, c-span digs into its archives to present president-elect trump's nominees in their own words. the relationship with the president-elect. on monday featured nominees include marco rubio and elise stefanik. tuesday we will hear from fense secretary nominee pete hegseth. wednesday will feature robert f. kennedy, jr. on thursday south dakota governor, the nominee for homeland security secretary. on friday the nominee for education secretary, linda mcmahon. our marathon continues monday with tulsi gabbard. on december 31 we wod hear from dr. oz and kash patel. watch trump nominees in their own words. our marathon begins monday at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. ng us now to discuss

president-elect trump's potential actions against the news media is caroline hendrie, executive director for the society of professional journalists. thank you for being with us. guest: it's a great privilege. host: teller audience about the society professional journalists, your mission and who you work with. guest: the society of professional journalists is the oldest and most broad-based journalism membership organization in the country. we go back to 1909. we stand for working journalists, all the journalists across the country doing the hard work of reporting on what is happening around them and reporting it and interpreting it truthfully and accurately and informing the public. we work with press freedom allies in many different organizations to protect our

first amendment freedom of the press. we believe in a strong and independent press. we try to be a strong and independent voice for the press. host: we talk about the press and president-elect trump, it was last week that abc news announced they had reached a $16 million settlement for a defamation lawsuit he brought against them. what does the first amendment say about defamation? guest: we should go back to the civil rights era. back in the early 1960's when reporters were covering the civil rights movement. state officials were trying to weaponized defamation cases to basically censor them. there is a landmark decision from 1964 called new york times

versus sullivan. that set a very important standard for plaintiffs that are trying to win a defamation suit. if you are a public official, you have to show that any disputed statement -- there was actual malice behind it. it is called the actual malice standard. you have to prove the disputed fact or statement was -- the people who made it, published it, or set it in your broadcast knew it was false or showed reckless disregard for whether it was false or true. it is a high standard. it has worked well. it has been successful. that is appropriate that there be a high standard.

in this case the case settled pretty early, only after about eight months. frankly, we are concerned that it sends a message that employers might not support their journalists in cases of this kind. we are frankly a little concerned there will be a chilling effect on journalists and their news outlets. if it is seen that you have to make massive payouts against legal challenges that this is going to put a damper on the kind of really fearless and independent reporting the public needs to hold the powerful to account. host: our guest for the next 35 minutes or so is caroline hendrie, executive director for the society of professional

journalists. if you have a question or comment you can start calling in now. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. president-elect trump has filed a lawsuit against a couple of other organizations, including the des moines register newspaper and their poster. he says they committed consumer fraud and election interference over a poll that showed kamala harris beating him in iowa before the election. he also filed one against cbs's 60 minutes, claiming an interview with vice president harris was partisan and unlawful acts of election interference. those were meant to mislead

voters. are there precedents for protections for an editorial decision? guest: right. it is very important that we preserve and maintain the guardrails for a free and independent press. what we are concerned about is basically the dawn of warfare against journalists and their employers. that people -- it should not be seen as normal that powerful elected officials rage legal campaigns against reporters and their employers. often because lyons agree with what -- they don't agree with what is being published or broadcast. they don't want to be criticized.

they see it as an intimidation tactic. i think it is very important that we maintain the legal guardrails. like you mentioned, the new york times v. sullivan ruling was so important. the case in des moines, the des moines register case, was brought under a consumer fraud statute actually. we think that is misguided. those sorts of deceptive practices were designed to protect consumers -- practices laws were designed to protect consumers. for elected officials to put themselves in that place and say they were injured in this matter seems like a real stretch. we really hope to not see more

cases like this but we are concerned. the legal law bar is a concern. we are afraid they will be an onslaught of these kinds of cases and folks in the media and their allies are gearing up and trying to prepare for the need to defend themselves. we believe in ethical journalism, principled journalism. we believe in holding ourselves to the high standards we expect of others. we very much believe in accountability and transparency and admitting if you make an error. making the occasional error is not tantamount -- it is not illegal. we have constitutional freedom of the press and freedom of speech. this cannot become -- the

freedom of speech cannot be litigated in court every time someone is unhappy with what is said about them. host: we will go to our first caller. tom in ohio on the line for republicans. caller: ma'am, i would like someone to explain to me -- president trump was accused of rape in a dressing room. i have been in several dressing rooms i self trying on -- myself trying on clothes. the walls are not insulated. you

that was a finding in court. this came into the public eye when this lawsuit just recently was settled. there was a defamation case against abc news and anchor george stephanopoulos over the issue of him referring to the president-elect being found

liable for rape. there is debate over whether that term was used loosely, or was it accurate to say that. that was the crux of the matter in this case. i know there are media lawyers who felt that case was winnable but it was settled out of court for a judgment. $16 million. that is unfortunate. again, it is a matter of interpretation whether that was 100% accurate or not. that is the kind of thing that would have been adjudicated if the case had gone further. ♪