the american conservative magazine, here on c-span eastern. live sunday morning on 1958 america in turmoil, we look at the impact of the vietnam war at home. civil tond acts of sabean's on american streets dominated u.s. headlines. theing us to talk about turbulent time is the author of "odyssey of echo company." novak, whose lynn most recent project was a 10 part documentary on the vietnam war. turmoil"68: america in on c-span, c-span washington journal, and on c-span3. now, host of "full measure," author

of two "new york times" best-sellers and yurnlist. attended white house corspontent's dinner? guest: almost all of them since came to d.c., may have missed one or two somewhere in there. uncomfortable, it is first one was uncomfortable. i think it was a clinton event you think of clinton, he was invited as onored guest and yet i believe at that same dinner, journalist investigated him well was awarded an award. it was embarrassing. social situation, clinton had to general'sand shook the hand for investigating clinton. the comedians are never particularly funny, usually cringe worthy, but ana honor when your organization asks you ask you to ey represent, so you don't usually that.o to host: in light of criticism this year's event received, do you

is worth continuing to do? guest: that is for other people to decide. situation, a rd charitable event that probably value if it can be imagined in a way for a lot of eople is less awkward and confrontational to guests we invite. it is a difficult situation. "new york baker, times" journalist, tweeted out after saturday's event. advanced the we cause of journalist at the event saturday, would you agree? the entertainment and never watched the replay, i only saw excerpts. know, again, it's cringe-worthy performance, where sit in their seats next to the guest they invite and next to the people be honoraryposed to guests and jump cringe, not sure serves.pose that host: reaction from president trump, one tweet after the event in part, fake news was alive and well and beautifully represented on saturday night.

how do you define the term "fake news," and -- it, in my on't define book, i gave two definitions i've been able to discern, the was invented by the left around september of when phrase first came up. people think it has been around hasn't, i er and it researched this. and research by google, alphabet eric schmidt, a hillary upporter, came up with the notion. the notion at first was fake promoted by conservative online. false information trying to sway presenting things that are untrue. then along came donald trump co-opted the phrase, right wing came up with their definition, main-stream to be media when it makes reporting sloppy, biassed errors that is fake news.

sides, one said says something is false, the other mistake you make because you are bias or report false information because you basic ike me, two definitions. host: sharyl attkisson with us in the last segment of "washington journal." join in the conversation, democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002. for somebody who never watched it, how sure" what is do you pick topic? guest: i try to be news worthy of the the main points news, my contention is that what week e on the news all is -- tends to be repeat of what you already heard. new, hashed ething over and pundits come on and give talking points and not much new light is shed in my view. there used to be, i think news broader topics, there was five or six years ago, not the same two or three or

or five, thousands of things to cover. e cover stories that are heavier. cbs news, whistleblowers, government accountability, and abuse, national security f. we cover something on point with the news, we to be giving you value value-add, viewpoints you re not commonly getting or information that hopefully you haven't heard elsewhere. host: what are you covering this week? guest: doing a story on asbestos, i think most people robably think asbestos was banned in the united states and it was never banned. in fact, there was a move to do it's been banned in many countries, but never fully banned in the united states. what we discovered, people are living in houses today that are whereas cularly old, products in the houses and in the construction materials are containing g used, asbestos and it presents continuing health hazards, there is not a lot being done about it. people discover this after they uy a house and have to pay

$50,000 to gut it and take everything out. "full measure"ion shown on sinclair station, what the video of anchors reading national promotion script? lot abouth, i wrote a that, that was just sort of silly. cnn, worked at cbs, pbs, local news, we always have promos written and given to us. promos, me dos joint when i was in local news, written by the network on their campaign. is not uncommon. when you edit them altogether, to look strange, you could do that every friday, when promote or the other sunday shows go on local affiliates and promote what is coming up on shows.unday we say the same thing over and over about our upcoming show, it by one city at a time and you could edit that together, i suppose and make it look weird. is part of propaganda campaign, editing together and

