CNN, Lanny Davis, Bob Woodward discussed on On The Media

On The Media
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

It may still be correct. Even if Lanny Davis was blowing smoke out of his assertion. Will this be like the CBS Dan, rather scandal in the George W Shimin station, the Cincinnati inquirer and Chiquita bananas, -tuation or the ABC news in Food Lion bleached meet story where getting caught in a dubious journalistic practice had effect of erasing the ultimate truth of genuine scandal doesn't matter anymore. If the story was correct. Well, it has clouded the issue, but I actually don't know the answer whether the story is true or not, and I don't think any of the critics can say whether it's true or false because. What we don't know is who there are. Other sources are how good those sources are, and whether they're telling the truth, and you know there's also a caveat here about Lanny Davis, changing his story as CNN has pointed out. He had a great incentive to change his story because his original story, unbeknownst to him got his client, Michael Cohen potentially into a perjury trap. So once apparently he realized that he had every incentive to change his story. Again, this does not change the underlying truth or non truth of the CNN story, but it does bear on it and I can't tell whether it's wrong or not, and I'm certainly not going to be flat out saying that the Trump administration likes to, but I don't think they really have the evidence to say that CNN has a pretty good leg to stand on. All right, Paul. Now in the interest of transparency, I should say that we are friends, and I knew what. You're going to say in answer all my questions because had dinner Sunday night, and I already got these answers from you. But I wonder if in this this deja vu of an interview, there's a question that I failed to ask that gets to the heart of this story that I've, I've neglected to post. You know, I think that those are the basics of the story. You know, the Trump administration obviously has great incentives to say in almost every case where they're attacked, that this is untrue or that the sources have an agenda or that there's something wrong with the so-called fake news media and almost every time as far as I can tell almost every time there are exceptions. That's not the case. So I, in terms of understanding whether the CNN story is true or not, the deck is kind of stacked against the critics. The onus is on them to show that. The story is untrue as far as we know. And as far as we can tell almost every other element about it does appear to be at least adequately reported. Now, there is one further curious wrinkle to this story, and that is that in the past few days, President Trump has called, you know, Carl Bernstein Aligarh and he has called his Watergate writing partner, Bob Woodward Aligarh for the reporting in his book about Trump to be released in a few days titled fear everything old is new again, yes, shades of nineteen seventy two. When Nixon was attacking a young Carl Bernstein and a young Bob Woodward at the Washington Post. It's exactly parallel. Yeah. Tell me again. How did that come out? Watch the end of all the president's men that gives it away. Paul, thank you very much. Thank you Bob. Paul Farhi is my pal and the media reporter for the Washington Post..

Coming up next