[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> tonight on the communicators, a look at the role of economic analysis and regulation with economist and george washington university public fellow. he is interview by a tilt medication reporter for bloomberg. >> you are saying google should

be regulated by the fcc. >> i'm saying that when congress starts thinking about what the future fcc would look like and we are talking about discrimination by vertically integrated platforms, the conversation should not be limited to isp. i think the threat google poses in particular to innovation in the content space is just as significant as what a comcast or verizon can do. >> watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> now to a form on the press and presidency with kellyanne conway along with white house correspondence for major television networks and former officials with the obama and bush administration. this is hosted by the museum. [applause]

>> it's nice to be here. kellyanne and i have been having this conversation since early in the transition, starting in a conversation about the media, which appropriately started at michael's restaurant in new york. so, a report card. the media, let's make the f grade the media as steve bannon's opposition party and an a grade as the obama honeymoon. where are we now? >> well, as a mother of four who comes home with report cards routinely, i will just give an

incomplete to render a specific judgment let alone a grade on the relationship between this president and administration and the press. i do want to say that some of the words being used to describe i do not use and have not used, i think it's very important in healthy democracy to have a free and fair press, and part of that democracy to is to have a presidency, no matter the occupant that is shown respect and shown openness to really cover all of the items that he has put forth and his considerable accomplishments in the first 80 some days that really have gone uncovered. i don't want to grade, but i would say if you asked me one thing i would change or one grievance i may have, it's not some biased coverage because if there is biased coverage, i have faith in the american people that they will see it and say that's really unfair or that's really over the top or you keep saying the same thing over and

over again and a am still not convinced it's news. i think it's noise. that's over here. i have faith in the people. biased coverage aside, my grievance would be incomplete coverage. it's the things we hear that our meaningful to them and consequential to them in these days that don't get the same amount of coverage as this executive order or that unproven relationship from the campaign with a certain country. >> that's really a thing because if you are an american, and you are a coal miner who came to the white house, or you are someone who came to the northwest, if you are somebody who will benefit directly from the president having opened up the dakota access pipeline, this matters to you in a different way than what you are hearing. >> what about the tunnel issues? how do you feel waking up every

morning and you see democracy dies in darkness. does that send a message, is there a message beyond the leads in each story that are being sent here? >> a few things. i think they are different given that this is 2017. there is this quest to make interviews go live where one has to wonder is the interview being done to inform the viewers or the population or is the interview being done in a way that is meant to entertain other journalists or impress advertisers or executives. that's one thing. the other thing is you can turn on the tv more than you can read in the paper because i assume editors are still doing their jobs in those places, and people literally say things that aren't true. they're not even disguised as

opinions, they are people presuming that what's going on in the white house, how the president is thinking, what motivates them, what his decision process is, and they stated like the fact but it's often not and that's all right, but at the same time, there's a great discussion about twitter and the president's use of twitter and it is true that the president regards his social media platform, twitter, instagram, facebook, he has millions and millions of followers. he looks at that as a way to cut out the middleman, to directly communicate with people and it's what i call the democratization of information meaning you don't have to wait for the evening news to tell you what happened that day. everybody can access it at the same time. you can be the guy working on the job, it can be the stay-at-home mom who is busy with her children, it could be

the cost of a billionaire ceo who has 20 people outside his office checking social media, but everybody sees it at the same time. i think we have to have a conversation about the use of twitter among the media because there are things said about this president on twitter that would never pass an editor's desk. something i talked about in the campaign and it's just true and it continues on. i see people live tweeting at sean spicer during his press conference. >> we will go to that. obviously there have been other republican conservatives and right-wing administrations that the media has accepted in a businesslike way. what is the difference here? why is there an obviously continuing resistance and

underlying message that i would argue has not been there before. >> some of it is who this president is in the unexpected result that he is the president. i think people simply were not prepared for the result and did not prepare their viewers and readers for the results and i'm astonished that in a nation where that many people in the meetinmedia were saying it's did that so many people never even entertained the possibility that in the self-described divided country that the other one of the two candidates may actually went. i think it was being caught unaware and really leaning so far to the other side that the race is over, the republican party will be destroyed, they'll take down half the senate and governor candidate with you, this will affect generations, to go back and look at those headlines when you go back and

see what was said on tv, it's unequivocally wrong and somewhat embarrassing, but we don't talk about it. so in some ways we didn't see this coming so it must not be real, let's make it not real. the other thing is there's so much media and a constant opportunity to engage in conversation. that's different. that's a sign of the times. you have all the social media platforms, you have the media using them constantly, not waiting to file the story till the next day or the evening news. you just have an ongoing opportunity to communicate. >> what do you think, do you find yourself ever thinking and trying to really get to the nut of what the media thanks about this president and about you and other members of this administration. how personal do you take this?

>> how personally do i take what? >> what the, what this coverage of you, democracy dies in darkness. when they say democracy dies in darkness, you are the darkness. >> i'm not the darkness is what i tell children. just because somebody says something doesn't make it true and it's a great lesson for everyone. just because they say the darkness, it doesn't make it true. you start with that. i am here, but look, i'm not elected to anything. i am there, if you're talking about how the president is covered i think there's something called presumptive negativity. you can look at something and see it as a positive or negative. for this president is often seen

through the negative lens and it really robs the larger viewership or readership of the opportunity to hear what's really happening. >> have you seen improvements over the past 80 days. >> so i think there are some print journalists who have taken the time to really get to know this president and how he operates and who he is and maybe some of the senior administration officials, and they are doing much better of covering the white house, just doing their jobs. i don't know that folks have really taken a step back and said okay, i missed a lot in the election, i got it wrong which means i didn't understand what was happening in the country and i heard jim saying earlier if he could go back he would take his anchors or his executives on the road during the campaign, but

why not do that now. why not go back and meet the people who feel like they are the forgotten women and men who are rooting for this president in a way that they want him to meet these promises. they are part of the confidence numbers that 93% from just a year ago. the consumer confidence and homebuying confidence is at an all-time high. there are people out there who are looking for positive signs and optimistic signs of progress on growth, on prosperity of security and safety, and they are going to look for that and find they won't find it regardless of what's being said to them. if you were a part of the large group of people who are charged with covering the campaign, who got it wrong, at least don't

keep getting it wrong by covering the president the way you covered him as a candidate and presuming, i think this negativity is very unfortunate. i see a comfort in sameness. i think sometimes for the media, i don't see them as a can conglomerate, or one big group, that would be wrong and i don't. but there's a comfort in saying this contempt, i received the same questions as my colleagues in the white house from 30 different people. i'm not even the press shop on purpose. i made that clear when it came to the white house. that was not what i wanted my primarprimary role to be but yei still receive the same questions. on friday, everybody wanted to cover palace intrigue and who's

up and who's down. you know what happened on frid friday, for the first time in 11 years, a republican nominee to the united states supreme court was confirmed and sworn in and 40 years from now, no one will remember the staffers name but they will remember neil gorsuch because he will have sat on the supreme court for 40 years and made his mark on american jurisprudence. if you look at things that way and you wonder what's really the noise and what's the news and what will impact people, it helps you to divide and conquer a little bit better. >> why is the internal white house story such a big story during this administration. i'm not sure these names will be forgotten. these names are enshrined in popular culture as we speak in a way that other names and other administrations were not.

