you want soothe xp from bausch + lomb. soothe xp helps restore the eyes' lipid layer... ...seal in moisture... ...and protect against further irritation. soothe xp. the right choice for dry eyes. . i'm brian stelter. it's time for "reliable sources." this is a look at our weekly story behind the story. of how the media really works, how the news works and how we can make it better. this hour we'll show you the anatomy of a smear. we'll show you who took the bait and didn't when dirty tricksters made up an allegation against pete buttigieg. and later my brand-new reporting about impending shakeups at krbz. cbs news. first, a big move by facebook, banning several accounts. now new blowback by the commander in chief.

president trump's furious reaction to facebook's action shows that he is, i'm sorry to say, but info wars president. he is promoting the same alternative in info wars and sharing videos from repugnant characters. full of fear mongering and conspiracy theorizing info wars tells viewers that the world is out to get him. jones shows lies about sandy hook massacre but none of this hurts president trump. info wars' personality align with him. he even gave an interview to alex jones back on the campaign trail. trump went on a twitter spree saying, it's so great to watch this while sharing a video from info wars. he repeatedly retweeted paula joseph watson, one of the info war figures banned by facebook. he retweet the a strange video

about islam. this is troubling stuff, a lot of it is troubling stuff. at the same time the president is decrying facebook's action. facebook decided to block six users as well as info wars as an organization. the high-profile names include nation of islam leader louis farrakhan. six people, one organization banned and it's not just facebook. trump has been complaining about twitter, how twitter suspends or briefly puts accounts into a time-out period. he's complaining about james wood, the actor and right-wing actor star who is on a twitter time-out. look, the president is clearly trying to tap into conservative concerns about right-wing censorship. how real are those concerns, though? how legitimate is this and how is facebook deciding who should be banned in the first place?

joining me to discuss this is oliver darcy, cnn contributor irin caram. on and judd legum. judd, let me start with you. you talked in the past about the president and hinfo wars. >> trump is doing this because he needs people to believe that facebook is against him. and that facebook is biased against him because that's the only way that he has the space to operate on facebook. his campaign, the 2020 campaign, he put the strategist in charge of his facebook strategy, who is now the campaign manager. they're instituting exactly what they did in 2016, which is a whole series of ads that are

misleading. and so if they go after info wars, if they go after milo or any of these folks, he'll be next. that's why he's doing that because he needs to be able to draw a -- he can't let them draw a distinction between what info wars is doing and what nbc or cnn or any mainstream media organization is doing. >> even though what we get from info wars is conspiracy theory crap. in the wake of the notre dame fire, alex jones was talking about if it was arson, how the rest of the media was lying to you about what happened. oliver, try to distinguish for us between -- when we talk about these topics and talk about these figures, why is it the six individuals were banned by facebook? what makes them different from from others? >> these are very extreme individuals. no matter what anyone tells you, they are extremists and that's why with facebook decided to get rid of them from the platform the other day. back to your point about the info wars presidency, i want to know, i tweeted, what's the

difference at this point between trump's twitter feed and inforwars.com? infowars might have been banned from twitter but it found a new home at trump's twitter feed. while he's promoting and legitimizing this news organization we should talk about how he's trying to tear down credible sources for news, "the washington post," "new york times," cnn. he was questioning why these news organizations have the ability to be on twitter. >> why are they not banned? >> right. saying infowars should be reinstated. >> fake news is real, real news is fake. do you see an answer to oliver's question? >> i think there might be a challenge with respect to the framing. the category cal condemnation, it's extremist, racist, anti-semitic. i think judging and parsing the context of particular claims, particular assertions from different outlets, people is totally different. scrutinizing, however, just the broader concern that is starting to be raised in a lot of different circles with respect

to censorship, highlighting that is very important. speech is dangerous. there are ideas unsavory that he we don't like. of course, facebook shouldn't be coerced into associating with people against their own desires. but the fact that speech can be dangerous, i think it's far more dangerous to engage in censorship. it's far more dangerous to have a culture that becomes so opposed to having anyone with unsavory views, have a place to be able to share their views, to be able to promote their views. >> argument is meet those views with other views. meet them with other views. what's your reaction? >> i think actually we've had an experiment in a kind of free market of ideas and it has failed. >> i think so. >> but the capitalist model of, like, this will -- you know, there will be a clash of ideas and everyone will be able to figure out which ones are good or not, that's what got us comet pizza. >> i'm not sure that leaves you

