>> here in washington d.c. we hosted in some public events like this when you're back to try to teach political staff members about constitutional government and the policies of constitutionalism. you learn more about hillsdale and the kirby center, but our online courses at hildale.edu. our talk this evening is about resident trump in the media or more correctly, president trump versus the media. he was criticized recently after one of his tweets to respond that his use of social media was not presidential, it is modern-day presidential. indeed it seems like an important aspect of his presidency, both his tenancy and in the white house. an important aspect with his relationship to the media is essential to that presidency. what you make of this crush mark what is a tell us about the media? molly hemingway, the senior editor at the federalist, longtime journalists, her work appears in wall wall street journal, the washington post, cnn, national review and i could go on. she's a frequent guest on fox news, cnn, and national public radio. she has recently written a broadside called trumpet versus the media. i have to commend my friend roger kendall who is the publisher of encounter books for reviving she has recently written this on the topic. please help me welcome molly hemingway. [applause] >> thank you very much. my husband mark and i have the pleasure being of visiting fellow at hillsdale lester. we're so impressed with hillsdale, the journalism students we met in learning more about the college you have. this is a great time to talk about this topic. cnn has had a rough go of it recently. they're one of the big media companies that has pushed her russia trump collusion or conspiracy storyline since january. these have been built almost exclusively around anonymous sources who promise major scandal but continually failed to deliver. in some cases, the anonymous sources are not to be trusted in any way, shape, or form. such as those who are familiar with former fbi director comey's thinking. they told cnn journalist that comey would testify under oath that he never told donald trump he is not under investigation, much less three times. in fact, that is precisely what, testified under oath. a week or two after that story disaster, the cable outlet had to retract a story, publish an apology and three employees reside after yet another of these red scare stories based exclusively on anonymous sources turned out not to be true. the next week we saw that cnn chose to use his power and might to go after border borderline blackmail, guy who may have been fired or originally created a video idea that present donald trump tweeted out, that video was showing a fake donald trump fake beating up a guy with a cnn logo for ahead in a fake wrestling match. money thing that caught my eye yesterday that i want to begin with. cnn tweeted out quotes from notable americans about freedom of the press and related topics on independence day. one of the quotes they tweeted from abraham lincoln was an error. it was, let the people know the facts in the country will be safe. the tweet storm, this collection of quotes from cnn was widely interpreted as yet another attack on president donald trump. the independent ran a story about it headline cnn taunts trump on july 4 with abraham linking quote on fax. they had a funny feeling about the quote, he dug into it. it turned out the quote was inaccurate and even so is based on hearsay. real or hearsay quote was, let them know the truth and the country safe. they could've accepted this union over a continued fight to victory. the fake quote related to fax in the hearsay quotes was truth and it's a perfect effort journalist of cnn to make and one that speaks to modern journalism problems. facts can be manipulated, truth is much more difficult to obtain. might be factual that obama's intelligence team briefed president-elect trump about the russian dossier, but whether that fact is used in it russian conspiracy hoax is where truthfulness is important. reminds me of the john peters anger trial of 1735. you probably learned about this in elementary school. successfully argued by intro hamilton. it was an important symbolic event, remember chiefly that truth should be admitted as a defense. they successfully got the jury to decide in his favor on that point. the trial was as david has written, a disputation untruth and how it is revealed to man. the press in america have been accorded a variety of perks and privileges based on the belief that seeking and speaking truth our nexus are aspects of liberty and on the assumption that the press is integral to discuss a civil society that they would exercise their power responsibly. however, trumps victory has a vance the developing realization among many americans that the media has completely advocated the responsibility and shown hostile to the value and ideas many americans hold. much of the population no longer believes the media should be treated deferentially. and be given the power to shape much less control public opinion. complaining about bias in the media as a republican tradition going back many decades. when he batched the media one of the things george hw bush made he would hold up his bum versus sticker that he said what his favorite. annoy the media, reelect bush. the crowd would who how are because they knew that the media was biased against him. political candidates as different as richard nixon and john mccain have all complained about this issue. conservative talk radio hosts have spent years dissecting and framing the stories. conservatives who