why is this such a big story. >> asked the people who are covering it. the exclusion of covering what happened the day before. isn't the president who took the issue of trade and illegal immigration as a candidate and cut catapulted them from single digits, trade wasn't even offered as an option, and took those issues and made them about fairness to the american worker, fairness to the american econo economy, fairness to those who had suffered the 60 or 70000 factors that closed and took these issues and now as president, his secretary of commerce are taking a strong lead against his abusers on trade. he has taken dozens and dozens of executive actions, and there

is one that gets all the coverage. you have to think about that. it's what i mean about incomplete coverage. people are paying attention. they will go and see what's been done on jobs, what's been done on the regulatory framework, what's been done and will healthcare pass. he won't be judged by his accomplishments, he will be judged on when healthcare reform passes. he will be judged by the sreme court nominee. >> on what basis do you think, and you're saying he will be judged by the voters, on what basis do you think the media judges him. >> on what basis? they judge him according to their predisposed belief about what motivates him, what his personality is, how he makes decisions, what's important to him and issues wise and i think

a lot of the right questions are not being asked and there is discomfort and sameness that has an effect where people are afraid to go first. i really do believe that. there's a couple that i can think of that are doing a great job to cover things, if you're all looking out of this pane of glass, you only have to tilt your head that much 20 or 30 degrees that way and you can still see what everybody else is seeing but you're seeing it through an entirely different light. >> what you think the media wants? >> what do you mean. >> while they want something, they are in business like everybody else. they either want, maybe they want donald trump to be less right-wing or maybe they want him to be a democrat or maybe they want him, often they want more access. clearly there is a deep

discontent on the media side, and so i'm just trying to think, from your point of view, what do you think they want, what can you give them, what can't you give them? i'm trying to do a little family therapy here. [laughter] >> in my view, most members of the media want to get the story, want to get it right, want to have access, want to have sources, want to have access to the president, the vice president, the cabinet members, maybe the senior officials. some in the media want to prove they've been right about him all along and you have a couple people in the media opening questioning whether they should refer to him as president trump. when have you ever seen that before? i wasn't raised that way.

you respect the office of the presidency and the current occupant. yes, you are pointing to individual people, you're not pointing to an institution that is grappling with this big question. : the media has been gone back by a margin talk to the people. somehow. but again, if we are just talking to each other, if the

candidate of nominee trump and president-elect trump deal of luck relatively the same, and we haven't really progressed and how to cover him as a president or administration. it feels the same many days. >> so there are these issues that have been arctic related many times from the president down, issues that the media, a real -- a real sense of acrimony towards the media. you know, i think this administration has characterized the media more negatively than any i can remember. and yet, i kind of thing this administration talks to the media more than any other administration. so how do you balance this, this

negative view at the administration, at the media and get this eagerness to talk -- everybody talks where the caller leaking or just talking. >> the one thing i have been understood if you're somebody says you haven't talked to the media, you're free to talk to the media such as the one because nobody would suspect you're talking to the media, which is fascinating. on this issue, i would say this. do you think is actually covered fairly and objectively? >> i think not at all. democracy -- every time a this, i think from my point of view, as someone who literally writes about this, if this were totally unchartered territory, but having said that, this administration is more media

crazy than any i've ever -- i've ever watched. he talked to the media all the time. you want coverage all the time. you hurt when the coverage is bad. so you know, there is this interesting kind of thing and it goes the other way to, too, obviously. the media hates you but can't get enough of you. you hate the media that can't get enough of the media. >> you the administration? >> i don't really hate anyone. i have four kids. you can't scare me. >> and i have four kids. >> area go. we are scared to together. these are overgeneralization and i don't want to overgeneralization i've been media writ large. i see the white house press

corps, a lot of folks work really hard and are there predawn. they try to get the story. i guess i am surprised and i know there is click bait and viral interviews and all that, by surprise when you constantly see the same words to describe the administration or the president or cabinet secretaries , something i've been advocating for months and i'm happy to see them out there. and they get these great interviews and the headlines will immediately be struggled to explain or contradict it. it's already written. again, what people want to know out there is what did they say and what does that mean? why should i care? people will find the news if they can't find it in the news. they just look at that advantage people have now. when you talk about the hostile relationship, in a free and fair

press that comes with responsibility, though, to be fair as well as just free. it comes with a certain responsibility. if you read people's twitter feed, this is very important. i talked about in the campaign on the morning show and i know jim and i talked about it after that on the morning show. but it's a very important point because it would never pass editorial muster. it just wouldn't. tweets are my own and at 10:15 a.m. and you're in the building where you work. people see you as the person and of covering this presidency objectively where he spent an hour of your dad responding to people on twitter to other journalists and i think that is not covered at all 11 talks about the president tweeting. those who are covering in, some of those twitter feeds are a hot mess.

we want the relationship to be fatter. i'm a very pro-press person just because i love democracy and the first amendment. but there's a reason the president decided not to attend this year's white house correspondents dinner and the rest of us will stand in solidarity with them. i respect that decision. because there is a two-way responsibility here. the other thing i would just say about this is there is also a selectivity to reporting. the morning console pull shows the approval ratings are higher than disapproval ratings. you're not going to hear that. if it were the other way, every headline and every cable station. so there is a selectivity there also. what do we choose to highlight? why do we choose to allow to receive into the background?

>> so, "the new york times" it seems to me has approached rules, which often is a front-page story. the beat -- president trump is an operating president. i would argue it is sort of largely owned by maggie abraham. i know the president views, which maggie abraham and get why does he speak to her? >> what do you mean at these of her? >> if he doesn't like her. he's told me. [laughter] >> i just have to push back. i think it's inappropriate to say who or who the president does not like respectfully knew just need my entire point about how he's covered like he is

sitting next to him the bus. he's the president of the united states and he obviously was x or because he gave her an interview last week. >> that is what i'm asking. >> totally. i'm wondering why she literally -- you can not follow what she says and not conclude -- literally the aberrant presidency of donald trump, "new york times." she is the writer on that eat. i know the president thinks. i know what it said about her. and yet, he reaches out to her. i am just wondering maybe that's a good thing. you can say you reach out. >> certainly it's an ongoing premise that is not given access to the press or he's not fair to the press. he does. he gives interviews. i have to back up because you mentioned somebody by name who i

