Return to Transcripts main page

Reliable Sources

Clinton Campaign: The Narrative Changes; Interview with Rick Santorum; Trump and 9/11; Clash of Titans: NYT Versus Amazon; Fired "LA Times" Publisher Austin Beuter Speaks Out. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired October 25, 2015 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:00:08] BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST: Hey, good morning. I'm Brian Stelter. And it's time for RELIABLE SOURCES, our weekly look at the story behind the story, about news and pop culture getting made.

Now, ahead this hour, we have reaction to Fareed Zakaria's news-making interview with Tony Blair. The former British prime minister expressing regret for Iraq war mistakes.

Hear with me in just a few minutes -- moments, one of the few media figures who was against the invasion of 2003, TV legend Phil Donahue. He'll be here to respond to Blair and talk about that time in his life.

Plus, one of the candidates getting for this week's GOP debate. Rick Santorum, talking about the red news/blue news divide in this country.

And later, Amazon versus "The New York Times". We'll get to the bottom of what their spat is all about.

But, first, there had been huge developments in politics this week. And as I follow the coverage, I've been thinking a lot about how the press is framing these stories. You probably noticed it, too, right? How we're always chasing after the narrative, the satisfying framing that makes a story a story.

And this week, the Hillary Clinton story is clear. She is crushing it.

Here she is with Katy Perry last night. You know, she's coming off last week's dominant performance. She's dominating the polls.

And, of course, this week, Joe Biden announced he's not running for president around the same time Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb pulled out of race.

So, much of the press declared her the winner after her 11-hour grilling from the House Benghazi panel. So, it all adds up, right? Clinton can do no wrong.

Well, let's think about this -- it wasn't that long ago the narrative was very different. Bernie Sanders was surging, Biden was looming, and the steady drip, drip, drip of e-mail stories was dragging down Clinton's poll numbers. Let's take a look just back in time a little bit, just one month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS: Double digits? She's down double digits in New Hampshire?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, here you are all over again looking at an election that is effectively hers to lose. She's losing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a disaster for her because it goes to competence. It goes to judgment. It goes to the most basic issues you ask of a presidential candidate.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Don't tell anybody. I think they're getting nervous. Don't tell anybody.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

STELTER: That was the narrative. But now, we're hearing something completely different.

So let's talk about it with Molly Ball, political writer at "The Atlantic", David Zurawik, TV critic for "The Baltimore Sun", and conservative radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt.

Thank you all for being here.

I want to start with you, Molly, because you cover these developments day in and day out. Has the narrative shifted that dramatically in a month? And if so, is the press getting ahead of the facts of the matter?

MOLLY BALL, THE ATLANTIC: I think the facts have shifted. I mean, all of the things that you named, we always say, you know, three makes a trend. So, we've got at least three data points to say that things are going well for Hillary right now. We've got the debate, we've got the Benghazi hearing, we've got Joe Biden dropping out.

So, yes, there is a sense that the reality has shifted and based on that the narrative has shifted. Some of the bad stories were always a little bit blown out of proportion. She was never losing but she was getting nervous like Bernie said in that clip, you know? Her people were getting very nervous.

So, I think as reporters, we respond to the vibe from inside the campaign and from our sources and people around Hillary were feeling very nervous and they're now feeling a lot better.

STELTER: Some of the negative coverage, as I said before, is it possible, David Zurawik, that some of the positive coverage is being overstated now. To me it feels like we're on this roller coaster ride, up and down and it's all so dramatic.

DAVID ZURAWIK, BALTIMORE SUN: Well, I think, Brian, some of it is overstated right now because we still have the FBI investigation. And, you know, her relationship to the truth, something could come out at any time. So, I wouldn't get carried away.

But, Brian, something humongous happened this week. And there's narratives and then there's narratives. There's narratives we construct in the media to help people make sense of a myriad of all kinds of information. Totally agree with Molly.

But this is a bit -- there are bigger narratives like the hero quest and the mono myth that every culture has had. Hillary Clinton's moment in that room was a hero quest moment where she's -- I'm surrounded by my enemies. Rescue me and she rescued herself. I think that's what people are feeling, because when you tap into those uber narratives of culture, what -- you get all these psychic energy, Carl Jung talk about it, and that's the energy that is felt now out on her campaign trail. It was a huge moment.

I'm not saying something bad can't happen especially with the Clintons, but I have to tell you, I watched it and I thought oh, my Lord, I can't believe the Republicans are going into primetime and they made it an epic struggle for her with it for the 11 hours that everyone talks about.