have complained so much about media bias have become trite. journalist expected the complaints as part of doing business amid little to no apparent effort to improve. in fact it got worse. at some point something broke. in the booklet and the broadside i go through examples of major media mistakes that cause a breakdown in trust. one which some might be too young to remember was media coverage of the duke university lacrosse team alleged gang rape of an exotic dancer. there were not just found not guilty, but actually declared innocent which is a rare thing to have happened in the trial. the media has reported on them as if they're convicting him of rape and who knows what else. they use the incident to force national conversation about the need to accept all manner of politically correct -- there is a treatment of the tea party, where concerns about the size and scope of the federal government were treated as if the contentious and irrational yacht of the racist. protesters showed up at town halls were disparaged as unhinged and violent. those in 2010 the revelation of journalist, secret e-mail lists were hundreds of journalists shaped narratives to helped barack obama, they included mainstream reporters and liberal journalists and again they shape the narrative. i think the big break happened with the candidacy of mitt romney. president trump and paula today you might remember when mitt romney was on a foreign trip during his campaign. you had reporters from cnn, washington post, new york times chasing after him. i don't even remember what the supposed problem was but they were shouting, what about your -- there screaming it. and you have candy crowley helping obama when mitt romney had them on the road, you had mitt romney's effort to make sure he had good qualified women in his administration in massachusetts treated as if it were something misogynistic. when he talked about the problem of removing work requirements from welfare he was called a racist. again, republicans and conservative voters are used to this. even someone as previously beloved as sean mccain was transformed into hitler like representation during his campaign against obama. when it happens mitt romney, squeaking clean, nice, completely moderate from massachusetts. they realize the media would do it anyone. the same time you have obama scandal. during the first and second term they were barely covered much less given the regular attention that political scandals are given. when the irs revealed that actors in the agency, some were frequent visitors to the white house had targeted conservative opponents of obama unlimited there ability to have tax-exempt status it was treated as if it was no big deal. even though it was a scandal that was watergate many times over. whether it's roaming the countryside trying to find fake bakers a pizza shop owners they can highlight for not sharing the same views are going back to 1990 when the l.a. times said a study looking at how abortion was covered in the media. was published by david shaw. it showed they frame the debate in terms favorable to those who support the practice. they ignore and give minimal attention to events and issues favorable to abortion opponents. he said that most recently with other covered a rather covered up the plan parenthood organ harvesting scandal. thus what happened in 2131 philadelphia abortionists was on trial for the murders of some of the children and women whose lives he ended in his clinic. he kept trophies of baby feet and jars. his employees testified that he snipped the spinal cord of children he delivered. he put trent performed abortions without sufficient pain medication. he kept beetle parts in the refrigerator next to employee lunches. this had all the makings of a major media, a prolific murder, sensational trial, innocent victims, it even had angles for non- crime reporters issues with jocks, immigration status and racism. yet the media had to be absolutely shamed into covering the story in anyway where the cursory fashion. even when major outlets devoted coverage here and there it was reluctant and poultry. one washington post reporter read written dozens of stories favorable to abortion-rights groups that she have not covered this because my quote it was a local crime story. the idea that the national media don't cover local crime would be news to people. read about the trayvon martin killing, the police shooting of michael brown of ferguson missouri. so whether the topic has been religion, family, human life, guns consumer governance or sports, media bias has become more pronounced than the trouble with accuracy. once conservative saw the problem they cannot on see them. even the case of new on issues reacting hysterically to disasters that occur during republican presidency while giving the benefit of the doubt that occur during democratic. comments are sexist and bigoted while downplaying or trying to provide charge comments from democrats using anonymous sources to tear down political. hiding balancing viewpoints at the end instead of featuring the more prominently. using terms with negative connotations and positive connotations for those they favor and many other ways of shaping the truth. looked at from the perspective of conservative voters who have been lied to and abused by media elite for decades. it's really not hard to understand how we ended up with president trump. the media however are so unrepentant and lacking self-awareness they're having no trouble admitting they have done anything wrong. they're indulging in hyperbole and hysteria. the current