Return to Transcripts main page

Reliable Sources

How to Keep Up With All of the Lies; NBC's Big Mistake About Michael Cohen; Giuliani Comments Discussed; Afghanistan Violence Examined. Aired 11a-12n ET

Aired May 06, 2018 - 11:00   ET


[11:00:09] BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST: It's time to say enough is enough.

I'm Brian Stelter and this is RELIABLE SOURCES, our weekly look at the story behind the story, of how the media really works and how the news gets made.

This hour, we have a rare interview with a former Trump aide who sat down with the special counsel. We'll find out what he learned and what he wants the president to know.

Also this morning, new revelations that CBS managers were warned about Charlie Rose's behavior. One of his accusers is here for her very first TV interview.

And later, we're heading to Kabul where World Press Freedom Day was absolutely tragic. Ten journalists killed in Afghanistan this week. We'll talk with one of the reporters who had to bury his friends.

But first, back here in the U.S., enough is enough. The lies, the deceit, the fearmongering. Journalists increasingly are feeling empowered to call out the Trump White House's lies because the evidence is right on tape. It made me wonder at the end of a long week, was this a lie, too?


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe. I will never put anyone's interests ahead of yours.


STELTER: That was from the campaign. But this now, the Trump presidency, this is what a crisis of leadership looks and feels like. Every week, another scandal, every week, another cover-up.

This week, it involved Rudy Giuliani. You see him there on "Hannity." He was talking about Stormy Daniels and the payoff and questions about when she was really paid off and how, when did Trump know. Were laws violated? And were there other Stormys, too?

He was on ABC's "This Week" just a couple of hours ago, and he didn't rule it out. This week, I have to admit I chuckled at some of the banners on screen, some of the headlines calling this a White House credibility crisis. I mean, that is true. That's objectively true. It is a crisis, but it's been true since day one.

Reporters are always trained to cover what's new, what's different, what do you got? What's happening? But the Trump's fibs and falsehoods are the opposite. They're not new. He's been behaving this way his whole life. Heck, Trump entered politics on a lie about President Obama.

So what is new? I've been thinking about that, trying to figure out what is new. I think the answer is the reporting. Reporters are revealing Trump's lies one by one.

You know, Stormy Daniels made a cameo on "SNL" last night, but she's only a household name thanks to reporting by "The Wall Street Journal" and other outlets. The same for Dr. Harold Bornstein, also a parody by "SNL", that's the president's former doctor. NBC got ahold of him recently and he revealed that his office was, his word, raided by Trump's bodyguard and lawyer.

Bornstein told CNN that this hyperbolic letter attesting to Trump's health back in 2015 was not truthful. Quote, Trump dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter. I just made it up as I went along.

Let's just sit with that for a minute. Trump attacked Hillary Clinton's health during the campaign, but he made up his own doctor's letter?

Enough is enough. Yet there are people out there, a lot of them, who the press should not be covering the president this way who say we should not call lies lies.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The journalists shouldn't be the ones to say the president or his spokesperson is lying because what that does to 50 percent of the country is it makes them feel they're not credible to listen to.


STELTER: But this shouldn't be about feelings. This should be about facts.

Let's bring in someone who has lived through this before. Carl Bernstein, of course, one half of the famed duo that broke the Watergate story wide open.

And, of course, now, Carl, you've been covering the Trump presidency, I've heard you on air saying, follow the money, follow the lies. But how do we keep up with all the lies? How do we know which ones to follow and how to prioritize them?

CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think we need to consider context, which is a big part of the best obtainable version of the truth and how we report the lies and how we follow the money and what we judge is important. We have to remember there is an unprecedented investigation going on by a special prosecutor who is looking into the question of whether the president of the United States has knowingly or unknowingly colluded with or been aided by a hostile foreign power during an election.

And there are indeed suggestions that keep turning up in these lies by the president of the United States that there may be some truth to those allegations. There may not be. But what's clear is there is an investigation that needs to go forward and that the president of the United States and those around him are trying to get the American people and the press and the country and the political system to ignore what really needs to be looked at here and, instead, conduct a cold civil war against the truth.