with. what does that leave you with? who gets to sanction what is appropriate for us to hear? right now -- >> facebook -- >> i'm suggesting that -- i'm suggesting that facebook can continue to make their own determinations. >> they should. >> i'm saying especially here in places where people are getting media that is appropriate for us to always be skeptical of an approach that says, if someone has ideas, if someone says are dodgy, they shouldn't be allowed to share those ideas. that is a problem. >> but i think -- >> is the idea -- >> does facebook -- i think the idea is does facebook get to have rules? >> of course. >> what does facebook do? do they just ignore the fact these people have broken the rules or -- >> are they going to be consistent? >> will they get disciplined, is that censorship or -- >> there is something else happening where we are bleeding into a circumstance where we say, oh, that is obvious anti-semitic. that person is an extremist.

>> we're obviously anticipating -- >> can i respond to this? >> judd, let me bring you in in washington. go ahead. >> i was just going to say, the idea that sandy hook is a hoax and that the children who were murdered on that day is -- were actors is not -- >> promoted by infowars. >> that's not an idea. that's not something that needs to be debated on facebook or on cnn or anywhere. and that is what is going on. so, then to just abstract it all and say, this is a marketplace of ideas. we just need to discuss this. these are not ideas. it's a hoax that it's a conspiracy. >> you confront bad ideas with good ideas. you confront people who are saying things that you don't like in the public square. you don't pretend you can abolish them to the depths of the internet and they won't be -- they won't have a voice anymore. >> i think the evidence -- >> it's far more dangerous. >> the evidence shows to allow them to proliferate on these

platforms is allowing them to be legitimized and grow willing. milo, for example, when he was taking off certain platforms -- >> he was self-censored. >> his financial viability diminished vastly. i think allowing these ideas to circulate on platforms owned by private companies, they're finally -- it's a little too late but they're finally taking responsibility for the fact that like any media company, they have the responsibility for setting rules, following them and making sure that dangerous things are not happening on their platform. >> when the president complains -- >> what do you think should not have been banned? >> the reason i try to take this away from the specific issues and go a bit broader because there are times where civil rights have been things that were -- >> alex jones is not a civil rights promoter. alex jones -- >> let's acknowledge the fact that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is always at the margins. >> i'm not asking about the abstractions. i'm asking --

>> i agree with you. i think what we're struggling with, is someone recently remarked that perhaps, perhaps i'm saying perhaps about this, perhaps the internet is to the first amendment what the ak-47 is to the second amendment. something that was not imagined or fathomed 200 years ago when our constitution was founded. that does not mean we have to make drastic changes but the world we're living in is something that could not have been foreseen. >> i think that's a very dangerous perspective, quite frankly. i think the fact is that abolitionists once they got their hands on the printing press were using it to promote ideas that were very, very radical, that one could say are dangerous. there are people who were fighting for the abolition of slavery who could be described as dangerous radicals, who were willing to promote violence in order to achieve their -- >> brian -- >> i don't think -- >> give me one second. >> i do think facebook should have rules. >> absolutely. >> so what -- >> what do you think should happen to someone if they repeatedly violate facebook's rules? >> i think facebook gets to make their own rules. >> they are. >> but what do you, if you're in

charge -- >> people who are in the pundit class that we ought to always be acknowledging the fact that, yes, we are going to use preassociation to make it deeply -- >> make expense si -- >> facebook -- they would argue, they're not banning ideas. they're banning people who are repeatedly, right, violating the rules. it's clearly laid out there. >> i think that's true. >> what do you think -- >> when one -- >> what do you -- >> my response is only cheerlead and not raise some concern about the fact that broader -- >> i totally agree that people should -- >> in condemning people categorically and getting rid of them in the public when they say something we don't like. it's always a consequence. it's one of those things where the margins can actually grow. >> facebook court that could hash this stuff out. bottom line, facebook has rules. if you break those rules, they'll take action against you. >> i'm not raising any issue with that. >> it's not a government relationship. it's free speech.

