things up for a vote, about the inwilliunwillinf leadership to let us take action. it was an amazing connection. it was full of a lot of energy. i enjoyed those kinds of comments. i also enjoyed people saying, does peters have enough food, does he need a battery charger, can you wipe off the lens. >> what was the secret? are there extra batteries? how did that work? >> i realized that i was going to need a charger. i didn't want to shut this thing down. so my colleagues were bringing me up chargers the whole time. i had a cord running off the phone. i just kept changing it out. >> the reason why this struck me as so interesting is we were seeing a bottom-up view, from your eyes vantage point, rather than the top down view from the balcony. but journalists like c-span, cnn, and others have wanted to have cameras in that room for decades. every time there's a new speaker of the house, they say no. if and when the democrats take

control of the house, will you support changes to allow journalists and their cameras inside the chamber? >> i would. i think what you say about the view is really profound. for people to be able to see kind of literally from the front or second row people speak on the house floor, it meant a lot to people. it really connected them to their government in a way that i would say probably has never happened before. >> what else would you like to show constituents using your cell phone camera now? what else could we show people using this technology? i wonder if you'd ever let us behind the scenes during fundraisers or something like that. >> yeah, you could do anything like that. it's a great idea. you know, i had not imagined that you could get this kind of connection with people, and it was worldwide. we had tweets coming back to me in german. so i think it opens up all sorts of possibilities. the more light we shine on all this, i think the people will understand kind of where the hiccups are and they'll help us force the kind of change we all want to see. >> so even when republicans take

advantage of facebook live and snapchat and instagram, you say it's good for all the lawmakers there? >> absolutely. i think what we want people is to see the debate. our big frustration is we can't get that debate on the house floor because they won't bring the bills up. >> any advice for your fellow lawmakers who might want to pick up the phone and start periscoping in the future? >> i love you're asking a 50-something for advice on social media. it's great. i would say, you know, jump in. it worked for me. i think we had a really great conversation that america got to be a part of, and it wouldn't have happened without the great technology we have today. >> you can add videographer to the resume if you want. thank you so much for being here. >> thanks so much, brian. >> fascinating, i think. i bet we'll see more republicans and democrats using these live streaming services in order to take people behind the scenes. it really was a democratization of media moment. coming up, fareed zakaria joins me to talk about the coverage of the brexit decision. was the american media late to

the story, and did the british media tilt the vote? we'll get into that in just a moment. ♪but i'm not gonna let 'em catch me, no no,♪ ♪not gonna let 'em catch the midnight rider,♪ ♪yeaaahh... ♪but i'm not gonna let 'em catch me nooo♪ ♪not gonna let 'em catch the midnight riiiiiiiideer!♪ world saleilton is on honors members save up to 25% on brands like hampton, doubletree, hilton garden inn, and waldorf astoria so stop clicking around. book direct at hilton.com now that's satisfaction. thanks for tnorfolk!around and i just wanted to say, geico is proud to have

served the military for over 75 years! roger that. captain's waiting to give you a tour of the wisconsin now. could've parked a little bit closer... it's gonna be dark by the time i get there. geico®. proudly serving the military for over 75 years. (mamost of the show. we missed (woman) and there's no way to restart it. (jon bon jovi) with directv there is. ♪ you see, we've got the power to turn back time ♪ ♪ so let's restart the show that started at nine ♪ ♪ and while we're at it, let's give you back your 'do ♪ ♪ and give her back the guy she liked before you ♪ ♪ hey, that's the power to turn back time. ♪ (vo) get the ultimate all-included bundle. call 1-800-directv. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through?

introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.

