Return to Transcripts main page
Reliable Sources
Interview With Senior Biden Adviser Gene Sperling; Woodward & Bernstein Reflect On Watergate Reporting; Getting Real About The Schism Over January 6; Law Enforcement's Uvalde Narrative Keeps Changing; The Impact On Social Media On Depp/Heard Verdict. Aired 11a- 12p ET
Aired June 05, 2022 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:17]
BRIAN STELTER, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, I'm Brian Stelter, live in New York, and this is RELIABLE SOURCES, where we examine the story behind the story and we figure out what's reliable.
This hour, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein together for a rare joint interview, 50 years since Watergate, with a new hearings about presidential misconduct about to begin. What can history tell us about what comes next?
Plus, officials in Texas taking outrageous measures to defy the press, to deny access, to refuse to answer questions why all those children were murdered. We're looking to the most shocking act yet.
And later, inside the control room, why CNN is making a change across all of it shows to try to make sure we are not unduly alarming you about the news.
But, first, the Biden administration facing its harshest scrutiny yet, and for many different reasons simultaneously.
Inflation in the U.S. is hurting American households. Gas prices are a consistent source of pain. Baby formula shortages are embarrassing and even downright frightening for families.
And the president looks powerless, as this CNN.com analysis says, powerless as crises crest around him.
NBC reports this week that Biden is telling aides he doesn't think Democrats go on television enough to defend him, and he feels he's, quote, not getting credit for Americans or the news media for actions he believes have helped the country, particularly on the economy.
Perhaps that's why the administration is on a media blitz this week, trying to reassure the public that they're doing everything they can.
We've seen interviews almost every day, op-eds and more. But will this media saturation strategy satisfy Americans who are suffering?
Let's talk about that and more with Gene Sperling, senior advisor to the president and coordinator of the White House American Rescue Plan. Gene, thank you for coming on.
Are you on the program, because President Biden is ticked off that his aides have not been visible enough defending him?
GENE SPERLING, SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I'm on -- I'm on this program, because we have a strong economic plan and it's very important that people understand the positive things that it has done.
Look, Brian, this is a tough situation. You have an unprecedented global pandemic that's led to an unprecedented shutting down and starting up of the economy, and unthinkable war of aggression from Russian that has led oil and gas prices to spike up dramatically since January.
So, yes, this is a tough situation where you have global issues, and yet you have to rightly understand that for Americans going through the gas pump or the grocery line, the fact that it's a global phenomenon is not of necessary comfort to them.
So what the president does want to make clear is that, one, we've had historic jobs gains, historic drops in unemployment. The economic -- the jobs number on Friday, which "The Washington Post" called the great return to work, showing 4.2 million Americans coming back to work, and the resilience of this recovery, because of the American Rescue Plan. The fact that we have dealt with Omicron, Delta, and this war of aggression, and that none of it so far has derailed this recovery.
But I do think we need to do better at making clear not just the president's plan, but also the fact that this wall of opposition from the Republican side does get in the way. The president has taken repeated action from releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 180 million barrels of oil. He's taken action on the supply chain that, remember, had 97 percent of shelves stocked for Christmas.
But when he says let's bring down the cost of prescription drugs, the Republicans are saying no. When he says let's increase housing supply, they say no. He says let's bring the deficit down further while making it easier to afford childcare costs to get people to work, they say no.
And then the only plan they put forward is Rick Scott's plan that would raise taxes on half of small businesses, $1,500 for typical families, 24 million seniors would sunset Medicare and Social Security. And when we raise that is the issue that's the only plan out there, their only responsible from some is -- well, actually, we have no plan. I'm not sure which is worse, and I think that's something the media as well as us need to do better on contrasting the aspect of plan versus no plan that exists right now.
STELTER: Well, you had a couple of appearances on Fox this week.
[11:05:01]
One of the very feisty earlier in the week where you basically felt like the anchor wasn't listening to you. Is it worthwhile? Is it valuable for you to appear on right-wing media?
SPERLING: You know, we want to communicate -- this president does want to communicate to Americans and he does want to talk straight with them. And, look, sometimes people want to attack him when he's being straight and honest, like, for example, admitting that when you've got a global phenomenon or the war of aggression in Russia has led to oil prices in global markets going from $82 to $125, has led to prices at the gas pump going from $3.31 to $4.80, that those are global issues, and there's not necessarily a quick fix or silver bullet. But that -- it doesn't mean we are not doing everything that we can in our power to --
STELTER: I get it.
SPERLING: -- to bring down those prices and lower cost for American families.
STELTER: I think we've lived in a media -- I think we've lived in a media ecosystem where the president has build up as this end-all be- all, king, all powerful, can fix everything. I feel like people have seen that in TV shows for decades. It's just not true. I get that.
But then when Biden himself says to CNN's Kaitlan Collins, I didn't know about the infant shortage -- the baby formula shortage, it makes him seem powerless, it makes him seem like he's not even trying.
SPERLING: I just think that's fair, Brian. I mean, look, you have a tough situation here. You have very high concentration, just three companies controlling the entire infant baby formula market. One plant going down in Michigan has such a large impact.