political situation is the logical result of the hostile environment that the press cultivated. rather than some blackstone events unleashed by the sudden onset of irrationality of voters and flyover states. it was the media decade-long approach of putting their thumb on the scale by covering conservatives and causes poorly. he created a lose situation for conservatives. there's no way to operate successfully in a system where the media allows them to be respected as the principled opposition on this long if there shackled and limited conservative voters were beyond sick of it. the media would say things that aren't true. cover issues dishonestly and then accuse others for disagreeing. no candidate, not even squeaky clean moderate like mitt romney could stop. it was enough to make half the country to give up on enterprise of working with the media entirely. trump exploited the situation. he did not create it. he made the most of it. quite literally he wrote it to the white house. trump voters love that he was beating up the bully that they had been able to vanquish. trump would not have had this power had the media not set things up through decades of shoddy coverage targeting its political opponent. the media did this to themselves. so following trump surprisingly, the washington post had a great idea. something they should have done a few weeks or months prior. back supporters why they were voting for him. among the many interesting answers were several specifically mention the media. nicole said, as trump cleared each hurdle during the campaign and i saw how the media, the establishment and celebrities tried to derail him, my hope began to grow that i would be able to witness their collective heads explode with and he was successful. diane mouth is statement was the media has done huge to service in covering the campaign. another explain i voted for donald trump because the media was so incredibly biased. they are unhinged in their role as the clean propaganda machine. another set i make a millennial woman and i voted for donald trump because i pose the political quickness movement. after months of going back and forth, i decided to listen to him directly and not through the minced and filtered quotes from the mainstream media. clearly something is different. michael creighton explain something in an essay which is against speculation. you probably heard bit. he's described it as you up the newspaper an article on some subject to knows really well. you read the article and see that the chinless has no idea what he's talking about no understanding of the facts or issues. the article is so wrong it presents a story backward reversing cause and effect. his multiple heirs of many turn the page and national international affairs and read it as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate than the blown aegis read. that the amnesia affect. you turn the page and you forget they didn't trust what they said about this topic you knew about. craig noted that people tend to discount serial liars are exaggerator's and other areas of life. when it comes to the media we believe against evidence that it's probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. what affected him certainly isn't. what if the heirs are now so routine the narrative pushing soap late the defensive defiance and lead us him so extreme of the partisan bias so pronounce the people are no longer sleeping into amnesia. what if they're just done? sick and tired of the entire media industry and distrustful of the stories then count on to be in and newspapers. what is that mean going for? members of the media have enjoyed an elevated position, celebrity status on a theory they would behave responsibility with the power that they had to please public conversation. thirteen for objectivity and stability rather than just advance partisan narratives. that's just gone. even earlier in 2016 trust the media had hurt the story close. gallup reported that americans trust and confidence the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly dropped to the lowest level in history with only 32% said they had a great deal of trust or fair amount of trust of the media. those down eight points over the previous year. among republicans the situation was worse, only 14% had confidence in the media and that was before what happened in november of last year. median response when i just continuing to do the things that are angered. the openly declaring war the republican president some cases. it's infuriating voters on the right. now they are angrier. you also have a significant part of the conservative who decided that this is not a good thing to focus on. the conservative response to american rejection of hostile media comes in many forms. one is to disparage it with the cliché of what about is in. you point out the media no longer have credibility to adjudicate donald trump because they took and ate your nap while barack obama violated the presidency. your accused of what about is him. politics is a continuum. stating facts about why the media have no credibility so people on all sides, bill. the first step to fixing the problem is to acknowledge you have a problem. another conservative critic says that media criticism is anti- trump is on. he says that he is anti- trump. he says that sure the mainstream media has been awful, they've airbrushed stories in history, they're going after trump they had no problem with under obama. and yet they hyperventilated outrageous charges but so what. the media are terrible. no worse than they were before, and trump's were some