sinclair, as it tribune to purchase stations. ompetitors try to controversialize sinclair and stot the merger. host: how much guidance on what you put on air and what you can cover? guest: none. host: how does that relationship work? guest: it was part of the deal. when i left cbs, i didn't want to go into another place where i felt unhappy with news coverage i was being asked to do or felt unfairly es are being shaped. host: did you feel that way at cbs? guest: yes, yes. way, a lot feel that of my friends at other national news organizations, industry has changed a lot in that respect. there are great reporters stories andonderful having harder time getting original reporting on. easy hits for are narratives that maybe come out come "new york times" or

off associated press, they don't want reporters typically digging stories and giving them, what i try to do, my for alty, not much market that. hollands what is an example of you happening at cbs before left? guest: this is push me, pull you. they would assign a story and i do.hat somewhere along the way, something would happen and it would get stopped. for example, they assigned me to cover the boeing dream liner fires. as part of the investigation, i uncovered what i thought was amazing information with the help of my two producers with a whistleblower, with video that occurred during development of dreamliner battery. i had a former head transportation official say that smoking gun, of a what we had had found and the whistleblower tried to bring to light. a terrific story, the producers loved it, i loved it, up es in dc loved it, went the line and never aired. you don't always know why a

blocked this didn't used to happen and now routinely fall almost n to a every time. host: how far up the line do you think it got? up to the the way show producers in new york. again, we don't always know unless someone tells you reasons dropped or g gets killed, they don't say it is no good or we're not going to run it. time for it today, maybe next week or next month. host: for folks who don't layers of the onion when it comes to the producers that are involved in up with these news pieces, can you describe how it as at cbs and how it is at "full measure." guest: at cbs, it changed, it layer. be very thin i would give my ideas directly washe executive producer, i doing investigative reporting, we didn't want ideas going through committee. host: executive producer is head of the program? guest: head of the program, yes,

kaplan and before that, jim murphy. reat luck with that, they wanted original storyos any topic. so there wasn't a huge filter. did go in between once i wrote a script that went to my over, also it ook went to senior producer in washington, d.c. and then it executive the producer or senior producer that i read it to. fairly concise process. the last few years at cbs, when it came to hanged, be that the idea process, i wasn't really sure how to get an pitched, you guild through different channels and they usually didn't want the ideas. they gave you an idea and you got a script pproved, it would go through senior producer in washington and then to new york to some the rs or a senior and to executive producer and then the anchor, perhaps, and somewhere long the way, it would be changed or morph ed, or have questions or wouldn't like what

said in it or wished somebody said something else and it wouldn't air. how many producers at "full measure," is -- probably three, one when i started, we've vastly expanded, it is a small team. works with me a lot and two others do other functions on the show and work ith the contributing correspondents we v. host: sharyl attkisson here to answer questions. is up first in battle rouge, louisiana. democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. guest's comment on the definition or how she described the republican definition of news. she said that what they -- the describe it is they ake exception to mistakes that aren't corrected. i don't see that. i'm concerned, what trump defines as fake news and

is anything that denigrates them or points out something they agree with. trump will call something fake need do isl reporter look at a statement he makes one day and contradicts the next and reporting of that fake news. i don't see that fake news that is reporting what a person said. host: sharyl attkisson. guest: both sides differ on definition, divide here. i understand the viewpoint, i didn't mean to make it so simple, there are variations of what people think are fake news. before, no supreme dictionary authority that gets means.de what fake news i tried to describe best i could what i heard from both sides as try to verbalize what they

consider fake news. which book? guest: "the smear." go : mary, a republican, ahead. caller: marilyn, actually. mrs. sharyl attkisson, thank you your extraordinary work. i would like to know what thing politics investigations and things you're looking at, you're following are the most important. thank you very much. uest: i've never been a particularly politically focused reporter, most of my work is not topics, but itical i do think the what is go og intel agencies, i continuing is a crisis, not just based on .i., but sources i have that have worked nd work in the intelligence agencies, there is a crisis go og what bad actors have done, past year or two years, but over time in using urveillance and intelligence capabilities against people,

enemies ts, political and others, where it shouldn't be used that, perhaps in a some cases, i in think that is a huge story. i have some people now, a going over the government intrusion of my computers, instead of apologizes at forensics and apologizeing and getting to the bottom of it. the trump is fighting my lawsuit as much as obama fought the using taxpayer funds to drag it out and just keep it which again, is another piece of this intelligence ommunity scandal that i think exists today. host: what were you concerned was taken from your computer? guest: not that they necessarily took anything, there is evidence they did filtrate information, they can get information from cbs' computers, as well, my personal computers. forensics l from the they were looking to see what i was doing.