judd, one more thought on this from you. the president is saying it's getting worse and worse for conservatives specifically. he's calling out censorship of conservatives. is there a lot of evidence that conservatives are targeted by big tech? >> not at all. if facebook is biased against conservatives, why is fox news the number one shared website on facebook? why is the daily wire, which is a right-wing blog, and you're going to have their editor-in-chief on later, in the top ten? why is it that diamond and silk get more distribution than most any other video platform? and why are they spending -- why is the trump campaign spending $200,000 or more per week on a platform that's supposedly biased against conservatives? it just doesn't make any sense. the last thing i'll just say is, this isn't a first amendment issue. this is an issue of a private company deciding what goes on their platform. just like i don't get to go on

tucker carlson every single night, alex jones doesn't have a right to be on facebook. >> you mentioned the daily wire, so let me bring in ben shapiro, the editor-in-chief of the daily wire. we talked about this facebook issue a little earlier. what's your view about the company taking action against these high-profile facebook pages and basically just deleting this em from the internet? >> well, i'm troubled by the fact that facebook can't articulate a clear standard by which it decides who gets to stay and who gets to go. they're a private company. they can do what they want to a certain extent. i mean, if they don't want to be considered publishers like cnn is a publisher or daily wire is a publisher, that meenlz there has to be some sort of objective metric to determine if someone gets kicked off or stay on. if they get to exercise editorial judgment from top down, which views are okay and which are not, they should be treated like any other publisher. i don't see any articulated

standard. people that have targeted me personally and expressed hate to me personally is not relevant to the question of whether they should be prohibited from the public discourse. in my view is facebook should hold to first amendment standard, clear definition of incitement to violation. that would be banned. copyright violation would be banned. the idea you can police hate, just hate, anything you find hateful, that's a pretty broad definition over how much we argue over what we consider is hateful and how much political speech should be included in that ruberratic. >> what they call organized hate and that's what they say infowars is ingauengaging in. who decides? >> "the new york times" piece that covered the facebook ban, it explicitly talked about some

figures interacted with gaven mcginnis. lou louis farrakhan and snoop dogg went on instagram and released a video. instagram is owned by facebook, and snoop called for people to post video of farrakhan who he considered a brother. >> to get around -- >> the slope is so slippery. yet, at the same time, isn't there some responsibility these companies have to show to stop the sickest kinds of ideas from spreading? >> well, again, i think that -- when you talk about the sickest kind of ideas, the best way to fight sick ideas is to fight sick ideas about talking about how terrible they are instead of casting them out and say, we're never going to talk to you or answer your questions. all that does is actually, i think, maybe people more extreme who are searching for answers to

questions. instead of going to people who have good answers, they go to people who have bad answers because some people have ruled the question out of bound. that's something steven pinker from harvard has said and i think it's absolutely true. if it's up to facebook to police violence, all for it. if you're talking about people who are actively calling for violence on other people, that's violation of the first amendment. that's not protected by the first amendment. 23 there's a view that could make somebody mad enough they could go and do, that's true for virtually every political view. from bernie sanders to president trump's views which some people have cited in their own violent attacks. if it becomes a situation where any political view, taken by a bad or extreme person, can now be used as an excuse for the violence such that we're going to start casting out those political views, free speech is in danger as a principle. >> i'm struck to hear you say this. a couple days after it was reported that a man was arrested

by the fbi for threatening you with very explicit death threats. what can you tell us about that case? >> i can't tell you much just legally speaking because the case is still ongoing. i will say that the death threats were very explicit. this is one of the reasons why i think that the facebook statement where they said that they are trying to fight back against violence and hate, the c conflation of violence and hate. i was number one recipient of alt-right's hatred according to antidefamation league. i know what a violent threat actually looks like. i think that distinction is deeply necessary for us to preserve otherwise to equate speech with violence takes us to a deep route. up next on "reliable sources," "the new york times" making big changes after apologizing for an anti-semitic

car sto cartoon. is the president's spin winning? when are we going to hear from robert mueller? (paul) great.