now to the story that i did not expect to be talking about this morning. the story that caught a lot of people off guard. what does that say about media coverage? we're talking about brexit. unless you're a financial news junky or an international politics news nerd, you probably missed the brexit buildup almost entirely. suddenly on thursday night, the cable newsers were wall to wall

with this election coverage. now in the two or three days sense, we've all received a crash course on what the exit might mean. the headlines tell the story. why the u.s. is freaked out about brexit. and this with unone is interestg too. what a failure to predict brexit means for the u.s. and this third one. globalization and its discontents: how the trump/brexit movements might herald new world orders. there's that connection to trump. did the media fail to see brexit coming the same way it mostly failed to take trump seriously this time last year? let's ask fareed zakaria, the host of "gps." why did most experts not believe this would actually happen? >> i think the fundamental reason was that the polling was wrong. it's a very interesting thing. british pollsters were wrong about brexit. they thought it was likely not

to happen, small margins, but that was their prediction. they also got the british elections wrong, canadian elections wrong. what appears to be happening here is that the number of people responding to polls has dropped dramatically. so 30 years ago, about 40% of people who were called would respond to polls. we're down to under 8%. >> some pollsters say it was a tight race at the end and maybe people had wishful thinking going on. this was maybe a failure of imagination. >> there may be a second issue. one is the low poll rate. the second is output is slightly different. there is a certain shame attached to the pro-brexit vote. people don't admit that they're going to vote pro-brexit, to have britain leave. here the parallel is with the trump vote. trump, if you notice, has often outperformed his poll numbers in the republican primaries because there were people who wanted to vote for trump and were going to but didn't want to tell that to pollsters. but when they go into a secret ballot, they do it. those two factors.

very low poll response rates and the fact that people didn't want to admit that they wanted to leave probably got a lot of people off guard. >> so that link to trump. let me play some sound from chuck todd, the host of "meet the press." here's what he said friday morning right after the vote happened. >> does donald trump get a bump out of this? >> i don't know if he gets a bump out of it, but it is a reminder why we in whatever you want to call us, the political or media elite, need to not underestimate donald trump. >> there's that word, elite. is it because journalists and ak demmists are not listening closely enough to the other half of the uk that was feeling like they didn't want to leave the eu? >> sure, there is definitely some part of it that journalists overwhelmingly tend to be better educated, urban, comfortable with diversity, themselves perhaps ethnically diverse. they come from that segment of

society that tends to be more liberal. they're probably less sensitive to the concerns and real pain felt by, you know, the other half. it is a 50/50 case. you could argue the opposite as well, you know, that the trump voters don't think a lot about the other half of their country. >> we need to make sure we listen to the 48% in britain who voted to stay. their voices are not being marginalized. >> there's another piece that's important to point out. the media is often accused of bias. we know most journalists do tend to be probably left of center. but there's another problem here, which is that if you look at the brexit campaign, the people who wanted britain to leave were entirely using emotion. they were conjuring up horror stories of millions of refugees comes into britain, overwhelming the social services, things like that. >> this is what we see in the tabloids that were supporting a departure from the eu. >> exactly. the british tabloids are

basically their fox news. they don't have fox news, but they have the tabloids. on the other side, the people who wanted britain to remain were producing studies and economic analyses and experts. so the media does have a bias in favor of facts. it does have a bias in favor of authentic, legitimate experts who are providing data, and they do point out that some of the scare mongering is, in fact, scare mongering. you can call it bias, but i think journalists have to point out when one side is using facts and the other side is pushing emotional buttons, that there's a difference. they're not equivalent. >> one turn to another top you can we'-- topic we're hearing at this weekend, george will leaving the republican party. we've heard from will this morning on fox news talking about his decision. donald trump's already attacked him on twitter this morning. what do you make of these republican elites like george will who are breaking with the party and breaking with trump? >> i think it's very significant. look, george will is probably the most influential

conservative writer in america. he's been writing for "the washington post" for 40 years. i've known him for much of that time. i interviewed george will when i was in college for my college magazine. he's not a friend, but i can tell you he's a very honorable conservative. i think what he is tapping into is this idea, this is not a left/right issue. this is an issue about character. this man is, in his view, unfit to be president of the united states. >> don't you think donald trump would say you and george will are part of the problem? >> i think he would, but look, it's not just me and george will. it's hank paulson, the secretary of treasury under george w. bush. >> and last week, by the way, you called him out in your program. what did you say? >> i pointed out that there were a number of very distinguished republicans, former secretaries of state, defense, and treasury, not one of whom had said they would publicly -- i urged them to say the words never trump. i was enormously gratified to