STELTER: What you're saying remind of FOX's coverage that day. As we all know, FOX News has been one of the media drivers of the Benghazi story.

[11:05:00] In some ways, FOX has made it and continue to make it a story. Yet, FOX was the network that cut away around 5:00 p.m. after many hours of hearing.

I think two things were happening there, David. Tell me what you think, I think number one, FOX always tends to cut out of news and go to its regularly scheduled programs because they rate well. If Clinton had been on the ropes and struggling, FOX probably would have continued to show the hearing, don't you think?

ZURAWIK: Yes, Brian, you know, I have to agree with you. I always hate to read what's in the minds of networks but given the coverage they gave it before -- yes, I think you're absolutely right.

I think that was a devastating thing for many people who wanted to see her taken down in that public forum. It was painful for them I think to watch. FOX News knew that. Now, FOX's narrative is, look, where there was a lot of coverage, look at our ratings for primetime. You know, they were twice as high as anyone else -- fine. That's their narrative, but I think you're absolutely right in what you're saying, yes.

STELTER: I thought Megyn Kelly picked up the prosecution at 9:00 p.m., did a better job in some ways than Trey Gowdy did.

Let me bring in Hugh Hewitt on this because, Hugh, we know you're no friend of Hillary Clinton. What was your take on the coverage of her ever since the hearing on Thursday? Do you feel this narrative, we saw them, a banner at the bottom of the screen a couple of minutes ago that Clinton is having her best week ever, a very good week. Is it fair? Is it accurate? HUGH HEWITT, CONSERVATIVE HOST: No, I dissent. It's a good thing not

to live in the Manhattan beltway bubble because you see things differently.

Going into the hearing, Mrs. Clinton had a three part problem. She's viewed as untrustworthy and she's viewed as corrupt and she's viewed incompetent. The e-mail to her daughter on her daughter Chelsea on the night of the attack proves that she's very untrustworthy. The Blumenthal emails that came out in the hearing proved that she's very corrupt. And the fact that the Libyan adventure went so awry as Susan Brooks demonstrated with the stacks of e-mails I think underscored her competent tenure at State, which was actually catastrophic.

And add to this meta narrative: on Friday, Mrs. Clinton went in to "Rachel Maddow Show" and proclaimed the V.A. scandal as overstated. That resulted in the death of 35 veterans and 120,000 veterans not being seen across the United States. So, she stepped on her own week.

So, I know there's a lot of celebration going on inside the beltway. But, in fact, her major problems remain, her major problems. And my guest on Friday on my show was Bob Woodward who volunteered the parallels between Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton are compelling especially when we they come to secrecy, and I'll leave it at that. She's got a long way to come back. And her numbers didn't turn around this week.

STELTER: Let me ask, Molly about that.

Are we hearing the Clinton campaign pushing this narrative of her? Let's the "Politico" magazine cover, "Hillary's Best Week Ever". Are we seeing the Clinton campaign pushing that narrative, Molly, in order to maybe pull attention away from some of the comments that Hugh was just making, some of the things we did learn at the 11-hour hearing on Thursday?

BALL: I don't think they really feel that there's anything to distract from, because they do feel that the hearing went so well.

STELTER: OK.

BALL: I mean, Hugh may be right the comments about the V.A. are something that could come back to haunt her. But this is something, frankly, that Clinton's people were anticipating even before this week.

I wrote in a story right after the debate that they were looking forward to October as being a turn around month because they anticipated she would do well at that hearing. They anticipated that whatever decision Joe Biden made would lead to a good news cycle for her, because if he gets in, there's a cycle that's maybe tougher on him now that he's candidate, and if he gets out, it boosts her potential inevitability or at least front-runner status. So, they were anticipating that October would be a good month and he --

(CROSSTALK) STELTER: This is partly why -- this is partly why to me it feels somewhat artificial, the idea that they can look ahead, months ahead of time and say, oh, well, that's going to be our come back time.

BALL: Not months ahead. Days ahead.

STELTER: Oh, days ahead. OK.

BALL: And she could have stumbled in that hearing, right?

STELTER: That's true.

BALL: She could have stumbled in the debate. It's the performance I think that led to the narrative.

