are not for going after private individuals. i guess, we haven't done anything with the hunter biden tape. that would be the line. he was playing on his dad's name and peddling influence, so i think that makes him ok as a target. i am not for going after people who weren't directly involved in public policy or working for the government. host: policy. >> host: we will have to end it there. the president of accuracy in media, aim.org. thank you so much for your time this morning. >> thank you for having me and everyone for calling. >> our guest angela president and ceo of media matters for america remind folks what the mission is and how you are funded.

>> what we largely focus on is the problem of active distribution or journalism news media. we identified and point out campaigns or gaps in coverage. increasingly we do a lot of work with social media platforms. the informational landscape is changing. we've done a lot of work not just identifying the challenges but zeroing in on the solutions either preventive.d so that is the broad mission. about 60,000 hours of tv, media, radio. a pretty significant piece of research and that's what we do, slightly improve the conversation and add some value where we can.

>> i joined right after i graduated law school and was there as part of a campaign. in that case it stopped being so disruptive toiv get better. i came basically to continue that work and then sort of worked my way up. >> host: let's talk about the media story of the week, month and year so far, the leaked draft opinion from the supreme court. >> most of this is by news media. we've been looking at this issue for a while if you look broadly speaking it's dominated by the right-wing so rarely do they

give it any attention which then allows the conversation to be dominated. there were three men jennings of it on cable news over the first week after it was enacted. it wasn't really discussed. the alarm bells didn't go off. they think about politics a few minutes a week and never appreciated what was happening even before then.f journalists were echoing a lot of the information we were hearing so onee of the things s describing these new restrictions.e there was no fetal heartbeat. that was made up because it had better messaging so one of the challenges i start a lot of the coverage we are seeing right now

is a consequence that has been lasting for people that have a deep agenda and we are trying to create a misimpression so right now it's almost entirely focused and the weird thing about it one of the things whether it's sean hannity or talk radio hosts to point out it doesn't mean it's illegal it just means it's going back to the states. they are shying away from celebrating realizing most people -- they mostly distract. there's a lot of spitting up of accusations of some sort of liberal clerk. there is no discussion about the

implication. >> host: why is the focus on the leak distraction? >> i would say it doesn't really matter. the thing that matters here the outcome of the case was significant and newsworthy. when they identify it and have a story to tell in this moment the focus should be the substance. sometimes you decide it's newsworthy and publish it. that's an important part of our civic discussion. if you go back in time and look at those that have created major significant events it's rare for the conversation to be focused on the leak itself. there's always curiosity of course. but not to discuss the case

itself. >> you noted in one of your stories and media matters this week that the focus is on the process and the optics. give me an example. >> where the rest of the news media becomes a problem, conservative and ideological they have an agenda. when i look at the actual journalism and focus is to assess the political. everything can't be seen through the lens because it is obviously so much bigger than that. it's not going to begin and end in november. that's part of it but not theo focus. they were intent to tell the stories that have already been affected by people that had been

prosecuted, put in jail or contrary these are greasy examples so far that haven't been lifted up and that is a problem with the journalism right now that as a consequence what they actually do is enable misinformation. so how this affects democrats is a big part. then if you look at the discussion itself the focus is what are democrats going to do about this. what you never hear is whatpu about republicans that have to think about this contrary when they do narrow the frames of

politics. there is this acknowledgment in some way we can't really expect them to do anything about this and i do think that is a problem. >> host: let me give the phone numbers to join the conversations at media matters for america democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001, independent, 202-748-8002. as folks are calling in, one story in politico by the procese here and why the story might be important to the larger issue. he writes of the court's long occupied on the sacred place in the national consciousness they conducted work and depend on the press.