see hank paulson, incredibly distinguished former secretary of treasury, say precisely that, never trump. he pointed out again that this is not an issue of -- it's not about that trump is too conservative or not conservative enough. it's that his -- you know, if you believe there's a basic character issue, that this man has been lying, whether it's from birtherism up to ted cruz's father being involved with the assassination of jfk, that's a different problem than whether or not he fits on your political ideology. that's a matter of temperament and basic qualification. i think what will is saying, what hank paulson is saying, what mitt romney is saying, is that's the issue. republicans should recognize that this is not a case of trying to figure out whether you can ideologically, you know, get him to say a few words that will make him compatible. it's whether or not there's a fundamental character flaw. >> well, we're having a referendum of our own in

november. it's about donald trump. we'll see how much these e elite voices have an impact. >> and this is a different country from britain. we're much more comfortable with pluralism, diversity than perhaps britain is. >> fareed, great to see you. >> pleasure. >> "gps" coming up at 1:00 eastern time here on cnn. coming up, outrage over cnn's newest commentator, donald trump's former campaign manager, corey lewandowski. every day you read headlines about businesses being hacked and intellectual property being stolen. that is cyber-crime. and it affects each and every one of us. microsoft created the digital crimes unit to fight cyber-crime. we use the microsoft cloud to visualize information so we can track down the criminals. when it comes to the cloud, trust and security are paramount. we're building what we learn back into the cloud to make people and organizations safer.

welcome back to "reliable sources." this week the revolving door between poll tickitics and tele swung very, very fast. corey lewandowski is now a paid commentator. his hiring was instantly controversial. in fact, i would say he's the

most controversial addition to cnn in several years. for one thing, he's been openly hostile to reporters all throughout the campaign, including some of cnn's own reporters. in march, he was accused of battery by then-breitbart reporter michelle fields. she said she was grabbed when she tried to ask trump a question. lewandowski was charged with a misdemeanor, but the state attorney declined to prosecutor. there are also questions about whether lewandowski is able to say what he thinks about trump. after all, he's been professing fierce loyalty to trump even after being fired. is this because he signed a nondisclosure agreement? erin burnett asked him in his first appearance as a cnn commentator. watch what he said. >> when i came on board the trump campaign, like everybody else, i said what i would i do is keep confidential information confidential. i signed a document to that degree. i don't plan on ever breaking that. >> did you sign something like that, that said no disparaging?

>> let me tell you who i am, and for those who don't know me, i'm a guy who calls balls and strikes. >> so he didn't directly answer the question about nondisparagement clauses. those mean you can't trash talk your old boss. whether trump's lawyers try to enforce it is another question altogether. you can see why there's concern about this hiring. one gossip columnist this weekend even said there's a, quote, revolt brewing here in the newsroom at cnn. so i approached this story the same way i would if i worked at my former employer at "the new york times". i found no signs of a revolt and no organized protest about lewandowski's hiring. but i did find some discomfort. there are some people that are uncomfortable with the hiring, and there might be some awkward moments in the makeup room. but everyone also said they understand the hiring. the reality is that lewandowski was not hired to be a reporter. he was hired to defend and explain and channel trump's

views. cnn has a roster of anti-trump conservative commentators and anti-trump, pro-clinton liberals. as someone who looks for balance while watching tv, i think it makes sense to add another pro-trump voice. but i also understand these ethical questions that have been brought up. so let me find out if my guests agree with me. david, let me start with you. your job is to critique the media. what do you make of this hiring? >> brian, i hate it, but i've hated bringing political operatives into tv operations, tv news operations for decades. as you know, it goes all the way back to the '60s with bill moyers coming from the johnson administration as a press secretary to cbs. i think what happens here, though, we're at this point in history where a lot of people in this country feel that media

elites and political elites are in bed together and that they're the losers, the people in america feel the losers. this reinforces that when you bring someone like this in. but cable news is drowning in political operatives. everybody has them. i think what makes lewandowski so offensive to so many people is that he embraced the tactics, really, that it appears that trump learned from roy cone, who was the attack dog for senator joseph mccarthy in the 1950s. roy cone and mccarthy took the conversation of democracy and american political life into a dark and dangerous place where many lives were ruined, where it was win at any cost, tell any lie it takes to get what you want. lewandowski practiced that kind of demeanor, that kind of snarly, vicious tone on the campaign trail with reporters.

