Return to Transcripts main page

Reliable Sources

Bipartisan Antitrust Bill Targets Big Tech; Juneteenth Commemorates End Of Slavery In The U.S.; CNN And PBS Veteran Mark Shields Dies At 85; Analyzing the News Media's Biden Narrative; YouTube Pulls Jan. 6 Committee Clip Over "Misinformation". Aired 11a- 12p ET

Aired June 19, 2022 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:29]

BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST: Hey, I'm Brian Stelter live in New York. Happy Father's Day.

This is RELIABLE SOURCES, where we examine the story behind the story and we figure out what's reliable.

This hour, the January 6 hearings are highlighting the democracy beat. We're going to look at why some newsrooms are adding editors and reporters to this key post.

Plus, YouTube has a big election misinformation policy. But is it backfiring? "Reason's" Robby Soave is here with that.

And as the U.S. commemorates Juneteenth, of fresh perspective about race and education. The author of that book, Ibram X. Kendi will join me.

We will also pay tribute to the late and great Mark Shields. His daughter, Amy, will join me live.

But, first, the U.S. media's narrative about President Biden. It might seem like the Biden administration is facing a perfect storm right now with regards to rising inflation, sky high gas prices, the continued COVID pandemic, the president's unpopularity in the polls, and more and more columns -- columnists and commentators are bringing up Biden's age as a factor as well.

Right now, some liberals see a pylon going on, conservatives think others are catching up to where they've been all along about Biden. Even standard photo ops seem to be going sideways for Biden right now. Of course, the news media shapes these narratives, chooses what's video to show, maybe warps these narratives. Biden's relative lack of interview with the media has also been a sore spot. Reporters, you hear those complaints.

This week, he invited a reporter from "The Associated Press" into the Oval Office for a 30 minute interview. It is a rare move, as some of these headlines said. There are a long list of many outlets still waiting for a turn with the president. But, there is a lot of news in that interview. Let's talk about it in

a whole lot more, with Julie Pace, who's executive editor of "The Associated Press". Also here with me, Danielle Belton, the editor in chief of the pioneering digital news source, "HuffPost". And John Harwood, a veteran of "The Wall Street Journal" and CNBC, now a White House correspondent here at CNN. Lots to talk about.

Julie, this "Associated Press" interview with Biden, this was the "AP's" first interview with Biden. It's been basically a year and a half. What took so long? And why do you think he spoke to your reporter now?

JULIE PACE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: Well, it's a good question why it took so long. We certainly wish we could've had a chance to interview the president sooner. But we are very appreciative of the opportunity to do so this past week.

Look, I think there's a few reasons why the White House decided to give Josh Boak, our terrific White House economics reporter this interview. One is exactly what the said, Josh is an economics-focused reporter and this is a moment when the White House realizes that economics, the way that people are feeling about their own personal economic situation, that is probably the most urgent situation facing voters heading into the November elections.

And they look to 'The Associated Press", a news organization that really speaks to a lot of Americans who are not following the daily twists and turns of politics. They are not following, you know, all the back and forth on Capitol Hill, or a lot of, you know, political punditry shows. But they are very attuned to what is happening in their own lives. So, I think this was an attempt by Biden to reach out to some of those voters to make clear that he understands some of the frustrations that they are feeling, and to go with the reporter who is very steeped in economic policy, who knows inside and out.

STELTER: And there is quite a bit of news in the interview. I was reading it for hints about his media diet, his references to reading "The New York Times Magazine". You can sense in some cases the president's frustration with the news media.

John Harwood, have you picked up on that from your post from the White House as well?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Oh, there's no question. I think the Biden White House thinks that all of the coverage is unduly negative, that he is getting blamed for inflation when, at best, it's only partly attributable to administration policies. It's part of the difficulties that any modern president has and communicating. There is so much media, there's so much media criticism, that it's very difficult for a White House to set a clear communication strategy, and see it breakthrough to the American people.

So many sources of information online, on television, other means. So, yes, they're quite frustrated right now. STELTER: On this Father's Day, your dad, John, was the first

ombudsman at a major American paper, "The Washington Post". So, your father was a media critic. That was in the '70s. It's an unimaginable meeting environment compared to today.