topics that ring could impact political, i guess, had political implications, they wanted to know what i was about to work on, perhaps who was the ing from inside government because i typically se a lot of inside sources, including at time obama administration sources and democrats that work in federal they were conducting war on whistleblowers, well known now. to see whichwanted on tleblowers were speaking controversial topics. host: do you think the case has you ed sources talking to about the topic? guest: it has in some specific people speak to me now, i feel obligation to remind them that we are probably monitored, that is still the status of things. most of them say they felt they monitored and well aware of this. we find other ways to feel they or understand it could be -- better to assume you are being

than to wonder whether you are occasionally. that is the posture i'm taking. what are you seeking from the government, some sort of compensation? uest: have you to seek compensation in type of laurt we filed, yes, monetary penalties, but d what i think should happen is especially in light of our forensic exams and the evidence we presented in court, judge regarded well enough denied repeat attempts to case, jt has told them this case is not going away. i think the justice department step in based on what they see and apologize and start criminal investigation and promise to get to the bottom of who committed the crime. you think the case would be treated differently administration? guest: always hope. persistent bureaucracy, what people refer to as deep state. hen clinton was in office and

there was log jam of freedom of nformation, and when federal agencies wouldn't speak and bush came in, i remember thinking change.re going to the personnel, people don't know bureaucrats but stay sometimes from administration to administration. changed. when obama promised new transparency, there was hope change.ng would very little changed, most said things got worse. road enoughown this times to realize bowerock rase who is inegardless of the white house. i was hopeful there would be ome difference, not terribly surprised there hasn't been. host: florida, dave, independent, go ahead. caller: sure. want to say that i thoroughly enjoy watching your program there wereand i wish more programming like yours on television, as there may have been 20 or 30 years ago.

you.: thank caller: one thing of interest to issue abouthe whole whoo the deep state and the orruption and possible orruption even into the department of justice, it concerns me or has concerned me mueller has referred ohen to the southern district new york for some crimes. he has beento that, a g after may nnhattan manafortwas tied to john work.ta, doing similar i have not heard anything about referrals being made to or go after tony potential legal actions over the years. so i wanted to see how you might

about it and whether or not you might take the time to maybe do a segment on your program about that? host: thanks for the question. guest: john podesta stepped down when the news was coming out, we didn't hear much after that. i updated a little on the story legalon foreign lobbying, lobbying, and how they hire embers of both parties to have tremendous influence in this country, russia, ukraine, of nations.p hard with the mueller investigation, i don't have me what urces telling is going on inside the mueller investigation. i think it is difficult to he nd-guess what evidence does and doesn't have and that is something i typically avoid unless i had some special inside information. pretty there has been a tight-lid david baldacci on the are, of what his querys the scope of what he's doing, despite leaks that have come out

to be picky as to what i dig into and make it be add hing i can actually something to. host: you wouldn't be willing to stay whether you think he's overstepped his investigative -- guest: i can't say. i have non i have and reason to think he's anything honest actor investigating the president. i see from the questions leaked, questions are correct, may be, may not be, he apparently looking at things for as neutral observer, i'm not a lawyer, would appear there conflicts of interest. lead me to question why he himself.cused number one, terms of his own employment. president trump consider firing he, himself, i think that of a argument that he's not disinterested party in

hat discussion and number two, if he is investigating as questions indicate, the terms of fireing and circumstances surrounding it, long-time -- is a friend and colleague of his. if he's dig intoing that, doing so froms of conflict of interest point raises questions. know enough about what he's doing inside to make that judgment for sure. democrat, na, paul, good morning. caller: good morning. must say, i son, i have not seen your program, but as a em to impress me thoughtful and insightful person. thought i would ask you a simple question. hat is your definition of "mainstream media." question.y good i don't think i have one, i haven't thought about deciding it myself. if you ask me to identify mainstream media organizations,

