it's time for a special edition of reliable stories. how the news gets made. a special welcome to our viewers here in the u.s. and all around the world on cnn international. something first, something different, before i even get to the teases, before i tell you about the great show we have in store today. tuesday night was the culmination of one of the biggest media failures in many years. most journalist ahead into tuesday night believing hillary clinton would be elected president at the end of the nieft and most viewers had the same impression. you can see in this preelection data. now this did not in a vacuum.

the donald trump campaign also thought it was likely to lose, wall street thought trump would lose too. but chalking all of this up to a surprise victory is not enough. this was a clekive failure. a failure of imagination. in some ways a mass delusion and the media contributed to it. so now it's time for some serious soul searching. look, i don't subscribe to the argument that tv networks gave too much attention and that's the main reason why he's president. nor do i subscribe to the argument that reporters ignored trump's america. they were outstanding reports an eye opening cable news debates this year. but i know some of you watching right now are having a very hard time trusting this channel and every other news source. so we on the other side of the screen over here have to reckon with that, not just for a week or two but for the long-term. i have heard from thousands of you this week on facebook on twitter on e-mail, all over the place and some of you feel like

the media paved the way for a madman to become president. others of you feel like journalism is completely irnow. still others of you feel like the media bias tilted the race in one direction or another. many of you are wondering who and what you can trust. so the bottom line is there are lessons to be learned if we are willing to learn them. so let's get start heerd because we have special guests standing by including nate silver who had strong feelings about how polls should be covered in the future and famed first amendment lawyer floyd abrams. he's planning on defending the press but now the focus on journalism in the trump age, let's bring in our super panel. dodi stuart, former cbs evening news anker dan rather. molly hemmingway and political

analyst jeff greenfield. great to have you all here. dan, did journalism properly serve the public this year? >> no. not enough investigative reporting, not enough hard questioning and not enough listening, particularly listen torks that part of america which is called flyover between the two coasts. it was a failure. ours was not the only failure but a very important failure and going forward instability requires particularly with new nations and our nation is still a new nation from a broad historical sweep, and the press is a very important institution but it needs to examine itself. didn't listen enough, didn't ask enough tough questions, didn't ask enough follow-up questions, didn't do enough deep investigative reporting. we didn't do our job as well as we could have and should have. >> do you agree? was the work not done or was the

work not noticed by some voters? >> i believe that there was a lot of work done and i think right now we're unfortunately dealing with a situation where people don't trust the media. there's a lot of mistrust out there when a candidate says the lying media, we have a lot of people who actually believe that. >> aren't there other reasons besides trump's tack for people to mistrust the press? >> of course. part of the problem is where people are getting their news from and the other part is there's an echo chamber created on social media you're really only seeing the things that your friends are seeing and that people that you know or seeing and if there's something else out there that's more factual it may never come in front of you. >> there's a media and antimedia. i want to ask you a question about this, i want to know from you as a conservative writer, how much of this do you chalk up to wishful thinking because i do believe there were a lot of

journalist, most journalist who were fearful of a trump presidency, who were engaging in wishful thinking, believing he couldn't be elected and that's why so many viewers were on shock on wednesday morning to wake up to president trump. >> this was a complete failure in every step of the process during this entire campaign. the media definitely -- they clearly and overtly even told us they wanted hillary to win and they gambled anything including their credibility on defeating donald trump and electing hillary clinton thaen loss and now where does that leave everybody. >> who is the they you're referring to? >> the "the new york times" had on the front page of their paper in the middle of august that you couldn't give donald trump a fair shake. nobody with eyes or ears could have any question what the media felt about donald trump, what they felt about his voters. even something as simple as for some reason apparently people in washington and new york news rooms had a high view of hillary clinton that was unmatched in the entire rest of the country. so you had people in our "newsroom," in our major national media telling us things