other presidents according to this critic. another said yes the media are bad but you have to rise above it. call out the media for their violations when they arise but don't do it donald trump does. another says the press must be supported because shared facts are important for a functioning republic. people going into echo chambers is dangerous and try ballistic. don't attack the press, everyone come together and learn about the importance of the first amendment. you don't say that he's a unique threat without demonstrating my. just because he does things differently doesn't mean all traditions and norms must be respected in political discourse. especially when you consider what previous methods have gotten conservative. with complete domination of the media by the liberal establishment you have $19 trillion in deficit. lengthy are on ending worse, crony capitalism, redefinition of marriage, tolerating the sales morgan harvested from babies during the abortion. calling out media bias as a consultant works. conservatives have been doing it for 50 years. the data show that journalists felt empowered during the obama area to target ordinary americans. people have legitimate reasons to feel persecuted by the press. andrew breitbart know for media criticism said the left is not when it's battles and debate, doesn't have to. the 21st century medias everything. the left wins because it controls the narrative. the narrative is controlled by the media. the left is the media and the narrative is everything. the mainstream media portrayed itself as objective observers of reality when there's no such thing. they think they can destroy everything american stands for by standing on the sidelines swiping a patriotic americans. they have nothing but contempt for the american people. might be a bit overwritten, if you remember andrew breitbart you know his style. so is what trump is doing good? the press are still a vital institution. we need transparency and accountability among our leaders. the press of the institution in america best position to do that. they have not been doing that. i don't know where the war goes. what happened should of happened after 2016 should've been apologies for how they treated trump voters. the realization that there narrative setting propaganda was not good for discourse. they should've stuck to the facts or -- they should've hired from outside of their tiny bubble. instead, part from a few culprits here and there the media reinforce their problem. instead of firing their worst reporters they promoted them or hired them away. they did not make any structural changes. so this is the problem we face and challenge before us. the implosion of media credibility as a crisis the ones you need to fix it are unwilling or unable and the health of the republic is at stake. on that cherry know, i'm happy to take questions. [laughter] [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> when president trump tweeted out on sunday with a short video clip that had been doctored so that it was originally a wrestling event that had been videotaped and have been doctored so it appeared donald trump was in the original we live in such weird times, don't we. i don't think that people found the product itself so out of bounds so much as who is funding it. it's absolutely true that this behavior that we have not seen before, not just from presidents but republican presidents. you compare this way of responding to media tax without george w. bush responded. which is to say he did not respond. and how did that work out for him, you can judge that. you can judge his ability to withstand critiques from others. but, it is very interesting. i thought that the line that the dr. mentioned was very interesting when he said it's not presidential, modern-day presidential. i guess he is tweeting in a way and i guess that is modern-day, i don't think that's what he saying he is attempting to lead a country where one of the problems is the inability of established order to respond to change and he's willing to punch through the norms and he's willing to fight do things not supposed to do in order to make a change. whether you like it or don't the president leads if the media hasn't been doing a good job in the country. >> thank you very much. i wanted to see if you agree with the statement and if you'd don't why, i'll just make it. the media is more powerful than ever. you agree with that, and if you do, do you think there are ideas or steps to reduce their power. and if you disagree, why? >> the media are more powerful than ever, that such a complicated topic. i would like to reflect on that a little bit. then have that luxury, so here we go. i do think that there are aspects of changes in technology that have created both a moment of greater power for the media and their tax on media power that these advances in technology have also led to. we have seen how media messages and this generally held the unions can change things quite dramatically. they push an agenda and able to keep an unrelenting fashion. that's incredibly powerful. just creating an environment where people are afraid to speak out. that's what happened with cnn this week was so telling. something people feel alive. if they hold views different from the elite media consensus that they might be held up for ridicule. when cnn literally went after a guy like a random person who dared mock their media outlet felt like, that's what we feel like you been doing and it was very threatening. they hold a lot of power. at the same time you never had so many people hold so much power