another wireless ad. so many of them are full of this complicated, tricky language about their network and offers and blah blah blah. look. sprint's going to do things differently. and let you decide for yourself. they're offering a new 100% total satisfaction guarantee. try it out and see the savings. if you don't love it, get your money back. see? simple. now sprint's unlimited plan comes with one of the newest phones included for just $35 a month. so switch now. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com

for everything that i give, i get so much in return. join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today. hbut prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. not this john smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪

in the unstoppable john deere no matgator™ xuv835.name is. and be prepared to go the extra mile. because when others take rain checks... ...we take the wheel. with 3-wide seating, heat & a/c. this is the coolest, most comfortable gator™ yet. nothing runs like a deere™. run with us. ♪ test drive a gator™ xuv835 at your john deere dealer today. the mueller has been out for a couple of weeks. it's officially the best-selling book in the country. "the washington post" version is number one on "the new york times" best sellers' list. it only takes a tiny fraction of the country to hit number one. we recently polled the country and the respondents said almost

no one has read the entire report. most americans have not read any of the report. there is some in five fighting at fox about the importance of the mueller/barr disagreement. oliver, the significance of the mueller report in print, some people are reading it, but most are not. this begs the question for why robert mueller has not spoken publicly on camera yet. when is he going to testify? >> i don't know. it seems like he's a guy who's by the books and doesn't want to maybe break tradition and go out in front of cameras. remember, comey got a lot of criticism for doing that with the hillary clinton thing. maybe he doesn't want to repeat the same error but it's giving trump the upperhand in the public relations debate because he's being very loud, going on twitter, doing interviews, saying this vindicates him and coloring the public's perspective on what the mueller report found while mueller is remaining silent. he's basically, you know, not saying anything and has --

>> he expressed his misgivings in a letter -- two letters now. >> we know that. >> but very little. do you think televised hearings would break through in this platform age? >> i think we live in a very distracted age. before you get to the fact that people have different filters through which they're watching a certain network versus another, it's so hard for anything to be more than like a ten-minute story right now. >> right. >> even if there were a couple viral moments that came out, i've seen this drum beat, especially from democrats that if they did have televised hearings, i think people hearing from robert mueller might be at another level, but even so, we no longer live in the era of watergate where we're filtered through three major net woshs and everyone is watching the same thing every night and there's some political consensus, even to what we're seeing covered on the news. i think we saw that on the prior

segment. i think anyone who's hoping to focus the public's attention on what's inside the mueller report, televised hearings could only go so far. >> there's a dispute about how important that is or isn't. we saw that on fox news. here's chris wallace reacting to his opinion side colleagues and disagreeing with their adesment. >> i know some people don't think this march 27th letter is a big deal, and some opinion people, some opinion people who appear on this network who may be pushing a political agenda, but, you know, we have to deal in facts. >> i kind of think it's a good thing we see the news anchor disputing the opinion side comments on fox. >> yeah, absolutely. any news room you want some plurality of perspectives or diversity of perspective, excuse me. i think that's a very good thing. i also think with respect to the particular controversy here, the fact is that i'm not certain most americans in any context at any historical epoch would have

read the mueller report from cover to cover. we're dealing with summaries. with respect to the particular objection that was raised in mueller's letter. look, it's a 400-page report. you get a four-page letter. yes, it doesn't capture all the context and nuance. that said, we do have the entire report now with redactions. so far as i know, i'm not hearing any murmuring that mueller believes the report as release has downplayed the conclusions reached. in fact, it's something that doesn't work particularly well for the president beyond the actual russian conspiracy questions. the other half of the report, doesn't put him in a very good light at all. i don't think barr sugar coated that, even his four-page letter, quite frankly, when it describes that, it has the special language from the report that that talks about the fact this does not exonerate the president. it's hard for me to see this whole thing as only spinning in

the president's directions. there are lots of voices talking about this. >> i want to turn to the fallout have "the new york times" publishing of anti-semitic cartoon. this was in the international edition of "the new york times" ten days ago. we reported on this. how did this get into the paper? >> it seems that this newspaper, the global edition of "the new york times," does not have as much oversight as the actual new york times we see here in print in the city and around the country. >> they say only one editor picked out this cartoon and nobody else saw it before it was prind. >> which is insane. you would expect some other paper, lower staff and facing cutbacks but "the new york times" has been doing quite well and it's "the new york times" so you would think it's subject to two or three editors before it goes to print. the fact one editor can make this terrible decision and not have had oversight is crazy to me. >> yeah, the publisher of "the times" came out and listed five steps that have been taken as a

