>> WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EXERTING HUGE PRESSURE ON THE MEDIA, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" EDITORIAL BOARD ACCUSED IT OF, QUOTE, DISTORTED VIEW.

WHEREBY IT'S BANNING WORDS, PHRASES, AND IDEAS IN FAVOR OF ITS OWN VERSION OF FREE SPEECH.

FORMER CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF AND JOURNALISM PROFESSOR FRANK SESNO FEARS UNLESS NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HOLD ALL POWER TO ACCOUNT, THE END RESULT MAY VERY WELL BE WHAT HE CALLS A PROPAGANDA SERVICE.

HE'S JOINING MICHEL MARTIN NOW TO DISCUSS THIS WORRYING TRAJECTORY.

>> THANKS.

FRANK, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> IT'S A PLEASURE.

>> YOU AND I WERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE TOGETHER.

SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS DOES.

>> WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS COVERS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THOSE WHO MEET WITH HIM, WHERE THE PRESIDENT GOES, CHANGES IN POLICY, AND THE POLITICS THAT SURROUND THE POLICY AND VICE VERSA THAT TAKES PLACE THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY.

THERE'S A PRESS BRIEFING ROOM.

THAT'S WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS SITS WHEN THERE'S A BRIEFING.

SOME HAVE OFFICES THERE.

THOSE WHO ARE THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND THEN THERE'S THE POOL, WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT.

SMALLER GROUPS THAT COME OUT OF THE LARGER WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS TO COVER THE PRESIDENT, TO BE PRESENT IN SMALLER SPACES, WHETHER IT'S THE OVAL OFFICE OR AIR FORCE ONE.

>> BUT THE POOL ITSELF, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS A POOL?

>> THERE IS A POOL BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY TIMES WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS GOING SOMEPLACE OR HOLDING AN EVENT IN A SMALLER SPACE WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS, 100-PLUS PEOPLE, COULDN'T POSSIBLY FIT.

SO TRADITIONALLY, THE POOL HAS REPRESENTED MEMBERS FROM THE PRESS CORPS, A PHOTOGRAPHER, A VIDEOGRAPHER, SOMEONE SHOOTING VIDEO, A PRINT REPORTER, SOMEBODY FROM THE WIRE SERVICE, THAT WAS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, TO CAPTURE THOSE EVENTS AND REPORT BACK TO THE LARGER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SO THAT THEY CAN THEN TAKE THE DETAILS, THE COLOR, THE PARTICULARS FROM THAT EVENT AND REPORT IT TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.

TO THEIR AUDIENCES.

THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS POOL IS GIGANTICALLY IMPORTANT.

I DID THAT MANY TIMES WHEN I WAS COVERING THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHEN I WAS ON AIR FORCE ONE, THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF US, AND YOU WERE THERE JUST IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENED.

>> SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A PRIVILEGE.

IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY.

IT'S A PRIVILEGE IN A SENSE IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO YOUR COLLEAGUES BUT IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY.

YOU'RE NOT JUST WALKING FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION AND THE POOL.

YOU'RE WORKING FOR ALL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND YOU HAVE A DUTY TO ALL THE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS TO RECOUNT WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED FAIRLY ACCURATELY SO THAT THEY CAN DO THEIR JOBS.

SO WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE BANNED THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE POOL.

THE PRESS POOL, OR EVEN TRAVELING ON AIR FORCE ONE BECAUSE THEY ARE ANGRY THAT THE A.P.

CONTINUES TO REFER TO THE BODY OF WATER THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE GULF OF MEXICO, JUST SOUTH OF THE U.S., PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDED IT SHOULD BE CALLED THE GULF OF AMERICA.

THE A.P.

IS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, HAS CLIENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD, IT SERVES ORGANIZATIONS ELSEWHERE SO IT SAID IT WOULD CONTINUE TO USE THE GULF OF MEXICO AND ALSO SAY IN THE UNITED STATES, THE GULF OF AMERICA, SORT OF ALSO KNOWN AS.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DECIDED THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT AND THEY'RE PUNISHING THEM BY RESTRICTING THEM AS A RESULT.

I DO THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT EVEN CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS LIKE FOX, FOX NEWS AND NEWSMAX, OBJECTED TO THIS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT?

>> I THINK IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT FOX AND NEWSMAX AND SOME 40 NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE WRITTEN TO THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING THE A.P.

SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK IN AND THIS IS A SERIOUS INFRINGEMENT ON FREE PRESS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, AND I WORKED FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, HAS A RIGOROUS PROGRAM AND POLICY OF HOW IT USES TERMINOLOGY AND LANGUAGE.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE TERM TERRORIST, THE TERM WAR, THE TERM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAY A POLITICIAN IS LYING.

THE A.P.

HAS STANDARDS.

AND THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL STANDARDS.

SIMILARLY, ON RENAMING THE GULF OF MEXICO THE GULF OF AMERICA, THEY HAD -- THEY APPLIED THEIR STANDARDS, THEIR POLICY, AND THEY DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO STICK WITH THE GULF OF MEXICO ALTHOUGH ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ALSO KNOWN AS OR HOWEVER THEY WERE CHARACTERIZING THE GULF OF AMERICA.

THE IDEA THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD SAY NOT ONLY DO WE REJECT YOUR LANGUAGE AND YOUR POLICY, BUT NOW WE WILL PUNISH YOU AND WE WILL KEEP YOU OUT OF EVENTS THAT YOU HAVE COVERED FOR DECADES, AND KEEP YOU OUT OF THE POOL, AND BY THE WAY, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS BEEN A PILLAR OF THE POOL BECAUSE THEY'RE A WIRE SERVICE.

THEY'RE NOT A NEWSPAPER OR ANOTHER PUBLICATION THAT OFTEN IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE AN EDITORIAL PAGE OR AN OPINION OR ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

THIS IS VERY SERIOUS.

AND IT DOES RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW PUNISHMENT FOR CENSORSHIP FOR LANGUAGE USED OR STORIES THAT THE WHITE HOUSE SIMPLY DOESN'T LIKE.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S VERY CONCERNING.

CONCERNING BOTH IN TERMS OF THE PUNISHMENT AND CONCERNING IN TERMS OF THE CHILLING EFFECT, WHICH IS I THINK WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS, ACTUALLY, TO SEND TO EVERY NEWS ORGANIZATION THAT MIGHT PUBLISH A STORY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN'T LIKE.

>> THE A.P.

HAS SINCE LAUNCHED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, SOON AFTER THE BAN ON THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCED ITS OFFICIALS WOULD DETERMINE WHICH OUTLETS COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESS POOL.

AND THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY KAROLINE LEAVITT SAID SHE FRAMED THE DECISION TO TAKE CONTROL OF ACCESS TO THE PRESS POOL AS SAYING THAT, QUOTE, A SELECT GROUP OF D.C. BASED JOURNALISTS SHOULD NO LONGER HAVE A MONOPOLY OVER THE PRIVILEGE OF PRESS ACCESS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I DEFINITELY THINK THERE COULD BE MORE VOICES BROUGHT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND OTHER BEATS.

I NO PARTICULAR PROBLEM IF YOU'RE BRINGING SOME OF THOSE VOICES AND THEY'RE INFLUENCERS OR OPINION LEADERS OR PODCASTERS IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THAT SACK SES, ALTHOUGH IT'S A VERY LIMITED SPACE, IN THE PAST, THE STANDARD HAS BEEN ARE YOU COVERING THIS PLACE JOURNALISTICALLY.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DRAW A DISTINCTION OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JOURNALISTIC ORGANIZATION, A NEWS ORGANIZATION, AS WE CALL IT, AND A MEDIA ENTERPRISE.

A MEDIA ENTERPRISE CAN BE ANYBODY WITH A MICROPHONE OR A CAMERA.

THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE OBLIGED TO TELL THE TRUTH OR TO SEEK THE TRUTH OR TO REPRESENT MULTIPLE SIDES OR TO HAVE SOURCES THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED, WHETHER BY NAME OR ON BACKGROUND AS OFTEN IS THE CASE.

VERSUS NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY THOSE WHO HAD THAT FRONT SEAT AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHICH ARE GOING TO MAINSTREAM AND MAJOR AUDIENCES.

THAT INCLUDES FOX NEWS, NBC, "THE NEW YORK TIMES," THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," CONSERVATIVE AND WHATEVER IN THEIR OPINION SECTIONS.

BUT FUNDAMENTALLY DOING JOURNALISM IN THE WAY THEY PRESENT THE NEWS.

NOW, PLENTY OF PEOPLE WILL DISAGREE WITH THAT, AND THERE'S A GOOD PLACE FOR AN ARGUMENT.