against that and the way different people are trying to respond to. it's a, located topic. i think technology is a major sitter reason why. you strutted as a journalist start out with a publication in new your way, you are known for your quality of your work and now was social media journalist showing everybody all the time with their biases are as a part from any publication this is very complicated times. >> i have a problem with the media bias problem because the premise that the media was biased but because the useful ideology that you will have to listen to us. so what i think now is what happened now that you see and we have information and it's an honest labeling so now there is more honesty now that is absolutely true that there's always been bias and in fact this time that we see in the last few decades where people claim to be objective they claim to be non- bias where people are just open about their biases that they had. i think they're clearly obviously doing right into the media. it does, cost low. one of the critics i pointed out said it's important to have a shared set of facts and that is true. it helps to have a debate where you could cope together on some agreement that this is the matter at hand that needs to be discussed for these are the facts and play. when you have a completely -- media where everybody is submitted to their biases we are very different people. we have very different ideas. we be pretending that things are be objective and that different viewpoints we get there play in that environment. but it's not necessarily a good move to comes at a cost. >> good speech, thank you. what should be done more to talk to other people who have some intellectual integrity, for them to actually raise the question of what i'm being told here when they listen to the media. if they just asked themselves a question they'll see what they're being said is completely disconnected. just to make people wonder, my bmi too. i think they need to go -- at this point there's always people to dishonest to face up to reality. but there's a big segment of the population that needs to wife in a. >> i think this is where the topic of trump versus the media is interesting. the arrival of trump on the political scene in earnest a couple of years ago that has been they're looking for a long time, but it's been a transformative and highly disruptive. what happened in the conservative environment was very difficult. the best advantage conservatives or republicans had was a long time to deal with what trump is doing to their party and what is doing to the movement. there was a lot of anguish and angst and people did not know how to respond. at the end he wins the election and has everybody on board. but, they had a long time when you think about what happened with the rest of the country, can you imagine what that was like for people to wake up the morning after the election of the one thing they knew would not happen. they did not know how things would go but the one thing they knew and felt very confident and secure and, that did not happen. they wake up and all of a sudden overnight they have to do it republicans and conservatives are doing for years. and i was coming to terms with this is real and it's happening. so sometimes i reflect on how people are reacting so's hysterically to the election of donald trump. but i try to also remember they do not have that link the time to get adjusted. now that it is july i feel like we need to step it up a little bit. part of what you're scene with the angst and with the media not knowing how to respond to the moment is them working out some of these issues you are talking about. they're trying to understand who'd we believe and trust. what is news and how to cover these things. i don't know how well they are doing but they are struggling. the struggle itself is going to be difficult for many people. hopefully they will get to a healthier place. >> i am a teacher. what you suggest when i am in front of my students and they are asking me about the media. i'm trying to stay as unbiased as possible. but you are going to sources and they are researching, what you suggest for someone like me and a position that i'm supposed to be unbiased, at the same time trying to teach them to be neutral. >> i think this is why so many people are frustrated with the ubiquity of anonymous forces and coverage of the trump administration. teaching people how to respond critically to a story they see, read, or hear is very important set. all americans should do is be in good health and members of the republic. the way you do it is by checking facts that are put in the story. you look at original sources to see if they were conveyed accurately. you think through your natural objections you might have to a storyline and where they placed in a story or not? when you see overreliance on anonymous sources which by definition cannot be checked for accuracy. i reference the cnn story where we are told james comey would testify under oath by people very close to him which is usually code for, call me. they have said things that were completely not true. what happened to those sources question what happened to the story? why were we not told what went wrong there? who messed that up? with a sources who give the false information outed which is something you can do if the source lies to you. they did not even talk about it. it's very hard to accept or trust a given story when media outlets are not providing that kind of transparency that would be very helpful right now. in general i grew up in a town with newspapers