STELTER: Let's turn to Joe Biden. I don't think we should let this week pass without looking back at some of the reporting that we heard in the days he decided to not run for president. Now, here's just a few examples, from Monday and Tuesday, what was being said about Biden, how close we were coming to saying he was actually running before deciding not to run.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Joe Biden fever kicking into high gear with several sources saying the vice president is ready to jump in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three sources telling our own Ed Henry that Joe Biden is expected to get in this race.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A lot of sources whom I'm talking to think it really looks and smells, and tastes like a presidential run.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe Biden is gong to get in. I'm quite confident. I think he'll get in tomorrow or Tuesday. He'll go to Delaware presumably and announce to the state he represented in the Senate for so many years. I think he will be a strong candidate.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

STELTER: Obviously, some of this was sourcing. Sources believed Biden was going to do. Maybe Biden was going to jump in the race.

But isn't some of this also about the responsibility of journalists not to get out ahead of what we know to be true, which is that sometimes the most important sources of all are the ones that aren't commenting at all?

ZURAWIK: Brian, absolutely. And we are so bad with anonymous -- I mean, we've just given up the ghost on this.

[11:10:03] We'll just say a source said. People don't try to get them on record.

You and I both, you get somebody on the record and they're much more serious and responsible about what they say. The other thing is I think people wanted this to happen so bad. And I sort of did a gut check and ask myself, well, is it because the contestant fight will be better for democracy or is that that we love chaos in a way? And I think the criticism of us that wanting this kind of chaos, that that would have engendered is part of it.

One last thing on Hugh. Hugh, I don't live -- the bubble I live in is the dreaded Baltimore bubble. I'm not part of New York access on this. So, I just want to let you know, it's not all New York analysis of Hillary's epic victory in that hearing room.

STELTER: Hugh, what were you going to say?

HEWITT: I was going to say, look, about Biden, the Browns are playing the Rams later today. I'm a Cleveland Browns fan. I really want them to win. So, I tend to read things that indicate they're doing very well. Confirmation bias.

I really wanted Joe Biden to run because I cannot imagine having to watch five more Democratic debates without him. It's like Hillary playing the Washington Generals from the old Harlem Globetrotter days. It's a terrible nightmare. It's a desert of television that we have to get through with Hillary versus Bernie Sanders.

So, we wanted Joe Biden to run, because it would have made it interesting in our business. Unfortunately, it's not. Now we have to watch those five debates between Hillary and Bernie Sanders, without even the block of granite Lincoln Chafee to help us or the inscrutable Jim Webb to make it more interesting.

It's unfortunate reality. We wanted Joe Biden to run. He didn't run.

And, by the way, I think Baltimore is between Manhattan and D.C., so you are in that bubble, David.

BALL: You can get there on the Acela.

(LAUGHTER)

ZURAWIK: Very good, Hugh.

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: What you're describing, Hugh, is conflict bias, right? Not so much liberal or conservative but conflict which might be the most common of all of them.

Well, it's great to talk with all of you. Thank you so much.

HEWITT: Yes, and that's why the Browns are going to win today, Brian.

(LAUGHTER)

STELTER: All right. We heard it hear first.

Molly, David, Hugh, thank you all for being here. ZURAWIK: Thank you.

BALL: Thank you.

HEWITT: Thank you.

STELTER: Up next, a presidential candidate telling me he likes going on programs that disagree with him. Hear why and what he thinks about media bias when we come back.

And later in the program, talk show legend Phil Donohue, he'll join me live. And I'll ask him, does he believe he should be back on television speaking his beliefs about the Iraq war and other stories of the day.

We'll be right back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:16:04] STELTER: Donald Trump loves polls. He wields them like weapons in arguments. But he says he doesn't believe two new polls, including this one from Bloomberg and "The Des Moines Register" that show Ben Carson beating him in Iowa.

Yes, suddenly, Donald Trump is changing his tune.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm number two in Iowa. I said I don't believe it. One, is Bloomberg, they hate me. The other one is a super liberal newspaper, "The Des Moines Register", which is third rate, totally third rate, not respected in Iowa. It's a third rate crummy newspaper.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STELTER: That's technically not true. It's actually the most read, most known newspaper in Iowa.

Now, while Trump and Carson together still have 50 percent support, in very early polls of the GOP electorate, 12 other candidates are splitting the other 50 percent, like Rick Santorum. He's one of those 12. He's prepping for his third debate coming this Wednesday on CNBC. And for the third time, he's stuck in the second tier. That's the so- called undercard debate at 6:00 p.m.

Why? Because the self-proclaimed patron saint of underdog candidates is polling either at or sometimes below the 1 percent mark in a year when early national polls and pervasive press coverage of the horse race has really changed the dynamic.

I spoke with him early. I had a surprising take on our polarized political media.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STELTER: Senator Santorum, thank you so much for being here this morning.

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much, Brian. Good to be with you on your show.