i do expect that to be a part of this. that is what you're supposed to do is validate and go through the process. there are a series more than somebody with an opinion. there is a process and i have no

doubt that politico went through the process before they got up there and felt they had something. that's why he had created the thstory that it did. on the other hand, it is and some evolving piece of legislation. this isis what the courts do thy made a determination about the constitutional rights and this is a landmark decision here. it's been chipping away at that for some time. but to pretend it is a federal legislative issue is simply inaccurate and that is the problem to make it about republicans and roe wasn't just decided a year ago. it has broad implications for

all of us. it's been chipped away at but it's the reversal. setting aside an opinion your view on the leaked tapes the last guest was talking about hidden camera investigations and their organization being very much involved in this kind of investigation. have tapes like you've seen from "the new york times" reporting on kevin mccarthy and his discussions post january 6th with officials, the role that played in journalism. >> we should have a conversation about some of these things because frankly it doesn'tt feel like journalism to me. with more of the information it isn't timely in order to get it

out that's fine that doesn't have implications. during watergate they published it because it was newsworthy. we've seen some reports come out some of them have been new and some of them they've been sittingon on. broadly speaking it's validating information, releasingor information even if we are critical of them. they build the public trust but ioi would point out it was actually born out of this what the right-wing house done and media failed to do for decades

now there was a coordinated and orchestrated effort to weaponize the trust that masqueraded like newsrooms and benefits people had and instead republishing things that they knew had political benefit or like some of the groups that pop up now it's either heavily edited, vereally absurd versions, the right-wing eco- chamber echoes it and then they say we are not sure about that and then when they dig intoo it, that's the problem and -- >> host: who gets to setop the standard, who makes the rules. do we say that about dentists

and doctors? i am a critic. that's my job. even things i agree with but this is a profession. it's not just this challenge lithat we have that because they care about the trust that they have, one of the things that took place even though the evidence doesn't back them up in the coverage it's to inoculate themselves against the critiques they somehow are bias. so up until very recently they took an op-ed and must include

on climate skepticism but it's against the idea for the liberal climate change agenda so that's not engaging in the standards but there are editors they are s saying that's not an opinion that's why it takes time to get out because they are asking hard questions and take things out that might be on twitter or social media because they don't have the tools to back it up. democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. born and raised in washington, d.c. [inaudible] if it wasn't for the leaks where would we be with watergate, the bay of pigs, mining of the

harbor of nicaragua, a lot of these things need to come out and thank god we have a free and open press. it's in the constitution. the democrats, republicans, deal with it. thank you. >> guest: i agree. this is why the newsrooms get leaked and a lot of times they say we are not publishing this because itno isn't in the public interest or itst unsubstantiatd or it's a matter of private information and they make those assessments and you're right. they operate from a baseline set of standards but if they are able to strike the balance between trust it will give them more attention and as long as they adhere to some standards in

theory their reputations will grow. that's what keeps them competitive with each other but i agree it is a part of this and i think it's good that there is a little bit of a filter of balancingg out is this worth the risk. >> host: doug, independent. good morning. >> a couple of questions. first when he said we are a pro-choice country. individuals have varying opinions and individuals make that choice. i understand the comment -- many

would say abortion is wrong and is murder and do not feel that we are a pro-choice country so i wonder what the basis is for saying we are a pro-choice country. >> we are a pro-choice country even people that don't like abortion and do not like government telling them they can and cannot do things. it's why people wearing masks is such a challenge. they didn't like the idea. at its core there's something unsettling. i don't like the idea that it's going to get so deep into private decisions.

if you know america you know that and number two every bit of research and data i don't like just making a mountain out of one but every single data point demonstrates other than having modern gun reform, some basic safety checks, access to reproductive health and the privacy around that is the second most universally expected thing and say roe v wade should stay in place and the privacy k protections that it affords. millions of americans oppose abortion but by and large, overwhelmingly america is a pro-choice country. the abc news poll the question was do you think the supreme court should uphold roe v wade or uphold it, pulled 54% and overturned, 28% with no opinion

just one of those data points. >> asking the question in different ways at its core what people want is the privacy protections and number two they definitely do not want the government involving themselves. that is just a part of being american. what they don't like more is government. there are millions of people that are opposed for a variety of reasons. it's about protections. if the media told that story morere and didn't treat it likea balance it wouldn't seem as shocking. >> good morning. i just tuned in so i'm thinking

about media and i understand that currently most americans no longer trust the media and the media automatically adds the public trust and the federal communication stated anytime a journalist or reporter skewed the news but it wasn't an act against the public, it was a heinous act against the public. i agree and i find as you are talking today that you are skewing your opinion into the news. in america are independent thinkers. we are able to decide about an issue without it being republican, democrat, independent or anything else and i think that's why you find that