regard as a very hard-working, honest journalists. who happens to be a very good person. a mom of three who works hard, who seems ubiquitous on print and on tv and think it's had a really nice profile written about her. but since you mentioned why someone might name i felt a little uncomfortable. donald trump is somebody with a business man, successful business man, well-known new yorker who is a master brander, successful in television, he is somebody who's always dealt dealt with the press. this is not unusual. he is a natural but the press. what is different is him being in politics. what is different from the press in i.q. is covering somebody in politics coming down the

presidency who is not a typical politician who you were used to covering when they were a governor or a senator. where you had that relationship with them and their staff that was washington in nature, state government in nature. everyone is still trying to find their way in that regard. president trump is somebody who had a relationship with the media is been interviewed about business is his real estate projects or has other products is put out there that this is not new to he and his family. what is new is that he's the president and a whole different type of coverage. i will implore everybody. if you look at him when he think about how the first 100 days will be covered, i can close my

eyes into exactly how they are covered and exactly how america is going to want to see them. if you look at the long list of things that the president has done that matters to people, that real people impact, it's impressive. when people feel like jobs were created for employers decided to attract and retain a workforce here rather than bringing jobs abroad, when you think about investments just sitting on the shelf in the billions of dollars some of these employers, this is a president who's done things the job creators, job seekers and jobholders tend to convey that message whether or not it ends at being covered. there is a story that's been talked about infinitely that is almost gone this week because other things building. i would argue there were always other things just nobody wanted

to cover them. it's not exciting to cover energy and then common sense environmental regulation. at not exciting to cover tax reform. is not exciting to cover how to get back on track with health care reform. but that is a forgotten man or woman didn't just come out at nowhere. they still feel like they are forgotten in terms of how this administration and president is presented to them. >> let me just ask you a process question. so you have a quantitative increase in news outlet and you have a quantitative increase in the news you are producing. more news comes out of this white house than any certainly in my recollection. >> well, he's doing more.

[laughter] >> well, he's making news, certainly. what does -- in that situation, don't you get to a point where you can never keep up so many news outlets, so much more news? >> you're asking me why this. some of it is a sign of the times. there's so many ways to boot the media all the time and social media platforms, doing my part takes on a tv show. this is very different than decades ago and even different from the last republican president george w. bush where there is more disparate media enters additional opportunities to always be on an always be covering. this white house relationship

and responsibility to look at everything is an attempted infuriated in a way that is not the and honest and gives people fall information. again i sat in the cab in nyc it again now. a disconnect between what he called i've been told and what they think is important on. that is something that has not changed in covering president trump and candidate turned to president-elect trump, which is been told i'm going to have headlines about it will talk about it all night long. this is what's important to you. the reason i know is because the 10 people on the panel keeps saying it's important to you. yet there's not a lot of evidence. if you look at those tv networks, their own polling,

what's important to people is not being hovered, jobs, economic growth, health care reform. i am a check of often over the tuesday group versus the house freedom caucus. i made the issue at hand. people say immigration is important to them. one outlet at the border yesterday. that was news. i understand why they don't want to cover an attorney general the tarmac for nearly an hour. why are they covering this attorney general when he has the border in a major policy? if it's not as exciting? it's important to cover it. >> if we had more time, i would go on to talk about the nature of messaging users of the bowl for that. and how you clarify your message and how you get the media to you your message. >> just one quick comment. i still think our best messenger

is president trump and i favor him doing press conferences. i favor him giving interviews. none of us can be a substitute for that. not on the campaign, not on his administration. he is the best messenger. they're the best messenger is the best spokespeople for what is happening in this administration. messenger and delivery now is not just a style. pipe and drape is what color tie are they wearing so who's behind them in the shot, discussions politicians have been asked in forever delivery system. we are delivering the message, we have an administration deliver the message through many different outlets. social media top arms, traditional networks, cable networks, newspapers. i suppose that their online presence that people have.

people are getting information through so many different systems. they get their information through so many different sources. that i think is very unique and i believe president trump will be a very unique well-positioned messenger to meet the new call of different opportunities and people. >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> we have a great panel for you. they are coming out i had a few. i'll introduce them altogether. we are excited to talk about cover the president, covering this white house. first on the end there, jim acosta senior white house correspondent for cnn in 2016 the trunk campaign during the

general election. previously cover did obama administration. he has been on the receiving end you may have noticed. and we will talk about that in our panel here. julie pace, white house chief correspondent or this is your press since the beginning of president obama separate term, she joined the eighth he did in 2009 after covering obama's 2008 campaign and she has been turning out scoops with the ap ever since. she also serves as a board member of the white house correspondents association. x-ray charlie green, white house correspondent for bright art news. he came to write part for the "washtington examiner," got his start covering politics working for conservative columnist bob novak. he started covering the white house during the obama

administration. next-paragraph kristen welker is the white house correspondent for an ec news. since 2011, seen frequently in the front row of the briefing room going back and forth with the man you just saw a peer, sean spicer. her reporting appears on all nbc and msnbc platforms via she spent 2016 reporting from the trail of hillary clinton's campaign. finally, glenn thrush, white house correspondent for "the new york times" has had a long history in new york's newsday covering and interviewing donald trump has some history there. last week he and his colleague maggie abraham cannot today interview in the oval office with the president. he joined the times a few months ago from "politico" where he was there chief political correspondent. this is the panel. let's give them one round of applause. [applause]

so obviously the press briefings have been pretty interesting. the fact that you have a "saturday night live" character already is a factor. they talk about covering this particular white house and the challenges in doing so. >> at the way, are they to congratulate whatever they put in chance coffee this morning calm things down considerably. i would definitely recommend that every day. >> do you really, glenn? >> i say that with great affection. i think the tone and jim and i were talking about this. the tone was that the day after the inauguration when sean spicer came out and decided to berate the media about the crowd size at the non-girl. the thing about that, as far as that -- bizarre as that was, my

problem with that is the cayman, shouted at everybody and refuse to take questions. to me that was a fundamental violation of purpose, which is not about questions. it's about answers. i have heard sean and allotted different menus and he was very subdued and contrite today, but i have seen a diminishment of that room over the last three months. the obama administration has fought to cool it down after robert gibbs made news of great regularity. i don't think president obama really appreciated that. but i think what we have seen is a series of missteps. i think it is entirely appropriate and unbiased to say that the level of information on the quality of information receiving during these briefings that i believe not up to the standard of what we believe ought to be in the briefing

room. so i think in terms of i would put this out for mr. spicer and his staff. we have been on the receiving end many times about what we need to do professionally in transit dealing with our process. i would encourage him to adjudication staff in the white house to do the same thing. >> when i was white house course on income a lot of information came from outside the white house. same logistics? >> absolutely. one of the things that i think you learn when you cover the white house over time is that there is information you get after the building. it was sent and that took me a while to cover the beat and it was coming back this year after being off on the campaign most of last year. two of my resolution were to go to the briefing and to spend more time outside of the white house. you find that you just get a lot more depth in your coverage when