that we knew were not true. i don't know what the media can do now to regain it's credibility. >> let's ask jeff greenfield. you've been studying the press for decades, what's your assessment of what went wrong and what went right? >> well, i don't have a unified field theory but i'll just point out a couple of things. four years ago we learned that data trumped impression, to get the -- look at the data. this year if you looked at it carefully enough on election day, all of the state polls that helped feed the narrative that clinton was going to win were like one and two points. and i think there was an enormous overreliance on data but to the broader point, i do think part of what happened was this, once the election season kicked in to high gear and the hour long, uncritical, open mic for trump was change nood very

tough scrutiny what we didn't realize was that for people beyond our world, the distrust of the media was so high even when trump's liability were accurately reported, people who wanted trump for all kinds of reasons, said, no. you're part of the problem. you're part that have system we want donald trump to upend, so those are just two points. i think it goes way behind that but again i don't think there is one unified explanation for what happened here. >> is one of them jeff a false -- hillary clinton's e-mails and other controversies were treated as the same as trump's many misstatements and offensive remarks? >> i certainly think in terms of coverage that's true, but i think the other part was that -- that the normal way that i've always assumed the press worked, it's described in a book called the gamble, the press reveals facts that damage a candidate, the public says oh, no, we can't

accept that candidate. i think to some extent what a lot of us, me thought were disabling aspects about trump his supporters said norks, that's him and we're so desperate for change that we're going to go with him. so i'm not sure i buy the false equivalency except in terms of the quantity of coverage. >> what do you think? >> the very term false equivalency should die in a fire and the proof is that donald trump has been elected president. this is another thing the media kept pushing the idea to talk about hillary clinton compromising national security for her own personal gain was some false equivalence si with all of these horrible things donald trump done. people aren't buying what the media are selling any more and it's something that actually goes quite beyond just the coverage of this campaign. going back to previous elections where people have clearly put their fingers on the scale in support of one candidate over another and i just -- it alarm mez to even hear this term used again after what we learned on tuesday. >> can i add a word, people

don't trust the media. i -- there's a deviefd in this country and it mirrors the electoral divide. >> liberals do definitely trust the media. they get everything they want to hear from liberals. conservatives don't and the media in general have a lower approval ratings than both donald trump and hillary clinton. so to talk about how unliked these candidates are when we ourselves are loathed and detested for what we're doing and for how we bully people. we take their views and bully them. they don't want to hear it any more and they're having to shout to get people to listen and the really alarming thing is a lot of people aren't listening. dispar ageing people and continuing to avoid dealing with the fundamentals of this race, what people were motivated by. they're not interested in this. this is alarming and the media need to wake up because it's actually a very important time to get our credibility back. >> dan, you're smiling. tell me why.

>> well, i'm smiling because a love of things said here, for example, that most of the people don't trust the media. i think most people have a skep tichl about the media's very healthy. that's number one. secondarily, i would challenge something you said earlier tharks well, you didn't agree that the cable networks help create donald trump. i don't think they created him alone. but they gave him an awful lot of free time, maybe a billion dollars worth or more of free time and that was a factor. that was a period particularly during the trump where trump could get on this or any other air simply with a phone call. >> i would say to you clinton could have any time as well. >> exactly and one of the reasons she lost the election is because she had this wariness of the press. she didn't hold a news conference for year and a half

two years. >> about nine months. >> exactly. but where we are here this is the time when the whole country i think needs to be steady. we're going to be all right. on the one hand opportunity to say, well, it doesn't matter. on the other hand, you don't want to be cynical and say -- another thing donald trump his promise to the press, he threatened the washington post saying if i get elected president, you the washington post i'll make you pay the price is should come to no one as any wonder that journalism including myself tried to stand up and say, wait a minute, that's not right. and that's -- that's a new low in campaigning. so there's a lot in this but i do think that the press can overreact to this. our job now is to stands up, look him in the eye, ask the tough questions, don't be intimidated. trump prides himself on being an intimidator, early in the campaign he was an intimidator of the press.

