but again, i'm going to take the word of the president versus cnn or "the new york times." >> but "the new york times" did call and check, correct? >> again, i'm not sure about this particular story. i'd have to look back to see what story they're talking about. we do talk to them regularly and a lot of times we push back on a story and that's simply not enough for it. they like to run with anonymous sources. on a regular basis about this president. it's an unprecedented amount of negative coverage of not only them but a number of other outlets spend 90% of the coverage of this president is negative despite our country is doing extremely well. our economy is booming. isis has been defeated in syria. we have gotten rid of countless regulations that has made our energy-dominant country again. the country is doing extremely well. yet, if you looked at the media and the coverage, you would think the whole place is falling apart. i think that's a real problem and certainly the president is going to continue to call out. >> the question is, whether or not. >> you would know that, george. >>

up next on "after words" former "new york times" executive editor abramson reports on the state of the news business with technologies and platforms "after words" is a program withh elephants guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. it's great to be with you to talk about your book you and i have known each other for a long o me. we go way back. we worked together at "the new york times" in different capacities. i wasn't technically part of the newsroom and we've kept in touch since to talk about your book which i loved. it's interesting because i've lived through all the things you describe in the book and i know so many of the players had yet, i thought i understood this business inside and out the way that you connected the path i found that i got new insight and i'm looking forward to talking with you about it. it's really entertaining. so, the reception that you got at the beginning was glowing reviews and they called it a master work which is great, but the next couple of the two say but it's gone off the rails a journalist can be accused of, so ho

the big lie "the new york times" left out of its story today is one i have shown you and talked abouttimes in the last three years since the day donald trump said it in february of 2016 in south carolina. that means millions and millions of people have heard me talk about it, have seen it on this program but it still hasn't found it's way into the "the new york times" official record of trump's worst lies about 9/11. and that means the lost trump lie is not just lost to "the new york times," it might end up being lost to history because historians rely on "the new york times" so much. the fact that almost the entire american news media never noticed this lie during the presidential campaign is one of the proofs of the american news media's failure in the coverage of the last presidential campaign. prior to donald trump and it's inconceivable a politician could tell a lie like this and not have it end the candidate's campaign. and even donald trump knows how bad a lie this is because he stopped telling it. he told it twice. once at the debate and the next morning on tv, and i called hi

in the first chapter, it is one hell of a time to be a lawyer for "the new york times". he gain some variety in the fall of 2016. the times had published an article about two women who said trump groped them. did he demand a retraction to sue for libel? they responded with a letter that his reputation regarding his treatment of women was so tarnished the theme by things he previously said and done and then further to take newsworthy information that was within the law then said if mister trump disagrees and believes american citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and the law of this country forces us those that would dare to criticize him to be punished then we welcome the opportunity. now david does it usually write such point of the legal letters he tends to be a little more down the middle and a little more accommodating but he made a decision to stand tall on this one. given what was at stake it was published and went viral and many applauded and he tells what it was like to give legal advice to the times for harvey weinstein and other. not just beh

about "the new york times" to each other. but there are many high-quality publications talking about local it's very difficult and then they have either closed or been stripped down. were to ask your local community to pay for something that has been degraded. >> but the news organizations "the denver post" has been an abomination of what the hedge fund has stripped so some of those have left called the colorado son. it is all digital but how many of these get people to pay? . >> it is a nonprofit. >> actually they are not. . >> bet there are many of these some of them are nonprofit with some of these foundations and on the board of that beside "the washington post" and the times witnessing the surge of subscribers which is the trump bump coming into pro- public a and they exist to provide first quality investigative work that can afford to do investigations anymore joe started more than a decade ago because of the "minneapolis star tribune" were stripping down but it's very difficult and this conclusion is what will replace

this is the new york times. the old gray lady the standard of journalistic excellence the newspaper that doesn't hesitate to point and that cues in finger and say you you whoever you are your anti semitic or your homophobic or your islamophobia you're massaging his dick there very quickly that they said in a review this is anti semitic why didn't they think this before the worst reason would be negligence that they don't review cartoons dado. basically know their own work product so what is interesting is that in this particular case the new york times is finding itself perhaps hoist by their own put tard forced to apologize and you notice nobody even argues today if you look at it we have six major companies that own most of the mainstream media outlets in the united states that includes the new york times and so you're talking about a very small pool of a narrative that's fallen into here and most of that is political anti donald trump anti conservative politics anti-republican you have just a couple people fr