STELTER: I'm curious to hear your reaction to the Benghazi hearing that dominated this channel and all the other cable news channels on Thursday. Do you feel that press was creeping into the coverage especially afterwards when Hillary was pretty much unanimously declared the winner?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, obviously, if you depend on the station you watched, you got what you ordered up, if you will. I think the way I looked at it was I think she had some strong moments where she kept her cool through the process. But it was pretty clear she had information on the night of the horrible incident that said that it had nothing to do with the video and it had everything to do with some sort of al Qaeda offshoot that attacked the embassy. And she went out there and didn't tell truth to the American public.

STELTER: Benghazi is an example of red news, blue news.

SANTORUM: Yes.

STELTER: Depending on what you watch or what you read, you're going to get a different kind of coverage. Do you think that sort of partisanship in the press is something that is really undermining trust in the media? Does it -- I'd even go further -- does it hurt our country to have so many versions of the news sometimes at polar opposites?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, that's really -- I think in some respects, the media has followed what's going on on the Internet. I mean, everybody is getting their news now from the trusted sites and the trusted sites are the people who agree with you. That's where you go for your news now. I think people are now oriented to try to get their news from people they agree with, that their point of view is resonant.

So, I think we're off in a new world until some other technology gets to change us back. I don't know.

STELTER: Does it hurt your campaign that there's these different prisms through which we can view the news, or does it help your campaign because you're able to go to conservative media outlets that are more likely to be supportive of you?

SANTORUM: Well, I would say both. I actually -- to be honest with you, I enjoy, maybe even more sometimes going on the shows that don't agree with me because it gives me the opportunity to deal with some of the criticisms that you see out there that sometimes go unattended.

STELTER: I remember your appearance on Rachel Maddow's program over the summer. You mean something like that?

SANTORUM: Yes. No, it's a good example. I mean, I went on "The View" a few weeks ago. I mean, I really feel like the best thing you can do to combat some of this siloing of our news is to go in the other silos and take it on.

[11:20:01] It also makes you -- I think it makes you a better candidate, number one.

STELTER: Yes.

SANTORUM: Because you're dealing with the tough issues and a tough audience. I mean, I went on Bill Maher show and did the same thing. And I think it's important that candidates just don't go to friendly audiences and friendly media. But when you're president you're going to have to deal with all the media.

STELTER: I'm curious why you think all the interviews you're doing are not translating to more support in the polls?

SANTORUM: I would tell you that 90 percent of the interviews I do, Brian, you know what they say? Well, you know, here's where you are in the polls, and, you know, why aren't you doing so well in the polls? And very few of the interviews that you do in this election cycle, which is really different than four years ago, have really anything to do with issue debates.

The reason is because we've let -- I think the RNC is a big part of the blame. They've limited the number of debates. They've limited the subject matters. Because of that, the substance that was very much driving the debate four years ago has really been -- is assumed to how well you do on the national polls, because if you do well in the national polls, you can get into these very rare debates.

STELTER: Looking ahead to Wednesday's debate on CNBC, what are you hoping will be different this time? This is the third debate where you'll be on the junior varsity stage. I wonder what you're hoping for that will be different.

SANTORUM: Well, I thought the earlier debates have been pretty substantive. I think the one out at Simi Valley was actually a substantive debate in the early rounds, less so in my opinion on the latter ones.

I guarantee you someone from that first -- these early debates is going to finish in the top three or four in Iowa and be one of the folks who has chance to win this race. And, obviously, I believe it's me. But I can tell you, historically, it's always been someone.

So, the fact that we don't have more equality of treatment of the candidates, I think, is another black eye for the RNC and for folks who are putting these debates together.

STELTER: Do you think the press actively tries to kick people like you out of race by harping on poll numbers, by harping on low standings in the polls.

SANTORUM: I don't think it's deliberate in the sense that they want to hurt a particular candidate.

STELTER: Yes. SANTORUM: Frankly, I just don't think they're particularly knowledgeable. I don't think they understand the dynamics of a presidential elections and so, they get into this simplistic thing that if you're low in the polls, somehow or another, you have no chance of winning, when in fact, in the past, that's not been the case.

And so, they sort of blindly follow this narrative. I think it's unfortunate. I think if these reporters would stop just focusing so much on the horse race and actually focus on the substantive difference between the candidates, they can actually have more impact on the horserace than talking about who's in first and who's in last.

STELTER: Thank you so much for being here this morning. Great talking with you.