we should hope he wouldn't try it now that he's president but i wouldn't bet the double wide on that. >> so all four of you could stick around. taking a quick pause here and talk about the polling failures because as we've been saying for the majority of the country, tuesday nights results were a shock. partly because of what jeff greenfield is describing. nate silver's website put the odds at 70% and trump's victory at 30%. five thirty eight may have gotten it less wrong. so i talked to nate silver from what he learned from this experience and what's going to happen going forward. >> was this the greatest polling failure of modern times? >> no. this is why we think some of the discourse both before and after is a little bit irresponsible. the national polls are going to wind up being off by only two

points, which is less than they were actually in 2012. in the states you see bigger polling errors in the midwest. you see clinton beat her polls in new york, in california and in oregon and washington. >> now that's interesting. i've been focusing on how state polls underestimated trump support by 7, 8%. that's way beyond the marginal of error. >> that means you rack up a huge number of popular votes and almost match obama's match popular vote so it's not simply a matter of the polls underestimating trump, not catching up to the demographic changes that are underway in the country. >> is there a bigger failure among journalists then, editors when we boil down the numbers into just a very simple portrayal? >> there are a couple things. one you can have a lot of polls say the same thing. at some point it doesn't tell you that much more. to have a hundred polls showing clinton two points ahead while

she's still just two points ahead for example. >> too many polls. there's an epidemic of polling. there's too much data out there. sounds like you might agree. >> it let people confirm their biases over and over again and the des moines registered poll in iowa showed clinton losing by 7 points. people said she doesn't need to win iowa which is true but it was a sign of how bad things were falling apart for her in the midwest and people tended not to look at data that didn't confirm their beliefs. the other thing too, if you had gone to the average "newsroom" here or the "the new york times" or the post and asked people would you take a 30% chance of trump winning they would say no way. the buzz throughout the final few days of the campaign was that clinton was going to beat her polls because of early vote because of ground game, the momentum was with her and so, you know, it's not as though the conventional wisdom was on the

trump side of the bet. we were in huge fights with people for weeks who didn't want to believe -- this has never happened before. i'm used to people when they're side was trailing but clinton people and some mainstream media people were shocked that we gave clinton only a 70% chance. >> let me underscore what you just said. you've gotten into fights you've never had before, this has never happened before. >> i've never had a fight with the side that was ahead in our forecast. usually the side that fights with us is the side that winds up cherry picking the data more, being more smug i think at times. i just think that if -- if we had shown or the polls had shown john kasich or marco rubio in a three point race with clinton and with clinton losing ohio, tied in florida, i just think the perception would have been a lot different. >> this data is so complex. and yet i have trouble with

algebra. you're talking about calculus. i wonder if for the average viewer and journalist, if this stuff is just overwhelming kple indicated maybe too difficult to parse? >> i do think that people should go back to the old school method of when a poll is within the margin of error, you should tend to characterize it as being a very close race. >> you can say which candidate's ahead but that's more of a true conception of how polls actually work. on the one hand, it's true if you take ten polls you reduce that margin of error. on the other hand the polls often always miss in the same direction as they basically did on tuesday night and so -- therefore, you know, if the race is within the margin of error, report that as a close race. if you're a voter, treat that as a close race. go out and vote because the polls aren't as perfect as you might think. >> what now? does polling need a image rehab?