So, where Biden's critiques about the media legitimate? Where they justified? And where would you say they're not justified?

[11:05:02]

HARWOOD: Well, look, let's talk about the age thing, to begin with. You mentioned --

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: Yeah. Let's look at Mark Leibovich's column, Mark Leibovich, you know, top writer for "The Atlantic", saying that Biden should not run for reelection. It's not just Sean Hannity talking about Biden's age. It's "The Atlantic Magazine".

HARWOOD: That's right. And it was an outstanding piece by Mark.

Without taking a stand on whether he's too old to run for reelection, let me just run through what is true, what's false, what's gets conflated. What's true is the president is a hugely taxing job, mentally and physically.

And Joe Biden is old. He doesn't talk or walk as smoothly as he once did. That suggests challenges. And when you get into your 80s, which he's about to do, the risk of health problems grows with every year.

On the other hand, what's false is that he is not capable of doing the job right now, or he's not mentally in tune with the demands of the job. Anybody, any aide who engages with him, or reporter, we can see this, the gears of his mind are working, that is an issue pushed by right-wing media, but it's not correct.

And what gets conflated is this, President Biden is in the political position right now, and because he's old, people think he's weak because he's old. His biggest political problem right now is five dollar a gallon gas. Gas is not $5 a gallon because Joe Biden's old. His legislative program is not stymied in Congress because Joe Biden is old. It's because he's got a 50/50 Senate, and one of the members of that Democratic Senate comes from a Trump plus 39 state.

I think the other thing that we should point out is that younger, more vibrant presidents, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, also had tremendous political problems in their second year, got hammered in midterm elections, and they ended up politically healthier. So, Joe Biden would look a little bit younger if he was 50 percent and 40 percent, but he's not, and so, he's going to have to deal with these stories for sometime.

STELTER: But all of that context you're providing, John, is that an argument, Danielle, that the president needs to be given a lot more interviews in order to tell that story? DANIELLE BELTON, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HUFFPOST: Well, I mean, he just has

to. Like, for example, I would love to talk to him at "HuffPost", would love to talk to him about anything he like to talk about.

The reality is, not talking doesn't solve anything. Like, you cannot talk and you can prove that you're not willing to fight, and you can lose the midterms and possibly even lose in 2024. You have to maintain being proactive. You have to be aggressive.

You have to stay out there because it's not, like -- yes, he is very blunt and gaffe-prone, like that's the reality, but not talking doesn't change the reality. Not talking just makes him not part of a news cycle, not part of the story.

STELTER: Right.

BELTON: Not controlling the narrative.

STELTER: And I like the reality about what Biden can control and cannot control. He can control how much he communicates or not. He cannot control -- and John Harwood, this is a point you made and when your columns, he cannot control what's the Fed actions, or the minutiae of inflation.

You point out when your columns, the Fed doesn't have daily press briefings, but the White House does. So, maybe the White House gets more blame about economic problems than it actually deserves. Is that fair statement?

HARWOOD: Well, yes, in terms of this particular economic problem. But look, it is fair to say that Joe Biden's fiscal policy at the beginning of the administration may have exacerbated the problem with inflation. It did not create the problem of inflation. There are many factors that went into, that including supply shocks from the pandemic, loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, the war in Ukraine, all of that.

The economy is springing back to life in the pandemic, that in itself made demand surge, the government put a lot of money people's pockets. So, that's a legitimate criticism.

On the other hand, the Federal Reserve is the steward of monetary policy. That's the most important way of controlling inflation. And Joe Biden, as the face of the American government, he gets asked every single day, what's your strategy on inflation? What's your message on inflation?

There aren't too many good answers for that. The president has to come up with some answers. And we're going to be dealing with this all the way through the election because inflation is going to be with us through then.

But the idea that any president of the United States, for example, can just make gas prices go down, it's kind of ridiculous.

STELTER: Right. News coverage needs to reflect that reality certainly.

All right. Everyone, stay with me, let's turn to this week's revelations from the January six hearings and this note from the committee chair.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE: There are some who think the danger has passed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STELTER: The January 6 hearings, the hearings are not just about the past, they are about the present, and the future. The creation of the historical record is important, but it may be the least important aspect. Heading off the next coup attempt may matter a lot more.