you are talking just to the communication shop for the policy shop at the white house, but to us talking to them on capitol hill. who is talking to them in the lobbying world. one of the great things about president trump if he talks to a ton of people appear traditional people in washington you would expect him to put this wide range of people who are his friends and assess yet from new york, his business world. it gives us great advantage to not just get to know the people surrounding him every day and died the white house but to really get perspective about him from outside. >> i agree with everything julia seine. some of the best information and in my i've gotten into this president can't turn his friends who don't necessarily live in d.c. one of the things that makes covering the white house striking is the sheer amount of

energy this president has been that sort of requires a 24/7 news cycle in a way that is on a whole new level. he is treating at 6:00 a.m. he's tweeting at 11:00 p.m. we are often reporting out our stories overnight, literally until midnight, 1:00 a.m. in the morning. you always have to be prepared when you walk around the white house is obviously invites reporters into the oval office. i was invited in for an impromptu meeting with him. you always have to sort of be on your toes to make sure you get the best information pushing headlines forward. >> i mentioned above that back-and-forth. has not evolved since that first exchange? >> i have not been invited into any private meetings at the white house. perhaps you could have figured that out. we have that news conference where he and i had the back-and-forth in january, which

by the way was the only news conference during the transition. the president-elect on the head one is conference january 11th nine days later during inauguration i was positioned on the north lawn of the white house right in the middle. the president and first lady walked by me. to some extent, the president knows television. he is not going to miss a moment if it's going to serve his purpose. to some extent that is what happened on january 11. he and i had this back in worth and just to quickly go over that, my feeling is their news organization was being attacked on that day. we were being called fake news and so forth and i felt i deserved in our organization deserved a question to challenge him on what was reported at that time which is the i.d. of the trent campaign is having russian intelligence operatives during the campaign. there was the one news conference where he and i went

back and forth for eight minutes and he asked if i was related to alexander acosta is the labor secretary. to some extent it did happen. to some extent, he enjoys the sparring back-and-forth. the one thing i do want to say and will have time to talk about all of this. we are told we live in is nothing matters world earlier in this post truth world. that couldn't be further from the truth now more than other, speaking truth to power means everything. that is what i was trying to do on that day back in january and i think my colleagues here try to do every day. >> would you do at the same way again? >> i would. if our news organization is being attacked, my sense is that cannot go without any kind of response. really quickly, that night i

heard from his executive from another network who said he did a really great job defending your network. i said i was defending all of us because it could your network tomorrow. >> charlie, you covered in the obama administration at the white house did you came from the "washtington examiner" to breitbart. breitbart is a different organization and that your previous ties with people inside the white house, and steve bannon. you have to separate that i suppose in how you cover the white house. talk about the unique challenges. >> the president made a lot of promises to conservatives in general. we have great bird feel it's important to hold them accountable to those promises. he talked a lot about immigration, a lot about holding the wall and helping our event. he made a very long list of promises and one of the

conservative outlet took an honest word and he just sort of published he said as it was. we didn't suggest maybe he was wine he was liner fake on these issues do we have a vigorous possibility to tackle his work here and hold them accountable to the promises he made. >> so is it unique, this white house and trying to get information from you? do you have more access? >> that is really funny. the frustrating part i think is when readers -- when people read the great partners website and just assume that everything is coming from a steve bannon dispatch. i certainly don't get phone calls from him. he's now a source that is pretty much a useless hours in many cases. probably talks to "the new york times" another outlet more than he talks to breitbart news. i feel that steve and is pretty open on who he is and certainly

we are going to cover him as a member of the white house. if he strays from anything that our readers believe in, we're definitely going to hold them accountable. >> you heard john glenn talk about the coverage of policy and policy decisions versus the process and here in washington would get a lot of behind the scenes about who is that the newest town of what is going to happen and it could be many things inside this white house very said personnel wise. how do you balance that as far as coverage? >> first of all, i dispute the notion that processes in policy process is policy and that really manifested out very clearly. sean first added making the argument if i'm not mistaken having to do with the devon nuñez midnight visit campus of the white house where he kept saying us we were asking

questions really important questions about who nuñez was meeting, who authorized those meetings, did the president know about these things? sean would reduce that to us asking questions about how people were dressed, what date they came in. so it behooves him from his perspective of being a flak to make a differentiation. but i will tell you, i started off my career in policy and rand think tank think of her poverty in new york city for five or six years has been an interest of mine for a long time. i would like to engage members of the administration and i find it difficult sometimes to find people to engage up at that level. in general, the process with this particular administration is important because they violated issues of process and in some instances i believe they

don't fully understand. >> were you surprised when the president called and has done interviews with maggie and viewing the phone and called? no, i think this is to me something i don't think he gets nearly enough credit for her. maggie and i and a bunch of other people who cover the white house right now, but the crucible of new york city hall. i set off to that this is to me seems almost like a national -- than white house. covering rid of giuliani was not dissimilar. many had amazing press conferences, first as president, a lot of our colleagues who covered the white house were like what is this? this is 1997 press conference. i think he gets a lot of credit for that. remember, barack obama come

would talk about how trump is backing down. he and i have a loving and the 67 reporters and he never diverged from that. he does have a 302nd question and i recall in a foreign manager 28 minute in there, much like i'm giving right now. >> we have plenty of time. but in general, is much burbling to engage people. >> what about access? >> well, when it's right. there is this perception is better access is taken away. the reality is because the president does reach out to reporters at times directly and not send, he differentiates himself. in the five years that i covered the above administration, the

challenge becomes to delve more deeply into the policy issues, trying to get correct answers to her questions. you talk about the issue of process and that really speaks in some instances to the very underpinnings of the white house and we've been following this back-and-forth between steve annan and chariot -- steve -- we know that is someone who considers himself a nationalist doesn't necessarily support. asked by those discussions matter go to some extent dangerous. >> i'm a guy who covers process. i'm just going off of the sean spicer comment as he was leaving with redeye. i want to talk to you about the campaign. if that factors into your mind about how to cover the white house. a lot of those missed a lot of what was happening on the

campaign and didn't see it at the very end that he was going to happen. does that fact during two hi you cover the white house now? >> i think it does. one of my regrets for the campaign decided not to take our anchors out with us on the campaign trail for some of our executives on the campaign trail. perhaps i have a little post campaign stress disorder. you're talking about access. i'm not sure access is the issue as attitude towards the new media. we have an unhealthy attitude towards the media. i'm being diplomatic when i say this. i was on the campaign time and again. the disgusting news media virus and hoax of days. there were a chance to going after cnn and continue to chant

and i did say he took my question and you're undermining confidence in the news media. just as much as we need democrats. the president has to understand he is doing real damage to what we do. real damage to the first amendment in this country when he refers to the news media as the enemies of the people. some of that is production. he's from fifth avenue so there is little broadway fare. more inside to that than i do. i think words matter in those kinds of attacks have to be taken seriously. i talk to people inside the administration. why can't the president to lay out the fake news and enemy of the people start. they sorted through back in your