has a lot to gain politically and professionally should regime change happen very cool of the new york times not to mention you know the fact that john houseman's dad is an economic advisor. now the folks who handle ethics of the new york times have a special section dedicated to possible conflicts of interest from contributors stuff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict but in the end the new york times didn't really care they presented her as just another voice we were aware of her for this biography before publication but miss housman. is an independent adult woman has built a popular following on her own by producing a portfolio of argued videos about venezuela. and it wasn't just the new york times she made her rounds to buzz feed c.n.n. and the four freedoms forum none of them thought that her blatant family ties to one grade zero were of any concern and not presenting the full picture is not all that uncommon in american media there was a lot o

again, this is all -- according to "the new york times." not cnn's reporting, "the new york times." they're reporting that because the a.g. has written the first narrative of mueller's finding, where they're worried americans will have already made up their minds before the full report ever becomes public. when anybody tries to tell you that they know what is in mueller's report, when they try to tell you it's all over, you've got to wonder why. why they want you to think that. all this makes it that much more important for americans to see it for themselves. you have to see it for yourself. we've got a lot more on that tonight. and it comes as the house judiciary committee today approved a subpoena for the unredacted mueller report, the chairman, jerry nadler saying this. >> this committee requires the full report and the underlying materials because it is our job, not the attorney general's, to determine whether or not president trump has abused his office. and we require the report because one day, one way or another, the country will move on from president trump. we must make it

and that means the lost trump lie is not just lost to "the new york times," it might end up being lostuse historians rely on "the new york times" so much. the fact that almost the entire american news media never noticed this lie during the presidential campaign is one of the proofs of the american news media's failure in the coverage of the last presidential campaign. prior to donald trump and it's inconceivable a politician could tell a lie like this and not have it end the candidate's campaign. and even donald trump knows how bad a lie this is because he stopped telling it. he told it twice. once at the debate and the next morning on tv, and i called him on it both times as soon as he said it, and he never said it again. because even donald trump knows just how sacrilegious this lie is. here's the way he said it the first time. >> how did he keep us safe when the world trade center -- the world trade center -- excuse me, i lost hundreds of friends. the world trade center came down during the raid. that's not safe. >> i lost hundreds of friends. the next morning he didn't lose hundre

david says in the first chapter of his book is a bit of a hell of a time to be a lawyer in "the new york times." david gained notoriety himself back in the fall of 2016 in the days of the presidential campaign. the times has published an article about two women who said that donald trump had groped them. the lawyer demanded a retraction and threatened to sue for libel. regarding the treatment of women it was a tarnished the things that he previously had said and done but it couldn't be tarnished more. the article contained newsworthy information and worse within the law. then david added this, quote, if mr. trump disagrees and believes american citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the wall of the country forces those of us who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court to set him straight. david doesn't usually write such poignant letters in fighting others do "the new york times." he ten is in his own words to be a little more down the middle, a little more accommodating but he made a decision to stand t

. >> the new york times, to look at the drug-resistant that occurs within hospitals resistance to antibiotics in culture of secrecy as described headline surrounding it. running is to talk about it is injure the new york times. science reporter, good morning. >> great to be here. >> thank you for turning us but was pacific infection are we talking about? >> this is a fungus called canada worse. his recently discovered originally in japan. it spread all over the world and you're in the u.s., it's killed about 600 people. >> when it comes down to that information, how does it work and how does it do his work as far as killing people? >> most of those infected are in already sick, people in the hospital who can't fight off. it's really taken off in new york and new jersey and illinois. in a few other state in the country. about 30% of the people who get it, they do not respond. 50% die within 90 days. >> as far as the. cause, but would you describe and why the concentration and hospitals? >> the origins of it are a bit of a mystery, why, it's essentially a very tenacious bug and it spreads throu