>> i think polling has to get better at describing the uncertainty inherent in the polls. i think i worry a little bit about things getting too commodityize z-bld what do you mean? >> there are a lot of sites that put out forecast -- when i left the "the new york times" couple years ago, i told my editor there, make sure you don't hire someone who's going to build an overconfident model because there are a lot of ways to make mod wills overkftd and not to understand the complexities of something like the electoral college where a lead might not be a safe as it appears in some circumstances. and that can potentially lead to people being less well informed. >> i think what you're saying to clinton supporters, polling is not design today make you feel better. >> no, it's not design today make you feel better. again, the polls are still probably a better indicator than anything else. remember the buzz based on the

early vote and what not, the sentiment from people like us in the bubble was that clinton if anything was safer than the polls might assume. but whenever you take a piece of data or a piece of information, the second step has to be telling people how accurate it might be and how wrong it might be and i think one of the critiques i have of the way so-called data journalism has evolved and we try to avoid this people just present the data point and don't talk about the meaning, the context, alternate interpretations, problems of logic and inference and, you know, so going a little bit deeper i think is really key. >> well the news media learn this time around? or we will fall victims from the same mistakes in the past. >> i think they will learn for 2020 and 2018 but what happen, they have a really accurate year for the polls then they may be overcompensating for 2024.

>> thanks so much. really interesting stuff from nate silver there. we want to look forward. as we were talking about with silver what about future coverage, what about a donald trump presidency and it's effect on the media? this morning trump is gloating. take a look at twitter feed. wow the "the new york times" is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the trump fee no, ma'am na. the times just now in a statement to me says, since election day the paper has seen a surge three times what is normal. there's been some cancellation when's you factor that in the rate at which the times has added since election day they say is six times the normal pace, essentially what the times is saying, trump is wrong. now the paper is now counting it's prints cancellations and editions. it believes the numbers will be same on the print side but it is challenging trump's claims. trump also went on against the

times in another tweet. he also said, that he believes the paper apologized for his coverage last week and believes it'll make the same mistake in the future. my panel is still with me. let me ask all of to you react all of this using twitter to his benefit. molly he says in a 60 minutes interview that trump -- restrained with twitter but continue to use twitter and facebook. do you believe he's starting off on the wrong foot by making these comments against the times and against the media on twitter? >> again i would say after this week the question about whether donald trump is doing thingsing right or wrong than whether the media is doing things right or wrong. this kind of attack on the media is very common in presidential history, just because we may like president obama, we might forget that he spent much of his presidency attacking fox news, bill clinton. >> he did not spend much of his

presidency he occasionally pointed what he believed was -- >> i guess what maybe you need realize for a lot of people who don't share your political opinions that's what it feels like. what you're growing through right now. so to go for fainting couches that the "the new york times" completely crapped the bed this cycle they should be apologizing. their headline the day after the election was a joke saying that it was all about foreigners and allies democrats very concerned about the victory after donald trump won the presidency. i mean this is -- this is a joke. file like it's a joke to not be taken seriously. how bad the kreshlt problems for the media are. now they need to cover him and they need to have people believe what they're saying and why would they? why would they believe what the media are saying after this cycle. >> i'm with you that we need to take the credibility crisis seriously. let me go to jeff greenfield trump on thursday criticized the press that the media was

inciting professional protesters, mocking and rid kulg the protesters and this morning going after "the new york times." is he sending a message to the entire press core maybe a message of intimidation? >> the proof is going to be in the pudding. he followed up that first tweet about the protesters by complimenting them on their passion. and this i think is one of the central questions we're going to have to ask. i absolutely agree that one of the things that happened here was that the media had lost so much credibility it's not just from the right, a lot of people on the bernie sanders left were equally critical that when they performed their traditional role, it was not taken seriously and what i'm saying is, if donald trump and the trump administration makes the media into an adversary or if the media -- beyond the normal

adversaryial relationship, i think it's going to be tougher for the media to fight back -- they may still believe, we may still believe we are the trib bunz telling the public the truth about the powerful, but there's an awful lot of people out there who aren't encouraged by politicians to say whatever they tell you, you know who they are. they're part of them. don't believe them. and that's, you know, i think where we're going to be navigating over the next year. i don't know the answer to this yet. >> i'm full of questions and empty with answers. so let me ask. you wrote this week the fusion owned by univision a website for young people for hispanics and other minorities will be the resistance to a trump presidency. what does that mean and "b" are you concerned about what jeff is saying that many people aren't interested? don't want to hear from the press? >> i believe that there are many people, millions who resist the narrative that this candidate