[11:10:00]

We are seeing specific threats to democracy, to the right to vote, in places like New Mexico. We're seeing conspiracy theories erupt into screams in one county.

Quote, after false fraud claims through primary certification into question. These stories are keeping reporters busy, the same way rot and mold keeps contractors busy. And some newsrooms are taking a stand. Joe Kahn, who became executive editor of "New York Times" this week, told NPR's David Folkenflik, you can't have independent journalism in a non-free society, and we are not impartial about whether or not this nation becomes a non-free society.

In this week, "The Associated Press" named Tom Verdin to a new job, democracy editor.

So, back with Julie Pace here, top editor of the "AP".

Julie, I've never heard of a democracy news editor before? What's this about?

PACE: So this is a really new, but also crucial thing beat that we are covering at the "AP". This is threats to democracy, yes, the United States will be looking at this globally, because while this is certainly an issue here at home, this is an issue in a lot of countries around the world. One of the reasons that I'm particularly excited that Tom Verdin, as you mentioned, is the name to our democracy editor is that Tom's background comes in leading statehouse coverage at the "AP" in all 50 states.

And I think the challenge that a lot of news organizations are facing when it comes to covering democracy is that, yes, this is, of course, a national issue, it's a macro issue, but it's playing out all across the country in very local ways. And you saw a great example of that in New Mexico, as you pointed out, where you had a rural county, with a three-person commission that decided to hold off on certifying election results, basically, just because they didn't want to certify them. There was no evidence there. And so, we have to really get down into the weeds of this at the state

and local level, for so many of these decisions are going to be made, and if you think about what happened in New Mexico, potentially playing out across the country, in November, in the midterm elections, in a general election in 2024, I think it's certainly could provide enough fodder to keep a democracy editor and democracy team quite busy.

STELTER: Yes, indeed.

Danielle, you sent me an email, this is something you have to keep ringing the alarm about that. What exactly is the alarm?

BELTON: The alarm is that we have an extremist wing, an extremist element within the conservative movement that is trying to basically take over the Republican Party. Like this is happening in Idaho already.

Chris Mathias, one of our reporters here at HuffPost, has chronicled in-depth what's been going on in Idaho where you have outsiders coming into the state, to try to influence local elections, to try to elect more extremist people with extremist views. And have -- and just recently, you had 31 white nationalists who were arrested with intent to riot at a pride event. And that's what we're up against. We're up against a small minority of people.

STELTER: When you say we are up against, who is we?

BELTON: The press.

STELTER: The American people, the press.

BELTON: The American people, all of us. Anyone who is pro-democracy, pro-free press, pro-equality, and this is what we're up against, because these are things these people do not want.

They don't want to see a free equitable society. They don't want to see a place where someone like me is leading in newsroom at "HuffPost". They don't want to see women in positions of power or people of color in positions of power, or to see gay people and trans people live freely and openly. Like that's what we are up against.

If you are for freedom, if you are for equality, you have to take a stand. So, that's why it's so important for the press to keep begging the drum. This is not the time to be shy. This is not the time to demure away from something. This is not the time to just both sides something to death (ph). There is no both sides to whether or not your pro democracy.

STELTER: We should report the truth. And let me show this headline at the same time. Here's some truth.

A Fox News poll that says more Republicans -- so here's the headlines, Republicans are more likely to preserve democracy than Democrats. So, if you ask the American people, who is more likely to save democracy, you're going to get Republicans over Democrats, by 1 percent. But the point, John, is there is a divide on that question as well.

So, all the talk about democracy and extremism in the Republican Party, a lot of people don't see it that way at all.

HARWOOD: Well, sure. And people answering that question may interpret the support of democracy's meaning that their side wins. But I think, as Danielle indicated, we've got to make sure as reporters that we have the right language for this moment.

The traditional way that we cover political disputes in Congress, for example, is Democrats on one side Republicans on the other. The spectrum is liberal to conservative. And we should not take sides on liberal versus conservative.

However, this situation, the Trump era more generally, this particular situation, that's not the spectrum. The spectrum is truth on the one side and lies on the other side. And a large chunk of the Republican Party has chosen to situate itself on the lying end of that spectrum.