face. at some point we are going to need a detente between us and his administration are also just going to get a worse and worse. we need people to trust us. a way that garners that trust. the president doesn't like bad stories. this is how he responds. with better figure out a way around it. >> i think what is so striking as there is a public perception and then what actually happens behind the scenes. most of us would agree we have pretty good working relationships it's not just about the back-and-forth between the media and the president. the public debate becomes a fight returning the price during

the president. that is not at all what the debate is about. it's about make sure we protect the first amendment. >> there was always this talk about this is where he's going to return and be different. do you sense that president trump is going to somehow evolve in the way he handled some of this or do you think it really is? >> is who he is. there are things about trump. a 70-year-old man who lived in the spotlight for decades. there are things about him who are never going to change. we shouldn't keep expecting that will happen because he went on to a new page of his clinical career. i don't know if they are fully accepting not disappoint, but you do get treated differently as president. trump has this on relationships with the media that comes from being on reality television,

that come from being in the business world, that come from having this relationship the gossip pages in the new york tabloids. that's different from how you get covered as president. sometimes i'm surprised what bothers trump in its coverage and not that stories are negative. it's this feeling that he doesn't have a relationship with the washington press corps, or that the policy context was missed. i found that striking. if you're waiting for a policy of illusion or personality evolution with trump, get over it. it's not going to happen. >> does it change the dynamic and how is it perceived as your

organization? >> certainly the serious strike was kind of a surprise for a lot of our readers. we covered it in a way on the focus on how it was different from the first campaign message she shared. in hindsight and the president reassured people who are concerned about our foreign policy. he reassured we are not going in this agreement. i to refer to this comment about the media. the president made his comments about the biased media and the news mostly because he didn't do it to start or denigrate the prize. it is popular among his base. his face has a real problem with the way the media is perceived. he was in a largely plain to the crowd on this one and something that conservatives have complained about for a long time. >> but do you think that he has

gotten to the point where he knows he's the president, he won, he doesn't have to keep going back to the election, the campaign is over? do you sense that he is fighting the pr battle still day-to-day? >> we have an armada -- what he calls an armada are certainly -- certainly he does. i think charlie is 100% right on the whole issue of it being something that works the crowd. trump refers to people as customers. i think he views a different mindset than we have had for a president ever. i think it is fascinating because we have had as being a businessman. i then covered new york real estate, i can tell you decide to sell the out of it.

he is somebody i think who has a remarkably sophisticated gear for the electorate that he was able to win over. so he understands and the kinds of balancing act of charlie this was describing the train but the presidency demands. to me, that is probably the most interesting dynamic. how does he reconcile what he has to do at the base versus as president. that fire, up to this point, he's printed on it. that's why it's a crucible. >> i mean, he does like to be liked. we have to put that out there. the fact that this serious strike was well received on the left and the right largely and he was getting props from senators who don't usually give him props. does that somehow, do you think, changed his outlook on how it's going to do with foreign policy decisions going forward?

>> possibly. he's the first person to tell you he's got broad bipartisan support. i think you're absolutely right about that. it was a turning point by the way for him because he had a number of rocky weeks and days leading up to that. a lot of people saw that at the moment when he really started to absorb the response abilities as president. based on a conversation they had knowledge of it going on and started to realize that everything that were on the campaign trail doesn't necessarily work in the white house. this serious strike was emblematic of that certainly. the fact that he was limited, that is very calibrated, specific, speaks to his internal conflict with engaging in a month the foreign situations. but absolutely. you are starting to see a shift in that regard, absorbing some of these responsibilities.

i don't think it's ever going to change who he is, but he is starting to accept some of the reality of being commander-in-chief. >> i think this is important for people to know about trump. his interest in knowing the real-time reaction to his decision is so unique. presidents that i've covered in the past are aware generally of how they are being perceived, but trump wants to know minute to minute i decision has been received. he watches it on television. he reads in the paper. an attack to some republicans commit this worse than a day because he's going to find himself in position as president have to make a decision he and his advisers latest rate that is going going to be unpopular. it's inevitable. it will happen. does he have the capacity to make the decision that is the right one even though the short-term reaction is negative? can he deal with that in handle

that? it these people nervous, especially foreign policy and the actual outcome of the decision is that known sometimes for years. >> i was going to say that if you look at the president tweaked from 2013 when they say don't go into syria, serious strike is an indication that he can change. he could change his mind on something that's message about it when you're president of the united states coming sometime have to stop campaigning and start the governing. my understanding is talking to administration officials that he was deep effected by the images of those children after they were aghast. you have to give credit where credit is due. i'm not saying that this is going to be the best policy decision moving forward on the road, but when you have the unanimity with pat in washington over the last week the war crimes should be responded to and perhaps in a proportional way, a measured way that on balance it seems he made the

right decision here. >> but there's no sense he's going to change the tweeting. >> now. live by the tweaked-- but i do tweet, die by the tweet. but he thinks about these because honestly they've gotten in so much trouble. the issue at tweeting a president obama wiretapped and. watching one of the most excruciating things that had to watch over the last few weeks is the white house trying to explain and justify the presidents of the facts the president obama did not wiretapped trump tower. we're talking about surveillance and now, cnn is reporting by talking to folks on both sides of the aisle on the intelligence

communities and their staffers, that the intelligence tells us at this point there wasn't even any unlawful surveillance and that susan rice didn't do anything wrong or conductors of any lawful way. so you know, these verbal gymnastics that i can understand why yesterday happened. the level of exhaustion he's feeling right now, having to deal with this president has just sort of man wielding a difficult is a difficult experience. >> you see a tweet that changes your entire day disinterest in 140 characters or less. talk about that for a second, covered president to have his own printing press, who it is a unique thing. anybody?

>> i think what upsets a lot of our readers is when you hear people -- the media so going to exonerate susan rice and they take a completely hostile tone or is the president when it comes to people like susan rice. a lot of the news that they publish on not as coming from one side. this is where readers are so comfortable with the president describing media as the opposition party. they get most of their talking points, a good portion of their sources for the democratic friends. they did vote for the president. they don't know too many of the president's orders. i think there is a difference in tone coming from mainstream media versus bright or. >> charlie, when you say ... and i set the hook, i did not susan rice at the period a couple years ago i didn't wander off the hook. let me ask you this. when the president originally

tweet said it's like watergate. do you think of the back of his night he was thinking susan rice unmasks some people and that's what it really meant. it just seems to me over the last few weeks the white house has been sort of fumbling in the dark in search of a justification that which is totally erroneous. my question has always been why doesn't the president just withdraw, retract the accusation? we have not gotten to that point yet. my question is why can't the folks on the conservative side of the news media just see the facts as they are? don't you agree they are just wrong. the president was not wiretapped at trump tower by barack obama. >> i think there's an element of truth. he was basing -- >> how about just the truth?