result. he said they're changing the production processes. they're not going to run any more syndicated cartoons. they canceled the contract with the company. they're taking disciplinary steps with the editor that picked up and update unconscious biased. is that a satisfactory response? >> yes. they were very transtarnt about what happened. they talked about how they are going to deal with it. i'm an israeli citizen. i was born in israel. i was fourth zionist in my family. i thought the attention paid to it was disproportionate. >> maybe because it's "the new york times." >> yes. i think they really messed up. the cartoon is inexcusable. beyond folks like us reporting on what happened, which is important, i also saw it being cynically exploited to change the subject from the fact that just over a week ago somebody took up arms and entered a

synagogue in california and killed somebody. we're talking about anti-semitism in this country. by the way, it goes back very far in europe. it is a deep tradition of anti-semitism in europe, homegrown. here we also -- in the previous segment we haven't herd any transparency or apologizing, for example, from the president of the united states coddling anti-semit anti-semites. i know a lot of people seized on this because they want to discredit "the new york times." i think they responded adequately and we need to see this in proportion. >> thanks for being here. quick break and then we'll talk about the anatomy of a smear. sara murray is standing by with a story of dirty tricksters who tried to take down pete buttigieg but only hurt themselves. be first to real time with verizon 5g ultra wideband.

on verizon. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me.

♪ if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to target weeds precisely and kill them right down to the root. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

welcome back to "reliable sources." i'm brian stelter. now to the anatomy of a smear. let's show you how inept political operatives tried to take down a presidential candidate and only ended up humiliating themselves. now, with what we're about to show you, keep in mind, legitimate news rooms did not take this batd butter several pro-trump websites did which tells you about their low standards. this is a story about pete buttigieg, who happens to be on the cover of "time" magazine with his husband in a ground-breaking cover. a man came up with a made-up sexual assault allegation against buttigieg. here's cnn's sara murray with the story behind the story. >> reporter: by the time hunter kelly offered cnn an on-camera interview to talk about the time pete buttigieg assaulted him,

now kelly said was fake, mayor pete dismissed it. >> i'm sure it's not the first time somebody's going to make something up about me. you have to face that when you're in presidential politics. >> reporter: the made-up allegations quickly crumbled and the story of smear campaign emerged. according to kelly it began when jacob woll messaged kelly on instagram, do you want to be part of a political operation? kelly, a 21-year-old gay trump supporter from michigan was intrigued. . on sunday he took a late flight to the washington area, paid for by wohl and jack berkman. they wanted to take down the gay south bend mayor they viewed as trump's top threat in 2020. >> let's take mayor pete. now, can he -- the appeal of him, obviously he's the first gay candidate, he's already kind of pushed beto out of the way as

the star kaecandidate. he's raising money hand over first. >> reporter: in the predawn hours monday reviewed a prewritten version of the essay saying he had been sexually assaulted by buttigieg. kelly went to sleep. by the time he woke up 11:00 a.m. monday, he says wohl posted it. it had 12,000 to facebook interactions. it was picked up and reshared by right wing sites like big league politics, infowars, news wars and the gateway pundit. the mainstream media wasn't reporting the claims. but by 2:00 p.m. mayor pete was asked about them name. gop political operative says the campaign's fast and forceful response was their best bet. >> the campaign response was an a-plus. >> good morning. >> reporter: working on ted cruz's presidential campaign, stewart knocked down tabloid tales like cruz having five

mistresses and a father involved in the jfk assassination. >> in this day and age of social media and twitter and facebook and instagram, a lie can get all the way around the world before the truth puts its pants on. >> reporter: kelly returned cnn's call after pete's press gaggle. we pressed for more details to corroborate the claim but got no response. later he would tell cnn wohl and berkman forced him. who tried to fake a fake sexual assault allegation on robert mueller. >> my firm has launched a massive investigation. bob mueller. >> reporter: around 7:30 p.m. monday, kelly tensioned, i was set up and admitted the allegations against buttigieg were fab gated. he accused them of setting up a fake twitter account in his name to spread the story. he says kelly willy signed a

statement describing the assault. he said he was trying to help kelly get the story out. >> all this nonsense he didn't sign or forged, all of that's not true. i think hunter is a very fine young man. i don't understand why he's now telling these lies. >> reporter: it was definitely something i wish i could take back going out there, kelly told cnn, but i can't so i'm trying to right my wrongs, let the truth be told. now, jacob wohl has also denied he was involved in any campaign to fabricate these allegations. he said hunter kelly was sincere and insists the only reason kelly is retracting this now is because he's under pressure from his family. it's worth noting the last scheme they were involved in that had to do with the special counsel, that one was referred to the fbi. >> it really shows how ugly it can get out there and confusing yoen line. what did the beauty geuttigieg tell you? >> they said they appreciated