worked, name places i've nn, pbs, cbs, i wonder if fox news, consider itself outside of the mainstream hasn't become respect, or in some outside the mainstream? i don't know. ost: what about sinclair and full measure? guest: good question, i would my programi raise on are outside the current mainstream, but would have been omfortably inside the mainstream five or six years ago, i guess that is for other and no supreme dictionary to say what that is u up haven't tried to come with a definition. impetus for the change five or six years ago? guest: well it started occurring noticed big hat, i shift as president obama was leaving office and we were new campaign. shift was happening over time multi escribe it as billion dollar industry of

groups, pr tical firms, crisis management, ebsites and others that exist to shape our opinions on behalf of political and corporate interests. not done a good job of keeping separate from the interests, instead of interests learned to co-op and use us in way that transform the what we see on television everyday, short way of saying what i wrote a whole trying to describe. host: phone numbers to join the conversation this morning with democrats, sson, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. leesburg, virginia. independent, go ahead. caller: hi. to be getting ms more and more divided from a partisan standpoint and people feel, i guess, both in congress and in the news there is also a separation, what do you see as the solution and do you think this is something

can pull back from? guest: it's a tough problem and did i like to say and i touch on this in my book, maybe something that i'll be thinking future.ven more in the i believe that these interests that i described have worked call ard to create what i artificial reality on social media, on the internet, on the in politics. more t i mean we look divided and feel more divided, if you shut off the internet and middle go around in america, where i find myself a lot, spending a lot of time. way, they n't that aren't racially divided, working by side at side work, living, marrying, you of , really an amazing lack discord for the most part in this country considering the we put up from many different places. hat story is not told, instead we tell and interests that have interest in making sure when you

and online you feel divided they want to divide further and want to marginalize you if you opinion to make you feel like you are an outlier when you may not be. may be minority opinion, they make you feel as though you thinks that one who way and there is something wrong with you. host: can you give me an example an issue you see that happening in? guest: however you feel about he washington redskins name, research from a couple years ago, i haven't updated it, i don't know the status today. watching the news, i would have said, wow, the world is pretty the name st using redskins, it is an offensive name to native americans and away with.one but surveys actually show the 80%, ajority of people, did not find it offensive, native g american americans who were surveyed, opposite of impression you got when you looked online. taking a position on whether that should be the name or not, i'm simply saying

created l reality online. host: what was end goal for creating that part of reality? guest: i didn't dig into what groups were pushing to change it. sometimes they are organized campaigns with financial disclosed,that aren't you can't guess until you poke around and see it and stocked by interest of people who feel that is the goal, you start political oraybe a financial motivation, bring a feel that way o and turn into a grass-roots effort, combination of both. not sure who was behind pushing that or which different groups were behind pushing that. to kathleen, georgia, bill, independent, go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. read both your books and i enjoy your show. i'm independent on a lot of i'm curious your opinion on the utility of the cost benefit ratio bottom line 24-hour news in a for profit news world?

of eems like there is a lot value in creating and -- when crisis tis useful, otherwise, it is about clicks and viewers. guest: it is true, i'm not sure how you change that and i'm not that is the biggest problem. a lot of people talk about the as well tive of news, as conflicts that occur because of the advertisers that advertise on news. i will tell you that sometimes deep fixed that were when i was working at cbs and of, of my aware friends are storys that would have brought in viewers. making decisions contrary to viewer interest and financial interest in terms of viewership got me realizing there is something bigger at play than looking for clicks and numbers, going on in the news industry. host: do you think they don't want those particular viewers have been brought in? guest: i don't think that is

part of the calculus. calculus on some stories is not how many viewers will watch. we know certain stories they killing were bring nothing viewers. it is more there is influence a political level that happens outside the view of news, the he pressures are to report a certain way. don't like to name the old colleagues, what were stories about, who are people in? would have been brought guest: one of them, besides the oeing story, there were other commercial stories that had to do with certain corporations and ntities, but a lot of stories my producers and i would sit round and wonder what it was they wouldn't like about this particular story. in now we had to anticipate advance whose toes we were stepping on. surprising, i spent more money, i didn't cover oney, but traveling and of coerring school lunch fraud story about alleged00 eye guess

