that concerns me, this process of the delegitimatization of these voices.nts speak for themselves. and i can't say, i'm not in the news meetings, the editorial meetings at sinclair, about whether they're going easy or going soft or whatever. but these sorts of things are very troubling. and any serious news organization, any serious news organization, should be addressing those and denying them head-on. >> look, though guys were looking for each other when you come right down to it. trump was looking for help from the media industry, especially conserve-leaning, the industry was looking for help from an incoming trump administration to get this proposal passed and do more consolidation. so it's not really surprising. what's unprecedented here, though, is it's all part of a frontal assault on the first amendment that we have never really seen the likes of, i think, in our political history. the press is the named enemy. the enemy of the people. when you have -- it's not unusual for a president to opine on communications issues. trump tweeted something today,

he wants to lay down in tracks, trashing comey as much as possible, and trying to delegitimatize any revelations or any store lines that emerge. that's donald trump's m.o. in many cases where he comes under attack or feels under some form of personal assault, and he wants to get out in front of it. i have a lot of admir action and respect for her, and the effort of that campaign, but i think it reflects a misunderstanding of what the 2016 campaign was about. whether or not you change what comey did, the outcome of that election would have been the same. >> no. >> donald trump would have beaten hillary clinton, because the country did not like hillary clinton, did not want her in that job. setting that aside, though, i think what comey did was a breach of the process. he could have handed what he had to the doj and put the weight on them, trying to split the baby the way he did has gotten him into the hot water. >> certainly sounds like the question he's asking is -- but her e-mails. >> it was decided by 80,000 votes and all of the independent analysis says husband was ready to win th

-16 that we -- we had succeeded in creating this allege concerntive reality silo, that we had delegitimatized fact based media. historical he'd media to the point which we now rale really are two nations and don't communicate to one another and someone like a donald trump or other people who are supporters of his are in a sense immune to information. immune to factsle we are a post factual society -- political environment and that is so fundamentally different than what we need for democracy. one of the tide tidbits in he book i continue to be fascinated by because i had not fuel fully understand it when reagan was president, people thing the nostalgic high point of conservativism there was very -- i want to careful -- there was not the robust conservative media infrastructure we have now. no fox news. no rush limbaugh or sean hadn'tity no breitbart. he was able to act in an environment in which he was able to talk to democrat to be able to discuss these ideas in an environment that was not this kind of ranting push for power ratings and clicks that i think has contributed to that i just desc

we are shouting as loud as we possibly can, but we are facing the same incitement and delegitimatization is the same dynamic. these are the same forces and they are even more self-confident today. and we have to fight it even stronger than we had to in the past. your partnership is super important for us to be able to do this. so thank you. [ applause ] >> i've been listening to you. i'm here for two days. i had the pleasure of speaking on some sessions and listening to you. i mean, i listened to the speakers, but i listened to you. and i heard you applauding so strong and so enthusiastically when people talk about the victims or the people that you consider to be the victims. but i didn't -- it hurt me, actually, to hear you not applauding when the last speaker said that he believes in the state of israel and its right to exist and its right to security and the importance of it. [ applause ] >> it's easy to get confused. i'm saying this because this is something that we have to deal with constantly. but i think it was -- it's always attributed to him, your british author, who said patri

what he is trying to do delegitimatize this criticism of the press to take this tool away from the presidently. there is dangerous undertone what he is saying. what he is saying every time trump attacks the press this is potential incitement to violence. what a disgrace for this journalist to be falsely smearing trump supporters and president trump himself for inciting violence when we know over the last several years that it is organized leftist activities, the soros groups, antifa groups, who are the ones who fomented violence and division in this country. that is disgrace. pete: well-said. ainsley: tell us about the manhattan film festival if i understand they're featuring a screening of one of our investigative reports? >> yes, ainsley on sunday i will be back in new york city, descending from the mountaintop. we have very, very pleased and humbled, honored to be a feature film at the manhattan film festival on sunday, 6:00 p.m. at cinema village for an episode i did called railroaded, surviving wrongful convictions. one of those areas where it is common ground forged between left, right