[11:15:06]

Donald Trump is, of course, been there for a long time, many Republicans are now echoing his lies, and when we see what the January 6 committee is laying out, not partisan in the slightest, Republican witnesses, Republican questioners, Republican members like Liz Cheney leading the divide, we can't shrink from identifying who is on the truth side and who is on the line side.

That is a choice that Republicans, many Republicans have made. And we in the press are not indifferent to that. We should take sides in that, we are for the truth, and we're got to say so.

STELTER: Julie Pace, last word to you.

PACE: I -- look, I agree, we need to be advocates for the truth, for facts. I do think, as a challenge to all of my colleagues in the media, one of the things we need to keep trying to do is to explain what the truth is, to do it in language that people can understand, to do in ways that help try to break through some of these bubbles that people live in.

I think that that's a pursuit that is really noble. And I hope we all continue to do it.

STELTER: Julie Pace, Danielle Belton, and John Harwood, thank you all for the conversation.

Up next here, why did YouTube take down a video published by the 1/6 House committee? Robby Soave is standing by with reaction to that.

And, later, a galactic battle for your attention. We're going to show you how big tech rivals are trying to out-Tik and out-Tok TikTok.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:50] STELTER: Hey, welcome back.

More of former President Trump's lies will be on full display on Capitol Hill this week. There will be more hearings by the January 6 committee. More presentations of multi media clips during the public hearings.

YouTube removed one of those videos from the platform this week, because the presentation included a clip of one of Trump's lies about 2020. "The New York Times" captured the screenshot with the video that says, this video is private. You can't watch it on YouTube.

So, why? That's because the platform, owned by Google and Alphabet, shifted its election misinfo policy a month after the 2020 election. YouTube included a blanket ban that included lies about the election without, quote, proper context, regardless of who creates it. Is that the right policy?

Let's bring Robby Soave, senior editor at "Reason" magazine, a libertarian bible. He also hosts a YouTube for "The Hill" that was suspended in March under the same policy.

Robby, so this policy, can you explain it to viewers? Because I think it's confusing.

ROBBY SOAVE, SENIOR EDITOR, REASON MAGAZINE: It is quite confusing. People understand. What's his policy is, is that if you are showing the claim that Trump has made, the false claim he has made about the election, unless you immediately in that same video correct it or you have a disclaimer in it, then they are counting that whole video as spreading misinformation, even if it's clear that, you know, it's not you the producer of the video saying that. You are simply calling attention to it, which is obviously a legitimate function of journalism, of this committee.

The same thing happens to my YouTube show, "Rising". We played a clip of Trump. It's a new show, saying that he said this. It was clear we did not endorse that claim. My viewers know I don't endorse that claim. I rejected that claim on a number of occasions.

But because I didn't immediately do so in the video, they counted that as spreading misinformation.

Spreading awareness of misinformation is not the same as spreading misinformation itself. YouTube I think should figure that out. It's really lunacy that they haven't.

STELTER: Here's the company's statement. Let's put it on screen.

Our election integrity policy prohibits content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, or errors or glitches changed the outcome of the election. If it does not provide sufficient context, we enforce our policies equally for everyone. And that's why we removed video from the committee.

Gosh, I really this is been eye-opening, though. It was eye-opening when it happened to you at "The Hill". It's eye-opening for the committee. I think this makes people think twice about their relationship to these big tech platforms.

SOAVE: Yeah. And, look, there's a lot of misinformation out there, but I think the efforts to absolute moderate it in all cases can go overboard, and this is a good case of that. What if Trump was speaking and it was just being covered live by some outlet on YouTube? What about C-Span? Is YouTube going to take the position that every claim has to be vetted in real time?

Right now, they're only saying it's election misinformation and then some specific COVID claims. But as we know, Brian, some -- even some claims about efficacies of certain, you know, what -- the vaccines, masks work, like that -- the knowledge of that changes overtime, and different recommendations come out. So, the idea that they would have some blanket ban in anyone circumstance on just those subjects, it seems very weird to me. I think it might give people the idea that like everything on YouTube is being vetted, because if that was true they would take it down. That would be even more confusing to people.