the mainstream media was much month more skeptical. they didn't immediately run out there and start reporting it so that minimized the echo chamber. they had heard a week before these allegations came out that jacob wohl was out there looking for someone to make up these claims against mayor pete so they were already on alert for something like this coming out. >> got to call this stuff out when we see it. thanks for being here. >> thanks. when we come back, more with ben shapiro. does media leave faith out of the conversation? when you rent from national...

it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?

want to brain better? say hello to neuriva. so nice to meet you june, jay, ji, jj kay, raj, and... ray! good job, brain! neuriva is a new brain supplement that combines the best of science and nature, with clinically- proven ingredients that fuel five indicators of brain performance: focus, accuracy, memory, learning, and concentration. neuriva - it's time to brain better.

smears, bans and everything in between. are we missing something in define in is the debate forward inward? let's bring back editor of "daily wire" ben shapiro. the title of the wook is the right side of history. it's been topping the best seller list. we talked media bias and the coverage of president trump, so i asked ben more about that as well. >> what are you trying to say with the new book? is it a reaction to the ferre-pitch media era we're in? >> what the book is really trying to say is if you look at america today, we're more prosperous and free than we've ever been. we're more angry. we're ticked off all the time. what's going on here? my main thesis is we used to have common values that built a social fabric. the book is a view of the common valuations, the evolution of

american values that i think starts at mt. sinai and stretches forward through greek rationality and intention with one another is what built the west. we need to go back with wreen and faith as opposed to dismissing faith as theocratic nonsense. we need both of those things. working together and in intention with one another to continue to build the structure that's created all of our freedom and pros sparety. >> stalking about faith and religion. it's oftentimes a blind spot for the american media. it's an ongoing disappointment for me and i think for other people as well, these topics are not more front and center in the public square that the press creates. >> i mean, i totally agree with this. it's really a serious problem because, unfortunately, the media, because they're located where they're located, because people who tend to go to j school are people who tend to be more secular in organization, people who go to university send

toing more secular in organization. there is a huge blind spot which bleeds to antagonistic relationship and mislabel anybody who's religious is a bigot. if we just got rid of the religion we would be able to get beyond the bigotry. i don't think that's an accurate assessment of what church means to people. people on the coasts very often tend to be very bly about the social fabric created, and as that fades away, a big gap is left and that's not being filled by facebook. >> coverage comes across as way too neglect ty to a big chunk of the population. do you still feel that's true in mid-2019? >> i do. listen, i've said all along when president trump says something that's not wrong, the media should fact check him. when president trump says something that is morally

reprehensible, he should be called on that but the constant drum beat that president trump is an awful, awful man, an orange man bad and, therefore, he should be ousted on the basis of his lack of character and that other characters in politics are imminently better and that what we have a true moral conflict in terms of character, if you back president trump, what you see from the media is this idea that if you back president trump it's inherently because you back the worst things he's ever said or done. that's -- that is an untrue statement. >> when you say the media, you mean liberal commentators, right? >> i do mean liberal commentators. i often mean liberal commentators who pose as journalists. this has been one of the great battles inside media. people like me openly conservative. i will cover the news from an openly conservative per spspect. >> we need a lot of people just gathering facts and people with views and perspective about those facts. the issue is when it gets blurry to the point people can't recognize which is which. >> i think that's exactly right.

certain reporters who are better at this and certain reporters who are not as good at this. objective reporters should state up front their political preferences so we can determine how much of their political preferences are being reflected in their coverage. i don't see why more information handed to the american public is a bad thing. >> how do you walk this tight rope? actually, do you think it's a tight rope when you're criticizing the. the from a conservative point of view, knowing some of your fans hate hearing that. >> it's never been a tight rope to me in the sense that the. the is a human being. we're all human beings who do bad things or good things. which he does the bad thing i've never felt the they to back what he says or -- >> but a lot of your rivals do, right? a lot think they can only say the positive and ignore all the negative. >> frankly, i don't think that's what people are looking for. i think people are looking for an honest take. not an objective take but my honest take as a human being on what the president is doing. what people don't want is a

feeling you're subsumming your honest take for political partisanship. that gets boring very quickly. >> i agree. ben, thanks for being here. >> appreciate it. >> ben's book is called "the right side of history". in bookstores now. coming up, a major shakeup coming monday morning at cbs news. ♪