so for cnn to then bring him in -- and it's especially -- i'll tell you one last thing, brian. cnn has done great on this political season. terrific. and its ratings show it. it's created a garden of good political tv journalism. to bring this snake into it, i can see why people are upset. >> let me ask jeffrey why he disagrees with you. i saw, jeff, you said a couple days ago that adding lewandowski to the roster here is a terrific asset. you think it made a lot of sense. why do you think david's wrong? >> david is wrong -- first of all, i think corey is absolutely a terrific asset. i think cnn has made a great decision. here's why david is wrong. over at fox, where there's been criticism of this, they have carl rove, who was specifically accused by the dallas morning news of threatening reporters, for having a history of threatening reporters. >> but they didn't hire carl rove three days after he left the bush white house. >> no, but they hired him and he's been there a long time. over at abc, george

stephanopoulos himself admits he conspired with hillary clinton to destroy the reputation of various women who came forward to describe their affairs with bill clinton. yet, there he is an anchor no less at abc. i would suggest one thing i do agree with david, this has been around a long time, and frankly it goes back to the eisenhower administration when the press secretary left to become the vice president of abc news. >> just to take viewers behind the scenes, i booked you days ago before lewandowski was hired because it is sometimes difficult to find trump supporters to have on the air. that's why you were brought on board almost a year ago here at cnn. >> right. >> katherine, let me bring you into this picture here. you're the editor of "reason" magazine, a libertarian magazine. what do you make of this cable news tendency to bring in these former campaign managers and strategists, in this case just three days after he was fired snn? >> the justification is you want insight into the people on process of the campaign.

trump is notoriously opaque. his campaign is notoriously opaque. i think, okay, you bring in lewandowski, maybe he spouts trump talking points for four months and cnn doesn't get a good return on its investment, but based on his career so far, i would not say that boring is generally the way lewandowski goes. i for one want top know what's happening inside the trump campaign. i'll take any information at this point. >> you don't think this nondisparagement clause is an issue, that you won't be able to trust him when he's speaking? >> i think it's absolutely an issue, but it's also very standard. it's very common. again, i would not bet on lewandowski to go safe and boring. i agree the guy is going to have question marks floating around his head every time he opens his mouth, but he might tell us something we need to know. >> david, do you think there need to be disclosures or something like that during cnn broadcasts? >> oh, absolutely. it's not enough to say trump supporter. you're going to have to say -- you know, really, i want you guys to say what that nondisparagement clause is. i want him pinned down on that.

by the way, i want to the say to jeffrey, i've denounced both of those, stephanopoulos and rove. i've denounced them bitterly. i couldn't agree more. worse, rove's got a super pac. that's more evil in the political process. the other thing i do want to say about getting information about the process from lewandowski, brian, if the folks at cnn, who i think have the best political reporters on television, if you guys need to pay him to tell you what's going on inside the trump campaign, give your money back. you're not earning your paycheck. let's find out the old-fashioned way by reporting it, not paying weasels to tell you about it. >> certainly lewandowski has been a source for some reporters here. i think this is a television calculation. if he didn't go to cnn, he was going to go to another channel. to me, television-wise, this makes perfect sense. journalistically, there are questions. those questions will continue to have to be answered.

jeffrey, let me give you the last word. when you look across the landscape, do you think there's anybody else in the trump campaign that will end up at a television channel, maybe trump himself? >> when president trump takes office, i imagine some people won't want to work in the white house. they'll work at cnn. i'm sure there will be people. i find this amazing. when you think the status that bill moyers has in american society today and barry goldwater himself accused of running a white house dirty tricks operation for linden johnson, and he worked for cbs for ten years as a commentator and for decades at pbs. so i just think the horse, with all due respect to david, the horse has long, long, long left the barn. i myself criticize stephanopoulos for being an anchor, not a kmcommentator. when corey takes over cnn's news department, then maybe we can talk again. >> that won't be happening. i wonder if some of the reactions, some of the hundreds of tweets i see are anti-trump

bias tweets. people don't want to see trump supporters on the air. at the same time, there's real questions here. i'm glad they've been written about. we'll continue to keep an eye on this. panel, please stick around. more to ask you later this hour. up next, when it comes to the brexit, is the american media having a donald trump moment, making it all about us? we're going to ask dan rather to weigh in after this short break. u can upload your receipt for a chance to win a u.s. olympic training center experience and over 1,000 other incredible prizes. visit milklife.com/champions to enter. looktry align probiotic.our digestive system?. for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. live 24/7. with 24/7 digestive support. try align, the #1 ge recommended probiotic.