STELTER: We'd love to have a executive on to talk about this.

All right. I'd love to know your take on the coverage of one six this week, Robby. We talked here last week about Fox News not showing the first hearing, the primetime hearing. Two hearings this week were shown live by Fox News, and something interesting happened in the ratings, maybe something predictable. The ratings cratered. Fox viewers basically turned off the TV when the hearings were on and then turned Fox back on when the hearings were over. Of course, ratings of CNN and MSNBC both increased dramatically during the hearings.

So, I think we can take away from that the same thing new ABC polling is showing. The Republicans are a lot less interested in watching these hearings.

What have you noticed about right-wing media coverage this week?

SOAVE: Yeah. I mean, they don't want to talk about it and they should because it's legitimate news and the job is to cover the news and that should be true whether you're ostensibly liberal or ostensibly conservative. But I do think it gets at a broader truth, which is that no one -- no one knew is being won over or persuaded by any of this.

[11:25:04]

Every person in the country has made up their mind about Trump and his culpability or lack thereof, depending on your perspective, in what happened at the Capitol. And I don't think -- I don't have any confidence that new revelations in this -- in this committee hearing are going to move the ball on that whatsoever.

We broadly already know what happened. We know Trump said things that are true and stoked a mob that did what we all saw, this horrible. And then he was almost removed in office for it, but he was acquitted.

I mean, what else can we do? What else can we learn about it? And we're -- you're not going to bring more Americans, I don't think, more Americans who haven't already made up their mind on Trump. Is there such a person? Isn't everyone on their own side they figured out by now?

And I think the risk of under-covering what people, independent and moderate people who've not made up their minds about who they would vote for next time based on inflation, the economy, those things, that's what -- I'm not saying the January 6 committee doesn't -- it certainly matters, and should be covered. But I think people have decided how they feel about it and there a lot of other issues that certainly merit attention that people haven't totally made up their mind about yet.

STELTER: So, a related story, and one of the most interesting media stories of the week was about this place, about CNN. And that's what we cover here.

So, let's put on screen the "Mediaite" headline about CNN. New CNN boss wants staff to stop calling Trump's election claims 'The Big Lie".

So, the headline, I would say it's a little more nuanced than that. Let me quote from it. It says on a Tuesday conference call, CNN CEO Chris Licht was asked for his thoughts about the big lie, and he said he prefers staff avoid the term. He made clear this was a preference.

According to our source, Licht argued that the big lie makes this mistake of adopting branding from the Democratic Party, thereby weakening the objectivity of the network.

I thought that was a fascinating inside the newsroom debate, all of a sudden it's become public and it's been distorted by some people. But what's your read on this? Rethinking the phrase the big lie?

SOAVE: I mean, I think probably agree, at least partly, with your boss here. I mean, the big lie is also not specific, right, unless you extremely plugged in to what you're talking about. I know what you're talking about when you refer to that.

But maybe the average person doesn't. In fact, any number of lies of claims Trump has made that are lies, even prior to the election. They could be referring to that. So, it's the biggest lie of our lifetime, of the political news cycle, wouldn't that be weapons of mass of destruction or something going back to the Bush era?

So, I think Trump election lies is a more accurate way to describe it anyway. But, you know, we should just talk about it and probably not get overly obsessed with what the right language is. And, you know, independent commentators should make that own judgment for themselves certainly.

STELTER: Did you know happened over the weekend? Twice now in speeches, Trump has basically lied about this twice and Mediaite's word, he lie about CNN's use of the big lie, by saying it was a mandate, when it was not. So, that actually just illustrates the challenge, the conundrum. It's

what we've been talking about for seven years, Robby, the challenge of covering Donald Trump.

SOAVE: And we have to be very careful how and when and where we talk about it on social media because of their misguided policies for how we discuss these things.

STELTER: Hey, before I let you go, Stephen Colbert's production team up on Capitol Hill. Some of the crew members were arrested because they were in these House hallways apparently banging on doors. On Fox, this was treated like an actual insurrection.

Do you think -- what do you think is the real story here, if there is one?