and it was awesome for learning how to evaluate new stories. you would learn how one reporter handled one event, how another reporter handled another and you see how they saw different things. would open up your mind to the possibility that once perspective can color how they treated new story. one thing you could do is encourage people to look at various sources on a given story. so if it's a hearing been covered look at how everybody is covering it. even a sporting event you can get compare and contrast ideas. >> do you have a feel on how the advertisers are responding to all of this? >> that's a great question and probably very significant. i don't know the answer to that at all. one thing the political left has been good at has been weapon i think commerce are advertisers and it probably will not take too long before the right figures out the method too. you see it in some political situations like having has a major corporations bully legislators into doing things that the citizens don't want because of the economic consequences. sometimes you see they will campaign to harm advertisers and certain shows. that is a game that can go both ways. i don't think it is a healthy game. the media outlet really loses its credibility i think the funder and the advertiser will start to take things more seriously. we might see what happens there pretty soon. >> my questions, do you see a worse relationship between media with president trump and -- liking him more. i am asking this question because as a journalist especially for many people from other countries they tell me that he should not have won the election the first place and even though he won the election he should have been out of office a long time ago. >> yes, the thing i like to say that the media and donald trump are in a dysfunctional codependent relationship. so they both feed off of attacking the other. it works out well for both of them. donald trump made it to the white house by attacking the media. clearly that is working. at the same time, ratings are off the hook for a lot of tv networks and subscriptions are up and people are enjoying the media balance against trump as well. they don't have strong incentives to change what they are doing. and yes, the anger i talk about is so serious among certain sectors of the american public. the ones that are frequently among the most marginalized that the more he attacks the media the more they feel he's doing it on behalf of him. they feel like they were brutalized by the media. when they see somebody punch .. is not something they will be upset about. if you are already a critic of trump you look at it think it's dangerous and horrible. it is not a healthy situation, particularly because nobody has an incentive to change right now. >> i appreciated your practical solution so, thank you for dealing with the media and the press. when and why do you think it became so slanted? is there anything different about trump, not necessarily worse, but anything particular from his presidency that is an anomaly? >> i do go into this on the broadside, that this breakdown in trust really occurred over decades. people keep thinking this trump event is singular. really, credibility for the media was declining for a long time before there were problems in major stories. i actually had this what is something that caused you to lose trust in the media and the diversity of responses was astounding. a lot of people did not like katrina coverage. it was not something i was tuned into. for some people it happened quite recently. you remember the "rolling stone" published a cover story and part of it was a national campaign by certain liberal groups to make college campus rape a big issue. so as part of that campaign they ran a cover story on how of brutal gang rape and at first the story which was written by -- received wide acclaim. people were praising it up and down. this brilliant piece of journalism. it turned out to be a hoax from the accuser that should have been caught 100 times over by the reporter and it wasn't senate admitted threading channels. it was a disaster. they had to pull the story under facing major lawsuits. before it was revealed it was a hoax story the fraternity had been kicked off campus. these are problems because of these falsehoods that were spread through the story. but seeing how powerful media institution like "rolling stone" supported by various other media and amplifying voices could push this agenda when it was based on nothing, a lot of people woke up to problems there. should also be pointed out the story was fraudulent by an independent blogger who just thought it was fishy. he was attacked mercilessly for santos. there is a reporter who dug into it would been questioned. by the time the washington post was raising questions people realize there is a problem. in fact it was the washington post in particular and a few other media outlets i did a good job holding that publication accountable. it would be nice also when people are criticizing what is happening in the media in terms of pushing narratives that they also realize the importance of having good critical responses in that same media environment as well. i think a lot of people see just the negative that comes from major media establishments. there is a lot of a negative. there's also important strengths that happen. >> thank you so much for your thoughtful remarks. i'm curious to know what your summer reading recommendations are? >> that's a great question which i should have a better answer. my husband and i have been reading through shakespeare