[11:05:19] And all we are interested in here and should be is the truth.

STELTER: But the point I think that Matt Schlapp was trying to make earlier this week is that, using the word lie, covering this administration so aggressively, it turns off his fans. Is that a point the press should reckon with?

BERNSTEIN: I think --


BERNSTEIN: Yes, it's a point we should reckon with in terms of there's no need for us to be pejorative. But when a lie is significant and we know it's significant, and when readers and viewers will recognize it's significant such as what we've seen in the last week, particularly around Michael Cohen, around Stormy Daniels, there is relevance to that, and people are smart enough to know that these are lies when it's pointed out by the press.

But I don't think we need to engage every moment in saying liar, liar, liar, your pants are on fire. I think what we need to do is keep advancing the story wherever it leads, whether it's exculpatory of President Trump or whether as seems to be the case, he is becoming deeper and deeper enmeshed in the question of collusion and that is perhaps why in the context of what we're reporting, we see more lying about everything from the president of the United States.

And the most extraordinary thing we keep talking about Rudy Giuliani because he is now front and center, and what he has done, unlike any of the president's surrogates, is to picture the president of the United States as almost a grifter with no interest in anything but conning the American people, with saying as he said today, oh, yeah, there might be more Stormy Daniels, there might be more hush payments.

It's extraordinary what Rudy Giuliani is saying, and the picture he, not the press, is presenting of a president of the United States who is totally unconcerned with truth especially about this question of whether the Russians have interfered in our electoral campaigns and he was a knowing or unknowing participant in what they were doing. STELTER: Yes, what we see instead from the Giulianis of the world is

a lot of projections. He'll say it's the Democrats that are colluding.

Let me show you a few examples of this, how Trump and his supporters respond to media critiques. The first I noticed was on Monday of this week, CNN was reporting that Chief of Staff John Kelly had privately called the president unhinged at one point. Then, 45 minutes later, after CNN reported that, Trump said the press is unhinged. Coincidence? I don't know.

Later in the week, all week long, coverage of the president's lack credibility, calling it a crisis, and then on Saturday, where did Fox go? You guessed it. The media -- the media has a credibility crisis. That's the banner there on screen.

And, you know, another story -- a story you mentioned there, you talked about, Carl, is a "Wall Street Journal" scoop on Friday that the U.S. was probing Michael Cohen over cash he built up during the campaign that he had taken out lines of credit to secure access to, what, as much as $774,000. Here is how you reacted to that breaking news on Friday.


BERNSTEIN: This has from "The Wall Street Journal" account all the appearances of a campaign slush fund.


STELTER: And you're not the only one saying. I see a lot of slush fund headlines on the web. So, I don't think it's a coincidence this morning on "Fox and Friends" that Trump fans Diamond and Silk were saying, maybe the White House correspondents association is a slush fund. It's projection 101. We see it time and time again from the president and his supporters.

I suppose there's not a lot the press can do about that except try to point it out.

BERNSTEIN: I wouldn't even bother to point it out. I think there are times to engage in the press, and there are times to let something go. And that's one of them to let go and just do the story.

Follow the money. Follow the lies. But I think what we need to keep in mind here is what this is about.

We now have seen how Donald Trump has succeeded to a large extent understanding the country much better perhaps than the press, did by lying (ph), by making the conduct of the press the issue instead of his own conduct and that of the Russians and what he and the Russians may or may not have done in concert, that he is succeeding in making our conduct the issue to a large extent. It appeals to his base. His base has put the Republican Party in thrall and fear of this president and this presidency. And one of the things we ought to be covering is whether or not the

Republican Party is in such thrall that it is willing to give the president of the United States a pass on the question of whether or not he's acted in concert with a foreign power and undermine the interest of the United States as a candidate.

[11:10:15] That's what this story is about underneath it all.