SOAVE: Right. My understanding is they're not -- they weren't participating in that. Look, the work of journalism is important and should not be -- should not be thwarted by the state. I always want to call attention whenever we're even tangentially talking about threats to the press that -- a grave threat to the press right now.

STELTER: Even a comedy show?

SOAVE: Is Julian Assange, the U.S. government's attempt to extradite, we got to get that out there. It's bad and it should be ended.

But, yeah, even a comedy show should enjoy, you know, comedy does important journalism work and tell important truths and absolutely deserves any other kind of -- the same protection we're all getting, that all people deserve really.

STELTER: I think there's a lot -- yeah, there's a lot more to this Colbert story. I want to know more about the charges, hopefully more will come out in the days ahead.

Thank you, Robby. Thanks for coming on.

SOAVE: Thank you.

STELTER: Coming up here, brand-new reporting from D.C. Big tech descending on Congress. We are going to tell you what they are lobbying against.

Plus, on this Juneteenth, wise words from one of America's bestselling anti-racism authors. Ibram X. Kendi is standing by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN ANCHOR: Big Tech is fighting for control. Tech giants are trying to thwart a bipartisan bill called the American innovation and Choice Act. It's an antitrust bill led by Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley targeting huge tech companies like Google and Amazon. Supporters say this bill has the votes needed to pass both chambers of Congress. So will it? What's going on?

Joining me now is CNN tech reporter Brian Fung and a CNN Alum, now the Creator economy reporter at The Information, Kaya Yurieff. Welcome to both. Brian, what have you learned about tech CEOs coming to DC?

BRIAN FUNG, CNN TECHNOLOGY REPORTER: Well, we know that the tech industry has been engaged in a massive lobbying campaign to try to defeat this bill and prevent it from becoming law. Google's CEO is going to be on the Hill this coming week to meet with lawmakers, which comes just after Apple CEO Tim Cook was on the Hill a couple of weeks ago. We also know that Amazon's CEO has been calling lawmakers directly to make his case on this bill. And you know why is this you know happening now and why is it important? In two reasons. One, lawmakers that are supporting the bill are trying to engage in a last- minute push to get this bill through with a Senate floor vote.

[11:35:05]

FUNG: As you know, the Senate has just a limited amount of time this summer to pass legislation before the August recess, and then we come back and it will be the midterms. Second, you know, this bill really drives at the heart of the business models of some of these companies which is why they're -- you know, so dead set on fighting it.

STELTER: Is it fair to say, Kaya, that this bill is just one of many problems that tech companies have right now?

KAYA YURIEFF, CREATOR COMPANY REPORTER, THE INFORMATION: It definitely is. I think it's a major problem because basically, at the heart of this bill is they want tech companies to stop favoring their own product over rivals. So Google, which owns YouTube wouldn't be able to prioritize YouTube videos and search results for example, or Apple wouldn't be able to preload its own apps onto iPhones.

So definitely a big problem for them but if you think about the backdrop we're in right now, we have rising inflation. We have an economic downturn and looming recession, which has the potential to impact these ad-driven business models. But I think the big issue is competition. Everyone wants to be TikTok right now. And all these companies are trying to roll out a short-form video to compete better with TikTok.

STELTER: Everybody wants to be TikTok. So what are you seeing, what actions are these companies taking, and why do they want to be TikTok?

YURIEFF: Well, I think the problem is the old playbook was, buy up these rivals, and they're not able to do that right now with antitrust scrutiny so their best option is to copy them. We saw Facebook do that really effectively with Instagram stories with disappearing posts, which is -- which was what Snapchat pioneered. But they haven't been able to do that with short-form video. And I think it's just because TikTok has just captured young people, it's captured the cultural zeitgeist, and it's just far ahead of all these competitors. STELTER: Right. So that's the real challenge. And there's been a lot of stories, Brian, lately about TikTok and its ownership, and the data that American users have maybe being seen by China. Fill us in on that.

FUNG: Sure. I mean, I think what we saw this past week was TikTok announcing that it moved all of its U.S. users' data to a platform owned and operated by Oracle, which is goes toward addressing some of the concerns that U.S. national security officials have raised about TikToks links to China, it is owned by a Chinese company and the company has really had a hard time trying to address those concerns that, you know, U.S. users' data could be put at risk if the Chinese government were to try to get access to it for example.