most americansin right now don't trust the media because ins. essence the skewing of the news to support an opinion is an attempt to control the public opinion and i don't think you're going to be able to do that in america. >> host: before you jump in on that, another data point from pew research. the percentage say they have a lot or some trust and information that comes from national news organizations from 2016 to 2021 dipping by five percentage points among democrats, among republicans it is dipping by 35 percentage points in that time. >> it's a reflection. rememberam donald trump began by declaring news media the enemy of the people and it was a very conservative attack on the ideah of journalism as a profession

because if you diminish a check there's a reason for that. you need to some reliable information to have any kind of a functioning society so if you are someone that may be lying or is true sku things that demonstrates the fact it was a strategy and i think to the callers point it wasn't of journalism itself but the consequence of a political strategy. broadly speaking the national trends are a problem most people do not trust the news media as a whole butou still trust the news media a lot. there's a difference when you go from generic, news media there s a deep trust relationship.

>> host: the percentage of americans who say that a lot or some trust in information that comes from local news back in 201685% of democrats say they had a lot or some and 84% in 2021. among republicans 79% in 2016 said they had a lot or some trust and down to 66%, a drop among the national news organizations. >> and that is critical and gets to the point. you can erode trust universally with either doctors or scientists or journalists and one of the things we have to ask is why we keep attacking people and individuals but don't align with. the fossil fuel industry to perpetuate and scientists because ideologically you don't like what they are proposing but

you see the opportunity for political gain and newsrooms because you don't want to be held accountable. and in this case when we criticize the news media we are not saying it's for all of these nefariousst purposes. what we say is here's what he said and that's what the watchdog does. the goal wasn't to tear the institution down but to hold up the mirror and say you can fix it and sometimes that takes an enormous amount of effort to do it but first you have to acknowledge some of the gaps where the problems of the professional standards. newsrooms have that information and i do think that one of the problems news media has which is distinct on paper is that political reporters, and we talked about this on the abortion stuff they've taken over the dominant lens for which we talk about information being distributed and not everything

is through a political lens and we saw that play out a lot with trump and the temptation for the newsrooms and especially cable news to not just take the bait and i do think they didn't do themselves any favors by trying to capitalize on the attention. it's great fodder but it's not helpful if it undermines people's trust. it'sco in the tone and tenor shifting so much of their coverage. >> host: george, republican.co good morning.

i admire your organization but i have one question for you would you be willing to go on and talk to tucker carlson? i'm sure there's people watching what you be willing to do that? >> guest: it's an important indication or they wouldn't want to get the reality reflected back. one of the few places we are able to pack a pretty big punch. i wouldn't, not because i'm scared. he isn't just a mess informer and "the new york times" reports

he's an enabler and mainlining -- >> host: you are talking about that tuesday story. >> guest: they did an enormous amount of research to show how connected. like groups thatul embraced trup because that is what they believe and so just how much of that content he's reflected onto the programming and relationships. i wouldn't do it because i don't want to help fox and pretend that is a legitimate conversation. if he were to change his two and i might consider it but no, no one should go on and i think it's a political operation and single most [inaudible] i don't think anybody should any bullet or validated, not anybody

with any consideration for the reputation. democratic leaders, politicians, corporate leaders. i think anyone that goes on at this point is enabling true misinformation and extremism. >> host: the role of advertiser pressure campaigns. >> guest: i love them and hate them because this perception that if you don't like something you automatically burn things to the ground and that's what they've done because they provided a source of power and in a world where both at the legislative level and at the policy level we are a capitalist society and most of the media is commercially driven. it's the lifeblood of a lot of this. that said they play a role in this.

