the left should try it sometime. that's all for tonight. thank you so much to all our guests, tammy, charlie, lisa and gregg jarrett. you can learn more about "the next revolution." see you next up next. sunday when "the next revolution" will be televised. . mark: hello, america. i'm mark levin. this is "life, liberty & levin." we have two great guests. mollie hemingway, how are you? >> great to be here. mark: joe concha, good to see you. >> thanks for having me want. >> to talk about the media today. especially want to talk about the recent media and events that have been taking place and how the media has covered them, and no better time to talk about the kavanaugh nomination than now. the media research center says that 90% of the news coverage

has been negative toward kavanaugh. honestly, i'm surprised it's that low. it looks like 99.9% to me. you've both written about this. what's your take on this, mollie? >> i think this has been a telling couple of weeks as we watched the media cover a very contentious issue and very complicated issue. have you allegations of assault and you have a man who's denying them and the media coverage, i don't think could have been much worse. when you saw the standards in stories, usually as a journalist, have you ideas what standard must be met before you publish a story. i feel like a lot of publications have not held to the normally high standards, publishing allegations as farcical, running with stories that there is no corroboration and forgetting this is a very serious issue. this is a real man accused of something and has no evidence to support the allegation. had his life and name and honor

and reputation dragged through the mud. it's more important than the supreme court nomination, it's about who we are as a people and how we treat people accused of crimes. mark: seems like basic norms. due process, you know, these things that western civilization has created over the hundreds and hundreds of years. due process, presumption of innocence, evidence, a standard of proof. all these things went out of window. did they not, joe? >> brett kavanaugh, by many in the media was deemed guilty until proven innocent. you brought up the media research center. 344 minutes dedicated to accuser's accusations of kavanaugh. 21 minutes to kavanaugh's denials. i believe that's more in the 15-1 ratio and i compare it to the 2008 financial crisis, everything went off the cliff financially. for our media everything went off the cliff. people were holding out hope because this is a supreme court nominee and the hearing that as

i go around, some semblance of balance, and that didn't happen here. i'll give you see stories. usa today, a sports columnist writes an op-ed saying brett kavanaugh should no longer be around young girls and coach his daughter's basketball team because of the way he's shown to act around young girls. in other words, he's now a pedophile. they had to retract part of that story. nbc news puts julie swetnick represented by michael kardashiani -- i'm sorry, michael avenatti, to make the claims against kavanaugh accusing him of gang rape. and apparently, she has three years out of high school and went back to high school parties, which in my day, if anybody from college came back to a high school party one year out, that was weird. two years out, three years out, you are probably calling the police. and by the way, there is gang rapes going on. why are you going back there?

nbc says as a disclaimer, we cannot corroborate anything that swetnick is saying. instead of killing the interview, which do you in those situations, they want to be first instead of accurate and give her a national stage anyway. number three, "new york times" story. brett kavanaugh threw ice during an altercation at yale in 1985 in a bar. no charges were actually leveled in this situation, but the "new york times" goes ahead with it anyway, and by the way, one of the co writers of the story is an anti-kavanaugh critic, if you look at her twitter feed, the paper has to retract, not the story, admit they made a mistake and said literally she is not a news reporter, shouldn't have been assigned to it. how the hell did she get there? you look at the three example us and say to yourself, my goodness, our media is broken, and many, many people in this country will never, ever trust it again. mark: mollie, do you think this

was a watershed? downing the media have exposed themselves in the aggregate as utterly ideologically driven. do the media lead the democrats or the democrats lead the media? >> used to seem the democrats were the head of the party, directing what democrats should be doing. that's a serious problem because the media should be at least trying to attain some standard of objectivity. and i think the media has had a lot of benefit based on this view that they are good people who are trying to report the facts. we've given them a lot of credibility and honor and, yes, this is a watershed moment in that a lot of people are appalled by what they've seen. we had three really good examples of what is so bad. but, in fact the last few decades have been -- including a lot of these moments. you can understand the trump victory when you talk to people about why they voted for trump?