a little bit every day. it's a good thing you can get through in a year. i'm so bad with names. i'm so sorry oh my gosh. anyway it's a daily reading guide and i highly recommend it. all things russia are self fascinating i am reading the nobel laureates work called i'm so bad at this. a big book on russia that everybody loved two years ago, secondhand memories or something like that, it's very interesting. i'll think of something a few minutes and get back to. >> i think you push back on this a little bit but the common conservative establishment narrative is that trump is hurting his agenda by the the it war with the media. you made a compelling case way just for a conservative mighty politician who love this country to try to attack that or breakdown the media power, are you opening to the agenda to do something to the media or break that power? or do not buy into that? >> on special reports in the night we were talking about donald trump's tweets. it was charles lane of the washington post pointed out that attacking the media is part of donald trump's agenda. is it distracting from his agenda, it is a major part of his agenda. there many reasons why. a somewhat surreal to look back on a major media theme up to this point. we have actually had six months of straight up hysteria on russia. based on, i will admit it does seem like maybe outgoing people did a really good job of giving the impression there something there. some point you have to ask, is there any fire here other than you people running around with your heads on fire. is there any actual thing here? we have had washington post, cnn and a few other outlets really pushing for something, who knows, maybe it will turn out to play this game sometimes when i joke about what would be the craziest sending 22017 and mine would be that putin really did for the russians really did create a manchurian candidate years ago and donald trump is a stooge of russia and of the white house. the be hilarious yet scary ending of 2017. barring that's unlikely outcome, it seems like we've had a lot of time wasted on something not very good to waste time on. if you're trying to have another agenda any of the media pushing this story, you need to push back on it. it's part of his agenda and even more than that if on the wrestling mean to be fascinating. if you're not reading but watching anything this summer, i highly recommend glow it's for gorgeous ladies of wrestling. on netflix. it's about a 19 area 80s era wrestling thing happening. i was not a wrestling fan in that time i've been learning a lot about the archer sports of wrestling. one of the things in this tv show is the character realizes she's a that this is also popular. when she says oh it's so popular, i cannot play this part i'm going to be the good girl, she's going to be the bad girl will have cartoonish storylines and so trump tweets out this wrestling mean and so he picks out different victims and this goes back to the codependence of a functional relationship. but it's part of his agenda. it also enables him to accomplish other things were there's the storyline of good guys and bad guys. >> thank you. i've enjoyed the talk so far. of fact checker.org, the fact checker of our media, how effective do you think they have been? >> it depends only think their goal is. if their goal is to discredit media fact checking, they have been incredibly effective. if their goal, actually my husband mark hemingway has written extensively about fact checking. i highly recommend his work on. one thing he points out a setback to check and came out of the environment where george bush won reelection. the media thought it should not have happened. it's like the fake version, if only they had the facts and we would've had our way. the country would've been saved. they set up these fact checks and then frequently fact checked things like prediction which is impossible, you cannot fact check a prediction about the future. when they fact checked things that could've in fact checked they didn't do a good job with balancing the weight of evidence. then my husband's favorite example that they six-time gave the claim that if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your health insurance. they fact check that is true sick six times before later ruling that there live there year after obama won reelection. in general i think there's an aspect of feeling for some establishment might be losing control of the narrative. they enjoyed the power they had when it was just a few media outlets. as things get more they feel like they're losing control and they think the thing to do is build a wall germany style to keep everything in and they can force people to accept their narrative. fact checking in that form has failed but people should probably be worried about freedom of expression or freedom of the press so later reiterations of that like social media giants determining what's real news and what's fake news like facebook, how they will please that the weather they allow information to be shared. there are some plans that certainly raise alarm bells for certain people on liberty. we should all be concerned about spreading false information. >> i read the washington post washington times. traveling around seems like the major newspapers in los angeles, boston, new york on the post all have a very liberal take on the news. the washington times located here i'm just wondering how throughout the nation the other story of what's happening with the trump administration and the good things happening, how to set get out? >> i think this is also part