And, of course, this isn't an issue where it's just about getting production up. It's about doing in ways that are safe, that are safe for American families.
STELTER: Right.
SPERLING: And you're seeing the president far from being powerless, using the Defense Production Act to get ingredients available that's increasing the amount of baby formula. You're seeing him use military planes through Operation Fly Formula. You're seeing him now approving 125 million bottles worth of baby formula that are safe coming in from foreign nations.
So I disagree with that. I think he's showing --
STELTER: It always feels reactive, I hear you.
SPERLING: -- strong executive action.
STELTER: Is there value in looking backwards in your view?
I mean, in 2021, people like former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers came on TV, came out in public. They're all but begging you not to spend trillions in additional government spending. He said more spending will lead to massive amounts of inflation. Here we are with high inflation.
Why were the president and his aides so dismissive of Summers? And should we look back at those issues?
SPERLING: You know, I just think that -- that that is not a correct assessment of what has caused global inflation. I mean, Brian, think of the following: the OECD, which is 38 countries, 38 largest countries, has average inflation of 9.2 percent, average core inflation of 6.2 percent.
Do we really think the actions of any individual country is responsible for this entire global phenomenon of 9.2 percent inflation? No, it's been caused by things that were unforeseeable to Professor Summers or others, the effect that Omicron and Delta had on the semiconductor supply correction. How that affected global vehicles.
STELTER: Yeah.
SPERLING: The unthinkable war in Russia.
I think -- and this is important -- I think that what people need to appreciate is that I received call after call from reporters when Omicron hit, when Delta hit, when the war hit, saying, is this going to derail the recovery? People need to start recognizing that the American Recovery Rescue Plan has given this recovery resilience to not be derailed by this and has led to record job growth, record drops in unemployment, and I think put us in a better position than any other country to make that transition to stable growth, even with lower prices, even in the face of the tough medicine that we know the Federal Reserve is going to have to deliver.
STELTER: Does the administration need a different media strategy? CNN's reporting this week, quote: The president is a 79-year-old man who still thinks in terms of the newspaper front pages and primetime TV programs, surrounded by not-quite-as-senior aides -- that's you, Mr. Sperling -- in senior positions with the same late '90s diet.
What does the president do this week? He writes an op-ed for "The Wall Street Journal". Who really reads op-eds?
I guess I'm asking, should you and your colleagues think about a different media strategy to break through?
SPERLING: Hey, look. This was also a week you saw him meet with BTS, right? I mean, I think --
STELTER: OK, fair.
SPERLING: -- the president is, of course, going directly, you know, through op-eds, speaking in his own voice, having his aides, like myself, talking directly to the American people.
[11:10:02]
But I actually think you see quite a lot of different things -- different ways of reaching out and understanding the power of social media. We have tremendous digital team that works every day. So, I actually do think we have a very diverse strategy for getting the message out.
I admit, it is tough. I've been in -- I've been in three White Houses. Guess what? When gas prices go up in the United States or virtually any country, it affects presidential approval ratings, regardless of whether the president is at fault or not.
We understand that but we -- we have a very strong message about what the American Rescue Plan, what is bipartisan infrastructure plan has done for this economy, and the fact that he is the one, not the Republicans, that is fighting every day to do everything he can administratively and has legislative proposals that could make a big difference if they were willing to work with us to actually lower prices for families instead of just harping about them.
STELTER: I hear you on the Republicans. You clearly want to get that out there.
Here's what gnaws at me. It's part of the problem with the coverage of the economy that people like White House aides and yes, TV anchors, don't feel the pinch as much as the average American.
Let me put that on personal way. Gene, do you feel the pinch? Do you feel the pain?
SPERLING: You know, I feel the -- I feel the pain for -- for so many families in our lives. I think I'm --
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: But, for you, do you feel it? I mean, $72 for gas this morning, do you feel it? Do you pay it?
SPERLING: Look, I -- you know, we see it. We see -- you know, gallon of gas -- gallon of milk go to $5. Everybody understands that that is a hit.
I think -- I'm not going to try to say that I, you know, feel that pain personally as much as so many families who make $50,000 or $60,000. But yet, do I -- do we feel that pain? Do we understand the frustration?
You know what? This president said very clearly, he grew up in the family where when gas prices went up, even a little bit, they felt that their house. And that is what that leadership from him, that sense of empathy, the fact that he grew up in that type of working class family is exactly what we -- what we feel and what our -- what and the leadership and message we get from the top down with this president.
STELTER: Gene Sperling, thank you very much for starting us off today. Thank you.
SPERLING: Thank you, Brian. STELTER: Up next, two reporting legends, Bob Woodward and Carl
Bernstein are here with enduring lesson from Watergate.
And later, the search for a Supreme Court leaker takes an alarming turn.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:17:00]
STELTER: Woodward and Bernstein, two names that are synonymous with journalism, and that began because of the Watergate break-in which occurred 50 years ago this month.
Of course, you know the domino effect leading to Richard Nixon's resignation. "The Post" won a Pulitzer Prize for public service, and a generation of journalists were inspired. In fact, some students decided to go into journalism because of what they learned from Woodward and Bernstein.