was running on. there were aspects of racism, aspect of xenoophobia and there are i believe the young people it's a more diverse generation than ever and i believe there is an audience that wants to hear a more tolerant, a more cohesive message that's not about division, that's about hope and coming together and that is really, you know, there for them in terms of, you know, covering undocumented immigrants, covering women, covering people of color, covering the lgbt community and that's where we're trying to reach. >> but are you thinking about essentially preaching to the choir or trying to persuade people who don't already have those views because it seems to me you're describing a situation that you're going to pander to people who already agree. >> the mainstream media have traditionally ignored these voices. by providing a platform, there's a shining a lot onpeople who deserve that. >> let's talk about one other

thing that's happened since tuesday. you know about this very well. the press pool is something that travels with the president, usually the president-elect, a small group of journalist meant to know where the president is at all times in case of a crisis or just in case he falls over. on thursdays, trump traveled to d.c. and did not bring a press pool with him. the administration, the incoming administration says they will resolve this as they will incorporate a press pool. on one of his first days president-elect he did not have journalist trafg with him. >> i think it should be noted but early in the trump administration. these kinds of logistical problems i think probably get smoothed out. the more important thing though is that donald trump is off now that he's the president-elect clearly he's off on a strategy of trying to intimidate the press, trying to keep the press's head down, what he said about the "the new york times" and the only reasonable professional reaction from the

press should be, get a gut check. this is gut check time for the press. our role, the press is an institution of the country. our role is to be honest brokers of information. to be as accurate and fair as we can be to be independent, fiercely independent. get back to, if the press gets its head down, not only is donald trump's presidency going to suffer, but the country will suffer. i do think most people. >> that we're better off with journalist you're saying, better off with tough journalism. >> absolutely. journalist who take the view my job is to ask the tough questions, knock on doors and say what's going on and to be skeptical and never cynical as i said before which i think is very important point, i think most people generally speaking, americans understand the roll the press what they want the press is to do its job better and there's a lot of improvement that can be had. in the very early stages of this

that somebody around donald trump must be at least thinking whether they z-prexpress it to or not, whether they -- those presidencies don't turn out very well. and afterall the issue here is not whether we have a successful donald trump, do we have a successful country and we need a vibrant press, a press that is independent is not afraid to ask the right question but to get that press we need the heads of the big corporations who control most of the mass distribution of the media to also have some spine. it's not good enough just for reporters to have the spine or for the bureau chief to have the spine. the head of these big corporations. in the early going a trump presidency, pretty good for people who had money, where is the head of a big corporation of a big news organization to say i want my reporters to ask the

tough questions. i want my reporters to do deep drilling investigative reporting. i play no favorites, i pull no punches. we're -- and the president of the united states afterall, he got the most electoral votes. he didn't get the most popular votes and there's a tendency for the trump campaign to want to convince people that this was a wipeout blow out. no. he won the election but it was still a very close election. i come back to having said all that, it's time to have a little bit calm and see how the trump presidency shakes out. i am concerned about these early signs which you've ticked off here that he is intends to use the press as a whipping boy. what the press needs to say to the president is mr. president, we respect the office of the presidency, we respect you but we ain't anybody's whipping boy. >> to the panel. thank you all very much for sharing your thoughts this morning. we have plenty more ahead on

this hour on how journalist plan to navigate a trump white house. whether the president-elect poses threats to press freedom. stay with us?

welcome back. before tuesday journalism said donald trump would be a threat to press freedom. that's why today there is palpable fear that a trump presidency will be restrictive and down right dangerous for the fourth estate. maybe they are overreacting but already some journalism are receiving threats and hate mail at home as a result of pro trump trolls who have publiced their addresses online. we've seen the president-elect trump criticizing the "the new york times." the big question is whether trump's going to follow through on statements like this. >> the media isn't just against me, they're against all of you. that's really what they're against. we're going to open up the liable laws, we should reinstate liable laws so you can go after people nowadays when they make really egregious statements.