And the Republicans continue to understand that he has gotten the country to go along with his demagogic vision of who we are. He has appealed, as all presidents do, to opposition to the press at one time or another. But he has realized that by stoking that fear over and over and over again and crying witch-hunt, witch-hunt, witch-hunt, witch-hunt, that we will take our eyes off the big story and instead engage with him bit by bit, tit for tat.

That's not what we ought to be doing. We ought to be advancing this story as "The Wall Street Journal" owned by Rupert Murdoch, friend of Donald Trump. It is hugely significant "The Wall Street Journal" has broken one story after another about the president, his lying, his slush funds, all the rest with his lawyer, supposed lawyer, his fixer, Mr. Cohen, who is at the center of all of this right now, who was the glue who can give us real answers about collusion, about financial arrangements that seem to be perhaps illegal, that have broken laws.

Look, we've got a big story to be covering. We're covering it very well except when we get into the tit-for-tat trenches with the president of the United States. We need to keep our eye on the big picture. And that includes covering the Republican Party because during Watergate --


BERNSTEIN: -- which really is -- there's huge differences between Watergate and what we're seeing here, but there is one similarity and that is trying to make the conduct of the press the issue and what the press did in Watergate is it kept covering the story, the cover-up unraveled, the facts became known and partly because Republicans who were in and willing to engage in a bipartisan investigation as they are not now were swayed by the facts.

And I think if we keep our nose to the grind stone and keep reporting the facts as we're doing, there will be no choice eventually but the Republicans if they want to remain a viable party in the United States are going to have to say, look, the facts are adding up in a really ugly way, which they are so far, and I go back to that picture that Rudy Giuliani is painting of our president of the United States as almost a grifter, a con man, not somebody worthy of respect, not someone who speaks honestly. Somebody who is looking for the nearest cover-up or cover story and it's Rudy Giuliani who is picturing him effectively, not the press.

STELTER: It's a tough time. Carl, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

A quick break and then the panel is with me, a trio of authors. We're going to talk more about lies and ask this, if he's willing to lie about the small stuff, what else is he lying about?


[11:17:16] STELTER: Back now on RELIABLE SOURCES.

On Thursday, NBC thought it had a huge scoop. The network reported that authorities had Michael Cohen on a wiretap, listening in on his calls. It turned out, the authorities only had a log of his calls. They were not listening in.

NBC issued a correction four hours later, and President Trump pounced, saying NBC is as bad as CNN. Of course, some on Fox News used this error to bash the media as a whole. And so, the story continues. Who's lying, who has less credibility, et cetera?

Let's dig into it with a trio of authors starting with Amanda Carpenter, a CNN political commentator and author of the brand new book, "Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Lie to Us". Jon Meacham also here, former editor-in-chief of "Newsweek," he's the author of the next book "The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels," out on Tuesday. And David Cay Johnston is here, the founder of, author of "It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America".

Amanda, first to you. The president, as he so often likes to do, he tweeted a falsehood about NBC. He said they probably just made up their sources. Now, to be clear, NBC made a bad mistake, but it shows -- the correction shows that at least journalists do what the president doesn't do, correcting errors when they come up.

AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, and this is the problem that poses anyone who tries to take on Trump and criticize him whether you're a political opponent or a reporter, you really have to be perfect. He is a player that fights dirty but will exploit any weakness that you have. And it's a really tough dynamic to participate in, but it's the truth and especially when he's waging this war on the press, if there's any slight mistake that's made, you'd better believe he's going to blow it up. And you know what, that's not the worst thing because it challenges all of us to be better.

STELTER: To raise our game, yes.

Jon Meacham, in your book, you write about McCarthy, Murrow's response to McCarthy. And I want to put this quote on screen because I think it applies to today as well. You wrote: One journalist of the era observed what could I do? I had to report, quote, from McCarthy. How do you say in the middle of your story, this is a lie?

I think journalists are wrestling with that same problem today.