With us now to talk about the past and the future, CNN political analyst Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward, associate editor at "The Washington Post".
Their iconic book, "All The President's Men", is coming out in a new 50th anniversary edition, with a new foreword about what Watergate means today.
And the two are featured in the new CNN series, "Watergate: Blueprint for A Scandal", which starts tonight here on CNN.
Welcome to you both.
You've never been on this program together before, so I have questions for both of you, a lot of them.
Bob, let's start with you. It's been 50 years.
BOB WOODWARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thank you.
STELTER: What is the enduring journalism lesson? What's the journalistic lesson from Watergate that everyone needs to remember?
WOODWARD: That ownership matters.
Katharine Graham, the publisher, and owner of "The Washington Post" during Watergate, had all the backbone in the world and stood by us. She also was a very tough woman.
After Nixon resigned, she wrote Carl and myself a personal letter. Not on stationary, but on yellow legal tablet. I think Carl has the original.
Dear Carl and Bob, now Nixon's resigned. I will quote her. Don't start thinking too highly of yourselves. You did some of the stories fine, but I want to give you some advice. And the advice is: beware the demon pomposity.
Good advice for all of us in journalism. Wall Street, politics, you name it.
STELTER: You name it.
WOODWARD: Beware the demon pomposity.
STELTER: And, Carl, what about you? What's the enduring journalistic lesson to you?
CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: The best obtainable version of the truth, the phrase Bob and I have used for 50 years now, is really the objective. And it's a simple phrase, and it's a difficult concept that involves perseverance, being a good listener.
And most important, a decision that reporters and editors make, what is news? That might be the most important thing that we decide. And then we go from there with the idea of reporting the best obtainable version of the truth.
STELTER: What would this have been like 50 years ago, if you hadn't received tips, leads, information from sources? I mean, it all starts with that tip.
BERNSTEIN: Well, it starts with going out of the office and going and knocking on doors. I think one of the things about the movie, of "All The President's Men", even more than the book, it illustrates the point. We go out at night, we knock on doors.
[11:20:01]
People slam the doors in our face. We go to the next door. We keep going.
The sources don't materialize out of nowhere. We try to make those sources. Good reporters, for the last 50 years, during the Trump presidency, have gone out and made those sources and gotten the information and put it up to the test of the best obtainable version of the truth.
STELTER: Of the truth.
You all have a new piece in "The Washington Post" this weekend. It's from the new addition of "All the President's Men".
Bob, what's the message from this new foreword to the book?
WOODWARD: That we had Nixon and Carl and I kind of thought that would be the last president that would do all of the things against the Constitution and the law. And then, as we say, along came Trump.
And Nixon and Trump are married in so many ways. I think one of the significant streams is this notion of hate. Nixon, the day he resigned, very memorable moment in history. He had no text (ph), he was sweating, but at one point he steps back
and smiles. And he says the following: Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
And if you want a description of what brought Nixon and the Nixon presidency down, it is this hate. This poison that was in his administration, and we now see in our politics.
I was down interviewing Trump right before the 2020 election, and he ran videos of people watching Congress, senators, watching him give his State of the Union Address. He said to me, he said, see the hate? See the hate? When people were just sitting there listening hate.
Hate is something we need to divest ourselves as individuals and as a political system, if possible.
BERNSTEIN: One of the interesting things is where the hate took each of them. And a level of criminality such as we had never seen in the White House 50 years ago. And now we see it again, through that hate, the piston of hate, a level of criminality in Trump's White House, perhaps even exceeding Nixon's.
And then we see this essential difference as to where the hate and the actual abuse of power goes, and that is, Trump goes to be the first seditious president of the United States. Not just a criminal president like Nixon, the first seditious president of the United States.
STELTER: Fifty years ago, could you imagine the two of you would still be out talking, covering stories, covering politics? Was that even a possibility in your mind?
BERNSTEIN: Perhaps reporting, but the idea that we would be reporting on another president --
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: -- who abused his office.
You know, Bob did an amazing thing in that piece that runs in "The Washington Post" today. He went back, reporter that he is, to George Washington's farewell address. And it was an amazing, shocking.
At the beginning of the piece we write: Washington says, beware, democracy is fragile, and unprincipled men in the presidency will go forward and usurped the power of the people for their own ends.
That's what these two presidents did uniquely in our history.
STELTER: I think people always wonder, by the way, given the Watergate history, Bob, what's the relationship between like between you and Carl? Like how -- have you all state friends for 50 years? Is there is a frenemy thing? Tell us.
(LAUGHTER) BERNSTEIN: You do it, Woodward.
WOODWARD: It's great. We talk all the time. Sometimes we argue. We always have argued for 50 years.
BERNSTEIN: Especially over words.
WOODWARD: There is a bond.
But, you know, you are asking the really important question here, about what's the lesson for journalism?
And as we were working on Watergate 50 years ago, Carl found Donald Segretti, who was the chief dirty trickster for the Nixon White House, and the top aides. And we found out a little bit about it, but it took two years for reporters and the Senate Watergate committee to discover that Segretti hired and paid 22 people to go out and play dirty tricks on Senator Muskie.