they can say anything they want to say, some day and in the not too distant future if i win, they're not going to get away with this, stuff. tremendous believer in freedom of the press. >> here with me now famed first amendment lawyer floyd abrams. also the author the up coming book" the soul of the first amendment". >> liable laws, many months ago he wants to loosen up the liable laws, can he? >> no he can't do it. he can't do it by himself as president and he can't do it if congress passed a law. we have no federal liable law, first of all. liable law -- but they're all subject to the first amendment. and so when he says that he wants to loosen it or change it, what he's got to do is change the first amendment. what he's got to do is persuade the supreme court to abandon the level of very high protection for free speech that we have in

this country, so no, he can't do it, but he could try to do it. and who's to say in if he gets enough appointments to the supreme court, if they have views which are entirely different from where the court has been, it could happen, but it's very unlikely. >> now you're no friends of donald trump. we should make that clear to aur audience at home. what you think the possible threats are against individual journalist and against news outlet in the trump age? >> many of them are extra legal, that's to say doesn't have a legal angle to it at all. president-elect trump has full first amendment rights so he is certainly entitled to denounce the press, to criticize it, even in ways which lead people to behave as you were talking about earlier. >> anti-is a met tic messages. >> i mean -- right.

there's no legal limitation and there shouldn't be on what he can say about the press. that said, the real threats are that as president he could lead the public to be so antipress that -- that it would -- if not destroy it, limits ability to do it's constitutionally protected role. second, he could take steps as president to try to pressure it, one republican congressman has recently said that the fcc ought to do an investigation of the coverage of the campaign with the possibility of license revocation. >> let's talk about that momentarily. the local station that's broadcast, they all have fcc licenses from the government. normally they just get approved every four or eight years, but you're saying something like an fcc license could theoretically be targeted. >> that's right. >> what about irs audit that's

another way a government can use power against individuals. >> we sounds now if we're talking about the exit administration where that happened. >> so should we be talking about this -- is it a risk to talk through these scenarios or is it prunt? >> i think it's prudent to discuss these possibilities, we can hope -- i didn't vote for mr. trump, i don't wish -- i certainly don't hope that he goes down these roads. he may decide that as president he can take a different stance or at the least, as president he shouldn't do things which viole violate the first amendment on its face. we have to be thinking now, certainly as a lawyer i have to be thinking what could we do by way of defense. suppose he goes down the antifirst amendment road, suppose he doesn't just criticize the times, which he has every right to do, but tries

to take steps -- suppose he skpelz the "the new york times" from a presidential press conference. >> let's play that scenaro out. during the campaign trump rejected some news outlets from receiving -- these reporters could still attend the rally but they couldn't be in the press pool, they weren't giving the benefits and privileges of the press pass. is that possible in the white house? >> we don't have a lot of cases -- i think that would violate the first amendment. i think one could persuade a judge that -- that punishing the press because of the content of what it runs by leaving out or exappealing members of the press from full ability to cover him violates the first amendment. >> this would have to go to the courts. >> that would have to go to the courts. unless and until it happened, i mean he has the secret service. he's the one who can say get them out of here. >> we can't have a

president-elect trump without having a president obama conversation. president obama set a new record in terms of the administration's use of the espea naj act to prosecute, who leaked information to the press. tell us about the reality check of how severe that was and whether we can see more of that with president-elect trump? >> there are really two sorts of ways a president can go after the press in terms of covering national security issues. one is to go after sources and president obama's administration did that. more vigorously than any prior president, more charges against more sources to the press. the more direct threat is bringing an espionage press for publishing that sort of information. >> so against the "the new york times." >> we have an espionaged act that's passed so vague as to