SANTORUM: Thank you so much, Brian.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STELTER: And up next here on the program, before there was Oprah, there was Phil, pioneering television host Phil Donahue here to talk about that other TV guy, Donald Trump, who's running for president. And whether or not Trump is changing the way people talk about 9/11, and even express dissent about Iraq. A must-see conversation live right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:27:35] STELTER: Donald Trump is doing something very few have dared to do in the last 14 years. Through his critics of Jeb Bush, Trump is also openly criticizing Jeb's brother, former President George W. Bush, specifically challenging his lack of action in the months before the 9/11 attacks.

These are some of the headlines in the past few days. One Web site is writing that Trump was defying a taboo.

And I've been thinking about the same thing. As Elizabeth Drew wrote her in the "The New York Review of Books", this topic, Bush's conduct, has long been considered unfit for political discussion.

And Trump, of all people, has cracked it wide open. He's also criticized Jeb about his brother's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

So, Trump's comments beg the question, is there more room now for dissent? More openness now to speak in way that was blasted as unpatriotic back in the 2000s?

Joining me is Phil Donahue, a TV legend and hosted more 5,000 episodes of his time day talk show and then joined MSNBC. I want to get into your time at MSNBC.

But I wanted to start with Trump and with 9/11, because I hadn't heard many public figures raise this issue before about what would have happened in the months before 9/11, about the warnings that Bush received but apparently didn't take action about. Were you surprised to see Donald Trump of all people raise this?

PHIL DONAHUE, FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: After what he had already said, I can't say I was totally surprised.

STELTER: No more surprise when it comes to Trump, huh?

DONAHUE: Remember this, Brian -- the wars itself, the wars that we're never engaged in in the Middle East never come up in the campaign at all. They didn't come up in '12.

I think it was Rand Paul that said, why are we having all these wars? You remember him saying that?

STELTER: And Lincoln Chafee also brought this up at the Democratic debate a few -- couple of weeks ago. Now, he's out of the race.

DONAHUE: The only Republican to vote against the war, by the way, during the Iraq resolution in October of 2002 in which 20 -- only 23 members of the Senate voted no. Seventy-seven members of the United States Senate voted to invade Iraq.

And, by the way, speaking of RELIABLE SOURCES, every major metropolitan newspaper in this country supported editorially the invasion of Iraq. Now, if I'm wrong, if there's someone we know that Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, Knight Ridder, they did say, hey, wait, where's the evidence of weapons of mass, we can't find? And they were patronized, dismissed and not -- and, to this day, I -- I don't think they even won a Pulitzer.

[11:30:13]

So, we're walking away from the biggest blunder in modern times. I mean, four million -- 4,000 Americans are dead, four million refugees, uncounted number of injuries, many of them catastrophic. And it's off the table. In the land of free speech, in the land of the First Amendment, nobody is discussing this during the presidential campaign.

STELTER: Let me ask about 2003, when you were a host on MSNBC. You had an 8:00 p.m. talk show. It was a very big deal for MSNBC to hire you. You were up against Bill O'Reilly. You were trying to be the liberal Bill O'Reilly.

Your program was canceled in February of 2003. Later, AllYourTV.com found a memo from NBC that said you were a difficult public face at a time of war. In other words, your program was too anti-war, you were too liberal at the time, bringing on too many anti-war guests.

DONAHUE: Right.

STELTER: Is that truly what happened? Were you canceled because you were against the war?

DONAHUE: Well, the memo was published by "The New York Times." We were told that we had to have two conservatives on for every liberal.

STELTER: I have rarely heard you speak about these times, this time when you were canceled, when you show was taken off the air. What do you think about nowadays? Do you reflect on that and feel that you were censored?

DONAHUE: Well, I don't think there's any doubt about it in my mind.

But I don't particularly want to go out. They fired me. They fired me. Easy, big fellow. There are people coming home dead here, and you're complaining about losing your job.

STELTER: So, that's why you didn't speak out?

(CROSSTALK)

DONAHUE: I have stayed small on that.

But it is an interesting study. And I have thought about it, as you might guess, more than most people. It's an interesting study in corporate media.

STELTER: MSNBC later pivoted very much to the progressive direction.

DONAHUE: Yes, it did.

STELTER: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and others. And the highest ratings still come from programs like Rachel Maddow's.

But that said, that was a decision based on ratings. The removal of your show was also partly based on ratings. Right? It wasn't doing as well as they wanted.

DONAHUE: It was also partially based on the fact that General Electric owned MSNBC.

STELTER: GE, a major defense contractor, also the owner of NBC.

DONAHUE: And here you got this gray-haired talk show host on complaining about Donald Rumsfeld. He's their biggest customer.