news media. i look at two of the biggest newspapers at the time "the new york times" and the los angeles times and i chose been in part because they were so big and influential but also in part because of the practical decision they had archives open to research which meant i could do what historians do which in a sense is to go through and read people's mail for that is what i found myself doing looking at the company record and personal papers of the editors and publishers of peace newspapers s and then i was also fortunate in addition to reading dead people's mail to interview some in her living people that have been to be in the room this evening but some of the talented journalists parked at "the new york times" and the la times in those years. i found all kinds of fascinating stuff i write about in the book and i hope you will read but i was amazed at some of the parallels i found between what was happening then and what is happening today. there were parallels between the economic challenges that traditional news outlets face in those days because of technology so in those days of economic

we have no obligation to tell "the new york times" in a kill piece more than we want to say. e reason they knew about it is this, we handed these e-mails over. it wasn't that "the new york times" magically discovered this. we handed it over, and someone leaked it, but we were being open and honest, as we have been. you don't think for one second that the, you know, the tinfoil hat brigade -- adam schiff -- you don't think that he gave my testimony, those seven or eight hours of the 27 hours on a 20-minute meeting, 27 hours, you don't think those guys were giving all of that to mueller to make sure let's see if he lied somewhere? we were open and honest from moment one. howard: you also called him slimy, but should we get to a point now the investigation's over where the white house and congress, democrats and republicans, could work together and to some things for the country, and wouldn't that require taking a little bit of the -- >> i said that the other night on tucker, actually. i'd lao to see -- love to see republicans and democrats get together. how about we work on infr

it was first reported last year in "the new york times." l counsel robert mueller had been appointed earlier in may 2017. in the fall of 2017 according to "the new york times," quote, mueller's office asked to interview trump's white house counsel, don mcgahn. quote, to the surprise of the white house counsel's office, to the surprise of don mcgahn's office, president trump and his lawyers signaled that they had no objection to mueller interviewing don mcgahn. quote, mr. mcgahn was stunned as was his own lawyer, bill burke, who mcgahn hired out of concern that he needed help to stay out of legal jeopardy. mr. burke has explained to others that he told white house advisers that they did not appreciate the president's legal exposure and that it was, quote, insane that mr. trump did not fight a mcgahn interview in court. quote, mr. mcgahn and his lawyer, mr. burke, could not understand why trump was so willing to law don mcgahn to speak freely to the special counsel. but he did raise no objections. mcgahn was free to speak to the special counse

is a fascinating story that you brought to our attention and there's a video i guess from the new york times that's going viral right now and claims to explain what is actually happening in venezuela but you file that there are some history behind the person that made the video that the new york times accidentally on purpose probably i don't know the whole left out of her bio in presenting her opinion of this yeah so essentially the new york times opinion section they also did a video pieces now with like different journalist and the loggers and stuff so they published a piece by a drawn out houseman who is a venezuelan american who in the video is essentially openly calling for regime change u.s. regime change in this way without outwardly saying it she even goes so far as i say that there is total chaos in a swale and that my dear as a violence or random call dictator you can see sort of images that they use in the video shoot she's compiling like videos and images from protests and she's sort of trying to very creatively you know kind of subvert a lot of the popular culture. hands off in

outrage after "the new york times" publishes an anti-semitic cartoon. ay beyond being a cartoon. how did it get into the paper in the first place, and what is the times saying about it now? we'll be right back. a new house. is it that obvious? yes it is. you know, maybe you'd worry less if you got geico to help with your homeowners insurance. i didn't know geico could helps with homeowners insurance. yep, they've been doing it for years. what are you doing? big steve? thanks, man. there he is. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and renters insurance. itso chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed moo

you get the "new york times" perhaps, i don't know, embarrassed that its reporters were so vehemently on the side of the democrats, on the side of hillary clinton? "new york times" tonight insisting mueller's team members think the a.g. went soft on trump and that the information they provided is actually more damning than barr concluded in his synopsis. and you've got commentators on other networks like msnbc trying to take it a step further, saying the report included evidence of collusion with the russians. where are they getting this stuff, right? because mueller did not conclude that. they may be concluding it. mueller didn't. it's a theme that "the washington post" is peddling as well. pardon me, last time i checked, mueller didn't find collusion and the a.g., mr. barr, didn't consider the report a reason to bring collusion charges. so no collusion. yet so-called lawmakers like adam schiff and so-called journalists like those in the mainstream media still want to believe the president is a manchurian candidate from russia. get over it, guys. you need to move on. the democrats ac