STELTER: I see. And here's the question I asked every week. What's the latest with Elon Musk and Twitter? Is he still dead set on buying Twitter, Brian?

FUNG: Well, last week, we saw Elon Musk meeting with Twitter's employees. He took questions from them. And he did seem to kind of re- up his interest in owning Twitter, addressed a number of things ranging from you know what remote work might look like at the future of the company to you know, what he thinks content moderation should look like.

And for Twitter's users, I think the interesting thing is, you know, Musk really doubled down on this idea of, you know, freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean freedom of reach. And you know he's really kind of explaining that just because you might be able to say something on Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that Twitter should be able to amplify or should amplify that to a wider audience, which is actually fairly similar to how Twitter operates today.

STELTER: Right.

FUNG: In the kind of underscores how you know maybe Twitter under Elon Musk might not be all that different after all.

STELTER: And, Kaya, does Musk have TikTok envy too? Does he want to be TikTok also?

YURIEFF: I think he does. We saw him tweet I think Friday night about you know, TikTok being bad for society or kind of posing that question but he said that he wants Twitter to be a billion -- you know, billion-user company.

STELTER: Yes.

YURIEFF: And TikTok has already achieved that. I mean all the attention eyeballs are going there so it can't be --

STELTER: All going there.

YURIEFF: It can't be good for Twitter either.

STELTER: Thank you both for the conversation. Lots more ahead, we're going to keep covering all this in our nightly RELIABLE SOURCES NEWSLETTER. Sign up for free at reliablesources.com. Up next, Ibram X. Kendi on what the media is getting wrong about race.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:43:09]

STELTER: Today marks the second year that the U.S. is celebrating Juneteenth as a Federal Holiday. It comes amid loud conversations sometimes at school board meetings about what is and is not being taught about the nation's history of racism and inequality. These states have placed limits on race education, for example. I spoke with Ibram X Kendi, founder of the Center for Anti-Racist Research at Boston University. His newest book is titled, How To Raise An Antiracist. We talked about all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STELTER: One of your primary roles is as an educator so on this Juneteenth, what does white America needs to know about the holiday?

IBRAM X. KENDI, AUTHOR, "HOW TO RAISE AN ANTIRACIST": I think that if it was -- I mean, there are so many things that I think white Americans need to know about Juneteenth and really the larger issue of slavery and emancipation. Because unfortunately, it's just not taught in schools, it's not really engaged within our political discourse, it's not talked about in the media. But it doesn't single idea that white Americans, I hoped would learn. It's that white people did not see black people from slavery. Historians are finding that the black people freed themselves to their own resistance, which telling was really significant in the south succeeding from the union. Black people running from plantations into union sort of, lines and even in its -- into the Union army was critical in the turning of the tide of the Civil War.

STELTER: You say people are not taught that. Students are not taught that. So many of the arguments in the past couple of years have been about what students are or are not learning. Does the media just fundamentally get this coverage wrong?

[11:45:00]

KENDI: I think the media is and I think this is one of the reasons why I even wrote How To Raise In Antiracist. Because when you have an educational system that rarely has literature on people of color and you simultaneously rarely talk about racism and our children are being raised in an inequitable society where certain people with certain skin color are more likely to be impoverished or incarcerated, our kids are being taught that it must not be racism. White people must have more because they are more. And they're literally seeing white people as more in the curriculum, especially over the last two years. So it's creating a dangerous situation for our children, which white supremacists, particularly those who are recruiting children online are exploiting.

STELTER: And they're exploiting it, where? Where do you see that mostly happening?

KENDI: Well, think about if you're a white male teen and no one has explained to you about the ideology of white supremacy, how would you be able to identify it when someone steps -- a white supremacist steps into your multiplayer video game or when they sort of sendoff a meme that you find sort of funny or they send you a direct message? You're not going to know that it's white supremacist ideology because no one wants to talk to you about it. No one is educating you about it in your schools.

STELTER: But so much of the conversation right now is in the opposite direction. It is from the right -- from right-wing media, saying get this education out of the schools, make sure it's not taught to kids. What side do you feel is winning right now?