i like the bride more than the groom. turquois dresses... so excited.

did all her exes get invited? no one's got moves like uncle joe. ♪ should i stay or should i go? ♪ when it's go, book with choice hotels and get a free $50 gift card for staying just two times. book direct at choicehotels.com. you always have a choice. welcome back. the fallout from the brexit vote has many people nervous, maybe even scared. there's one person who sees it as a very, very good thing. >> i've been saying that i would prefer what happened. i thought this would be a good thing. i think it'll turn out to be a good thing. maybe short term, not, but ultimately, i think it will be a good thing. >> so that's mr. trump there. now for some badly needed insight about the coverage on trump and brexit, i'm joined by mr. dan rather, the former anchorman of the cbs evening

news. dan, do you think americans were caught off guard by this brexit vote on thursday night and friday morning? if so, is that because of cutbacks in international news coverage over the years? >> i think those things are true. i think americans were caught off guard by it. i think the reason is the shrinking of quality international news. there's no question that one of the difficulties american journalism has had the last five to ten years is the shrinking of international coverage that allows for context, depth, perspective. so it should be no surprise that people were a bit caught off guard with this because among other things, they've been misled by the polls. turns out these polls were as useless as a pulled tooth. they amounted to nothing. there's probably a lesson to that, as was mentioned earlier in your program. a lesson for us when we consider the american presidential campaign. i will say the polls are absolutely useless, the ones on

the presidential campaign, but it's a buyer beware situation. >> i'm able to access maore new than ever before on the internet. is it that people aren't seeking out that information? >> two things. one, more and more people are looking very quickly on a hand held device. they get only one line or two lines. there's plenty of quality international reporting available on the internet, but you have to spend the time to find it, and you have to spend the time to read it, which very few people do. >> when you look at coverage of donald trump back here in the united states, it's been almost exactly a year since he entered this campaign. so many journalists have had to recalibrate their expectations and their understanding of politics. what has disappointed you in the media coverage of this campaign? >> again, what's zdisappointed e most is the lack of tough questions and follow-up questions. >> you don't think he's been asked tough questions?

>> well, he handles tough questions by doing the old side shuffle most of the time. with rare exceptions, i give jake tapper credit here at cnn, nobody bores in and keeps asking the tough questions. the other thing that's disappointed me a bit, and i think there's been some media complicity in the rise of trump. it's not the only factor, but it has been a factor of providing him so much air time, and in some cases being complicit in arranging that air time. so there's some serious questions. for the news viewer, for the consumer of news, i think never more has it been necessary to deal with skepticism. never cynicism but skepticism. okay, trump is on for an hour and a half on this network. why is he there? the answer, of course, is because he's very good for ratings and very good for demographics. >> but also because he's accessible. think about that friday morning 7:00 a.m., americans are waking up and trump is walking out on his lawn in scotland. it was almost like he timed it to the morning shows perfectly. meanwhile, hillary clinton was

nowhere to be found. >> it's not the case that he likely timed it. he did time it. he's very media savvy. give him credit for that. he's much smarter. time after time metaphorically, while hillary clinton forces have been off swimming, he's stealing their underwear. >> should we not take him live? should we have a blackout? some people at this point say just don't show him live. >> i don't agree with that at all. the control has to stay with the journalistic entity. what i worry about is in a way that the media is a political partner, a business partner of donald trump. the media wants the ratings. i don't except myself from this criticism. trump delivers the ratings. in a way, they're business partners. the role of the journalist is to be an adversary. so i think the defense is make an editorial judgment, make sure you offer the same to the other side. i'm not sure you want to have him live three times a day for