a lot of people mentioned they were so frustrated with the media coverage. in apolitical coverage, people are frustrated with the way the media cover a natural disaster or celebrity or number of things. yes, this was a very important moment. people could not -- people could not see anything other than how biased everybody was being, but it's just actually the latest in a series of problems. mark: you know, joe, even ted turner, the founder of cnn and ted koppel, the other day, he was on a panel, they were critical of cnn. too political. what would cnn do? what would the ratings be if donald trump wasn't around? >> koppel said they would be in the toilet. mark: in the toilet. i'm curious about this, what really is cnn at this point? is it a news organization? opinion organization? is it both? is it neither? what is it? >> i'll let jeff greenfield who is with cnn, abc, cbs, he's been in the business for decades, pretty well respected.

here's what he told brian on reliable sources last sunday. when i look at cnn, hour after hour after hour i see panels rather than reporting, exchanging opinions. the overwhelming majority of which on this network i regard as quite critical or hostile to trump. this is a guest in the former employee of the network telling a cnn anchor this is who you are now. >> but i actually think --. >> as you said ted turner and koppel as well criticized the network all in one week. you're not just noticing that. and we've seen it for a while, i used to go on the network quite often. it's a different network than three years ago, donald trump came onto the scene. they used to film empty podiums during the campaign instead of hillary clinton giving a speech because he rated and thought he would never win. once he won they've gone overwhelmingly anti-trump and harvard came out with a study, they are 91% negative towards the president. how do you say you're objective

when numbers like that don't support it. >> it's worse than if it were just opinions, just panelists giving analysis. it's the news reporting that is a serious problem, too. one of the examples you gave was of an opinion column but a lot of what we saw that was so bad with the kavanaugh story is done by people who claim they are street reporters. examples from cnn, you have the ex-boyfriend of the initial accuser against kavanaugh said stuff he thought was worth sharing and the accuser had once coached a friend when later she testified she didn't know anything about polygraphs and a variety of claims she was making. they didn't report that. they only reported when someone denied the claim. >> that's called bias of omission. you can be outwardly bias if you are an anchor and clearly supporting one side. if you watch cnn, you wouldn't know that happened. one other problem that they

have is they label anchors who are not anchors. they are opinion people. don lemon is still called an anchor at 10:00 tonight. chris cuomo an anchor at night. anderson cooper is an anchor at 8:00. they are clearly giving opinions, and that conflating the two things builds to more mistrust. when you are not labeling people as they should be. nothing wrong with being an opinion person. hannity, ingraham, carlson. mark levin, you are opinion people. embrace it. stop pretending you are anchors when you don't fit the label, asking questions and getting to the facts. mark: let me ask you this too, though. i watched some of the coverage, a lot of the coverage, most of the coverage, of the kavanaugh hearings, and i was very unimpressed with most of the analysts, quote, unquote. they were highly critical of rachel mitchell who was hired by the republicans, the

maricopa county sexual crimes prosecutor, interrupted by the five-minute rule which was very annoying, but you could tell, the audience could tell, she was going through it methodically, pointing out the contradictions, pointing out the lack of corroboration and she was trashed. almost uniformly. they bring in professors who trashed her, some of the analysts are trashing her. i went on the radio and said whoa, whoa, wait a minute. she's the one that's actually laying out the case and some of the problems with dr. ford. did you see that too? >> yeah, it was very frustrating to watch because if you are a casual observer and saw her going through the questions, well, professor ford was answering and revealing a lot of interesting information, such as that it was false she was afraid to flight. she's a global frequent flyer, and yet in previous weeks we heard she couldn't fly out to the hearing because she had a deathly fear of flying. bringing out inconsistencies

that flooded the zone of the media that you begin to think through this more seriously. and yet when you saw people analyze mitchell's questioning and professor ford and even kavanaugh's statements, everybody responded so emotionally rather than logically. i understand emotion is important for a lot of people. but shouldn't lose sight of reason and logic and principles that were in play, too. you don't convict someone in any court because you feel like it. you have to have evidence. nobody pointed out going into the hearing last week, there was no evidence to support the allegations. coming out of the hearing, there was no evidence to support the allegations. that was not a major theme. analysis, and it should have been. i don't really care, some people might find professor ford credible. a lot of people did not. a lot of people had problems with the testimony and it had a lot of gaps that didn't make sense. i didn't see that coming through in the news coverage or in the analysis either. there's no reason there couldn't have been a straight

news story laying out the flaws and inconsistencies with testimony. >> people wanted a few good men and colonel jessop and jack nicholson and tom cruise and cruise wondering, did you order the code red? and obviously nicholson says you're damn right i did. that's what they wanted out of the prosecutor or johnnie cochran in the o.j. hearings, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. something that rhymes, if it's methodical and fact based that doesn't play well in cable fuse for pundits. they want drama. mark: let me follow up, you are making an important point. is the audience smarter than the people make the presentations in the media? >> absolutely. before the 2016 election, the hill does an analysis of all the major newspapers across the country and their endorsements. and we narrowed it down to 59 papers based on, i believe, s subscription levels.