why can't we just have the truth? [applause] as much as people want to be had up and vietnam and that sort of thing, which are readers doing your side of the aisle to do with this deep and the other day where he referred to assist the opposition party once again. we are not the opposition party. we are trying to get at the truth. when you have the side of the news media that insists time and again that cnn is set to get the president brought to get certain people in this country, it is a tremendous disservice to all americans. i don't think it is american to go after a segment of the news media. brett is a program is a program does a great newscast every night on fox news. i watch it all the time when i'm not watching wolf there. i can dvr you and i probably have. listen, we've got to get to a point in this country where we are not demonizing one another,

going after each other because we don't agree with one another. i'm sorry. i'm not trying to play to the audience here. i grew up in the city. people talk about remember the days of ronald reagan and tip o'neill. that actually did exist. brett and i are very friendly with each other. i have a tremendous amount of respect for carl cameron and john roberts, asked his colleagues on the campaign trail. i would love for all of us to get away from this day where we are just ripping each other apart because of political differences get good people can disagree on the issue is and it's time for good people to disagree in a civil way about how the news is covered in this country. add butter to start down the street of pennsylvania avenue to know that d.c. to places like breitbart and perhaps other folks can do a better job at that as well.

>> that go along, get along in washington d.c. is that americans are tired of. the closeness of the news media with officials they cover. they are tired of the stories of everybody hanging out, going out to dinners and partying. >> that happens with republicans and democrats, to to be fair. it's not like reporters are hanging out with only democrats. they dinners and lunches with republicans as well. >> is part of the establishment, the swamp, the trump supporters are very sick of. >> charlie, the campaign is over. >> one thing i will say is the best party i've been to is the daily caller christmas party. >> your question about the president and his tweet. it creates a climate for the media is even more important. the president has a platform is president obama did. president obama is very effective at trying to go in the media using twitter, face up and

present their side of the story. we probably could've been more aggressive in recognizing what was happening and making sure we were in that way coming in with fact check, information to try to bolster what the actual facts were, not just the white house spin. we have stepped up and done a better job of that under president trump. we will continue to do that. that doesn't happen without the press. the fact that get added on, the context that gets added on to the wiretapping, that doesn't happen without us. we played a vital role even when you have a president who has a huge pot on. >> just two data points in the context of this entire conversation. is the least popular presidents this point in his presidency in modern polling history. facing a couple reputable polls. real clear politics in the aggregate, 41%, those guys have

been peeking occasionally. these are abysmal numbers. there is no honeymoon. one of the things in your focus groups, democrat and republican focus groups, the people i talked to lately will tell you almost uniformly even his supporters want him to tweet last. it's an incredibly powerful tool that is able to evolve. i noticed a subtle difference but in the wake of the wiretap saturday morning, he has shouted out a little bit and used his account were strategically. this is the overarching question of the president they ended the question i think it will manifest itself in his twitter account verse. that is it has been my experience and the experience of historians to matter how singular the president is, the presidency shapes the president, not the other way around. i want to see how he evolves.

he's not going to do what sean spicer did here and apologize. it's not the guy style. his contrition is cloaked. what i want to see over time and i think we have seen that, we have seen and charlie knows this because his readers are probably hating it. but we have seen a quote, unquote, i hate this word, normalization in the staffing of the white house -- white house. senator cotton from arkansas, mcmaster who is a conventional choice with a lot of very conventional somewhat militaristic mainstream republicans. not a thin of the same old. you have steve bannon perhaps the move to the margins. i thought his extraordinary, the president telling "the new york post" and is only known them for a weekend.

if that is not raining, that is spray paint on the wall. so you know, >> and until there's hand-picked by gates and condi rice and others. >> like garbo. he is willy-nilly over the past 48 hours. it nuts. everything he says is in complete variance in terms of foreign policy, which is also now we know perhaps why he wasn't speaking. the point being for your readership and your readership, this white house is moving a much more conventional way. if you look at the output and the personnel movement, you could say we've had three months of shake down and this is a fairly conventional convention. i don't want to overstate that because he's a really imperfect book i. are moving that direction. >> i think that is absolutely right. i think in terms of tweet, this

is the way the president feels he can have a direct channel of the american people. i was talking to one of his top officials whose book, one of the reasons why he reaches out to individual reporters is because he feels like it's the only way he can be heard and cut through all the noise. that's not to excuse the disinformation and jim described. but i think what we are seeing and why he will never give up twitter. i can't underscore this point enough. julie and i covered the apartment ministration. we did have sites of did have sites of or access them at things small as what to the general public seem small to us is a big deal and not letting cameras trained to shoot a meeting that would keep us happy. we would have we would have a knock down drag out fight to the obama administration. because of this very issue because it's important for the president to have a direct line to the american public, but it's important to be a part of the process as well. i don't think you're going to see him give up.

his tweets have been more policy based to some extent particularly dealing with north korea as well. so i don't think we're ever going to see him give it out. i do think it's kind of an ongoing debate. >> i would like to point out that he has done a think eight interviews, six of them with fox news channel overall. but i would point out my request and chris wallace is request and shannon bream's request, bill hemmer's request, martha mccollum's request, we are still waiting. and i know jim, yours are still pending, too. >> if you could put in a good word for us. >> one more point about twitter that i think is important. we have a responsibility as the press to not throw up every tweet on air and real-time, to

process what does it mean to fact check a period i think that we are having those types of discussions in our newsrooms, how to better do that, better achieve that. >> what is something we are not covering enough from the white house point of view for a white house relationship point of view? >> there is actually kind of a long list of things. frankly, if you look at a situation like north korea which is being covered on a daily basis in terms of the president is born in china where they are moving this number of ships into the region. the north korea is massive and that is one that could potentially shape the entire direction of his presidency. beyond warning china that he'll act alone, i don't think we have a great sense of what he is willing to do there. the consequences for the u.s., for the region, are key allies in asia could demand a lot more of our attention.

i also think in terms of his relationship with congress, this is a political story, not a policy story, but i am fascinated for trump is going to end up in 2018 in an election year and he has this really complex relationship with his own party. he wants the party to be behind him, but he doesn't feel beholden to the party. do we start seeing trump and his campaign organization which still exist going out and are they going to start raising money for primary challengers to people who work within or maybe aren't on tax reform. the idea of president trump without a fairly united republican party behind him for his last two years of this term i think is fascinating as well. the political dynamic is something we should focus on as well. >> your thoughts of what we are

not covering enough? >> at to give the president credit. during the campaign he tapped into something nobody saw coming, which is this idea and it is the real thing of the forgotten america. people live in wisconsin, ohio, indiana, folks living in this town for the factory was shut down. for eight years under the obama administration, they did not address this issue. there are people on the margins stretching and wondering how i get food on the table and get my kid to college. president trump tapped into that. i do think there is some truth to this in the present divisions out there. he was dividing and conquering to some extent because the mexicans coming across the border and taking your job and so forth and so on. i think that is a real issue and it would be great for reporters to go back to some of these towns in find out what is happening to those people, and are they waiting for president trump to come in with some