STELTER: NBC now owned by Comcast. Do you feel that's a better owner for NBC than GE?

DONAHUE: When I was a -- just let me take one second. This is important to me.

I was a reporter in Adrian, Michigan, for a radio station. I was a reporter because I said I was a reporter. I was the news director. I was the only member of the news department of this small radio station. And I was impressed with how powerful it was. I could stop the mayor and I covered fires.

I had -- took no test to be the reporter. I didn't have to pee in a bottle. I just said I was a reporter. That's the way you want it. That way, you get a whole bunch of reporters, because maybe then somewhere in the collective middle of this large crowd will be found the truth. Today, that middle is occupied by six multibillion-dollar

multinational companies that are media companies much more interested in the price of their stock, including Comcast, than they are in spending money that -- for example, for an investigative report that may go nowhere and cost a lot of money and result in no copy.

Media does not want to rock the boat. Media is a boat. And until we get more Amy Goodmans, people who from the ground up are not worried about sponsor pressure, don't care if the White House calls them back -- David Halberstam told me this. You can't cover Henry and have dinner with Henry.

And Henry was -- it's like fraternization in the military. You can get the brig for talking, fraternizing with the enemy. They will throw you in jail. That's because it's hard to shoot a guy after he's shown you a picture of his kids. Similarly...

STELTER: The coziness you're describing...

DONAHUE: Well, there's far too many -- and it's a problem because the media will say we got to have our sources. And that's true. And that's true.

STELTER: I like to have a lot of journalists on. I'm OK with having journalists be friendly with sources. But then I want some other journalist to be much more adversarial. We want a mix of both.

Let me ask you about something that just aired here on CNN in the last hour about the Iraq War, about 2003, because Fareed Zakaria has a documentary airing tomorrow about the legacy of our time in Iraq. He interviewed Tony Blair. And Tony Blair made really some remarkable comments about regret. Here's what he said.

[11:35:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I can say that I apologize for fact that the intelligence we received was wrong. I can also apologize, by the way, for some of the mistakes in planning and certainly our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you remove the regime. But I find it hard to apologize for removing Saddam.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STELTER: What he's saying there is that he does express some regret about the intelligence being wrong, but not for removing Saddam.

DONAHUE: Right.

STELTER: When you hear something like that from one of the architects of the war, the war that you tried to speak out against, how do you feel?

DONAHUE: Well, first of all, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was never a threat to this country.

And what he's saying, well, is, I'm sorry the intelligence was wrong. Don't blame me.

This is what you get when you don't obey the Constitution. The framers were right. It's too much of a temptation to give to one man. That's why you want Congress to vote up or down. They don't do that anymore. It's too dangerous politically. They just go here, Mr. President, if you think you have to, go ahead. That way, if he goes ahead, they can say, well, we thought he said -- which is what Tony Blair is doing there. It's a cover your butt strategy.

STELTER: Donald Trump said this morning he thinks we would be better off if Saddam was still in power.

What do you feel? How do you -- let me back up. What do you make of Donald Trump's presence in this race? I ask because you're a television legend. And Trump learned about television for 10 years on "The Apprentice. " You must see that reflected in his campaign, right?

DONAHUE: I learned a long time ago during the 29 years we were on the air you have to entertain the people. And that's what Donald Trump is.

Also, this is a fascinating phenomenon in American politics. What I find most interesting is, the crowds he draws, they're all white.

STELTER: Mostly white.

DONAHUE: Almost exclusively. Sure, you're going to always -- it's a big country. And we have lots of ethnicity here, more than any other nation on Earth, but it's a white crowd, Brian.

They're South. They're Rocky Mountain West and they're scared. And they're very angry. And finally they have got somebody speaking for them. And he's up against all these gray figures in the same kind of clothes and the same boring ties and black dark suits.

He's like a guy with a top hat and cane jumping out of a cake. And he's riveting. And he owns media. You guys can't -- the reliable sources can't wait to put him on either their front page of their newspaper or -- and remember this about the reliable sources.

The coin of the realm -- and you know this, Brian. I don't mean to patronize you. The coin of the realm is the size of the audience.

STELTER: For sure.

So, I wonder, do you wish you were back on TV every day? Would you like to have a regular perch again?

DONAHUE: Well, if I were on TV today, I guarantee you I would have Donald Trump on my show.

STELTER: I bet you would. DONAHUE: I have to acknowledge this.

STELTER: I would love to see you interview Trump someday.

DONAHUE: I would love to have the opportunity.

But we never got along when he did. He was on my show a couple of times.

STELTER: Didn't get along?

DONAHUE: And he was a hot dog then.