an hour and a half at a time. >> my sense is that adversarial coverage also rates well, right. doesn't matter what you're saying about trump. people will pay attention if it's about trump. maybe this is also about the pictures as opposed to the words. if we're on the air and fact checking trump but you see his face, maybe that's what people take away, only his face. >> that has to do with political tone. i'm of belief having covered politics for a long time that people by and large go by the tone of the person. political tone, there are books written about it, people can come out of a trump speech and say, what do you think about him saying possibly rearming the japanese with a nuclear weapon? i don't know, i didn't hear all that clearly, i like the guy. that's tone. trump has mastered it. it's one reason that if you're a democrat and want hillary clinton elected, you should be very, very afraid coming into

november. >> do you think donald trump will win? >> i think donald trump can win. this is a very fluid time of the presidential campaign. after the primaries and before the convention. frankly, if you don't want to pay all that much attention, just come back after labor day. i said last july, a year ago, watch this guy because don't underestimate him. i say that now. i think he can win. there's a path where he can win. that's not to say he will win. >> dan, great to see you. always a pleasure. next on "reliable sources," we're talking about more about trump. i check in with my all-star panel. how many people does it take to fact check the presumptive gop nominee? we'll be back with one of the top fact checkers in the country. stay tuned. (jon bon jovi) with v there is. ♪ you see, we've got the power to turn back time ♪ ♪ so let's restart the show that started at nine ♪ ♪ and while we're at it, let's give you back your 'do ♪ ♪ and give her back the guy she liked before you ♪

♪ hey, that's the power to turn back time. ♪ (vo) get the ultimate all-included bundle. call 1-800-directv.

the bego where you goith you they have weight but are not heavy they teach they inspire and when they happen to you or maybe when you happen to them

take these moments for all they're worth only in minnesota fact checkers, man your battle stations. donald trump's speech ripping into hillary clinton's record

was riddled with errors. "the new york times" had at least five. cnn had at least a dozen. but was it enough? the panel is back with me. we're adding one of the count country's best fact checkers. angie, was this an especially busy week for you? what did you take away from the trump and clinton speeches about each other that day? >> you know, it was a really busy week for us. these were big set piece speeches where the candidates unloaded each other with lines they'll likely use the rest of the campaign. >> was it fair to say the clinton speech was more accurate than the trump speech? >> it is fair to say that. our fact checks showed that. clinton is very well prepared. she's very literal. she doesn't make unforced errors. trump's speech, on the other hand, had things that were easily disprovable. one thing he said was we spend more on refugees and we could

rebuild the inner cities with that money. that was easily disprovable. we rated it pants on fire, about 4 million for refugees and 40 million just to rebuild new york. so that's the kind of inaccuracy we're talking about. >> let me ask jeffrey, who's here at cnn, a trump supporter. when you hear this, when you hear the fact checks all across the board, very critical of trump, did you wish that he would change his remarks, maybe be more careful in his speeches? >> well, it's always good to be careful with your facts, but let me just suggest this. i think the best fact checkers in a presidential campaign are the opponents, in this case hillary and donald trump. i think they do a better job of countering the assumptions of the other candidate than fact checkers. i hate to be the dissenter here, and i'm not saying this because of donald trump, but i honestly don't think this fact checking business, as we're all into this, is anything more than, you know, one more sort of out of touch elitist media type thing.

i don't think people out here in america care. what they care about are what the candidates say. to give you one example of a hillary clinton fact that never goes talked about, she always talks about the financial crisis of 2008, and she's blaming wall street and all this sort of thing. when, in fact, her husband's own national homeownership strategy from 1994 and ensuing housing legislation had a great deal to do with this. when you read gretchen morganson of "the new york times," that kind of thing is never fact checked. >> i'll look it up. katherine, let me ask you about what jeff is saying here. i've heard a lot of people say we're in this post-fact checking world. does that depress you, the way it makes me want to put my hands in my head here? >> i think the brand of fact checking has really taken a hit because everyone assumes the mantle now. the campaigns are issuing press releases. there's a whole bunch of different outlets. the idea that maybe people are seeing the word fact check and no longer hearing anything other than this is some red team/blue

team stuff and i can't sort it out is seems pretty reasonable to me. on the other hand, i think trump is making it especially difficult because he doesn't care what the fact checkers say. the compensation for a fact checker is when a candidate says you caught me, trump is honey badger. he gives no gulf to the fact checkers. >> what do we do about this then? >> this is what we do. we keep checking facts. this is who we are as journalists. if it gives you a headache, brian or other people don't get it anymore, we still have to keep doing it. i agree, we may be at some point in this country where people don't care about facts, but to say that truth is something for elitestists as jeffrey did really wroirs me. journalism checks fact. if we lose fact-based journalism, brian, you and i both know how much trouble we are in. i'll tell you something else.