policies? .. that is the one of the biggest stories i want to see covered over next four years. >> no surprise i agree with jim on that. our readers certainly care about wall, whether or not trump will build the wall. you have to even start it and our readers would be happy. put one brick on top of the other. >> mile stretch might be enough? >> get it started. maybe a future president will finish the job. i think jim is absolutely right,

we focus too much on foreign policy. we saw this in launches in syria. a lot of reporters that just sort of got obsessed with glamorization of going to war overseas, talking about the beautiful missiles. it was such a positive experience for president trump, why would he think twice about launching another attack on foreign soil? it seems like we in the media are too comfortable with him acting overseas and don't question him enough on this i really think that media needs to focus more on domestic policy. you know, so many lists don't even include creating jobs, enforcing the border, helping our votes. these are the things that resonated with all americans. this is why trump won the election and i think he needs to remember that. and focus entirely on that agenda. and granted, you know, if stuff happens overseas and he wants to act tough, mick herm strong

again, if he wants to de-- make america strong again, defeat isis, american people will have limited amount of support for that but priority remains on the united states of america. >> interesting, speaking of domestic politics, yesterday he said he wants to go after health care again and get that done first before tax reform, the relationship with congress, and legislative strategy from getting point a to point b seems where they haven't lined that up yet. >> i was going to bring up health care. this is one of his signature campaign promises. the white house moved on rather quickly. they made an attempt to revive it. we moved on very quickly from that. i think we need to resist the, you know, pull to move on quickly from one of his signature campaign promises. he vowed to repeal and replace obamacare. this is something a lot of his supporters still want to see him get done.

the question, how does he could that at this point, are efforts to revive it real, are they genuine. within that context on taxes, infrastructure. one might be the one point of bipartisan agreement that there needs to be some type of infrastructure overhaul in this country. so i think you're right, while we're covering all these other juicy headlines it is so important and critical to remember what he actually promised his supporters. i also think it is critical that we continue to track the way in which his family, sort of interacts, plays a role in this white house. it is unprecedented you have his daughter and his son-in-law as his top advisors. this is really something that we have never seen. makes his white house distinct, but i think there are questions already been raised, will continue to get raised along the way. >> at risk of doing reporting from the stage talk about the

notion, "breitbart" holding president trump accountable for his campaign promises to me is fantastic, and i think represents to me, it is why i love media. by the way i'm the exact opposite of trump on this. i love reporters of all stripes working for all organizations. i feel that the lowliest reporter is morally superior to the most exalted flak, that is my sense. the notion of the conservative media, the idealogical media, holding a president that they helped elect accountable to me the ultimate validation the system should work. i think it is awesome. [applause] the other thing is, now from here is reporting from the stage thing. talking about, as kristin was talking about the family, the family. this split between jared kushner and ivanka and bannon, here is

why the president, he is why the president can't let bannon too far out of the tent. do you want steve bannon in the white house working with you, or outside of the white house holding the president accountable and reminding everybody that the guy he got elected isn't fulfilling campaign promises? turning into the third bush presidency, right? that would be enormously damaging. the core support the president enjoys to a great degree has been consolidated as as a result of bannon and coordination between that group and himself. the thing i think is very interesting, this is getting a little inside baseball, watching the rebecca mercer, and mercer family, big republican donor, has involvement in "breitbart," watching the daylight between them and their agenda and what the trump white house agenda is will be one of the more important spaces to watch next couple months. >> i think you're exactly right. whether bannon stays in the

white house or not, he has the whiteboard with all the promises that candidate trump made in his office inside of the white house. and that white house, that whiteboard is easily transferable to online presence that is just hammering him every day. julie, let's wrap up here and talk about covering the white house going forward. are you disappointed about the white house correspondents dinner? you're on the board. what is the reaction there? >> thank you. look, as the board invited the president. we invited the vice president. we invited the white house staff. i think there is a lot about the dinner that could change and is changing and that is positive, but i do think that it -- charlie made the point there is a lot of coziness between reporters and sources. that happens to some extent. i think one thing nice about the

dinner it is an opportunity for our sources to come a dinner that celebrates the press and you know, show that they respect us, that they respect the first amendment. they respect our role in this democracy. this white house is choosing not to do that, and we wish they would come. i think it would be good for everybody to get in the same room together and celebrate the first amendment. i think that our invitation is still open to it them at this point but to make our entire relationship with the trump administration about the dinner i think also would be to overstate it. >> maybe a late addition? >> the invitation still stands. the invitation still stands. >> your thoughts, kristen? >> one of the things important to remember about the dinner, i want to invitation stands as well even though i'm not on the board but i would really welcome it if it would come and white house staffers would come but we're raising money for future journalists. that scholarship money is something we all take very seriously.

the fact that we are sort of paying it forward if you will, i think that is one of the disappointing aspects of them not attending. >> how big is the 100 days and how big will it be lifted up as far as a marker, jim, for this administration? >> i was going to tell my story how donald trump came by our table at correspondents table couple years ago, he said, hey, good table. that did happen. >> times have changed. >> times have changed. we're running out of time. i won't go any further. no, i think the 100-day marker is very important. they're conscious of this inside of the white house. president would desperately love to see wins up on the scoreboard. i will tell you, it will sound a little crass having said what i said, i talked to a senior white house official over the weekend, hey, we really feel how good the last week has gone, referring to the syria operation. you know, whether you want to

call it a military strike a win on the scoreboard is maybe not the best way of putting it. at this point it is really the only thing they can point to. >> well, neil gorsuch. >> neil gorsuch, obviously. took the "nuclear option" to get that done an indictment of our political system. >> he is on the supreme court. >> but isn't that somewhat of an indictment of political system, neil gorsuch, well-qualified, yes, conservative, but certainly not objectionable from a constitutional standpoint from scandal standpoint that it took the "nuclear option" to put him on the supreme court? goes to show you partisan bickering and brinksmanship in this town is nonsense and we won't see depart from the scene anytime soon. health care didn't get done. travel ban got tied up in the courts. my sense, the way they came into this administration the way they

were campaigning and that is just to tear everything apart, smash things and show everybody who is in charge. that they're the new sheriff in town it. i think previous administrations have had this problem. where, things are not thought through. i think in hindsight. had they done something that would have had more bipartisan appeal at the beginning of the administration they would probably find themselves in a better place. they would not need the neil gorsuch to be confirmed. we're in the permanent campaign. phrase permanent campaign predates this administration. that is where we are today. republicans will look at 100 day mark, donald trump has done a pretty good job. the other side will say where are the wins on the scoreboard. that is where we'll be. >> i'm not sure there was bipartisan atmosphere on the democratic side after this election. >> not not at all. >> that chuck schumer, done something differently. >> had he done infrastructure