[11:25:01]
And if you look at the history of this, it's stunning. For $250,000 --
STELTER: Yeah.
WOODWARD: -- Nixon and his team got the person Nixon in '72 wanted to run against. Not Muskie, because he was strong, George McGovern.
And the idea that the leader of one party, let alone the president, would undertake a criminal, covert program to say, let's find somebody I can beat, and Nixon found him and did it. I mean, it is an appalling history of somehow, we've let this man -- we let this man take over.
Remember, the difference between Trump the second time running, Trump lost. Nixon won -- won with a subversion of the democratic electoral process.
STELTER: And the history needs to be learned and re-learned. And new generations need to know what happened.
BERNSTEIN: And also, the important thing to look at, both Nixon and Trump, both their crimes began with under mining the most basic element of democracy, free and fair elections.
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: Both set out to undermine that system for their own political personal ends.
STELTER: There's a lot more about this tonight in "Watergate: Blueprint for a Scandal", that premiers on CNN at 9:00 Eastern Time tonight -- the first two episodes this week, the remaining two episodes next week.
I can't let you go yet, Carl and Bob. We've got more with you in a moment. I want to hear more about your expectations for this week's January 6th hearing, and whether new testimony will move people off their bias (ph).
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:31:15]
STELTER: This week, the January 6 Committee moves to primetime, holding a key hearing on Thursday with unseen material and witness testimony. That's being promised. It's undoubtedly important. But will it register with a mass audience?
Over the last ten months of the committee's investigation, we've already learned so much, thanks to scoop after scoop from CNN and other outlets. Yet, pro-Trump media has denied, deflected, defended or just outright ignore the headlines.
I mean, think about it. The coup plot was rooted in a big lie. And ever since then, new lies have surrounded it. Lies heard on shows like Tucker Carlson on Fox and Greg Kelly on Newsmax. It's so important to understand the divide in the media when it comes to January 6th, two different streams.
I mean, look at MSNBC's coverage. January 6 mentioned more than 800 times so far on MSNBC this year and fewer than 150 times on Newsmax. And many of those mentions on Newsmax are dismissing the attack.
This is critical to understand, that it's so normal now on the right to deny, to deflect or in the words of Carlson, to say the committee is wholly illegitimate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: A wholly illegitimate committee.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: January 6th is a phony, beltway issue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just an echo chamber, a lefty echo chamber.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: January 6th, what a lot of crap. What a lot of crap.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STELTER: That is his message. And listen to the cheers. The Trump base does not want to hear about the coup attempt. The Trump base did not want to hear about the violence and about who inspired it and incited it. They don't want to hear the revelations of the hearing this week.
And I'm not trying to claim that this doesn't matter, the hearing doesn't matter. I'm saying it's important and because it is important, it's being rejected by the MAGA media. I mean, will Fox even show the hearing on Thursday? I asked a spokesperson for Fox News, I have not heard back.
But it's hard to imagine Tucker Carlson at 8:00 p.m. Eastern who calls the committee illegitimate -- Tucker, patriot purge, Carlson, giving up his time slot to hear the truth about January 6. Let's see what Fox does. We'll see what Newsmax does.
But as "Vanity Fair" pointed out, the question to the media is whether the hearing will break through.
Back with us, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Bernstein is the author of "Chasing History". And Woodward, the author -- most recently co- author of "Peril".
Thank you both for continuing the conversation with us.
Carl, you hear how skeptical I am that the media environment, this broken information environment, is actually going to allow for common ground this week on the 1/6 hearings. Am I too skeptical about what's going to happen?
BERNSTEIN: No, you're not too skeptical. But I think we need to look at the bigger picture, and that is we're not just talking about Fox. We're not just talking about news media. This is about the culture of the United States, the people of the United States.
And as journalists, one of things we don't do enough is go out and find what's on the minds of the people of this country. Yes, the people of this country, many of them are affected and watched Fox and they're influenced by in the divide of our politics very much represented by the fact that Fox is a huge political and media force in this country.
But we also need to look at what this January 6 hearing and the event is about.
STELTER: Does it matter if seven out of ten Americans know the truth and three out of ten are in denial?
BERNSTEIN: I think what matters first is that it becomes clear what happened on January 6th, and the committee has got that information. It's devastating.
Look, there is only one law in the United States that goes to elect the president of the United States.
[11:35:00]
And that is it on January 6, at 1:00 p.m., there will be a count of the electors from the election in November. That's the only moment, 1:00 p.m., when the president of United States can be elected.
What happened on January 6? The president of United States, his lawyers, his aides, try to keep that election from happening, stage a coup so that Joe Biden could not become the duly elected and installed president of United States, tried to keep the vice president out of being in the chamber, chased him down the stairs, so that the vice president could not preside over that 1:00 p.m. event. Mobs broke into the capital so that 1:00 p.m. counting could not take place.
I think there's a misunderstanding about the enormity and the actual timeline of what happened. STELTER: I think there is. There is.
BERNSTEIN: The people you're talking about --
STELTER: Yeah.