BUT MY CONCERN IS BY BRINGING IN NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT -- MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NOT NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, THAT ARE NOT THERE TO SEEK TRUTH, TO CITE SOURCES, TO HOLD ALL POWER TO ACCOUNT, THAT WE THEN END UP WITH A PROPAGANDA SERVICE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WORRY ABOUT.

>> THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN -- THEY HAVE MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT THEY'RE AGGRESSIVELY GOING AFTER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THEY DEEM TO BE PROPAGANDA ORGANIZATIONS FOR IDEOLOGIES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY USE THE WORD PROPAGANDA BUT THAT'S THE IMPLICATION OF IT.

THESE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, THESE LEGACY NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THEIR VIEWS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE APPLYING EXTRA SCRUTINY TO THEM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS ANNOUNCED THAT "THE NEW YORK TIMES," NBC NEWS, NPR, AND POLITICO OFFICES AT THE PENTAGON ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED BY CONSERVATIVE OUTLETS LIKE BREITBART, OAN, THE NEW YORK POST.

AND THEN BRENDAN CARR, THE NEW CHAIR OF THE FE KRERX HAS LAUNCHED INVESTIGATIONS INTO MEDIA COMPANIES THAT TRUMP HAS HAD DISAGREEMENTS WITH.

ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, AND CARR HAS ALSO OPENED AN INQUIRY INTO COMCAST.

OF COURSE, IN THE SPEARs OF FULL DISCLOSURE, IT'S NOT A SECRET I HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH NPR AND PBS.

WE'RE SPEAKING ON A PBS OUTLET NOW.

THERE'S ALSO A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY INTO WHAT THEY CONSIDER BIAS OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS.

HOW DO YOU ASSESS THAT?

>> VERY CONCERNING.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES WHERE YOU CAN PICK AT THE COVERAGE THAT A PARTICULAR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HAS PURSUED ON A STORY OR IT TAKES A POINT OF VIEW OR OVER THE TOP.

ACROSS THE BOARD, TO PAINT WITH THIS BIG BRUSH, TO DO WHAT'S BEING DONE IS ACTUALLY DOING WHAT MANY CONSERVATIVES HAVE SAID THEY HAVE BEEN SUFFERING FROM ALL ALONG, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, A CANCEL CULTURE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A CANCEL AND PROSECUTE CULTURE.

AND I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

I THINK, AGAIN, IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT A NEWS ORGANIZATION IS MEANT TO DO, AND THIS IS ENSHRINED IN ETHICAL STANDARDS AND STANDARDS AND PRACTICES THAT MOST OF THEM HAVE, AND COMES FROM THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AND ELSEWHERE, THEY SEEK THE TRUTH.

THEY PROVIDE CONTEXT.

THEY CORRECT ERRORS, AND THEY HOLD POWER TO ACCOUNT.

AND WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY HAPPENING HERE IS, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SAYING IF YOU DO A STORY THAT WE DON'T LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO SHOVE YOU ON THE OUTS.

WE'RE GOING TO PUSH YOU OUT OF THE PRESS ROOM, OUT OF YOUR TRADITIONAL SPACE.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT A BIAS, I THINK, THAT COULD BE DOCUMENTED CLEARLY.

IT'S ABOUT STORIES THEY DON'T LIKE.

AND THERE ARE AMPLE EXAMPLES OF THIS.

I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE TO RECOGNIZE.

THIS IS NOT HAPPENING IN A VACUUM.

SHORTLY AFTER THE TERRIBLE PLANE CRASH HERE IN WASHINGTON, THE NTSB SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO PRESS CONFERENCES AND ISSUE PRESS RELEASES.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUT STATEMENTS ON X.

THE IDEA OF TAKING QUESTIONS, OF BEING ACCOUNTABLE, OF PROVIDING REALTIME INFORMATION IS NOT JUST ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESS.

IT'S ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PUBLIC.

BEING ACCESSIBLE, BEING ACCOUNTABLE, AND TAKING TOUGH QUESTIONS AT TOUGH TIMES.

AND THAT INCLUDES STORIES THAT ARE NOT COMPLIMENTARY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.

REALITY HAPPENS.

YOU KNOW, YOU AND I WERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE A LONG TIME AGO, AND I REMEMBER A PRESS SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT REAGAN WHO SAID, TELL YOU WHAT, YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW TO MANAGE THE NEWS.