59 endorsed hillary clinton, 12 endorsed donald trump. that got her a concession speech. we could do our thinking on our own, thank you. i go back to that stat as the influence of the media is one-tenth of what it used to be going back in another time i won't name. >> it's important for people to have good reporters just reporting the facts but analysts who actually represent that portion of the country actually ignored or derided in the media. if you are watching the media with your own eyes and hear people making analysis that doesn't make sense and people focused on emotion and for being focused on emotion being biased in how they're focused on emotion because both professor ford and judge kavanaugh gave very emotional testimony but only one seemed to get the benefit from a lot of analysts. >> journalists primarily live in new york, washington and los angeles. >> yes. >> and don't represent the

middle of the country. bob schafer said one in five journalists, only three cities, and 20% of the people that work in the business live in those places. called the journalistic corridor that we're on particularly with new york and washington, and living in bubbles or elite towers and not listening to people. when i go to parties, i was at a block party and there was a keg. mark: did you throw ice? >> i did throw ice. i threw a bag for a game, and i got feedback that i was not seeing on television, particularly when it came to christine blasey ford or julie swetnick or anybody else involved. go to a bar, maybe you will get another perspective. mark: almost every week night can you catch me by going to crtv.com/mark, or give us a call at 844-levin tv.

we'd love to have you at our conservative community there. we'll be right back. hey guys. today we're here to talk about trucks. i love trucks. what the heck is that?! whoa! what truck brand comes from the family of the most dependable, longest-lasting full-size pickups on the road? i think it's the chevy. ford. is it ford? nope, it's not ford. i think it's ram. is it ram? not ram. that's a chevy! it's chevy! that's right. from the family of the most dependable, longest-lasting full-size pickups on the road. gorgeous. chevy hit it out of the ballpark with these. (seriously, that's what we call tit. officially.all a huge drag.

and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ you know i miss playing catch with the... grandkids and teaching them how to give a good handshake. now look at me... i'm all bent out of shape. (vo tv) if you have bent fingers and can't put your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. (gary) see ya! (hand) you're all about friendly service, and you won't even shake hands? come on! (vo) your hand is talking. isn't it time you listened?

learn more about dupuytren's contracture... at factsonhand.com. the information could be quite handy.

. mark: mollie hemingway, i feel like during this hearing, as in

so much the news, we're busy hearing the left's agenda, debating the left's agenda. individual liberties rarely discussed. private property rights rarely discuss. national sovereignty when it comes to immigration. the supreme court. all the social issues that the left pour into the nomination, and also the attacks. you're a racist or misogynist or old white men and white privileged. all this, the media perpetrate. this what do you think? >> it is frustrating to watch how the stories are framed around a leftist agenda. when you are dealing with an allegation of sexual assault, there are interesting areas to explore dealing with relationships between the sexes, how people come to report sexual assault, what it's like to be accused of a crime. it's important when you are having that discussion to think about the higher principles in play. in this country, you have

certain rights and innocent until proven guilty, and that these are cooked into our constitution. they are to our core as a people, and it unites you whether you are wealthy, poor, black, white, male or female, some of the few universal values that we are all to share. i rarely heard them mentioned. i rarely heard pushback against democratic senators ready to convict without evidence at all. that is a very frustrating thing to witness and something we see overall in how so many things are covered. and what's wrong with that is that it just keeps the conversation so one sided and it's a disservice to left and right. the right knows all too well what the left thinks and get frustrated that so much time is spent responding to it rather than have a lot of time and valuable energy spent on their own issues. mark: joe, is it because this seat is viewed as the kennedy seat, the swing seat, and it was we'll do whatever we have to do, including throwing