JON MEACHAM, FORMER NEWSWEEK EDITOR: Absolutely, 70 years on. The Trump playbook, if you will, on dealing with the media and confronting it constantly comes straight out of Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn. And in the way God sometimes does these things, we don't have to make that much of a leap because Roy Cohn was the lawyer for both men. And what happened in the McCarthy era he would attack the media. He

would -- he knew exactly when deadlines were. He would call in the afternoon wire reporters with 30 minutes to go and announce a story.

[11:20:03] It didn't give them time to check it out. They felt that a U.S. senator talking about communism was intrinsically newsworthy and there was a big debate about whether newspapers should actually call out a lie is a lie.

STELTER: And do you think journalists are getting it right today? Are we making those same mistakes again or are we getting it right now?

MEACHAM: I think it depends on, to quote Bill Clinton in a way, it depends on what you mean by journalists. I think there are a number of news outsets which think of as more traditional that are doing a terrific job and it's kind of a golden age. There are some outlets that are essentially extensions of the administration. And I think it requires educated, intelligent consumers of news to be able to figure out what's true and what's not.

STELTER: Yes, media diversity is great but people have to know what they're consuming.

David Cay Johnston, I have a feeling that, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but there's been a lot of folks watching news coverage the last 16 months saying, you all actually don't go far enough calling out lies. Are you one of those critics?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, FOUNDER, DCREPORT.ORG: Yes, and I think the biggest problem, Brian, was during the campaign. Very few Americans know Donald had two trials for income tax fraud, lost them both, confessed to sales tax cheating. And most importantly, spent years so deeply involved with a major international cocaine trafficker he did favors for that the only logical explanation is they were in the cocaine trafficking business together.

That's not being discussed, things like that. And Donald is the master, as Jon pointed out, of turning the tables, attack the people who are telling the truth and those --

STELTER: Right, but when you bring up drug deals, you've got to provide the proof. Where is -- where can people find that evidence?

JOHNSTON: In my book "The Making of Donald Trump" and in my current book, "It's Even Worse Than You Think", I cite the court records, the letters that Donald wrote and show why what he did as a casino owner makes no sense unless they were in business together.

STELTER: You always call --

JOHNSTON: And, Donald, if you're listening, sue me if you think I slandered you.

STELTER: You always call him Donald. I know that's on purpose. It comes across as disrespectful to a lot of people. So, why do you do that?

JOHNSTON: I call all public officials by their first names if I know them. When I was exposing the LAPD 30 years ago, I called the chief of police, Daryl Gates, Daryl, because we're both equals. We're citizens of the city of L.A., Daryl and I are citizens. Donald and I are citizens of the U.S. and we know each other.

STELTER: OK, all right.

So, Amanda, I wanted to ask you about this term gaslighting since it's a title of your book. I know it's still new to some folks. What is the gaslighting phenomenon? Is there a great example from this week of the president engaging in this? Because you wrote here one chapter, feelings, not facts are essential to a good gaslighting.

CARPENTER: Yes, I mean, the most easily understood example of the term gaslighting really is how he engaged in a campaign of birtherism against Barack Obama. Gaslighting is much more than a lie. It's an elaborate scheme meant to distort reality and eventually drives people a little bit crazy.

In my book, I kind of -- I go through these techniques Donald Trump keeps using again and again to create press interest in these narratives because the chaos that he creates with his gaslighting and these lies is a deliberate form of control that works for him, going into 2018 and 2020, people better stop thinking his lies and gaslighting will do him in. It's what works for him.

Assume the lies will keep working until someone can go toe to toe with him and confront him. I don't see anyone other than Michael Avenatti doing that right now. He's doing a better job than anyone in the entire Democratic Party, where are they? Assume it's going to keep working.

STELTER: Jon Meacham, last word to you?

MEACHAM: I think this is all in the hands of the voters. I think we have a republic here that is worth defending. The republic is only as good as the sum of its parts. Protests matters, resistance matters, and truth will out.