first, surprised people. come out my inauguration size was bigger than barack obama's size and had he not tried to put a travel ban in on seven majority muslim countries right away and repealed obamacare and said obama had wiretapped me over at trump tower, not done all those things, tried a more bipartisan tone that is what people wanted after election. >> it that what your readers would have wanted? >> talk about the bipartisan tone i think the tone was very one-sided during the first 100 days. overwhelming coverage is obsessed with the russia situation. i'm not going to say it isn't a story. the amount of details coming from one side, the democratic party, that is when you have sort of a frustration. that is why trump, why the president is always on twitter trying to combat these things because how is he expected to move forward on any of these

issues when 80% of the coverage is focusing on his campaign's relationship with russia, which if you like, the number one source of that kind of reporting is somehow you have to somehow believe that the president would purposefully sell out his country to get elected? i think that is lot of reporters are approaching it from that angle. >> but i think it is important to point out there are bipartisan investigations into russian's meddling of u.s. election. not just democrats are investigating it. >> and fbi investigation as well. >> the other thing is -- media is like trying to do the investigating for everybody and trying to squeeze out every little bit of information about it and highlight it as focal, number one issue that should be important to americans. a lot of americans are really frustrate ited with that. >> your line of argument sounds extraordinarily familiar with me. i'm trying to figure out where i heard before? emails thing, from every single clinton person. i'm not saying there is not a

point of validity, suck it up, man. big league. president united states. >> i remember during the campaign, one of the trump events this nice lady grabs my by the arm, says i wish you guys would cover the clinton email story. i said, ma'am, let me ask you a question, where did you hear about the clinton email story? i saw it on the news. i read it in the newspaper. okay. are we doing our job, ma'am? we are covering clinton email story. and charlie, you have to agree, 11 days before the election the fbi director comes out and says, oh, by the way, we're reexamining the clinton emails. i mean that, you know, what is good for the goose is good for the gander to some extent. i think that is story will continue to play itself out. >> glenn was making crescendo here. >> no crescendo.

more of a face plant. look, i think this, is a big leagues, man. he got the job. a lot of, you take a lot of slings and arrows. it is biggest bully pulpit in the world. i think one of the real problems is, they have diminished the stature of the office because partially that is how he got elected by sort of running down washington. but when you do that, you deny yourself the tools by which you can amplify your own presence as a president. so he is not capable of transcending these things, a, because of the way he dealt with the crisis. also because, you trot out sean also because, you trot out sean every day and yell at him every night. i mean, parts are wearing down folks. devin nunes courageously or foolishly, depending on your point of view stepped into the breach on and he got obliterated. anybody who steps forward, steve bannon is working, one thing we can all agree upon, if you look

at him, see him in person, the man is working 18-hour days, right? dude, have an ice cream sunday. so people are wearing down. trump wears people out. so the question is, how can he reload freshen up, start using office of the presidency to move beyond this? if there is is, let me take you face value, say there is nothing with the russian thing a series of strange coincidences which is entirely possible, right, he should be using the tools of the office, part of that, by the way, is understanding the history of the place. you know it is one thing to come in and break the furniture and say you will do it differently but have a sense of history so that you don't have to reinvent the wheel every single time. >> that's right. he got elected saying he would be the bull in the china shop in

washington and he has the bull part down but is trying to recreate the china shop. >> you should trademark that. >> yeah. you have to sell the china at some point. you have to something going on, so building it up is the challenge. we still have 400 plus senate confirmable seats have not been nominated. >> he is putting himself at a disadvantage not filling those jobs. i understand the idea of wanting to make sure they're his people. wanting to not have to do everything the same way that other administrations have done it but the government is massive. as president you can not be involved in every decision made across the government every single day. tough have people in place you can trust. by not filling those jobs he is putting himself in weaker position. broadly, one of the things interestingly to watch going forward in the trump white house, can they get beyond the idea of winning the day and winning the week? because you're president for four years.

you get that built-in. you're judged by the culmination of our actions and the culmination of the decisions, what you make, not what you made on a tuesday in april. i think if he can get to that point, that will put him in a much more successful position four years from now. >> last thing, is it possible for this president, this administration, to succeed, to shoot the gap and actually do big things? does this panel think that is possible in this current environment? >> i think, i think it is going to take, i've been thinking about this, you know, it will take an act of contrition on his part, i really do. i think if he were to go public, and say, listen, you know, i made some mistakes, tweets about wiretapping, you know some of these things were not thought

out, i think that it would do wonders. i think that the american people are very forgiving. you know, look what ronald reagan did during the iran-contra affair, he came out and apologized to the country and immediately helped himself. presidents who acknowledge their mistakes, admit the errors of their ways reap the benefits of that because the american people are forgiving people and he was elected. there are a lot of americans out there who agree with what, some of what he wants to do, particularly on the economy. and so, you know, i think that he would do a great service to himself. now as glenn said, i'm trying to remember this during the campaign, i don't think he apologized once during the campaign. never admitted he did anything wrong. there might have been something in that megyn kelly interview perhaps he said retweeting heidi cruz was a mistake. that might be only thing we ever heard during the entire course of the campaign. to me that would do wonders for

him. >> julie. >> he absolutely can succeed is. some of it will take a little more self-discipline on the part of the white house. some will be out of his control. don't underestimate the impact of a strong economy and a country that is not engaged in wars, and reverse of that in three years when he is running for re-election. that will have an enormous impact how people view his presidency. he can't control all of that. >> charlie? >> absolutely he can be a success since he has republican majorities in all three branches of government. >> who are anxious for a w. >> right. as soon as he can wrangle congress, his party is in charge of the place, if he can wrangle congress to get behind some of the agenda, the american people loved, his agenda was bipartisan, pro-american agenda, jobs, fixing problems with vets, fixing problems with health care. i think it absolutely americans can get behind that. i think he can be a successful

president. >> chris? >> i absolutely think he can. i think part of that process is going to be learning how to get a deal done in real estate and business, versus how to get a deal done in washington. figuring out who he wan work with, potential allies, who democrats reach across the aisle to work with him. >> there are 12 senate democrats up for re-election in states which he won 82% of the counties in those states or more. just saying. that is some leverage. glenn. >> see as i made a ton of dumb predictions in 2016 i will make an even dumber one now, that i think it will be, his first term will be a tale of two presidencies, i think we're in period of chaos until gravitational pull of 2018 midterms hits us. if history is any guide. they will lose seats. they have a great advantage, i think actually ironically his presidency will follow perhaps

bill clinton's first term where a midterm erosion of his support, i disagree with charlie. i think erosion of his majorities will make him an interesting president. i think cutting loose of the base that got him elected doing deals when he has no choice because his majorities are eroded i think will make more active interesting president. >> we will save this tape. glenn, kristin, charlie, julie, jim, thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, our panel. [applause] >> so what is the future of news in this divided and connected world? we've heard multiple participants say, that the news environment is changing, changing rapidly. that's the big question for our next panel moderated by a man who covers the ins and outs of