western civilization out the window in order to keep this man off the court, get through the midterm elections and control the process in some way, if they take a majority. >> yeah, if you look at neil gorsuch in april of 2017, there was some puchback. that was seen as a one-off. while scalia and gorsuch are basically the same. with kennedy, the stakes went much higher and maybe that's why dianne feinstein when she did get the letter from christine blasey ford in july held it and didn't even present it when she was questioning kavanaugh to the 11th hour, and you keep hearing about how democrats care so much about christine blasey ford and what this is doing to her life or kavanaugh's life, and all of this could have been prevented if they began an investigation without the media being involved, without hearings be involved and what may have happened in july, would have given plenty of time in september. this is having a boomerang effect. npr has a poll that shows that

enthusiasm among gop voters is skyrocketing. i speak to pollsters all the time and seems like republicans that were apathetic about the midterms, shucks, we're going to lose the house. i don't want to vote for the establishment republican because i'm a trump supporter and don't want to go that route. this has turned now and "wall street journal" had a poll about enthusiasm out about two weeks ago and showed that democratic enthusiasm, 63%. republicans were 52%. now it's 64, 61. i'm willing to bet now because people are so angry about the way this was handled and the way brett kavanaugh was treated, republican enthusiasm could be more than democrats and that can make the difference not only with the house but the senate as well which is in play. mark: but much of the hearing was spent on the left's social issues, and it's a little frustrating to somebody like me. so we have this nondebate on abortion. it's just assumed that abortion is in the constitution, you

know it's not. that precedent applies, and i listened to the debate about precedent. well, precedent is the way we go, dread scott is the case. plessy v. ferguson, separate by equal. korematsu, they don't mean precedent stands forever, they mean the precedent they like stands forever, but we rarely have here, a perfect time, rarely have a discussion about the constitution, the job of a supreme court justice have we now reached a point at the hearings so destroyed since robert bork in 1987 where it's a matter of the left saying here's our agenda, if you don't support our agenda, you're not going on the supreme court? >> it was like watching two different hearings back weeks ago when they were discussing the nomination in good faith. you had a bunch of people asking about brett kavanaugh's constitutional understanding, his jurisprudence. there were really interesting discussions about his view of different amendments and different approaches to the

law, and then you also had people say all he wanted to talk about was abortion. it's not just this is a fight over direction of the court but really this is a fight about abortion. good you brought up that. and yet, nobody is being honest about it. the reason that's important is there are certain things that people who love abortion are willing to do, including destroy a man without any evidence because they think it's worth it, that's so important to them that they're willing to throw out any standard that they might have and how they do their journalism. mark: do you think that some of the democrats who are positioning to run for president, cory booker, kamala harris, you think they helped or hurt themselves? >> boy, i think the news cycle moves so quickly, we'll forget about this in three weeks, and then again the 2020 election starts in january 2019. if you look back at the last election they helped themselves with the base, i spores, but you, as donald trump showed in 2016, you need more than your

base. you need to take down red walls like donald trump took down the blue wall in michigan and pennsylvania and wisconsin and getting bernie sanders voters to vote for him because he mentioned trade. you mentioned precedent before, mark. the precedent this sets, i don't know if it's so much about kavanaugh, maybe it is conservatism, the precedent it will set. if he doesn't get confirmed means that any person that is up for any job that's high-profile in government will be susceptible to these sort of accusations that don't have any evidence, that don't have any corroboration. you could take down anybody going forward if this succeeds, and i think that's why people see this confirmation as so important -- you. >> want to say something? >> it's not just it will take down anybody, they will take down anybody on the right. that is where the media come into play. if this type of approach were tried against someone on the left, the media would do their job and push back a bit, i think that's what's helping

with the situation is republicans understand what you just said. that this is a situation where you actually have to stand up for this rather than succumb to it. it. mark: we'll be right back. we just got married. it. mark: we'll be right back. we're all under one roof now. congratulations. thank you. how many kids? my two. his three. along with two dogs and jake, our new parrot. that is quite the family. quite a lot of colleges to pay for though. a lot of colleges. you get any financial advice? yeah, but i'm pretty sure it's the same plan

they sold me before. well your situation's totally changed now. right, right. how 'bout a plan that works for 5 kids, 2 dogs and jake over here? that would be great. that would be great. that okay with you, jake? get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change from td ameritrade investment management.