BERNSTEIN: -- whether they're on the right, the left, or the center, they need to understand what happened at 1:00 and why the President Trump did not, until 5:00, or whatever the exact time, 4:30, 5:00, that afternoon, by which time he could see that the coup had failed, that the votes were counted.
But he had attempted to not give up his office and to stay in power and Biden not become the president of United States. Astonishing.
STELTER: I wrote that banner, we should take it down, because it's obvious Trump fans are not going to watch the hearings, right? They're not going to watch the hearings.
But I think your point, Carl, it's very important. There's a MAGA base that's going to deny all this and say, just a few bad guys, get out of hand.
But then there's actually a lot of Americans who just aren't as tuned into the news as we are, Bob, who may want to tune in and learn new things for the first time.
Let me show this graphic before I go to you, Bob. This is a graphic of Nielsen measurements of the washing TV during the day. The reason it's called prime time is because viewership peaks. The number of people at home watching TV peaks in the evening. You can see that peak right there at 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
And it is possible, Bob, tell me if I'm wrong, that there is more casual news consumer who doesn't know all the details that we know about 1/6 that may learn them for the first time this week. Is that fair?
WOODWARD: Well, the details are very important. And it clearly shows. Carl and I, and our endless discussions, agree on really one point. There is an abundance of overwhelming evidence that this was a criminal conspiracy to subvert a lawful function of government.
There's -- and it's in the law. It just says that that is a crime. But I also think there's a strain here, and that is that everyone needs to go down this painful road of introspection. We talk about the press, we to think about how we do our job.
I remember, being in the Oval Office, interviewing Trump before the 2020 election. We're talking about what happened. How did he win in 2016? I think that something historians are going to be working on for decades, if not even more.
STELTER: A few years.
WOODWARD: So, we're talking about this. And I've tried to summarize what some of the historians were saying about 2016 and that the old order was dying in the Republican Party. There's no question about it. But the old order and the Democratic Party was dying.
And I said this to Trump and he just jumped in his chair at the Resolute Desk. And I said, you seized history's clock, pointing to that grandfather clock in the Oval Office. He was yes, and I'll do it again. Of course, he did not do it again. But it was only by 47,000 votes.
But he idea that we're going to do things and safe things to widen the partisan divide, I don't think serves the interest of the country or quite frankly, of journalism. I think we need to say what -- this is what we know, this is what we don't know, be very, very careful and be as an unemotional, frankly, it's difficult, but be as unemotional as possible here.
And one of the lessons of Watergate if I may is that the aides to Nixon turned on him. H.R. Haldeman wrote finally in his memoir said the dark shadow of Nixon runs through all of the crimes of Watergate.
[11:40:06]
That's exactly what we're finding and I think we'll find more of this week, and I think it's going to go on for a long time.
The tentacles of the Trump presidency and the subversion of basic democracy is great and I think people will look at that if it's -- if we can kind of take a strident tone out as much as possible.
BERNSTEIN: Let me as one really important thing, without a strident tone, and that is about the huge difference between Watergate and what's happening today. And that is, that it was courageous Republicans who said about Richard Nixon, you cannot be the president of the United States anymore because you are a criminal and you have violated the law.
So, when we wrote, Bob and I, the final days about Nixon's last months and year in office, among other things, we went to see Barry Goldwater, the great sort of conservative, the nominee of his party in 1964, to ask what had happened that he saw at the end.
And he pulled out his diary, poured himself a big whisky, pulled out his diary and began reading, and told us how he and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate had marched to the White House --
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: -- confronted Richard Nixon across the desk --
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: -- and Nixon said, Barry, in terms of conviction or acquittal in the Senate for after impeachment, would I prevail or not? Goldwater looked at the president and said, no, Mr. President, you have only a few votes and you will not have mine. You will not be acquitted. STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: You will be convicted.
That's the difference. The Senate Watergate Committee was constituted by a 77 to 0 vote, Republicans and Democrats. We now have a Republican Party that has said we won't participate in January 6 hearings. It is a partisan sham. It's not true.
STELTER: They do what Tucker tells them.
Bob and Carl, thank you very much for your time today. I'm honored to have you both here.
WOODWARD: Thank you.
[11:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: This week, the January 6 Committee moves to prime time holding the key hearing on Thursday with previously unseen material and witness testimony. That's what's being promised. It is undoubtedly important, but will it register with a mass audience?
Over the last 10 months of the committee's investigation, we've already learned so much, things to scoop after scoop from CNN and other outlets. Yet, pro-Trump media has denied, deflected, defended, or just outright ignored the headlines.
I mean, think about it. The coup pot was rooted in a big lie. And ever since then, new lies have surrounded it lies heard on shows like Tucker Carlson's on Fox and Greg Kelly's on Newsmax. It's so important to understand the divide in the media when it comes to January 6, two different extremes.