make it quite unpredictable how it would be applied in a number of different possible circumstances. the press to do its job reports on classified information with regularity. now with a president trump think of a having, attorney general rudy giuliani bring some sort of action against the press? that's possible. that would be a major direct threat to the ability of the press to do its job. >> so we must be on guard. >> we have to be on guard and thinking about the downside as we hope that it won't happen. >> floyd, good to see you. a lot of what we're describing are possible chilling events something i'm very concerned about whether donald trump takes any action against the press in the next four years there's already a cloud hanging over the

press core because of his actions. how should journalist approach the trump presidency. a great panel from all aspect of this world from all across the country right after this. ♪ approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind,

medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you,

keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪

welcome back. as president-elect donald trump prepares to take power, journalist have a lot of questions about trump and about our profession. did fact checking matter in this electi election? did investigations matter? did newspaper editorials maertd? did the account ability function of journalism matter at all? well, yes it did matter to some people, to some readers and viewers. but maybe something he is mattered even more, something i would call antimedia. breitbart, is antimedia. much of fox news is much of antimedia. these outlets provide a different audience with a different set of facts about the world but too often what they're

really selling are opinion and conspiracy theory masquerading as facts. these sites and outlets present themselves -- facebook feeds into this sense of unreality. i like to call it choose your own news but whatever you call it, a lot of the arguments we're having right now as a country are a result of this media versus antimedia clash the in the coming months i hope researchers persuaded voters in this election. i cannot sit here and tell you that i have all the answers or even many of the answers. but i do know that all journalists, all real journalist have a responsibility to the truth and it is not elitist to value the truth. it is not in a bubble. it is not elitest to reject conspiracy theories. the truth is a word we can keep coming back to. don't cower before the truth. don't tell half truths, no shade

the truth or fear the truth. and then we can focus on the other t word, trust. winning back the trust of people who right now prefer antimedia. with that in mind let's ask how journalism change in the age of trump? how should it change? joining me now is a perfect panel, dodie stuart is back, liz plank and john phillips. john, you wrote this twheek the daily beast will be part of the loyal opposition. with a does that mean? >> what i think that means is we don't hope president trump trump fails we hope he succeeds but we recognize that we are -- our job is more important than ever before to hold a president to account. our job it to inform, separate truth from lies. and to insist on a fact debate

that ilaluminum natures. that job is more important than ever before because maybe donald trump campaign as a demi god but not govern as one. we need to try to unify the country, hope for the best but we need to prepare for the worse and the job of journalist is more important than ever before. >> hope for the best, prepare for the worst. you just described a hurricane. >> sure. i think we need to keep in mind that this election is not -- the election of donald trump is not a complete reset. the past 18 months are prologued for what we might expect and maybe the office itself will be able to unite the nation in more than just the rhetoric tf. the policies he's put forward represent a real fundamental challenge to thaefrt. journalists need to learn from this as well. we need to understand in this messager. we need to do that job as well

but we cannot shirk our fundmental duty that's our job and critical to the job going for the. >> john, it's been really interesting week thinking about what it means for people like you, trump supporters on television, on friday -- seems like he'll be taking a job in the trump administration. you've been here at cnn as a protrump commentator. i wonder what your takeaways about the media have been. >> i have a theory on your essay, a lot of agreement that you and i have with what you just said. the media in this election picked a side and it was across all platforms it happened in print and broadcast, it happened in entertainment. mediums let's not forget -- that journalist have an obligation not to be objective in covering donald trump and he was celebrated for saying that. jimmy fallon had donald trump on the tonight show and he treated