STELTER: In the meantime, it's a real thrill to have you on the program. Thank you for being here.

DONAHUE: Well, pleasure. Thank you, Brian.

STELTER: It's great to see you.

DONAHUE: Pleasure.

STELTER: And a reminder about that documentary I mentioned, Fareed Zakaria's documentary, "Long Road to Hell: America in Iraq." It airs tomorrow night, Monday night, 9:00 p.m. Eastern time here on CNN.

Coming up here on RELIABLE SOURCES, a clash of the titans, "The New York Times" vs. Amazon. But is this actually a proxy war for a much larger, larger, larger battle?

And, later, a whole new ball game for the NFL and Yahoo!, the first ever free live-stream of a game. But will fans rush in to see it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:43:20]

STELTER: Hey. Welcome back.

This next story is fascinating. It's a word of words that has been reignited in a very public feud between two media giants, "The New York Times" and Amazon.com.

It all started in August when "The Times" published this scathing expose of what it called Amazon's hellish workplace culture. You can see a quote there. "Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry."

Well, nearly two months later, Amazon's spokesperson Jay Carney is fighting back. He said that that quote was from someone that shouldn't have been quoted. He published a blistering attack on the "Times" reporting on the Web site Medium.

And then the "Times"' editor in chief, Dean Baquet, responded on Medium with his own post, basically defending all the reporting and saying "The Times" stands by the story.

What's really going on here? Are we witnessing a very public P.R. war or something bigger, a proxy war, a clash of cultures?

Let me bring in John Herrman. He's written a little about this. He's the co-editor of The Awl and one of the sharpest minds about media today.

And I wanted to ask you about this, first on just this Amazon vs. "New York Times" level. Amazon is run by Jeff Bezos. He also owns "The Washington Post," one of the biggest rivals of "The New York Times." Do you think something could be going on where these two papers are duking it out?

JOHN HERRMAN, CO-EDITOR, THE AWL: That's kind of where your imagination goes first with this, paper vs. paper, publication vs. publication, mogul vs. opponent.

What I think is happening here is a much bigger transformation in media, in the post element is almost a distraction.

STELTER: You say it's media vs. technology.

HERRMAN: Right.

STELTER: Let me read actually a line from your column about this a few days ago.

You wrote that "The rise of these platforms has corresponded with chaos and decline and confusion in the industry that covers them. These companies are not just subjects but business partners and, ultimately, rivals."

You went on to say, "To pretend that we're collectively and individually above this is ridiculous."

[11:45:05]

John, you're saying that I or you or anybody here can't really cover Google or Facebook or Apple or Amazon objectively, because ultimately they are taking away audience and attention from the CNNs of the world?

HERRMAN: Well, I don't think it's fair to say that we can't cover these companies, but I think we should understand and our readers should understand that that's where we're coming from.

And when I talk about these platforms, I'm talking about Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat and Google, these companies that have gradually sort of set themselves up between publications and media companies and their readers.

STELTER: And just to be clear for viewers at home, what you mean by that is, when we wake up in morning and we look at Google News or Twitter or Facebook instead of "The New York Times" app or the CNN app, that's how they're in between the consumers and the makers of news.

HERRMAN: Right. And so that's a pretty big demotion for the media, at least as it

existed before. It's not that the media can't still reach many, many people. It's just that it's reaching so many of these people through these platforms.

And so when you're talking about Amazon and you're trying to cover Amazon as an advertising-supported media company, you're covering a company that not only does its founder own one of the largest papers in the country. It's a company that's completely disrupted book publishing, that has changed the way books are distributed.

When you talk about Facebook as a reporter, as a media reporter, you're talking about a company that's fundamentally changed how media is distributed. And as a reporter who was working before the rise of these platforms, you have to feel a little bit threatened and kind of insecure for your job.

STELTER: We all have a dog in this fight?

HERRMAN: Yes, absolutely.

And I think the tech companies, from these more established tech companies like Amazon to start-ups, have sort of recognized this brewing antagonism in the press and have seized this opportunity as their power sort of increases in the world...

STELTER: So, they're fighting back.

HERRMAN: ... to fight back directly.

STELTER: And that explain Carney's long letter where he addresses some of the specific criticisms of the "Times"' story.

HERRMAN: Right. Exactly.

That was published on a site called Medium.com, which is not a competing publication. It wasn't "The Post." It wasn't a friendly show. It wasn't in the way a politician might respond.

STELTER: Sort of neutral ground to go ahead and post their rebuttal. And you saw this back and forth there.

HERRMAN: Right.

