B (3:03)

I tracked what I called media mistakes, his first term in the media in general, and there were so many, so many really bad errors. I've looked around this time, I haven't noticed as many. So it leads me to wonder, is the media overall, are the media treating the president somewhat better or afraid to not treat him as bad as they badly some of them did?

D (3:24)

It may be both of those things. I think the. One of the things that's very different in Trump 2.0 from Trump 1.0 in what I'm going to call the legacy meeting media, is that the amount of groaning, moaning, eye rolling, finger pointing, shock, outrage is way down. This was a clear second choice. The American people came back and voted for Donald Trump, knowing full well what he's all about, what he stood for, his strengths, his weaknesses, his outrages, all of that. The first time it was sort of treated almost like, can you imagine? Look what happened. This is an aberration. I also think that a lot of journalists, traditional journalists, went way over the line in eye rolls and finger pointing and name calling rather than reporting what was happening, warts and all, which is what journalists are supposed to do. There was this kind of, can you believe this sort of thing, and there was a certain showmanship around it. I think a lot of times where people trying to show just how tough they were. The impact actually, of Trump 2.0 is much, much, much greater than, as we see every day, than Trump 1.0. And there are very serious questions to be raised about what he's doing, what it means, how deeply thought through it is, and all of that, serious questions that should be handled seriously by journalists. So, anyway, so I think that in this second Trump administration, some media are more restrained because they've learned that lesson, because there was a message, I think, from the voters themselves that suggested that more attention and respect needs to be paid even as the tough questions are asked.

B (5:02)

Most of those in the media probably never envisioned it this before too long ago, that Trump would be back for another term. Do you feel like they had an O moment?

D (5:15)

I think plenty of people had an O moment, but I don't know. It's. I don't think so, Cheryl. I mean, I think that the really good political reporters I was talking to throughout the campaign were pretty convinced that Harris was, and the Democrats generally were in a weak position, that Trump had an enormous following and that they were sticking with him, despite the legal problems, the momentary outrages or whatever it would be. So I think that where the surprise has come is just how fast Trump moved once he got to the Oval Office. I don't think his victory, however, was a giant surprise for those who knew and were covering politics closely.

B (6:04)

As you know, Trump has opened up the White House press process to more and different kinds of media, different kinds of outlets, breaking the traditions like I believe used to be. The president always, for whatever reason, agreed to call an Associated Press the first time at news conferences and so on. Was it high time that this change be made, do you think, or is it a negative?

D (6:25)

I think it cuts both ways. I actually think it's high time that a change be made because the media landscape has changed so much. So there are more people who should have access to the White House and the president, United States.

D (6:37)

Some of it, though, is. Is. Is not a good thing. I want to make a strong distinction here. I said earlier that media is the most plural word. I am now drawing a distinction between media and journalism. Anybody with a camera or a microphone is a member of the media or a website or anything else for that matter. But what journalists do is very particular. And what journalists do, or should do, I should say, is hold everyone in power to account, is to update and contextualize their stories, is to be responsible if they get it wrong and acknowledge errors. And these are clear guidelines laid out by the Society of Professional Journalists, echoed in most of the standards and practices or ethics guides that traditional news organizations have. Other media companies don't do that. They're not there to hold somebody to account. They're partisan press. And that's a tradition that goes way back, still very much alive in Europe. It's not necessarily a bad thing. But let's understand the distinction. The tradition of calling on the AP first actually predated that as a distinction, as a tradition of calling on the wire services. Once upon a time, there was a thing called the United Press International. Famous Helen Thomas worked for upi. When I was an AP reporter at the White House, there was a UPI in the ap. And the tradition then was that one of the wire services asked the first question at a news conference. Of course, at the time and before that there were prime time news conferences. So everything's changed. Does it matter who asks the first question? Probably not. Although I would draw the distinction between journalistic organizations, news organizations and media companies. What I don't think is healthy at the White House is to have adamantly pro trumpers or adamantly anti Trumpers who are opinion media leading the way in places where we need facts and information.

B (8:33)

Well, one little issue came up. Some of the people, for example, at CNN during Trump Won, they weren't opinion media really, but they were very anti Trump. So there was this blending of who's who.

D (8:44)

I think that's a huge problem. And I think it was a mistake that CNN made in Trump Won. And actually they've been very public since with some controversy, kind of acknowledging that White House correspondents, I've been one, should not be there to pick a fight. They should be there to hold power to account, to ask important questions, to explain policy, to be what they're supposed to be, which is the sort of translators and the journalists leaning on people who are in positions of authority on behalf of the larger audience.

B (9:21)

This may be a little diversion for the TV show, but we'll do the podcast too. So one question on you or at the White House? I occasionally filled in at the White House at CBS News. And I didn't mean to feel superior because I had a seat up front when I walked into that room. But you know, to go in there, and my CBS seat was right up there next to NBC and I would get a. I knew I was going to get a question answered. And sometimes they called me and tried to get meaning the White House folks called me and tried to get me to ask a certain question or called me in advance and asked me what my question would be and said they would call on me, but they wanted the heads up. And I'm thinking back, in a way we were allowing them, by us getting that special access, we're kind of allowing them to control the narrative.