him like he would treat any other politician. the hufgton post covered donald trump in the entertainment section so at a certain point media criticism of trump whether it was legitimate or illegitimate just became background noise and people were sent looking for news agencies that provided confirm mags bias. i grew up in republican family here in california and we grew up getting three newspapers daily delivered to our house, we flip back and forth between the today show and good day l.a. every morning. my family gets all of their information from fox news, talk radio and the golf channel. my liberal relatives think donald trump is the -- the daily show and share's twitter feed which is why a lot of them were shocked because nobody told them that donald trump could win the election. if the media is going to maintain or or regain their

relevance and regain their good name in this country, they're going to have to play it straight moving into this administration which they vunt done in the campaign. >> liberals could not foresee a possibility of a trump presidency because they were in their own chamber. >> i think the problem is that when you come to situations of injustice, of course you're hoping for the best because we have a situation where there is so much hate that it's like you said, you want to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. >> you think it was fine for horhey ra mose. i believe he said this before. if you're neutral in situations of injufgs you are on the side of the oppressor and we have people whose voices are not heard all of the undocumented immigrants, women, people of color and we have to be on their

side. we have to give them a voice. >> i'll give you another line. you afflict the comfortable and you comfort the afflicted. then why weren't you doing that for eight years during president obama's administration? >> letting people speak for themselves is not actually social justice, it is journalism. one of the biggest mistakes or one of the things that have been exposed one of the biggest failures, one die mentional and the perfect example is how we mess that disability was the most important issues and stories in this election and we did not put a single person with a disability on tv i watched panel after panel of abled body comment taters, speak about donald trump mocking a disabled reporters. according to most polls, most persons that was the most egregious thing that donald trump had done. we did not put a person disability how they made that

feel. >> charles krauthammer. >> i would agree. he's on fox but you're making an important point about media diversity and disability is one example hearing from americans in rural america who may not be represented of these cable news channels. >> that's right at a certain point they just tuned out the mainstream media. they just stopped paying attention. they made the determination they had picked a horse, the horse was hillary clinton, they were out to defeat drt. they became advocate journalist and when they made that change, people just flipped the switch and said, all right we're going to our side and we're going to stay in the talk radio and fox world. >> to the other john. >> look, john phillips is speaking to -- speaking from an l.a. based radio station and at the center right perspective and he's done a good job, but the

bigger divided isn't just the media, there is an urban rural divide that bleeds over when only 10% of manhattan, donald trump's home trump votes for trump that's an indication of a problem that's much more profound than a media bubble. and that's something to keep in mind as well. that's an old division in american being politics so this is not new found territory. what's different we've never had a candidate like donald trump. we need to resist that normalization while also keeping in mind our obligation to try to reach out and reach beyond and question our own assumptions and insist on independence which means being able to congratulate president trump when he does things well. the main -- everyone's entitle today their own opinion but not their own facts. that's our job as journalists.

>> we talked a lot about trump voters. you were at clinton's event on tuesday night. how do you interpret clinton voters view of the press now five days later? >> i think that -- to your point at the beginning of the show, everyone is distressful of the -- distrustful of the press right now. everyone's rethinking what the role of the media is. >> so we shouldn't lose sight of the clinton voters anger. >> donald trump is not -- we can decide to cover the things we want to cover and he has rewritten the rules and we get to rewrite them too. >> donald trump is not our assignment maker. >> we do not need to cover the top news of the day and then stay on that issue. we can put the cameras on the voter instead of the candidate z-b. >> the beginning of a four

year -- sign up for it. thanks for tuning in see you next week. and still deliver 21 grams of protein with 100 calories. they're great for workouts, no matter how you work out... whether you're going for reps... or laps... or distance. you gotta try it... period. protein shots from 5-hour energy. great taste. 100 calories. 21 grams of protein. . . . .

a storm of criticism for president-elect trump's new right hand man. he has a lot of people concerned. welcome to "early start." i'm victor blackwell. >> i'm christine romans. it is monday, november 14th. it is 4:00 a.m. in the east. we start with the push back of the first white house hire. he named reince priebus as chief of staff and campaign ceo steve bannon as chief strategist. it is the last