about media freedom in the trump area we're joined by angelo corazon he is the president of media matters for america liberal media watchdog group angela thank you for joining us here on now we have seen past presidents complain about mainstream media in general the white house press corps is a bill to ask tough questions even to have an adversarial relationship with the president and spokespeople what is so different about this what's so different about now. so i think it's true i think that there have been complaints and i will keep with that. that's part of having a free press i think what makes this qualitatively different is the intention efforts behind it so that you know in those cases when there were complaints they were very specific so they were focused on a one story or one particular narrative that they were pushing back against and one of the things that's different now is that trump himself and his administration works it work to systematically undermine all credibility within the news media to create hostile intentions in the public toward them while simultaneously building up their ow

media. he was not thinking about those types of aggressions because he didn't have to. they simply did not exist in victorian england or 19th century america for that matter. he was not thinking about how the idea would be applied peripherally and futuristically and themes of consequence outside of his own judicial vernacular. here we are, in 2019, stuck with the language of a defining principle that is so valuable and yet so vandalized. i'm not suggesting doing away with the burden of proof. i understand that this principle protects many people in a court of law and is not always used vindictively. sir william himself used the presumption of innocence to rightfully defend teenage ch cham -- chamber maids, who were raped and gave birth on their own and the newborns died. if they were tried in courts, it would be the masters using the defense of innocence to defend themselves against stat -- statutory of rape charges. i do question what can be done to stop the egregious use of this principle by people who don't understand it. the hypocrites who denounce courts of public opinion are the same ones who use the language of the legal system to defend themselves