STELTER: As much as this show is about the press, of course, I did find myself thinking this morning, this issue about his lies isn't really about the press. We can identify the lies. We can fact check every hour. But ultimately, there's not much more that journalists can do.

Sorry, David, did you want to chime in?

JOHNSTON: Well, we -- our job is to make a record. But we need to recognize a lot of Trump support is visceral. It's not fact-based. Amanda is right, that's not going to change.

STELTER: I appreciate you all being here. Great to talk with you.

We have a quick break and then Sunday morning exclusive, with Trump's media allies sounding the alarm on the Mueller probe, former campaign aide Michael Caputo was actually been in the room. He sat down with Robert Mueller's investigators just a few days ago.

So, I have a lot of questions right after the break.


[11:29:06] STELTER: President Trump and Robert Mueller seem to be heading towards a showdown. The president's legal team is negotiating about whether or not the president will sit down for an interview. We saw some of the possible questions, thanks to a leak to "The New York Times" the other day.

When that leak came out, Fox's Shep Smith had the sense it might be intentional.


SHEPARD SMITH, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: There appears to be a concerted effort to put a bunch of people on television having seen those questions and to say into the television, like this channel: don't do it, Mr. President.


STELTER: Hard to disagree. In fact, here's what that concerted effort looks like.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: The president should never agree to any interview of any kind.

JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS HOST: The president absolutely should not sit down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's surely a trap. It is a trap.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a perjury trap, Mr. President. Do not speak with special counsel Robert Mueller.



STELTER: And yet, today on ABC, Rudy Giuliani says: I have a client that wants to testify.

So, let's talk about it with Michael Caputo, a former senior adviser to the Trump campaign. He was recently interviewed by Robert Mueller's special counsel team.

Michael, thanks for being here.


STELTER: Have your TV interviews recently been a way of communicating to the president?

CAPUTO: No, not really.

Frankly, I'm just speaking my mind. Nobody has actually orchestrated or even asked me to say anything. But I am kind of singing basso profondo in that chorus.

I think the president should stay far, far away from the Mueller investigation. But I'm speaking from experience, myself.


I had the sense -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you were pretty critical of Mueller before you went in, pretty dismissive of the idea. But then, when you came out, you seemed chastened. Am I right?

CAPUTO: Well, not chastened, as much as informed, in fact.

STELTER: Informed.

CAPUTO: When you're talking about somebody attacking your president, you tend to be a little optimistic that your comments are always correct.

Now that I have been in there, I know that these folks are very well- prepared. Every question they asked me, they already had the answers to. So, I think I have a -- I see a little bit more where they're headed with this thing.

And if the president has to sit in the same kind of situation I was in, I wouldn't think that he would want to do it.

STELTER: You had the sense from the questions that collusion is still very much an active topic of investigation, right?

CAPUTO: No doubt, Brian.

You know, I wouldn't be asked any questions on, let's say, obstruction during the whole Comey thing or financial crimes that I wasn't exposed to.


CAPUTO: I was with the campaign from November 2015 to June of 2016, right about the window where the alleged collusion might have begun. And so they pretty much focused on that.

But I can't say that's 100 percent the focus, because I wouldn't have perspective on the other issues.

STELTER: Right. Yes, you're looking through one straw at just the part you know about.

But here is what intrigues me. People like you have been saying for months, for over a year, there was no collusion, there was no collusion, that issue is dead. But it's not dead. It sounds like those commentators are doing the

public a disservice by claiming that it's gone and there's no discussion about it anymore.

CAPUTO: Well, I can tell you I don't think there is any -- any collusion.

I also can tell you that I believe I shut down a few avenues they were taking trying to pursue it just with my factual answers. They may be still looking for collusion, but I don't believe they're finding any of it. And I think they are going to end up going another direction with this to try and get to the president.

STELTER: Here is what Rudy Giuliani said about this topic on Jeanine Pirro's show last night:


RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK: There is no evidence of collusion with the Russians. Gone. There's no evidence of obstruction of justice.