I mean, look at MSNBC's coverage. January 6 was mentioned more than 800 times so far on MSNBC this year, and fewer than 150 times on Newsmax. And many of those mentions on Newsmax are dismissing the attack. This is critical to understand that it's so normal now on the right to deny, to deflect, or in the words of Carlson, to say the committee is wholly illegitimate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST FOX NEWS CHANNEL: The holy illegitimate committee, January 6 is a phony beltway issue just an echo chamber, a lefty echo chamber.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: January 6, what a lot of crap -- what a lot of crap.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STELTER: That is his message. And listen to the cheers. The Trump base does not want to hear about the coup attempt. The Trump base does not want to hear about the violence, and about who inspired it and incited it. They don't want to hear the revelations at the hearing this week. And I'm not trying to claim that this doesn't matter, the hearing doesn't matter. I'm saying it's important. And because it is important, it's being rejected by the Maga media.
I mean, will Fox even show the hearing on Thursday? I asked a spokesperson for Fox News. I have not heard back. But it's hard to imagine Tucker Carlson at 8 p.m. Eastern who calls the committee illegitimate, Tucker Patriot purge Carlson, giving up his time slot to hear the truth about January 6. We'll see what Fox does. We will see what Newsmax does. But as Vanity Fair pointed out, the question for the media this week is whether the hearing will break through.
Back with us, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Bernstein is the author of Chasing History, and Woodward is the author and most recently co- author of Peril. Thank you both for continuing the conversation with us. Carl, you hear how skeptical I am that the media environment, this broken information environment is actually going to allow for a common ground this week on the 1/6 hearings. Am I too skeptical about what's going to happen?
BERNSTEIN: No, you're not too skeptical but I think we need to look at a bigger picture. And that is we're not just talking about Fox, we're not just talking about news media, this is about the culture of the United States, the people of the United States. And as journalists, one of the things we don't do enough is, go out and find what's on the minds of the people of this country.
Yes, the people of this country, many of them are affected and watch Fox and they're influenced by. And the divide in our politics is very much represented by the fact that Fox is a huge political and media force in this country. But we also need to look at what this January 6 hearing and the event is about. On --
STELTER: Does it matter if let's say seven out of 10 Americans know the truth and three out of 10 are in denial?
BERNSTEIN: I think what matters first is the -- is it become clear what happened on January 6, and the committee has got that information. It's devastating. Look, there is only one law in the United States that goes to elect the president of the United States and that is that on January 6, at 1 p.m., there will be a count of the electors from the election in November.
[11:35:10]
BERNSTEIN: That's the only moment, 1 p.m. when the president of the United States can be elected. What happened on January 6? The president of the United States, his lawyers, his aides, tried to keep that election from happening, staged a coup, so that Joe Biden could not become the duly elected and installed President of the United States, and tried to keep the vice president out of being in the chamber, chased him down the stairs so that the vice president could not preside over that 1 p.m. event. Mobs broke into the Capitol so that 1 p.m. counting could not take place.
I think there's a misunderstanding about the enormity and the actual timelines of what happened.
STELTER: I think there is. There is.
BERNSTEIN: So the people you're talking about --
STELTER: Yes.
BERNSTEIN: Whether they're on right, left, or center, they need to understand what happened at one o'clock and why the President, Trump, did not until five o'clock or whatever the exact time, 4:35 that afternoon, by which time he could see that the coup had failed, that the votes were counted.
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: But he had attempted to not give up his office and stay in power and Biden, not become the president of the United States. Astonishing.
STELTER: We -- I wrote that banner, which I take it down because it's obviously Trump fans are not going to watch the hearings, right? They're not going to watch the hearings. But I take your point, Carl, it's very important. There's a -- there -- he has a Maga base that's going to deny all of this and say just a few bad guys get out of hand.
But then there are actually a lot of Americans who just aren't as attuned to the news, as we are, Bob, who may want to tune in and learn new things for the first time. Let me just show this graphic before I go to you, Bob. This is a graphic showing Nielsen measurements of people watching TV during the day.
The reason it's called primetime is because, viewership peaks are the number of people available at home watching TV, peaks in the evening, you can see that peak right there at eight, 9 p.m. Eastern. So it is possible, Bob, tell me if I'm wrong, that there is a more casual news consumer who doesn't know all the details that we know about 1/6, that may learn them for the first time this week? Is that fair?
WOODWARD: Well, the details are important. And it clearly shows, Carl and I, in our endless discussions agree on really one point, there is an abundance of overwhelming evidence that this was a criminal conspiracy to subvert a lawful function of government. There's -- and it's in the law, it just says that that is a crime. But I also think there's a strain here that -- and that is that everyone needs to go down this painful road of introspection.
STELTER: Yes.
WOODWARD: We talked about the press. We need to think about how we do our job. I remember being in the Oval Office interviewing Trump before the 2020 election and we were talking about what happened, how did he win in 2016? I think that's something historians who are going to be working on for decades, if not even more --
STELTER: 50 years. WOODWARD: And so we're talking about this. And I tried to summarize what some of the historians were saying about 2016 and that the old order was dying in the Republican Party. There's no question about it. But the old order in the Democratic Party was dying. And I said this to Trump, and he just jumped in his chair at the resolute desk, and I said you see history's clock pointing to that grandfather clock in the Oval Office. And he was yes, and I'll do it again. Of course, he did not do it again but it was only by 47,000 votes.