(vo) i know what you're thinking. electric, it's not for you. and, you're probably right. electric just doesn't have enough range. it will never survive the winter. charging stations? good luck finding one of those. so, maybe an electric car isn't for you after all. or, is it? ♪

a big cbs news anchor changed is expected to be announced monday morning. sources tell me the news division's new president susan zirinsky is shuffling all the an choshs. gayle king is staying. all of the others les. norah o'donnell is heading to the "cbs evening news" replacing jeff glor. and the evening news is probably moving to d.c.

the context for all this, the morning and evening shows on cbs are perrinally third place in >> back with me to discuss all of this, erin. the turmoil all started when you investigated charlie rose and he was fired as a result. back in november 2017. these dominos are still falling. >> well, look, it's only been a few weeks since susan has take over in a historic move and we have to wait and see what she has planned. she has only started a few weeks ago and unenviably task because law firms investigating the culture at cbs news found patterns of misconduct that backed up some of the investigative reporting that was done by myself and my colleagues and you had a culture all the way to the top, right. you had former chairman jeff accused and charlie rose, of course, the tally of charlie

rose accusers was 35 women and we could have kept on going to be honest. you had a culture that needed changing and that was susan zirinsky's job. tons of competition for people's attention. so, again, these were shows that already had a challenge about what their identity was and now we're going to see how is she going to meet those challenges while also making people who feel like they have been through a lot. a lot of people had nothing to do with this, they're just trying to do their job and every day they get to read in the papers from you and me what is going on at their workplace. >> some staffers feel unsupported people like jeff and they were brought into these shows in 2018 trying to shore things up and the ratings were a struggle and now susan zirinsky

is moving people around to put pieces in the right places and that includes nora o'donnell on the evening news. in 2019 it is rare to see a woman anchoring the evening news. katie couric and diane sawyer had the jobs in the past. but still notable to see a female news president putting a woman in charge of the evening news. a historical moment. >> so disappointing to see "new york post" framing this norah faceoff as if it was a fight. she always had aspirations to host the evening news and giving her what she wanted, and i think there is a temptation to look at this cat fight narrative. any time changes at the notework dislocations and people who disagree with those decisions. it big picture here is that cbs corporate and cbs news, in particular, are on a project to change their culture and we're about to see if it will work. >> irin, thanks for being here.

>> fighting to make people more aware of journalism peril all around the world and it's gaining lots of new numbers. we'll tell you the story in just a moment.

if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield

to target weeds precisely and kill them right down to the root. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. another wireless ad. great. so many of them are full of this complicated, tricky language about their network and offers and blah blah blah. look. sprint's going to do things differently. and let you decide for yourself. they're offering a new 100% total satisfaction guarantee. try it out and see the savings. if you don't love it, get your money back. see? simple. now sprint's unlimited plan comes with one of the newest phones included for just $35 a month. so switch now. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

finally today i want to tell you about the one free press coalition. online at onefreepress.com. every month now it has come out with the list of the top ten most urgent cases of journalists in trouble all around the world. here are this month's list. this month's faces. the ten most urgent cases from tanzania to columbia and all around the world. you can check out the full list at onefreepress.com as well as our conversation with randall lane who came up with the idea on this week's reliable sources podcast. thanks for joining us and we'll see you back here this time next week. and filters by cabin class, wi-fi and more. so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.

♪ ♪ ♪ when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you.

we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org

friend or foe. north korea fires off a new missile test. president trump says he still trusts kim jong-un and the president passes on a chance to warn vladimir putin against interfering in the next election. >> we didn't discuss that. >> 2020 democratic presidential candidate senator amy klobuchar responds in moments. playing to win, democratic voters zero in on electability. what makes a candidate most electable. the former newark mayor makes his pitch. >> here in newark, we refuse to wait. how would senator booker's approach work across the united states. democratic presidential candidate booker joins us next. economic high. the lowest unemployment rate