STELTER: It just seems to me Rudy shouldn't be on TV saying there's no evidence, if, in fact, the investigators are still looking for it.

CAPUTO: Well, the investigators may be looking for it, but they may not have any evidence also. I think they're still looking for evidence. And I think they thought I could bring them -- some to them. I could not.

And all the questions they asked, they may have known the answer to, but I think that they were trying to jam me up, so they could put me in a position where I would be a more -- a more helpful witness in the prosecution than my simple truth would offer to them.

STELTER: How would you grade the mainstream media's coverage of the Mueller probe? Because a lot of us are on the outside trying to see on the inside, relying on leaks from lawyers. You're one of these rare folks who were inside and are now talking about it.

CAPUTO: Well, I think -- you know, I -- I graduated from journalism school. I instead went the public relations direction. But I remember my ethics classes. I remember them very well.


CAPUTO: And I can tell you I think that people are really in a race for headlines in the modern media world of the immediate headline, that they're leaving things like facts and ethics behind.

For example, we all know now that Dan Jones, whose company is named the Penn Quarter Group, is raising money, according to his own words, up to $50 million, to continue investigating the dossier that was the basis of so many things that have gone on so far. Nobody is really reporting on that, except for "The Federalist." And

I believe they're not reporting on it because reporters are still getting information from Fusion GPS and we all know, if you write a negative story about Fusion GPS.

And we all know, if you write a negative story about Fusion GPS, you never hear from Glenn Simpson again. So, I think reporters should consider their sources and also report on their sources, if their sources, for example, Glenn Simpson and Dan Jones, are still working with Russians to try to confirm the unconfirmable.

STELTER: Hey, if you're burned by a source, you should definitely be a lot more careful of that source, maybe even out them. I agree with you that we have got to be very careful.

CAPUTO: I think that's what happened to NBC, by the way. I think that's what happened to NBC.


I think that comes from Fusion GPS and Dan Jones. And I think reporters should be really careful about the information they're getting from that cabal.

STELTER: Michael Caputo, thank you for being here. I would love to have those folks on the show as well.

CAPUTO: Thanks, Brian.

STELTER: Up next here: the MeToo reckoning.

Did executives know about Charlie Rose's behavior and then look the other way? One of Charlie Rose's former staffer will speak out in her first television interview -- right after this.



STELTER: Seven months ago today, the first story about Harvey Weinstein's wrongdoing was published, seven months ago today.

Since then, so many other prominent men have also been accused of harassment, assault and other crimes. Some accusers have been seeking justice through the media and the courts.

This week, on the heels of a new "Washington Post" investigation into Charlie Rose, three women sued both Rose and CBS, alleging blatant and repeated sexual harassment by Rose.

The "Post" story detailed how some managers at CBS were warned about Rose as far back as 1986. Now, Rose's lawyer says the claims in the suit are without merit and CBS says it will vigorously defend itself.

But this new follow-up investigation, talking about who knew what when, made me want to speak with one of the original accusers of Rose. Kyle Godfrey-Ryan was one of Rose's assistants. She worked on his

show for PBS. She is now the co-founder of a group called Press Forward. It's an organization that says it wants to change culture in newsrooms. She spoke with me about what she experienced and what she's trying to do to make sure it doesn't ever happen again.


STELTER: I really appreciate you being here. I know you haven't spoken on television about this before.

I was wondering if you could just help us understand what happened between you and Charlie Rose, what that harassment was like, and then how it affected your career.

KYLE GODFREY-RYAN, CO-FOUNDER, PRESS FORWARD: So, I worked for Charlie for around a year-and-a-half on the PBS show. I was his assistant.

The beginning was beautiful and exciting. He's talented and amazing. But, within a few months, the stories that I talked about at "The Washington Post," this behavior of beratement and groping, continued until the day I left.

STELTER: Did it, do you feel, affect or hurt your career later? Did it change the way you viewed your role?

GODFREY-RYAN: I did decide that I didn't want to work in journalism.