of what people find frustrating about trumps conquering of social media that is millions of followers on twitter and other social media forms. he is speaking directly to people with his own message. it's unfiltered and if you're concerned about truth that's both good and bad. president donald trump has not been known as the most accurate every tweet he sends. is able to communicate street to people without using filters. the filters having become too cumbersome or biased against certain people. i'm not entirely sure although i would say the election in 2016 provided good evidence conclusive evidence of media messaging not thinking through to a good portion of the electorate. you may remember the new york times had a front-page article same journalist have to throughout the journalism textbooks and how everything must be done to stop this person. that was a very overt statement explaining that was the perspective of a lot of reporters. a lot of people felt that. it was considered unacceptable to vote for donald trump. the fact that he one was an indication that people are getting their information from means other than mainstream media. >> i grew up hearing walter cronkite say the so it is. so the breakup of the media seems to be a good thing. at the same time they seem to have now lost so much credibility i don't know if they can reestablish, you talking from the very beginning what is that for country and for democratic conversation. >> all presidency should be held accountable and they need to be held accountable for the sake of the republic. it's important people have confidence in their institutions and that they feel they can trust this constitutional system we have. obviously the media fail to do that during the obama presidency. i think there is a good reason to believe they completely failed to do that during the obama era. now, they have lost credibility and i don't know if it can come back. this release are going to come back unless they know they have a problem and make changes. start with dramatic changes. if you ever really wrong someone else you know you need to make a dramatic show of your remorse. and truly change your ways. i'm christian and repentance it means to turn away from what you are doing. you repent you turn away from it not keep doing it. we need to see dramatic changes on how the media cover the people. how well they understand their views make systematic changes so you are not hiring for the same unlimited bubble from manhattan to and you think about how to diversify the political views in the newsroom and you make people who don't share the group until people feel comfortable and express those views. the reason it's important is because we need to have ways of holding people accountable it is very hard to get this white house to be -- when you are spending your time hunting down people who made a funny video mocking your network are talking about how many scoops of ice cream the president has forces other people. you need to have credibility because you want the voice that can fight to hold people accountable. the white house does not release the names of people who come visit. they also didn't do a good job this during the obama administration they would have meetings off-site. people should know was coming to the white house. we don't have a media strong enough or credible enough to push for that transparency. without that a lot of corruption can go forth and people lose confidence. that's not what we can have or forward in our system of government. i really hold these positions of authority in the media. think of how to regain i make real good faith efforts in this time thank you. [applause] . . two quick announcements. our next event on july 17, why the golden age of entertainment is so dark. sunny bunch is the film reviewer and christine solstice anderson with echelon insights. on july 27 we will host david randall who is with the national associative scholars to talk about beach books, summer readings and what most students are learning and not learning when they are assigned college reading for the summer. again, thank you for joining us, thank you mildly. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up tonight on c-span2, it's the tv in prime time. we will take a look at technology and the internet. venture capitalists got hartley discusses his book, the fuzzy and the techie from book expo videogame developer so we quinn discusses her book crash override. co-authors heather and sam on their book geek girl rising. university of arizona sociology professor is interviewed about her book, digitally enabled social change, activism in the internet age. seth stevens on his book everybody lies. the tv starting at 80 tonight on tv and two. in the meantime, a portion of today's "washington journal". >> cofounder and publisher of real clear politics joining usus from chicago this morning.atorsr they are in washington, republican senators areol hearing from folks back inin their state about the republican effort to place the affordable care act. what impact do you think this receil

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Germany , Washington , Kentucky , Boston , Massachusetts , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Town Hall , Russia , Michigan , Chicago , Illinois , Americans , America , Russians , American , Susan Collins , Andrew Breitbart , Michael Creighton , Elizabeth Warren , Hillsdale Lester , Los Angeles , James Comey , Sean Mccain , Tom Bevan , Ron Johnson , Abraham Lincoln , Mitt Romney , Mitch Mcconnell , Richard Nixon , Seth Stevens , Ted Cruz ,