school lunch the programs taking, giving bribes the aking bribes to be marketer for various school lunches, which explained a lot there was thought bad food at schools across america, despite the fact the companies are paid well. there was a criminal case going, i believe new york attorney time, and the everybody loved that story and were pressing, when can you have you have it? i was writing the script, i got it.word we are on how soon can you have it to, we don't want it. and i just tie yourself in knots wondering what it was about this topic or story. we never knew, but i googled, i at at the computer and googled school lunchs and michelle obama's name came up with the school lunch initiative. figure out can based on other things happening at the time, there was someone's part that would be a negative story

obamas or school lunc lunch -- host: john, ohio, line for independents, go ahead. john, first off, you're great at it. attkisson, i follow your show and the question i've a piece maybe last year it was on a gentleman that switzerland bank 19,000 secret bank accounts and d.o.j. went after him and put him in prison. i.r.s. later went after 3500 19,000.bottom of the i'm curious, who was the top the 19,000 and we need their names and they need brought to justice. do you think our d.o.j. is crooked? thank you, i'll take my answer off air.

i appreciate you very much. thanks, john. host: one of my favorite stories bout a whistleblower that worked at a swiss bank and blew the whistle on thousands of money in hiding their swiss banks. deal was made with hillary who intervened and who not put those people in prison nd in fact not to have the swiss bank turn over at the had to turn nly ov prominent americans. was prous cu er for having -- hiding of the money and the same time applied osecuted, he for whistleblower award with the i.r.s. and received maybe $35 i.r.s., rom the something like that, maybe more. at the same time he's in prison, d.o.j., he gets highest

whistleblower award. those names today, as far as i withheld, i couldn't get when i did the story from the justice department, answers got to decide why certain names weren't released over should be public in nature, but never those. to see host: the d.o.j., did you see rosenstein? guest: i did not. host: one issue he touched on in with roesz, how he deals the media. he talked about his daughter sking him about what she sees in the news. here is a bit from that event. >> i'm wondering what your mindset is on whether a sitting president can be indicted, if not? why if not, any consideration being given to changing department policy? okay, that was two questions. [laughter] not a press conference. so i'm not going to answer in

any current f shouldn't draw any inference about it. the department of justice has in the past when the issue arose, apined that sitting president cannot be indicted. there has been speculation in about this, i don't have anymore to say about it. somebody ssue arose, in the department reached legal conclusion and that is what it is. rosenstein speaking with the media members there indictments yesterday. how do you think he's done in media ationship with the nd the many questions that rob rosenstein gets about the mueller investigation? observed the ot man or relationships, my only couldon, i don't think he answer it, i would ask questions about his sign-off of wiretaps an american citizen, who has never been charged with

dossier, based on the parts unverified, which iolates, according to the f.b.i., its own procedures. i don't think he could answer. rosenstein is rob about his daughter and dealing with the media. my daughter wrote for the school newspaper, gee, some inocuous issue. is try to avoid talking about issues. innocuous issue, i told her it wasn't true, i knew this wasn't true. said, but dad, if it isn't true, how can they put it in the newspaper? was taught in her high school journalism class that you sources.iable, credible unfortunately, here is the reality, i don't think most mislead are trying to people, the problem is, they are hostage to their sources. leaking? i'm not leaking. the people who are leaking are people who have some personal reason to get their side of the story out. sometimes when you see leaks,

relate to , that matters we're investigating, recognize it not to be, unlikely leak from law enforcement because it is wrong in a ignificant or subtle way, a mistake we wouldn't make. what do you do if you are a what is iguring out source. advice i give my kids, when you read a story, first thing you look to see if there is a named source. if not, be skeptical. false, means it is you should be skeptical. you don't have a named source, you can't corroborate it yourself. have to evaluate what you know about the source and whether he or she is credible. my important thing i tell kids, read broadly because if you read broughtly, you do a certain sense of what is and isn't right. o that is best advice i can give you. host: sharyl attkisson, what do advice? that guest: spot on with that. i agree with everything he said. him,ld add, not pointed at like the news media, the department of justice has been