[♪] reporter: 20 people die in a tragic limo crash in upstate new

york. a vehicle blew through a stop sign hitting the limo. the limo was filled with four sisters and some of their spouses and friends celebrating the birthday of the younger sister. this is the deadiliest cash in the u.s. since 2005. spacex falcon 9 blasting off from vandenberg air force base in california. the first stage of the rocket, this was the second successful flight and landing for that rocket. i'm lauren greene. >> you both mentioned this hearing seems to have united the republican party, the conservative movement. you indicated the enthusiasm is through the roof and building

among republicans. what are these never-trumpers? >> what are they? mark: no, what of them? >> they get a lot of tv contracts. which is very interesting. when you watch some other networks and this one for that matter, you will see never-trumpers on the air talking about how horrible this presidency is or this president is, right? and to the viewer, it looks like my god, there's actually people rebelling within their own party against the president. republicans don't even like him. listen to what steve schmidt, the former mccain campaign chairman or manager saying or nicolle wallace who worked in the bush administration. trump isn't liked by people in his own party, and you look at the polls and see how people are really thinking about president trump, and he is now at a 90% loyalty rating within "gallup." that is the highest -- mark: in the republican party. >> in the republican party. that is his party loyalty. the highest of any president

ever. george bush had higher loyalty after 9/11, put an asterisk. that is a remarkable stat yet people you see on tv are never trumpers and doesn't represent the real feeling among the party about president trump throughout the country. mark: why is he at 90%, the president? >> well, the american people clearly, and the republicans who elected him and the independents who elected him were very frustrated with politics as it was done normally and they were ready to try something else. what's funny about media coverage of trump, they say he's got d.c. all upset. and d.c. is very much not liking what he's doing, the establishment is totally opposed. for the average american they say that's what i voted for, please keep doing it. why is this negative media coverage not hurting him as much as we would like it to? it's cooked into what he's doing. mark: isn't it also partly because he gives the democrats

what they give to him? he gives the media what they give to him? we saw george w. bush take it on the chin time and time and time again, and people said why doesn't he say something? well, that's not presidential. donald trump says you hit me, i'm going hit you back twice as hard. i'm going to call you out on the media when i think you're not telling the truth, attacking me and republicans and conservatives are saying, well, it's about time. is that part of it? >> it is absolutely such a big part of it and shocking that more republicans haven't figured out how important that is to people when. lindsey graham spoke up last week, you saw that spirit of understanding, he was sent here not to play a game with the establishment or the media but to speak out in favor of truth and justice and what not. sl their have been a lot of republicans who have not learned this lesson. i think this week and the previous week were a very big separating moment, where the people who were never-trump. you heard a lot of them say, now i get it, now i get why

people were voting for him. people who renounced open never trumpism, i had a lot of e-mails and people's opposition to trump, even at the sake of rule of law, the rights of the accused and the supreme court themselves. they separated themselves. >> democrats bought together, ben sasse, and why that is at 90% they don't like his rhetoric, they accepted it. built into the stock. donald trump is being the same person. i read the "new york post" and the daily news, he has been in that paper well before he's been a candidate. they accept that he's not going to be presidential and not going to be homognized and perfect. they look at a president presiding over the economy, unemployment is below 4%, north korea is no longer lobbing missiles over japan threatening

guam and the united states and see 98% of the isis caliphate in iraq and syria taken back. they see the things, they see economy, they see national security and anti-terrorism, those are three pillars of the presidency. i'm not cheerleading for him. media coverage is 90% negative towards the president but results dictate something much, much different and ultimately people will boo the opposition party in the media, they will boot media and say things about cnn far more vigorously far more than schumer or kamala harris, it is opposition against politicians, that is remarkable, mark. mark: the president talks about the media being the enemy and has to clarify this all the time, certain media outlets, and the media gets very angry about this and yet when barack obama actually sicked the fbi

on the media whether it was fox or ap and you have the "new york times" writer saying the way they were treated was absolutely brutal, we heard very little from the media. and trump has the dictatorial tendencies, he hates the media but barack obama is still loved. isn't that the ideological issue that we have here? >> a few weeks ago when barack obama came out and said something like i never was bad with the media, the media coverage of that should have been pointing out that those were false statements he was make. he had put his justice department against the associated press and various other reporters, that he had very serious problems even if he had a friendly and cozy relationship with the media. they couldn't call him out a few weeks ago and did language where president trump says the fake news or the enemy of the american people, it is too much, i think, but weeks like we've seen recently show why that language resonates with a lot of americans because how do you defend what we just