KENDI: I don't necessarily see it as a sort of winning or losing. I actually see it as more of a sort of harm and protection. In other words, there are districts in which the minds of children are being harmed because they're not being taught about the beautiful diversity. That is the human experience. And then in other school districts, kids are being protected because they're being taught, indeed about that diversity and they're being taught that bad rules are the racial problem and not that people. And then I think that's what -- that's how we need to be sort of thinking about this, like, are we truly protecting our children by not engaging with them about those different and other folks as being equal, by not talking to them about racial disparities being the result of racism?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STELTER: Harm versus protection. That's definitely going to stay with me. Hey, we have a special event here on CNN tonight. Juneteenth: A Global Celebration For Freedom starts at 8 p.m. Eastern Time right here on the network. Up next here, what Mark Shields taught us about politics? His daughter, Amy, will join me with reflections on his incredible life.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:52:37]

STELTER: Legendary political analyst Mark Shields died on Saturday. He was 85. Shields was a regular presence here on CNN for nearly two decades, co-hosting Capital Gang, and he was a fixture on the PBS NewsHour for more than three decades. His daughter, Amy Doyle, joins me now. Amy, thank you so much for coming on.

Yes.

STELTER: I know you and your family are all grieving. What did you know about your father that all of us didn't know? What did you know that the viewing public didn't get to know?

AMY DOYLE, DAUGHTER OF LEGENDARY COMMENTATOR MARK SHIELDS: Oh, my, gosh. There are so many things, Brian. He was an amazing father. He's an amazing husband. But more than anything, I think there are so many fun things about my dad. He was -- he was actually very much the same person on television that he was at home. He was very real, he was very honest and open, and he liked -- he really truly believed in his life to treating everyone equally, as far as you know like from the President of the United States to the person pouring coffee or waiting on your table. That's just the kind of person he was. He really believed in that. And I think that's actually fundamentally why he also believes in politics.

STELTER: Oh.

DOYLE: So it's just an inch -- I mean, he's just -- he believed -- he loved people and he loved politics. I'd say those are the two things about my dad.

STELTER: What points did he make about politics and campaigns that need to live on?

DOYLE: My dad loved people who ran for office. That was something he always said in his speeches and he wrote about it a lot because it's the most ultimate risk you can take, right? Like putting yourself out there and potentially probably losing, right? So, and then having it be on the splashed on the cover of the New York Times or The Washington Post the next day, it's -- he loves that -- he loves that risk that people would do -- would take and would put themselves out there. And, you know, that was probably -- that's the one thing I think of a lot.

He just -- he also was just like, he just felt that politics was actually important and that it was something that you know, that basically dueling parties should have conflict, should have a conversation, should be able to talk about those things, but not necessarily in the way, it's been happening in the past few years.

STELTER: Right.

DOYLE: I think that's very different from like our -- your Era and mine to my dad's, it's just a different world. And I think that was really difficult for him to deal with because, you know, he grew up in a time when politics was important and people listened to each other.

[11:55:00]

DOYLE: And that is what he definitely wanted to pass on, I note, to the future of --

STELTER: Yes.

DOYLE: You know, the future political commentators and presidents and congressmen.

STELTER: And you're a TV producer yourself. We actually happen to be colleagues both at Warner Brothers Discovery. You make television for a living.

DOYLE: Yes.

STELTER: Do you see connections between your work and his time on TV?

DOYLE: I do. I mean, I think it -- he's storytelling is probably the headline, right? We were both storytellers in different senses. I mean, he was more involved in politics and news, I'm -- I work for TLC. And we do a lot of shows about a lot of unusual people and families and subcultures and sort of lots of different people. But the theme, his storytelling, and its storytelling for the underdog. I think that's probably the biggest thing that you know people -- TLC could be -- I mean, maybe not everyone thinks of it as underdog television but it is. It's really actually telling people's stories who wouldn't maybe otherwise be told.

STELTER: I'm really glad that you could come on today and tell us about your dad. And thank you so much for coming on, Amy.

DOYLE: Thank you so much for having me.

STELTER: It's a reminder to hold your dads close today and every day. I want to wish Happy Father's Day to everybody watching today, our executive producer, John, and all the dads tuning in. We'll see you right back here this time next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)