I WON'T TELL YOU HOW TO REPORT THE NEWS.

AND THAT WAS A RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP BUILT IN TO THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESS AND THE GOVERNMENT.

AT ANY LEVEL.

WHEN I WAS BUREAU CHIEF AT CNNY HAD AMPLE CALLS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY AND OTHERS WHO SCREAMED AT ME, WHO SAID WE DON'T LIKE THE STORY, THE WAY YOU HAVE DONE IT IS UNFAIR, AND WE WOULD HAVE A DIALOGUE AND SOMETIMES WE STOOD OUR GROUND AND SOMETIMES WE MADE A CHANGE.

BUT THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP THAN THE ONE WE HAVE GOT NOW, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS USING LEVERS OF POWER AND THREAT TO INTIMIDATE AND TO CHANGE THE EDITORIAL NATURE OF THE REPORTING COMING FROM PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS.

>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

ONE, YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENT HAS ACHIEVED SOME SUCCESSES IN HIS PERSONAL LEGAL BATTLES AGAINST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS.

I MEAN, IN DECEMBER, ABC AGREED TO PAY $15 MILLION TO SETTLE THIS DEFAMATION SUIT OVER ONE WORD UTTERED BY ANCHOR GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, CBS SEEMS TO BE POISED TO SETTLE A LAWSUIT OVER THE EDITING OF A "60 MINUTES" INTERVIEW WITH HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, KAMALA HARRIS, BECAUSE THEY USED A SOUND BITE FROM ONE PART OF THE INTERVIEW TO PROMOTE IT ON ONE PLATFORM AND THEN A DIFFERENT QUOTE IN ANOTHER PLATFORM.

BOTH PART OF THE SAME INTERVIEW.

I MEAN, LISTEN, I'M HEARING FROM MY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE SAYING WHAT IS THIS?

YOU KNOW, THE MEDIA IS ROLLING OVER.

WHY SHOULD WE PAY ATTENTION TO YOU?

WHY SHOULD WE LISTEN TO THIS?

WHY SHOULD WE READ YOUR OUTLET?

WHY SHOULD WE WATCH YOUR NEWS?

>> GOOD QUESTIONS.

LOOK, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT NEWS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO.

I MEAN, IF THEY'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF HOLDING POWER TO ACCOUNT, THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF INSTANCES WHERE THE MEDIA, NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, JOURNALISTS HAVE GOTTEN THE STORY WRONG, HAVE CONVEYED IT IN A LOPSIDED WAY, HAVE DONE FALSE EQUIVALENCIES OR WHATEVER, SO CALL THEM OUT FOR IT.

WHERE IT'S REALLY SERIOUS, GO FOR IT.

I SERVED AS THE EXPERT JOURNALIST IN THE TRIAL AGAINST FOX.

IT DIDN'T GO TO TRIAL BECAUSE FOX SETTLED FOR THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS, BUT THERE WERE STANDARDS THERE.

DEFAMATION IN THAT CASE WAS A DELIBERATE, WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH.

COULD YOU HAVE PROVEN AT TRIAL THERE WAS A WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH?

AND THE ANSWER IS YES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS THEY SETTLED.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH CBS AND ABC, ONE WORD IN A LIVE INTERVIEW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DOES THAT REACH THAT LEVEL OF A WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH?

AND I THINK THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD SAY, YES, IT DOES.

AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

I THINK THE THRESHOLD IS CONSIDERABLY LOWER IN THESE CASES.

I DON'T THINK THEY REACHED THAT THRESHOLD.

AND SO THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE SETTLED TO MAKE THE ISSUE GO AWAY.

THAT'S WHAT FOX DID, TOO, BY THE WAY.

THEY SETTLED TO MAKE IT GO AWAY, SO IT DIDN'T GO TO TRIAL.

WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AND SHOULD ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF MEDIA AND JOURNALISM AND WHAT THEY REPORT.

BUT THERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND FINE LINE BETWEEN THAT DEFAMATION NOTION AND FREE SPEECH, AND WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF WHERE THAT GETS SET BECAUSE IF WE GO TOO FAR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THEN WE ENDANGER FREE SPEECH, THAT I THINK IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.

>> TO THAT END, THAT WHOLE QUESTION OF TRUST.

TRUST IN THE MEDIA CONTINUES TO DECLINE, ACCORDING TO A GALLOP POLL, ONLY 31% OF AMERICANS EXPRESS CONFIDENCE IN THE NEWS TO REPORT FAIRLY.