STELTER: But you're saying this is going to happen more and more often as media and tech collide.

HERRMAN: Right.

And this rebuttal wasn't just picking out problems with the "Times"' story, although it did do that very assertively. It called into question the method the story was reported in, the sources that the story used. It went into like personnel matters to address this, which is really like a pretty almost vicious response.

But it criticized the whole enterprise of "The Times" and the whole point of the story. You had Jay Carney, former press secretary for the president, now a global communications director for Amazon, lecturing the public about what journalism should be, what journalism 101 is, what standard practice is.

STELTER: And, of course, increasingly, not Amazon, but Facebook or Twitter or some of these others might get into journalism themselves or at least editing, which changes the variables even more.

John, great to see you today.

HERRMAN: Thank you.

STELTER: Thank you for being here.

Coming up here, more on this topic actually. Can the local paper be saved? The former or maybe future publisher of "The L.A. Times" speaks with me about his plans for the comeback when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:52:01]

STELTER: Welcome back.

The future of local newspapers affects all of us, because papers still form the backbone of the American news media.

But many papers are struggling to survive, as the Internet swallows up all forms of media. You can probably feel it at home, right? Does your Sunday paper ever feel thinner than it did 10 years ago? I feel like I always see myself with the paper noticing how thin it is these days.

Well, venture capitalist and former Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles Austin Beutner says a lot of the blame for this falls at the feet of newspaper owners. He says they have not moved to the Web fast enough. And he might have a chance to try his own way, because a group of businessmen in L.A. are plotting a bid to buy "The Los Angeles Times."

He says he's not involved, but he is well aware of what is going on. He could become the publisher. But you know what? I'm leaving out the most important detail. What makes this story so great that is Beutner already was the publisher of "The L.A. Times."

Last month, he was fired after clashing with the Chicago-based parent company, Tribune Broadcasting.

So, now, in his first TV interview since being fired, I asked him about the latest round of cutbacks at "The Times." And he says owners like Tribune need to recognize that, without journalists, these news organizations have nothing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AUSTIN BEUTNER, FORMER "LOS ANGELES TIMES" PUBLISHER: The foundation of that enterprise is the quality of the journalist. So, let's distinguish the form factor from the newsroom. And it's the

investment in the newsroom that's going to make you a winner in any form of distribution, most specifically digital.

STELTER: And we have seen so many layoffs, so many thousands of local journalists laid off in the last 10 years, partly because of these changes involving the Internet.

BEUTNER: Partly because of the changes, and partly because many of these businesses don't have a plan or a strategy to go forward.

Avram Miller of Intel Capital used to kind of famously say, our plan for tomorrow cannot only be to hope today lasts longer. And think about that in the contents of many -- in the context of many legacy news organizations, how their plan seems to be, well, let's just hope tomorrow looks like today.

Well, it's not going to. How quickly can we move to look like tomorrow, understanding the foundation piece is the journalist?

STELTER: Jack Griffin, the CEO of Tribune, was recently quoted saying that he's bullish on print, that he believes even young people who are right now so digitally focused will over time come to love print newspapers, come to subscribe to print newspapers.

I see you smiling a little bit. I wonder if you agree or disagree.

BEUTNER: We will see. Time will tell. That feels a little bit like "Back to the Future Part II," Cubs winning the World Series. Didn't quite happen that way.

(LAUGHTER)

STELTER: Yes, it didn't quite happen that way.

So, you believe young people and all people will be reading newspapers online, not in print?

BEUTNER: I have four children. All of them see the world first through their handheld device.

That doesn't mean "The Los Angeles Times," its brand, its form of journalism can't be relevant. But if we're expecting them to sit at the kitchen table and leaf through the newspaper to start their day, I think that's less likely to happen.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STELTER: Much more to come, as this group of businessmen try to take over "The L.A. Times."

At CNNMoney.com/media, you can see even more of my interview with Austin Beutner.

[11:55:01]

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STELTER: And finally this morning, a first for the NFL.

Today, one of its football games is being live-streamed only, no national TV. The deal's with Yahoo! Yahoo! paid many of millions of dollars for the rights to this one Bills-Jaguars game. It's not very exciting as a game, but this is a glimpse of the future, probably the distant future.

Most TV deals for the NFL are locked up through 2022, but there is a Thursday night package of games, the ones on CBS this season, that are actually going to be available for bidding next year. So Yahoo! or Google or CBS, some broadcaster or some Webcaster could end up with the rights.

You can read more about that on CNNMoney.com/media, along with the rest of our week's media coverage.

I'm out of time here.