But, in full transparency, I'm very happy with what I do today.

STELTER: As one of the organizers now of the Press Forward organization, what do you hope people take away from this follow-up "Washington Post" investigation that really focuses on who knew what when?

GODFREY-RYAN: I hope that people are focusing on fact that we're dealing with a fairly severe institutional issue of sexism, sexual harassment, and rape culture in the United States.

And I'm glad that we're focusing at this moment on what's happening in journalism. But this is happening across the country in all walks of life.

STELTER: Do you have reason to believe that others at CBS knew about his behavior and looked the other way?

GODFREY-RYAN: I can't comment on what happened at CBS.

But I can tell you that, after leaving "The Charlie Rose Show," for the next 12 or 13 years, when anyone met him, mostly strangers, and knew that I worked for Charlie, the first thing they would ask me if the rumors about him were true.

So, this was a secret that was wide open. And I would be surprised if the people at CBS didn't know. STELTER: And, of course, folks at the program you're working on --

this is the "Charlie Rose" program, which is essentially an independent, and then broadcast on PBS stations -- who within that organization knew what was going on?

GODFREY-RYAN: Everyone. Everyone.

STELTER: Everyone.

GODFREY-RYAN: There -- it wasn't -- that part wasn't hidden.

STELTER: What has to happen now to ensure that your children, my daughter, that this does not continue for future generations?

GODFREY-RYAN: This is something I think about a lot.

I believe we're at a moment in the United States where the lens has shifted. Part of the reason why this issue is so pervasive is that we weren't looking at sexual assault in this way before. And right now, we all have to reassess where we're experiencing this in our own lives and where our community is experiencing it.

STELTER: And you wrote a column at one point for saying it shouldn't call Charlie Rose a villain.

I think your point was that it's important to make men a part of this conversation and not try to treat men as completely the enemy. Is that what you're trying to get at?


And I'm also trying for people to see that you can be multifaceted. Charlie is brilliant and kind and talented. And he's also a predator and has some abusive qualities about himself. It's possible to be more than one thing.

And I was hoping with that article to allow people to identify the places in themselves where they're out of alignment, and start to do their own work.

STELTER: And one more question for you, because there's been these stories recently about a possible comeback for Charlie Rose.


STELTER: Page Six said that he was plotting an idea for a TV show.

I think that's ridiculous. But, more importantly, what do you think?

GODFREY-RYAN: I think that he hasn't been put in time-out for coloring on the couch.

I think that he's in a position right now where he has an opportunity to do a lot of work. He has time. He has privilege. He has resources. And instead of using that time to work on himself and find out why he'd been displaying this behavior this entire time, he's been trying to figure out how he can come back.

I think, if he did the work, that America would welcome him, to be completely honest. And I think that would be wonderful. But I haven't seen -- I haven't seen any shift.


STELTER: You can learn more about Godfrey-Ryan's group. That's at


Up next here: a vow not to forget the forgotten war in Afghanistan.


STELTER: Bombings are a terrible fact of life in Kabul, Afghanistan.

When a blast erupted on Monday, journalists did what they always do. They rushed to the scene to cover the story. And that's when another bomb blew up, this one seemingly targeting journalists and emergency workers.

Between the two blasts, nine photographers and other reporters were killed. A 10th reporter was killed elsewhere in the country in a shooting attack.

This was the single deadliest day for journalists anywhere in the world since 2015 and the deadliest in Afghanistan since 2002.

Now, my next guest wasn't just reporting from Kabul that day. He had to put work aside to help bury his friends.



STELTER: Mujib Mashal joins me now from Kabul.

On the day of the attacks, of course, you were reporting on the bombings, but then you had to put work on hold. In order to do what?

MUJIB MASHAL, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": To help with the funerals, to -- we -- after we found out that the second bomb -- and most of the casualties of the second bomb were journalists, we knew there are friends among them.