But the idea that we're going to do things and say things to widen the partisan divide, I don't think serves the interest of the country or quite frankly, of journalism. I think we need to say what -- this is what we know, this is what we don't know, be very, very careful and be as unemotional, frankly, it's difficult, but be as unemotional as possible here.
And the -- one of the lessons of Watergate if I may, is if -- is that the aides to Nixon turned on it. H. R. Halderman wrote in finally in his memoirs said the dark shadow of Nixon runs through all of the crimes of Watergate.
[11:40:06]
WOODWARD: That's exactly what we're finding, and I think we'll find more this week. And I think it's going to go on for a long time that the tentacles of the Trump presidency and the subversion of basic democracy is great. And I think people will look at that if it's -- if we can kind of take the strident tone out as much as possible.
BERNSTEIN: Let me add one really important thing without a strident tone, and that is about the huge difference between Watergate and what is happening today. And that is that it was courageous Republicans who said about Richard Nixon, you cannot be the President of the United States anymore because you are a criminal and you have violated the law, so when we wrote, Bob and I, the final days about Nixon's last months and year in office.
Among other things, we went to see Barry Goldwater, the great sort of conservative nominee of his party in 1964, to ask what had happened that he saw at the end. And he pulled out his diary -- poured himself a big whiskey pulled out his diary and began reading and told us how he and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate had marched to the White House, confronted Richard Nixon across the desk.
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: And Nixon said, Barry, in terms of conviction or acquittal in the Senate for after impeachment, would I prevail or not. Goldwater looked at the president and said no, Mr. President, you have only a few votes and you will not have mine. You will not be acquitted.
STELTER: Right.
BERNSTEIN: You will be convicted. That's the difference. The Senate Watergate Committee was constituted by a 77-0 vote, Republicans and Democrats. We now have a Republican Party that has said we won't participate in the January 6 hearings. It is a partisan sham. It's not true.
STELTER: They do what Tucker tells them. Bob and Carl, thank you very much for your time today. I'm honored to have you both.
WOODWARD: Thank you.
STELTER: The Watergate Special, tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern. Still ahead, the local press in Uvalde Texas, how are they covering this potential cover-up? We've got an angle you haven't seen anywhere. One of the top newspaper editors in the region is going to join me live in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:34]
STELTER: Kids had to hide from the attacker at Robb Elementary. They had to run, they had to jump, they had to hide so they would not be shot to pieces and now it's the police that are hiding. They're hiding from the press. They have to hide from what, the truth, the public, and the truth? I think everybody's pretty angry at this point. It's a truly shocking state of affairs in Texas because at first, the officials misled the public and shared incorrect information about the massacre. Now, they're not sharing much at all.
And Uvalde this week, reporters have been stonewalled, doors shut in their faces, some even threatened with arrest just for standing on school property. When CNN's Shimon Prokupecz caught up with the Uvalde school district police chief, he refused to answer substantive questions.
Most outrageous of all, police apparently sent some bikers to intimidate journalists and prevent them from doing their jobs. They were trying to observe some of the funerals at a distance. And the bikers got their way and harassed them. There are so many missing pieces in the story still, so many critical answers -- questions left unanswered.
So let's go there to Texas to talk about how reporters are doing this. Nora Lopez is the executive editor of the San Antonio Express-News, that's the daily paper closest to Uvalde, who is also the president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Nora, can we trust anything the Texas authorities are telling us?
NORA LOPEZ, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS: First of all, thank you, Brian, for having me here today. To your question, it's become increasingly difficult for us to trust what authorities and what the police are telling us. And I -- that's just -- as a former police reporter, that's just extraordinary to me that I'm actually saying that because I've always trusted what the police was telling us, what the sergeant on duty was telling you, was -- what was happening.
But every day, it seems like we get one more little bit of information that directly contradicts what was initially told to us. So it's become a really hard situation for us as journalists to cover and especially as they're trying to control the narrative, it looks like.
STELTER: Yes, you're right. Yes.
LOPEZ: Keeping us away from talking to people who can help clarify the situation and what's happening on the ground.
STELTER: I think of this as the police say problem. There are many great officers who do heroic work but there are also many officers and departments that mislead the public. It's the police say problem. It seems to me what the police say should only be a starting point for the media, not an endpoint. Is that a fair way to assess it?
LOPEZ: Absolutely. And that's always what we try to do. We take what the police tell us, and then we go out and we try to verify it and we interview people and we seek those eyewitnesses and we see the family who can tell us you know about their loved ones because that's what we tried to do. We try to bring a little bit of order. We try to explain to the public what is going on and what is going on on the ground.
STELTER: Yes.
LOPEZ: And we're prevented from doing that. And that is just unprecedented.
STELTER: Tell us about that.
LOPEZ: I do not ever recall a situation like this.
STELTER: You sent us some photo -- you sent us some photos of your photographers being harassed by what -- basically, officers directed these bikers to get in their faces. What happened?
LOPEZ: That's what we were led to believe, by the bikers. The bikers are the ones who told us that they were there in the imitation of the police.
[11:50:02]
LOPEZ: We've never been told that by the police. We've tried to reach out to the police chief to register these concerns about how they're treating the media out there. We've not gotten a response from them yet. So it's just been a really incredible difficult situation the way they're trying to control access. So now, at least previously, we were sort of across the street from the funeral homes.