WHY IS THAT?

WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THAT?

WHY IS TRUST IN THE MEDIA FALLING AS PRECIPITOUSLY AS IT SEEMS TO BE?

>> IN MANY CASES THE MEDIA HAVE BROUGHT IT ON.

THIS IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS DOING, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MEDIA, TOO MANY IN THE MEDIA HAVE GONE FOR CLICKS AND RATINGS RATHER THAN CONTENT.

TOO MUCH WE SEE OPINION AND FACT MIXED SO THE AUDIENCE BECOMES CONFUSED.

CABLE TELEVISION WHERE I COME FROM HAS BECOME OPINION CENTRAL, WHERE IT'S MOSTLY COMBAT AND THERE'S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH REAL STORY TELLING IN JOURNALISM.

THERE'S SOME.

AND SOME OF IT IS QUITE GOOD.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN IT'S NOT.

SO THE MEDIA NEED TO DO A HARD LOOK AT THEMSELVES TOO, AND THEY ARE, BUT THEY NEED TO DO MORE OF IT, AND ACCEPT THEIR SHARE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHY TRUST HAS DECLINED.

AND WHAT THEY CAN DO TO ADDRESS THAT AND REGAIN TRUST, WHICH I THINK REVOLVES LARGELY AROUND TRANSPARENCY.

WHY DO WE PICK THE STORIES WE DO, WHY DO WE COVER THEM THE WAY WE DO, WHO ARE THE SOURCES, WHY ARE THEY ANONYMOUS?

THERE HAVE BEEN EFFORTS IN THE MEDIA, IN NEWS ORGANIZATIONS TO CONVEY SOME OF THAT TO THE PUBLIC.

>> GIVEN WHAT YOU SAID, SOMEBODY LISTENING SAYS I HAVE ISSUES WITH THE MEDIA, WHY SHOULD THEY CARE?

>> FOR ALL THE FLAWS THAT ARE OUT THERE, PROFESSIONAL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ACTUALLY ARE ACCOUNTABLE OR SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE AND GENERALLY ARE, FOR WHERE THEY MAKE MISTAKES.

THEY CORRECT ERRORS OR SHOULD.

THEY ARE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PRESSURE BECAUSE THEY'RE PART OF A COMMUNITY.

THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE IN LOCAL AND REGIONAL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WHERE THEY ARE NEIGHBORS WITH THE PEOPLE THEY COVER.

BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE RULES IDENTIFYING SOURCES, CORRECTING ERRORS, PROVIDING CONTEXT.

UPDATING STORIES WITH NEW INFORMATION.

THERE ACTUALLY ARE THOSE RULES.

HERE'S THE THING, LET ME GIVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

WE PUT MEDIA A LOT IN THE POLITICAL NATIONAL CONTEXT.

YOU HAVE A LOCAL NEWS ORGANIZATION.

THE REPORTER THERE GETS WIND THAT SOMEBODY DOWN AT THE SUPERMARKET, AT THE GROCERY STORE IS COLORING THE MEAT SO THAT THE MEAT CAN BE SOLD PAST ITS SELL BY DATE AND MAYBE IT ISN'T GOOD.

DO YOU WANT THAT STORY REPORTED IF THAT STORY COMES FROM SOMEBODY BEHIND THE MEAT COUNTER WHO IS LEAKING TO THE MEAD JAW?

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT?

OF COURSE YOU DO.

IF THAT NEWS ORGANIZATION MAKES A MISTAKE ON THE HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL SCORE, THAT'S A PROBLEM, AND THAT'S AN ISSUE.

BUT DO YOU SHUT THE NEWS ORGANIZATION DOWN AND THEN NOT HAVE THAT STORY ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE LOCAL GROCERY STORE?

THERE ARE MANY, MANY THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE.

I DON'T MEAN TO MUDDY THE WATERS BUT LIFE IS COMPLICATED, AND FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM IS SUPPOSED TO DO IS TELL THIS STORY AND SEEK THE TRUTH.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PERFECT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T MAKE MISTAKES BUT TO THROW THAT BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER IS GOING TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BRING THEM INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THEIR LIVES SO THEY CAN BE MORE ENGAGED CITIZENS, VOTERS, AND NEIGHBORS.

>> FRANK, THANKS SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE.

I WISH YOU WELL.