in new york times has been forced to apologize for printing an anti semitic cartoon it appeared in the papers international edition depicts the israeli prime minister i think guy down leading president trump who's wearing dark glasses and a skull cap the new york times says publishing it was an error of judgment and has since deleted it here's what some people in tel aviv have been saying about the image i don't think we have to be so sensitive and keep on bringing up anti-semitic things every single time we see them i think. it's for sure and photo i don't think it's an anti semitism. political character to the cartoonist anti-semitic because it goes back to the old days in the forty's when dish termer used to used to have germans and americans who were germans and jews. portrayed as dogs or or lap dogs for for american policy and it's unbelievable and unacceptable in the united states the reaction we had centered on finding the line between satire and sensitivity. i think the real problem here is the fact that they've kind of misrepresented the jewish identity around israel and aroun

it has risen to the level of a global emergency. >> sean: "the new york times" just responded. cond cartoon that we are talking about, the print edition of "the new york times." clearly he was anti-semitic. indefensible. we apologize. while we don't think this cartoon falls into that category, butn now we have decided to suspend the future publication of the syndicated cartoonist. how do you look at this? again, they are running the stuff. because this is not a blog that is being run out of somebody's basement. this is the paper of record that has plenty of resources to make sure that these things don't get out into the public domain. and i keep hearing that they have apologize. i don't see anything that is ani apology to president trump, to the prime minister of israel. this whole thing around blaming president trump for the synagogue shooting, the media needs to look at the way that they are doing this. 64% of voters say that the press is helping to divide the country. bad things happen under different kinds of presidents. >> this is the same media that lied to the american pe

now we're learning from mark's reporting in the new york times there's been this back and forth, several conversations over a couple of weeks. it raises the question why are we learning about this from the new york times and not from officials. not from bill barr or anyone from the white house. >> it's interesting because the former fbi director james comey was criticized for having full scale news conference as he was announcing no criminal charges would be launched against hillary clinton. did barr and rosenstein potentially risk that kind of criticism? >> they risk it. they will have to tread carefully tomorrow. the letter that rod rosenstein, that memo that was used in justifying james comey, mentioned the fact he held this press conference about hillary clinton that violated doj protoc protocol. you don't hold press conferences when you decide not to prosecute someone. there will many other things they can talk about tomorrow. the process. how they decided to redact what. his thinking. addressing this back and forth with the white house. a lot is at stake and he'll have to be very c

"the new york times" reporting that obama had urged crazy uncle joe not to run in 2016. ll, senator bernie sanders is in some hot water tonight. new documents and photos reviewed by foxnews.com reveals that he has a history of praising violent socialist revolutionaries and policies such as forced land redistribution, like in cuba. the author of a brand-new book just out today. it is on hannity.com, bookstores everywhere. it's called "collusion." if that is not ripped from the headlines -- >> sometimes you get lucky. >> sean: you will be at book ends at 6:00 tomorrow eastern. good to see you. i don't see you in studio much. it was collusion. it was peering out "the new york times," two and a half years of lying. it looks like it was probably russian disinformation. >> is this going to be wild? it turns out that entire dossier was upland by the russians? >> sean: mr. speaker, they never verified it, and they used it in the applications, and it was a backdoor. >> if you knew trump was bad, why would you verify it? it fit all of your previous beliefs. >> sean: you say that wi

one of the "new york times" reporter who broke this story, pulitzer prize winning writer for the "new york times." and joyce vance and jeremy bash, former keef of staff at the cia and pentagon. >> what we're reporting is how there's some dissatisfaction among the mueller team about the fact that barr got a chance to really cast the dye on how the narrative was going to be formed about their investigation. they felt that when the results were going to be out there, when there was a pronouncement from the justice department like barr did right after the report 48 hours, that there would have been some description of what they found and that by allowing barr -- by barr going first and laying this out t it has sort of cemented the way that public may look at what they found and that they really want as much of it out there as possible because they think that barr has made it appear better than what it really is. remember, when barr comes out and says -- essentially clears the president of any wrong doing, there is not a lot of detail in there about what the investigators found >> what i w