if somebody makes a mistake or says something controversial the goal is a feature. if it's to not just say something controversial but to be controversial and get that attention by marginalizing people that is sent to somebody making a mistake so i think we should file down the reaction other hand when your business model is to attack and you then commercialize that they are making the investment to buy ads on the spaces and they know what they are doing. you have to have a product to sell. i think it's totally reasonable for people to say wait a minute if i like your brand and you are trying to market things that

hurt me i think the campaigns have a role when the business model is something uniquely disruptive or deceptive and the only way to get them to change or to rethink is to go over there had to the things funding it. most places may not validate all your feelings but i think it is reasonable and important to make sure that the advertisers are engaged because not doing anything makes it more likely. alex jones would have been on fox news and what he was doing was taking slivers which was

getting more attention this was a perverse incentive. there would have been a lot more. it would have been accelerated. >> host: carrollton ohio, democrat. good morning. >> may be you can help me out here. the last guest talked about people walking in through the capital through open doors and no police protection. i watch all the news channels but maybe you could tell me where i could go. >> guest: if he is interested in finding that it is a myth

that is being pushed by the larger eco- chamber echoed for tens of millions of people. you could hear it at night with no, you won't see a video. you won't find the video descriptions because they don'tm exist. >> host: anthony, independent. good morning. >> he doesn't speak out and they

are disgraced in their own taking information and distributing it to the public i don't want to get too deep into the weeds but that's thedi problem, acquisition and back in the day before deeply aligned with russia and another partisan player. then filtering it so you're not providing and harming things, that's journalism. it could be important but you

can't be both at the same time. they do something and understand there are consequences and we hold them up and say you shouldn't hold that person accountable. that's why. i don't want to muddy the waters too much but it's a little bit of and no oversimplification. jackson louisiana, republican. good morning. thank you for having me on. i would like to ask your guest about what's going on with of

the hunter biden thing. the media absolutely hated that. you're talking about reporters reporting. the fact that the president's son is selling paintings for $500,000, he has no expertise. i hope there's not wrongdoings. but you should echo those questions. stthose are reasonable things to

ask. i think i that would be a story. the narrative seemed to miss for people that are not enmeshed in the media what they are referring to is the fact that in october of 2020 the article was published and twitter consistent with the policies of the information the right-wing went nuts about it.

"the wall street journal" refutes the same substance. the editorial side, not so much. they say we can't publish this. then we went to fox news and fox news said you can't publish this. it doesn't meet the basic editorial standards. they passed on the story so it happens people going in and out of hotels. the issue there they didn't provide any editorial guidance and they violated a basic story. no one would stop from engaging in the discussion.

that one story as it existed we are not going to allow that to be distributed. parts of it have been half a dozen times they are circulating but there's never been the material there. if they really cared about the reputation -- >> host: i imagine you have thoughts on elon musk on twitter. not just because it is another example of a billionaire coming

in and borrowing a lot of money in order to buy something that he wants for ideological reasons the reality is it has an influence. a lot of journalists influence people, decision-makers are active so that's going to shapeh their lines. the other part of the social mediaag platforms. i think you can agree they've been a little bit of a vanguard in addressing whether or not they should be taken down but what they have done in 2019 2019twitter was the first compay that came out and said he faked a video that is made up but that looks real are not going to let those clearly identify because it is too harmful.

all of the other outlets start to take action so he a lot of the information that we saw would have been so much worse twitter has been a little bit of a vanguard with thoughts and privacy. but it's had an affect on users and other platforms and one thing elon musk is going to do. it's not so much fun if they are privileged and there's nothing stopping them from coordinating.

i have a question for angela. the guy you have on before -- what can he tell me about the unification and funding? >> that's the nature of nonprofits and is typically okay. that's what the rules are.

the money matters and they don't do a lot of media research and they hope they can shift the narrative. i want to talk about this forum that we tried to conduct because the idea i think that's an important part. that is plenty of republicans that are deeply concerned about political power and concentration of wealth we are a

credible source and i would point out always acknowledge. they never say that we lied or that the study is wrong. we are a research operation. there is this idea that we have to treat all things the same and i imagine that if i participated

by myself it would have been okay and sometimes we don't have analogues. there's probably some people on twitter. it's pretty rare. but that's part of the challenge. we have an ideology which is a little bit of a challenge. broadly speaking a lot of times the washington journal [inaudible] sometimes it's about the topic.

sometimes it's okay to make a call and i appreciate the conversation with media matters for america. appreciate the conversation.

>> last year she took a trip i don't remember where exactly she went back to washington, d.c. she apparently disappeared for a

while and she walked through handing out the ice cream bars and when she was finished she revealed herself to be joe biden and nobody recognized it was her. i'm not sure how the staff didn't realize she was missing for the amount of time it took her to walk up and down the aisle