i don't think it's elitist. in america we started out with george washington and a person considerable cannot tell a lie cherry tree. we went to honest abe. this is part of the american character. you don't throw it on you now because somebody named donald trump says it doesn't matter what's true and what isn't. >> angie, does this depress you? >> no, i get e-mails from everyday voters every day who say we're sick of the politicians, we just want the facts. thank you for doing what you're doing. the reason more media organizations are doing fact checking is because the audience wants to see it. they want to read it. these stories get clicks. people are paying attention. i think this is an unusual campaign and we'll not be able to assess the role of fact checking until after the election is said and down, but i'm optimistic. the fact that more and more

media are doing it is a good thing. it was much needed in journalism, and i support it. a positive note. thank you for coming here. up next, a ceo of one of the world's most powerful newspapers. hear from the ceo from the "new york times" next. there are two billion people who don't have access to basic banking, but that is changing. at temenos, with the microsoft cloud, we can enable a banker to travel to the most remote locations with nothing but a phone and a tablet. everywhere where there's a phone, you have a bank. now a person is able to start a business, and employ somebody for the first time. the microsoft cloud helped us to bring banking to ten million people in just two years. it's transforming our world.

world saleilton is on honors members save up to 25% on brands like hampton, doubletree, hilton garden inn, and waldorf astoria so stop clicking around. book direct at hilton.com now that's satisfaction. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea,

nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. jen stops working, but her aleve doesn't. hey mom! because aleve can last 4 hours longer than tylenol 8 hour. what will you do with your aleve hours? a grwas seeing theing the different discounts.ice it had like a manufacturer discount, it had a usaa member discount. all of them were already built in to the low price. i know that i got a better deal than i would have on my own. usaa car buying service, powered by truecar.

the trump blacklist continues. "the washington post" has been band from all donald trump events for nearly two weeks now. our news outlets denied include budsfeed, "the daily beast "univision and -- surprisably, but then a saturday writers were not allowed on the golf course in scotland. it might make sense for trump, but it's very concerning for

journalism advocates. this week i was in france, meeting with media ceos and a-lister. last week donald trump was banned ban ed are you concerned that a presidential candidate taking away credentials from news outlets is a chilling thing for the whole press? >> in the end this is his responsibility, but as it happens he and i have spoken in the last week and i know his view. we're going to cover the presidential election objectively and tough mindedly, and we're not going to do anything with any candidate to soften or change what we do on the basis of whether they, as it were, let us on the bus or not. we're going to report as best we can. the high jinks of who's in and

who's out frankly has nothing to do with the way with i want to use our journalism. >> you used to lead the bbc. have you experienced this before? >> both the bbc and "new york times" we're reporting around the world. there's plenty of cunning where we're active as journalists, where they're repressive countries, and there's any level of censorism and blocking of journalism. the know the chinese language -- >> that's been going on for over a year. >> many years. >> i think that's been more than three years we've been blocked in china, so the harassment and censorship of journalism, and making it difficult for journalists to work by expelling them or not granting them visas is very familiar to us. it's not so familiar in a democratic election race in the

united states, but at the broader phenomenon -- i would say both the bbc and "new york times," the basic point is report the story as best you can, and you never compromise your reporting because of a considering about whether or not, you know, you're going to get chucked out of the meeting. he says this restrictive behavior will not continue if he get elected. as for cannes, we'll though you more next week. remember, our media covers numbs all the time at cnnmoney.com, and sign up for our nightly newsletter, and i'll see you on twitter after show. "state of the union" starts right now.

\s aftershocks. the dow dropped more than 600 points after the brexit vote, as markets worldwide are sent into upheaval. what might the brexit vote suggest for the u.s.? >> i think it's a fantastic. people are angry all over the world they're angry. >> donald trump weighed in from the uk, the presumptive gop in scotland promoting his new golf course, characteristically breaks from protocol. >> if the pound goes down they're going to do more business. >> and democrats go on the attack. >> we don't have time for