making serious mistakes, department of justice employees have bye-bye found and are under improper tion for leaks. the department of justice has personnel that put built se information, false cases against suspects, so yes, you have to be wary of in the news ou get media. oesn't mean it is false, but you need to read diversely, read wide variety of publications and sources and probably not believe hardly anything you see. host: marsha, up next in florida, line for democrats. good morning. morning, thank you for taking my call. sharyl attkisson, i'm not all with your -- what program you're on, but i to hear would like more from you. lieu of on is, in everybody seeming to go to their station for r information that confirms the

howthey feel, i'm wondering you would feel about bringing doctrine that never should have been blown up and look at it has led to, besides not getting fair reporting. guest: i'm sorry, i'm not a student of the doctrine and i the add anything to conversation. what she said about people seeking what they want to seeking news now, organizations that tell them what they want to hear, so true. i think she and would agree, that even people or fox to watch msnbc or cnn, or another conservative they still would like to have a place they could go and getting l they are maybe, they would like to have a place they could go and watch outlets and watch a place that is just down the iddle or if it is not down the middle, if it actually pinpoints somebody at fault in some case,

they know feel like it is because that is where the facts really led, not because organizations, reporter was trying to make you think a certain way. huge market is a for that, i'm not sure how we bring it back, our program, if area, watch your replays at fullmeasure.news. we do that reporting every week. you will hear from democrats and but licans on our program, most of our reporting is nonpolitical in nature on topics you don't hear about. ost: to tallahassee florida, james, independent, go ahead. caller: good morning. try to talk with you, i keep up with your show all the time. i missed the one about mris, out about that. guest: it is online, very important story. caller: yeah, yeah. had two questions for you. one was are you ever going to do cost analysis of what legal

actually cost tax paying citizens of the united states because there is no government our money. in every sense of the word, do that ink that the powers be will actually, you get away with printing that on television and take my answer offline and i appreciate you very much. you. guest: uh-huh. you asked what is editorial sinclair compared to cbs, hardened executive producer and i have h at cbs another producer i worked with t cnn many years ago, were bringing somebody from abc in a couple weeks and another from al jazera. my own stories and run by my executive producer, ho has never said no, that i can think of. he has ideas from time to time, i do the pieces, run them by they require legal review on subject we may get

legally attacked for, a fairness issue, i run them by our ethics/legal department, which i well, cbs, as voluntarily, wasn't required process, that is that. i don't know how management, the first they know story, when they see a piece promoted on the air and input int, haven't had changing my story or trying to shape what is in them or who we or what we do. host: what is the mri story? amazing e mri story is story that for sometime has been scientists the dive that is used in mris, contrast call it, they used to say you expel it through your in your kidneys very fast. that is not the case for a lot you sick and can make tis toxic. people didn't know why they were repeat mris and come to light there are serious

illnesses that could occur. first the f.d.a. insisted it as with people who had kidney problems and now acknowledge today is people that sometimes have no kidney problems and are illnesses. it has been banned in europe and japan, but not in the united u.s. had a ough the meeting, which they decided to ut new warnings out and some patient pamphlets out, the wheels are turning slowly on that and americans, by and large, i think this should be front page news everywhere. with ny people have mris contrast dye. not to scare you off, but some others, you r than should know that. some dyes more necessary or less to use dye. this information is almost impossible to find on the f.d.a. website >> eddie, a republican from california. >> i have two questions for cheryl.