So, naturally, we ended up at the same hospital, the same morgue that we would usually go to report from. This time, we went there to mourn, to be there with our friends, to be with the families, and then left the bodies and sort of follow the body to home -- to their homes.

In this particular case, I was with Shah Marai, with the AP photographer who is closer to me than the rest of them. So, we followed -- the reporting -- we almost forgot about the reporting for most of the day. It was more about mourning the loss of a friend. STELTER: And a photo on the front page of the next day's "New York

Times" was of that procession, your friend's body on the front page.

MASHAL: To think about how many photos like that he may have taken -- he had covered this war for 20 years.

After every bombing, after every explosion, he would be at that morgue, he would be at that hospital photographing the casualties and families.

To think about the hundreds and thousands of photos just like that of somebody killed in the brutal violence that he had taken, and then to realize that, one day, he ends up like that, he ends up on the front page of a paper, it does break my heart.

STELTER: When you see some of your own friends killed in a bombing like this, does it make you rethink your work, maybe want to leave Afghanistan, for example?

MASHAL: There are a lot of Afghan journalists who have left the country in recent years.

In terms of my own -- I can't say -- I do -- I do want to continue this struggle of highlighting the human toll of this war. We have to remember that this is not just a 17-year, 16-year war. This is a four-decade war right now that my generation, but also a lot of even people older than me were born into it.

The story of how widespread the suffering is still needs to be told, because the war is getting forgotten.

STELTER: Yes. In the U.S., it is called the forgotten war. And I wondered if you feel forgotten there.

MASHAL: Considering the extent of the suffering, and the extent of the toll and the casualties, it is a forgotten war.

Where else around the world do you have 50 people dead in a day, and it gets such little attention? And if it was just for one day, if it was just for one month, it was just for one year, it would be understandable.

But this has gone on year after year after year. When you think of the country, it's just 30, 35 million people. Every single day, about 50 people are getting killed in this country.

STELTER: How are you personally coping with the pain of losing some of your friends this week?

MASHAL: I guess what helps me cope with the pain is sharing some of those emotions and sharing some of that burden as a journalist, that I write it.

The emotions that I feel, the loss that I feel, I try to put that into words and share. And I do realize that, if I can echo that, if I can echo that pain, it does affect people. It does touch people. People do connect. People do realize. Even if it's for a moment when they're reading their paper, they pause, and they do think about the pain for a little bit.

So, one coping mechanism for me is -- is that sharing what I feel as the loss, as the suffering, as the pain, is that I have this privilege of echoing that, of sharing that. And that helps me feel a little lighter.

STELTER: Thank you so much for joining me today.

MASHAL: Thanks, Brian.





STELTER: Let's get geeky for just one minute on the subject of polls.

With Kanye West in the news lately, President Trump and some of his supporters has been celebrating this purported increase in support among African-Americans.

"The Daily Caller" headline there says: "Black male approval for Trump doubles in one week."

Now, it cites this Reuters poll, which we wouldn't normally show you on CNN because it doesn't meet the standards of CNN's polling unit. But, in this case, the president talked about it on live TV, so I think we have to fact-check it.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Kanye West must have some power, because you probably saw I doubled my African-American poll numbers. We went from 11 to 22 in one week.


STELTER: Even taking the poll at face value, Trump got it wrong. The claim is his support doubled among African-American men, not men and women.

But here's the thing. Even Reuters says its own poll is being misused.

Reuters told me -- quote -- "The sample sizes for those two measurements were too small to reliably suggest any shift in public opinion."

This is why it's irresponsible to just quote the president without checking what he said. You see how it works now? Some Web sites post misleading stories.

Reuters say they misconstrued the poll. Then someone feeds it to the president. I guess no one at the White House checked it.


Then he further misstates what was said. People on FOX then repeat the president's version, and on and on and on.

Some Trump fans are left thinking Trump is gaining support from African-Americans, when he's not, and all of this is based on a tiny sliver of an online poll that even the pollster says was misused.

We will be back next week trying to find more RELIABLE SOURCES.