Now, they've started to block off all the roads leading in. We're not allowed to just walk the street across. People are -- reporters are getting told, no, you can't be here. This is not private -- this is private property. And we're like, no, we're standing in the middle of the street.
STELTER: Right.
LOPEZ: So on Thursday, my -- one of our reporters was confronted by these bikers who said they were there to help protect the families. And they don't need protection from us. We always treat them respectfully. This is not a fun part of the job. Who wants to go talk -- who wants to approach them when they're experiencing this, you know, unimaginable laws? But we see it as part of our duty. We want to tell their stories. We want to tell the stories of their loved ones.
And I'm being told that even in instances where the family wants to talk to the media, that these people were telling them, these bikers were saying you don't have to talk to them -- you don't have to talk to them just move along. So there's that added thing now that not only are they trying to prevent journalists from talking, but they're trying to prevent families too who want to share their stories, who want us to know what happened to their loved ones that day. And we'll have questions too just like we did.
STELTER: It's disturbing. 30 seconds left, what are you all doing to ensure long-term coverage of the aftermath of this massacre? Your paper is based 80 miles from Uvalde, are you thinking about setting up in town long term?
LOPEZ: Yes, we are. Right now, it's been very difficult to get a room. But we do plan to stay with this story for the long term. We believe it, you know, when all the national and international media is gone, we're going to be the ones who will stay with this story and continue to report on it and do everything we can to let people know what is unfolding there and how this community is recovering.
We did the same thing. We were the largest daily at Sutherland springs. We had a reporter and a photographer basically embed there and just go visit with the community for over a year of building trust. And we believe that that will be the case. Eventually, we will be able to build some trust within the community.
But right now, it's been really difficult. And reporters are nervous. They're scared. They've never seen anything like this before. I've spoken to several reporters, including reporters from some of the Spanish language media who say that this is unprecedented. We've never seen anything like this before.
STELTER: Let's hope we get the truth someday. Nora Lopez, thank you very much for being here.
LOPEZ: Thank you, Brian.
STELTER: We're going to keep tracking this issue in our nightly RELIABLE SOURCES Newsletter. Sign up for free at reliablesources.com. After the break, can the media be honest about what's really, truly breaking news?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:56:00]
STELTER: The so-called trial by TikTok between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard concluded on Wednesday. And I'm wondering if anybody actually prevailed in this. And yes, Depp won a legal victory over Heard but feels like everybody lost as a result of all the hate and venom that was stirred up on social media as a result of this. Let's bring in CNN Chief Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin. Toobin, was there any winner for this -- in this -- in this trial?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think Johnny Depp won temporarily. But the big losers here were women who had been the victims of domestic violence who are going to be shy -- more shy to come forward. But I think the press and the First Amendment is a tremendous loser here.
You know the idea that you could get $10 million for a story that was true, that's a very chilling message to the press because I mean, if you look at what was actually said in amber Heard's article, it's never been really disputed. The judge let that case get totally out of control and turn into a contest between like who's a worse person.
But that story was true. And I think this verdict is going to be overturned on appeal. But the message to the press has been a dark one here I think.
STELTER: A dark one. That's very interesting. And the Washington Post put an Editor's Note is maybe not the end of the -- of the story. All right, I've been saving one of the best media stories of the week for the end of the hour here. Let's try to do a live real-time demonstration of this, OK? Look below me, the banner says breaking news, but it's not. That's what CNN leadership is trying to fix. Let's change the banner and change the label, so it says developing instead. There we go. That's more accurate.
TOOBIN: Right.
STELTER: CNN CEO Chris Licht said -- sent a memo to staffers this week outlining new guidelines for using the term breaking news. He said. "Something I've heard from people both inside and outside the organization is complaints that we overuse the breaking news banner. I agree he said. It has become such a fixture on every channel and every network that its impact has become lost on the audience. Licht added. "We are truth-tellers, focused on informing not alarming our viewers.
So, Toobin, now the bar for labeling a story breaking news is much higher here on CNN. I think viewers have probably already noticed this change. It's already been happening slowly for the past few weeks. What do you make of it?
TOOBIN: Well, I -- it -- look, this is a -- this is a smart change. I think our viewers are smart enough to know that we've been promiscuous in using this term. You know, our friends over at MSNBC sometimes use the -- use the banner breaking today. Breaking today, what is that? That's just news. And I think all of us have been guilty of it and dialing it back will probably -- actually wind up generating more attention when there is actual breaking news.
STELTER: I think that's the goal, right? To have it mean something different.
TOOBIN: Right. STELTER: When something's actually big breaking news, you'll actually know it. And whether we can show some of the tweets from viewers, the reaction I've seen from this so far from viewers, from readers of the Newsletter has been like almost entirely positive. You never see that about anything these days, but unanimous positivity about this change.
All right, Toobin, thanks so much.
TOOBIN: Already, man?
STELTER: That's all for this televised edition of RELIABLE SOURCES. We'll see you back here this time next week. And sign up for a Nightly Newsletter, reliablesources.com.