now isblem i have right with people issues is that you don't know who is killing your stories or why they are telling them. now, you have to find out why they are doing that to you politically or publicly. and why is it that you haven't exposed to those people for -- to spy on private citizens? they are doing that to you and that is illegal. go and find out why did you are corrupt. it probably sounds like i am saying, i don't know who is killing my stories or why it is happening. but my first book had a lot of detail about that. if people are interested in learning more, read that book,

stonewalled. knew and inances, i some instances, i was told by sources. i was able to put together a pattern of what i expect was happening -- what i suspect was happening and i put that in the book. happening, in my view, at national news outlets all over. >> when people want to complain about the media, i want to ask, what are you reading? if they just watched tv and it was radio, they are not very informed. i get all of my news by reading, and it is much more insightful. >> i can see that. especiallyhe better,

if you read a diverse set of publications. myre was a child i met at had acollege, that website that would show articles side-by-side from the left and right viewpoint. she said, at least they let her understand the differences, and she did know what was right but she could make out the differences between a left leaning anza right wing andication -- left-leaning right leaning publication. we have about five more minutes with our guest. maryland, line four republicans, -- line for republicans, go ahead. >> good morning. you sound interesting. i will seek out your information and try to stay tuned because you sound like you are closer to

the middle than most anyone out there that i am encountering. i like to have that information. i feel like one way that american news does a good job on trying to stay on emotional in that middle line, but i go to them is one of the many outlets. i find both the left and the right, cnn and fox, lean too much in one direction. i wanted to ask you to specific questions -- i wanted to ask you o questions. >> deborah, when you say left, what do you mean? >> washington post is a left leaning newspaper. it would be great, if you do that, also at a right leaning.

but there is so much quoting from the post. we have the washington times, the new york times, the wall street journal, washington post, usa today, and those are some of the papers we go to. we also look online. this isreason we have that these are the newspapers most often delivered to members of congress. so this is what members of congress are reading on a day-to-day basis. that is a good explanation, thank you. that i hear post more than others. but thank you for that clarification. two quick questions. one, did you read the book clinton cash?

and do you truly feel that rod figureein is an unbiased in the process, given his pictures with clinton's and the relationship that he has had with hillary? do you truly feel he is an unbiased person in this equation? thank you. "clintonnot read cash." and i don't know enough about rod rosenstein to say that, like mueller, he has his role in the investigation. is intricately involved, at least part of the questions of the counterpoint, to this investigation. but i don't know enough about what he has done or who he is to make a judgment as far as his placement. >> from jacksonville, florida, jay, an independent. familiar, i'm a bit

with you from the past. she seems like she has a decent reputation. i'm curious as to why she's decided to throw her reputation down the toilet by associating herself with people like sean hannity. and some of the other crew on fox news. sean hannity is your tv version of alex jones. job the types of nut conspiracy theories he comes up with. book whenpromoted my i'm occasionally asked to be on programs. cnn, chrissnbc, hayes on msnbc, sean hannity's show, to talk about my book. i tried to politely be on these programs that offer a platform for something i care about. is true toay that

what i am reporting without making comments about what they do. shows,go on all of these it doesn't imply an endorsement for everything other people say on the left, right, or whatever program i am on. i don't think it is throwing my reputation down the toilet but if it is to him, so be it. >> the color mentioned alex jones. -- the caller mentioned alex jones. would you be on his program? >> i don't know much about him and i don't have a wide breadth of knowledge about what they are bringing up. but i focus on the issues i take into. day,'t read, on a given through the washington post for example, cover to cover in the new york times, and i might not even read news articles today and working on a story for the weekend. i'm not in the mix of things in it hard for me to comment. >> james from massachusetts, a

democrat. >> good morning. i would like to ask you a couple of questions. i'm not so much concerned with fake news as i am with limited news. with ommitted when at the break with rod rosenstein, they asked about the investigation into hillary clinton emails. he had found a myriad of improprieties during the investigation. i had never seen that once, in any mainstream news anywhere. i would also like to ask you what you think about the censoring of the news on the internet. where they remove parts where you can correspond with people, have disagreements, the comments section. >> he has put his finger on something i have written about. what we leave out of the news or what we self censor is

important, or even more important, than what we leave and. than what we leave in. i am so concerned about fact checkers, these arbiters who determine what should and shouldn't be. there is a lot of misinformation and junk online but i feel like we are better off in that environment than one who is shaped by people that want to continue to shape an artificial reality online. they may use it for purposes you agree with today but they may use it tomorrow to keep you from getting information about mri safety, because they decide that is not right, or controversial. i think we are better off being our own cheerleaders -- our own curators instead of letting people curate our lives. sign-upld be able to for a service if you want but it should not be