D (10:07)

I remember when I was covering the White House press secretary at the time, this was in the way back days of Ronald Reagan said, tell you what, you don't tell me how to manage the news, I won't tell you how to report the news. And there was a sort of agreement in that way. Look, White Houses, city halls, governors, anybody, everybody spins. And anybody who covers them understands. They spin. They're there to persuade, to prevail, whatever it is. Fair enough. The seating arrangement that you talk about is quite fascinating because it also reflected a completely different era when that front row, the wire services, the networks, the second row or third row with the New York Times and the Washington Post reflected where the population was. That's how the White House, the president, communicated to the American people. That's where the eyeballs were. That's completely changed. If you're going to put a front seat in the White House today based on that. Joe Rogan would be sitting up front.

B (11:04)

That's right.

D (11:04)

And so I think we're dealing with enormous change both in the media landscape and in the power political landscape and where the American public goes to get its information.

B (11:17)

I want to ask you about some of the legal actions that Trump has launched against the news media. But before the specific cases, do you have any thoughts as an overview as to what happens or what's happening so far as you see this powerful political figure actually taking on the media?

D (11:35)

I'm always very concerned about that. I think it's a very fine line often between.

D (11:42)

Accountability and intimidation. We have a free press and free speech in this country. And we have had a long tradition of muckraking journalism that has unearthed.

D (11:57)

Bad things and the public wants that. I often use an analogy that isn't about politics. The supermarket down the street from you is selling meat that's past its prime. It's being colored, it's being changed. And everybody in the store has been told not to say anything. Do you want the butcher to whisper to somebody so the word can get out? And the answer is yes, that's what journalists should do. So when presidents or governors or anybody else in power goes after people who are doing that job, it needs to be.

D (12:31)

Precise, purposeful, and not just because you don't like the story that's being reported.

B (12:37)

What do you think about the ABC payment to Donald Trump over the statements by George Stephanopoulos where he repeatedly stated during an interview that Trump had been convicted of rape, which he had not been convicted of rape? It was something different.

D (12:52)

I think George was sloppy with his language. I think that's more of an internal concern should be than an external concern. There should be, you know, an investigation. You know, they should look at that. If George was irresponsible, a he should apologize publicly. If he's been repeatedly irresponsible, he should be fired. But for ABC to make a payment for that, what if you ask a question that's ill informed or deliberately provocative because you're trying to provoke a response in someone? Should you be fearful of that question that you're asking because someone's going to take you to court and break the back of your news organization? You might not come from a major network. You might come from a regional news organization that doesn't have the capacity for that. I think we have to be really, really careful about this. Which is not to say that journalists and journalistic organizations, media companies across the board should not be accountable for what they do. They sure as heck should be. And if they get it wrong, they need to be exposed. If they get it really wrong, then they should be taken to court and through the process. Full disclosure. I served as the expert journalism witness in the Dominion Voting Systems versus Fox News lawsuit. And having seen the transcripts, the depositions, the texts and the emails of Fox News personalities in real time, as this was all going down, they did some really bad stuff and they knew they were doing it, which is why they settled for more than three quarters of a billion dollars. So, yes, I think accountability absolutely should take place in the media 100%. Where, how, by whom, what the threshold is. That's where it gets very complicated.

B (14:36)

So can I extrapolate that you don't think that payment should have been made by ABC to Donald Trump?

D (14:41)

I don't think that payment should have been made by abc.

B (14:51)

The trend of Trump and other political figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I think he's got some legal challenges going, suing the meeting, getting settlements. What do you think overall impact this may have? Whether you like it or not? Do you feel as though already the press perhaps is dialing back? Maybe there's something good that comes of it. Maybe in some cases the press went too far. But what are your thoughts?

D (15:16)

I'm concerned about the chilling effect that it could have. But I think you make an important point, which is if it prompts people in news organizations.

D (15:25)

But let me put it this way, if it prompts people in news organizations to lose their courage to report stories that need to be reported that might be unpopular, that would be a very bad thing. If it prompts people in news organizations to say, you know what, we need to be really careful. We need to be damn sure that we're right about this. We need to be sure that we know who the sources are, what their agenda is. And by the way, if you've interviewed somebody, I want to see the full transcript. We experienced that at CNN when we went through a very difficult time while I was there and while I was bureau chief and a story got out that was making all kinds of accusations of wrongdoing. There was a sound bite there. Nobody had read the entire transcript to say, you know what, this has been.

B (16:03)

Taken out of context by the reporter.

D (16:05)

By the reporting team, whatever it was, only after the fact that that was discovered. And because of that, a whole standards and practices unit was put in place at cnn. At cnn, it is vitally important that people realize that if they didn't already, the Responsibility. They have to get it right. And if some of these lawsuits are prompting news organizations to say, yipes, we better put.