host of other editors if they push their luck catherine viner of the guardian the editor of the new york times and i don't say that lightly the lead lawyer of the new york times asserted if julian and wiki leaks can be prosecuted so can the editors of those newspapers that carried their work this is an us this is the north of salt on journalism but you know it more than that it's an assault on citizenship because it can happen to anybody right across the world it is saying that international law doesn't apply julian was an a credited. beneficiary of the whole notion of of of asylum. the united nations working party on aba tree detention made that absolutely clear and it was clear in couple months to which britain is a signatory now if that can be torn up if a regime as mired in in mercan corruption as the lenin merino regime in ecuador is today can call in the police in any country to arrest asylum seekers then think of all a historical examples we don't have to think about them so much i reported from the soviet union at the height of the cold war in the nineteen seventies and i've watched th

the team now venting to the new york time, washington post and nbc about welcome barr's rosy summary of their two year investigation. the first public break between the justice department and muell mueller's office. trump is weighing in on blasting the new york times and the justice department is trying to defend the attorney general saying the mueller report given to him was quote marked confidential on every page to protect grand jury information could not be released publicly. then repeating what the attorney general said before to congress that he does not believe the report should be released in a piecemeal fashion. not really addressing the point here. nbc white house correspondent kristen welker joining me. ken, you're reporting on our team at the mueller and justice fronts today. you have some new reporting taking all of this a bit farther

you have amazing journalists, cacarlata at "new york times" ad rich at network i new york time. because i'm trying to ill va toggle vate one in-- trying to elevate one institution. but these are great journalists that i know. there are a lot. mark: he runs cnn. he got a first amendment award for a real, out there is a we believe in telling the truth. is cnn the example of the opposite? can you tell the difference between journalists and opinion givers over at cnn? i cannot. >> well, that is a very interesting question. i was wondering myself this morning, is don lemon an union important. i know sean hannity is, they make no secret of it, but what about don lemon. what about people like don lemon? i can't tell. but i can tell that there is not a lot of -- there is a lot of opinion in his show. that is 100%. almost all opinion. >> the media guy who appears to be antifox guy. >> i use brien as a road map. high lay its all therhigh -- hes news letter he does every day. you can be certainly will follow the line, to the letter on every one of those talking points, he will push them, p

new york. day 825 of the trump administration. and a new report from "the new york times" about this president and 2020, our election that year is raising alarms. it points to an unwillingness to focus on a potential russian threat to our next presidential election, and it raises concerns about trump's ability to follow through on some very important words that he agreed to. >> i, donald john trump do solemnly swear. >> preserve protect and defend. >> preserve, protect and defend. >> the constitution of the united states. >> the constitution of the united states. >> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> "the new york times" reports that in the months before former homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen stepped down she became increasingly worried about russia's continued activity during and after last year's midterm elections. she, quote, tried to focus the white house on one of her highest priorities preparing for new and different russian forms of interference in the 2020 election. president trump's chief of staff told her not to bring it up in front of the presid

what particularly is embarrassing for the new york times is that it's been trying to lead the way in tackling anti-semitism it is accuse left wing politicians such as us representative maher and british opposition leader jeremy corbyn of anti-semitism over their criticism of israel and hit out at critics of billionaire philanthropist george soros we discussed in the papers approach with attorney jennifer braden and legal and media analyst lionel. this is the new york times on ames the old gray the lady the standard of journalistic excellence the newspaper that doesn't hesitate to point and accusing finger and say you know you whoever you are your anti semitic or you're homophobic or you're islamophobia you're you're massaging a stick there very quickly that they said in a review this is anti semitic why didn't they think this before the worst reason would be negligence that they don't review cartoons day you dolt. basically know their own work product so what is interesting is that in this particular case the new york times is finding itself perhaps hoist by their own put tard forced