witnessed. how do you defend the complete cratering of standards and the open partisanship? i don't know how. >> here's the thing about the first amendment and apparently president trump is trampling on it. how are book sales going lately for the bob woodwards and the michael wolffs and the omarosas in the world. if you write a book about trump, it's a best-seller. how is the "new york times," and "washington post" doing? through the roof. reporting has never been more vibrant than before. no one is being prevented from saying anything. as you said, under president obama, he spied on james rosen and his parents, called him a flight risk, a co-conspirator, he jailed journalists, you mentioned "the new york times," james risen said this is the worst president since richard nixon. how much people don't trust the media. 92% of republicans. we talked about that. 79% of independents don't trust

the media and a majority of democrats as well. that's why i say, boy, this isn't just a republican thing, guys, you better wake up, independents and democrats, you think support you? a majority say you're not doing the job the way you should. mark: ladies and gentlemen, don't forget, most week nights check us out on levin tv. give us a call at 844-levin tv or check us out at crtv.com/mark, crtv.com/mark. we'll be right back. the fact is, there are over ninety-six

hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's fall sale. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, 24-month financing and free home delivery. ends monday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.

plaque psoriasis tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options. enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy. . mark: welcome back. mollie hemingway, want to read you a quote from the daily beast, hardly a right-wing source, about the "new york times" during world war ii. and this has been supported through books and other publications, "new york times" published over 23,000 front page stories and 11,500 about

world war ii from 1939 to 1945. 26 about the holocaust during the height of the holocaust. the greatest genocide in modern history. and they said the "new york times" editors made a conscious decision to bury the paper's holocaust coverage. this is the "new york times." the so-called paper of record. i doubt very much if any other news organization, any other news platform had that as part of its record. that it would be consider the paper of record, and used by so many in manhattan, and washington, d.c., and l.a. as the first thing they read for a source of information. what do you think about that? >> well, it's appalling, and it's hard to argue with numbers like that, that there are problems with the way "the new york times" approaches stories and they go back decades. they also hid a lot of the death from famine in the soviet

union. they have a legacy of shading their news coverage to match political or other goals and even we see it up to the recent weeks with the way they cover these stories. what's frustrating is there is no industry that has less self-reflection than journalism. despite the failures, despite the problems that are objectively, they have failed. they failed in how they covered the 2016 campaign and actually the "new york times" was probably better than most and still were horrible. not understanding what was happening, and yet they think they have the authority to tell people how things are and should be, and they brag about how good they are and when, as you can see, covering up the holocaust is not to anyone's credit. mark: why is the "new york times" the paper of record? is it because it's liberal? >> because it's in the largest media market in the country. mark: and that's it? >> one of the oldest publications that are around. we talked about endorsements before. the last time they endorsed any republican presidential candidate, you got to go back

to the 1950s. think about that. the guy you worked for, ronald reagan, they endorsed mondale in '84 who was lucky to win one state. mark: minnesota, pretty much. >> pretty much. they do drive a lot of the conversation and occasionally do really good reporting. people take them seriously and get on set the agenda and they have a lot of power. mark: i just daresay that any other institution in america, corporate institution, that's not in the media business or whatever, if they had a record like that, we'd know about it, before the show i read this to you, you never really heard about this before. it really isn't something that even the media talk about. it's like a big cover-up. it's in the closet with the "new york times" during world war ii. and for me, it is emblematic in so many respects. when i watch the media today, i see an ideological agenda.

now there's, of course, it's big enough where you have exceptions to that thing, i see an ideological agenda. for instance, when is the last time we had a real report on the national debt? few and far between. when is the last time we really knew what was going on the border? other than the propaganda. few and far between. when is the last time we had a real report what china is up to? i saw one the other day, my eyes popped out of my head. china is a great threat. we have so many issues the media could be reporting on globally or in the united states, and instead i have to read about ice being thrown at a bar when kavanaugh was in college or something like that. i think it does a great disservice as a matter of competence but think it's ideologically driven. you gave us the figures. you gave us the figures. i'm not the only one that thinks thamp the american people think that. >> remember, people may be thinking at home, well, all these people are skeptical of

the media in this country, maybe they saw ideological bend. "gallup" has been doing trust in media polls to the 70s. 1976, i'll ask you both, what do you think trust in media numbers were, approval numbers or i trust the media yes or no, what do you think the number was at? mark: i'll guess because i think it was much higher, 50%? >> mollie? >> no clue. >> 74% -- 72, excuse me. that's post-watergate. that's dropped. the most recent in 2016 before trump took office, you can imagine where it is now. 32%. 40-point drop. a lot of that is due to social media. a lot of reporters who are supposed to be objective and nonpartisan are exposed because their twitter feeds, there is no editor, there is no buffer and sharing feelings, that's how you feel about that report you were supposed to be reporting on. reporting on. mark: we'll be right back.