D (16:30)

Things in place so that we can really be sure that we're right about this, maybe that's the silver lining.

B (16:38)

There was the case with 60 Minutes conducting an interview with Kamala Harris right before the election, accusations that they edited and answered together in a dishonest way. There actually are standards at cbs, and I assume everywhere else, for how you're allowed to edit what you can and cannot do. They claim they took a different part of the same answer, which is allowed under the standards if you don't change the character of the answer. Some say that wasn't true. They didn't release the transcript when asked so that people could look at that. Obviously, that was a big snafu. How do you feel about that case and the possibility that 60 minutes may end up paying or settling with Donald Trump over that?

D (17:20)

I feel about that case as I feel about all these other things, that the first, the first obligation that news organizations have is to the truth and to accuracy, and the second obligation they have is to their audience and transparency, how that interview is edited, what the full interview actually sounds like. So when you do an interview with, you know, a presidential candidate or a president, put the whole thing up there and let people judge. We have. We're so far beyond the point where the technology exists now to do that. There's almost no excuse not to do that. It's not like a presidential candidate is off the record.

B (17:54)

But when you heard CBS didn't want to put out that transcript, makes me very uncomfortable.

D (17:59)

Why put it out? Let people say.

D (18:03)

And then I'm talking about accountability. News organizations need to be as accountable to their audiences as they hold public officials to their microphones and cameras, period.

B (18:15)

And then lastly, are there any news events that have happened in the past month and a half since Trump has been president again that you'd like to talk about, or any news coverage you've seen that you think is interesting or remarkable?

D (18:27)

That's a good question. There's one thing, you know, we're talking about this administration and its commitment to free speech and a free press, and it argues that it's got a great commitment to free speech and free press, and it lets everybody in. I'm concerned, however, that that free speech and free press comes with a lot of restrictions and far more than are worthy. And it's a page out of Elon Musk's playbook. Elon Musk did away with the press office At Tesla, at Twitter. So if you have a question that needs to be posed, you can't really do that. And that is information by edict across now x. After the terrible plane crash in Washington D.C. where 67 people lost their lives, plane and helicopter collided here. The ntsb, which was negotiated, which was investigating at one point said, we're not issuing any more press releases and having we'll put out information via X. That is a very small sliver of what I think is a very bad and dangerous thing. These are our tax dollars at work. These organizations should be accessible and transparent and take questions. And it's not to say that every question is virtuous and brilliant. They're not. There are some really dumb questions that get asked in those press conferences and places. But the idea of, of accessibility, accountability, transparency is fundamental to what we are as a society. And I think my appeal to the Trump administration and to the public and to news organizations is to recognize that that kind of dialogue, that kind of questioning, even when it's difficult, even when it's unpleasant, is so core to who we are and to what we expect from one another, that putting that in danger, in peril is a very dangerous thing and really runs counter to the traditions of our national culture and our history.

B (20:28)

And a final comment. If people are wondering what you foresee, it's impossible to really say. Things are changing so fast. Four or five years from now, ten years from now, what would you think the media landscape would look like?

D (20:41)

Wow, did you have a crystal ball here someplace? You know, I just don't think we know. I think it's going to be there. There will be more voices, more. There will be, you know, more, more of a free for all. In some strange way, we may be going back to the future. You know, when this country was first founded, the newspapers at the time belonged to the partisans, right? And people read what they wanted to read and there was plenty of good stuff, bad stuff. What we're not going to do is go back to the once upon a time days when a newspaper came to your door at 6:30 in the morning and a white man read the news to you at 6:30 at night across one of three networks. Those days are gone. The biggest change, and this is, I think as we go down to the three and the five and the ten years from now, is going to be that people are going to need to understand that they are their own executive producer, producers and their own executive editors, and they are responsible for the information that they consume, just as they are responsible for the food that they eat and there are a million choices out there. You can be healthy or unhealthy, things are labeled. Go figure it out. But understand that if you want to be healthy as a citizen, you've got to consume good information, just as if you want to be healthy as a person, you have to consume good food. Problem is, potato chips are more plentiful and tasty than broccoli a lot of the time. But we need it. We need both.

C (22:08)

We'll have a lot more on this topic Sunday, April 13th on full measure for how to Watch, you can go to cherylakisson.com and click the Full Measure tab for a list of stations and times, or you can always watch online at FullMeasure News. We feed the program live at about 9:35am Eastern Time on Sundays at FullMeasure News and you can watch replays anytime thereafter. I hope you loved today's podcast and if you did, I hope you'll share it with your friends. Subscribe to it and leave me a terrific review. Check out my other podcast, the Cheryl Atkison Podcast. If you haven't already read my national bestseller, follow the How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures and Prevails. It recently got another 7 sales peak and ended up on a best sellers list again on Amazon, where last time I looked it was still being sold for half price and proceeds support independent reporting causes. That's Follow the science, do your own research, make up your own mind, think for yourself.