(door bell rings) it's open! reporting on. mark: we'll be right back. hey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers,

including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

. mark: social media really has upset the traditional media. even the less traditional media, cable and so forth. people think it's a very, very bad thing, social media. aren't they like the

pamphleteers leading up to the revolutionary war and after, have you good ones, you have what you have. >> social media has done so much that's good that the conversation isn't controlled by a few media outlets. i love that about it. i love that anyone can become a reporter, anyone who has expertise can put forth ideas and be picked up. for traditional journalists, social media is something of a disaster. when you see what the people actually think, their utter disdain for fellow citizens, bias that is not close to being in question, done a lot to hurt the credibility of the media. >> i can quote bob woodward. mark: you don't have to, you can do to right here. >> a lot of reporting, particularly on television commentary, there is a kind of self-righteousness and smugness in people ridiculing the president. when we reported on nixon, obviously very different era

but did not adopt a tone of ridicule. tone is what are the facts? you can see what he says. that is dead-on. mark: not only right about that, the smugness, the attitude, the tone, but also the mind-set, which is i don't see any news shows go by, particularly on the left without them discussing race, with attacking their own audience and motivations of the audience. rush likes to say, i've never seen a business succeed that trashes its own consumers, and yet that's what they do. we have on msnbc, on the programs where they're calling trump supporters neo-nazis, racist, deplorables is mild, where you actually have media outlets talking about other people this way, and that could explain part of the reason why ratings are way, way down. does it matter that the ratings are way, way down? >> i think they are

ideologically motivated beyond everything else. in their own circles they receive a lot of praise, attaboys for what they are doing. they used to create a function of creating civil discourse as they talk about their fellow americans. that is no longer. that is no longer. mark: we'll be right back. geico has over 75 years that is no longer. mark: we'll be right back. of great savings and service. with such a long history, it's easy to trust geico! thank you todd. it's not just easy. it's-being-a-master-of-hypnotism easy.

hey, i got your text- sleep! doug, when i snap my fingers you're going to clean my gutters. ooh i should clean your gutters! great idea. it's not just easy. it's geico easy. todd, you will go make me a frittata.

mark: mollie, next five or ten years do you see the media getting better professionally or worse and more divided? >> sadly, i think it will get worse. you saw this after the 2016 election. the media should return to reporting back instead of pushing narratives. changing the new rooms they have more conservatives and liberals in the newsroom and being humble and admitting their failures. they did not do that. they got worse. in the last weeks facing that the capacity to get even worse

that we might have imagined some not optimistic. mark: joe? >> profoundly worse. when the 2020 campaign begins and you saw the strata cavanagh hearings that the flavor of what you'll get in 2019 all the way up to november 2020. let me give you two stats that show that things are going completely in the wrong direction. three out of four americans, 77% say they believe traditional media outlets report fake news. to know what the number was last year? 62%. that's a 14% jump in 30 to present the prepacked from opinion but they believe the media has a hard time separating fact from opinion. that was 50% in 1984. everything is moving towards opinion, feelings, not reporting like we talked about and it only will get much, much worse. mark: i think you're both right. the media, largely, is a progressive ideological movement and social media is the answer. competition in the modern-day appears in the modern debut.

thank you so much smack thank you. mark: god bless. the next time on "life, liberty and levin". sunday" team, up nex. >>chris: i am chris wallace. president trump puts a second justice on the supreme court as the senate votes to confirm brett kavanaugh.♪. the eyes are 50, the nasal 48. >> just a few hours ago, the us senate confirmed judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. [applause] >>chris: we will discuss what brett kavanaugh's confirmation means for the court, congress and the country. and we will talk about the bitter politics behind the vote. >> judge kavanaugh's confirmation is a low moment