The country. Dean has been in this job since 2014 having earlier served as managing editor and washington. Chief of the times. He also edited the los angeles times, and won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting for the Chicago Tribune and started his newspaper career way back when as a Young Journalist at the time stick you in new orleans. Martin baron, marty to most of his friends come join the Washington Post in 2013 after 11 years editing the boston globe. Both papers under his leadership harvested 12 Pulitzer Prizes. Baron also in order times helped edit the los angeles times, the New York Times and the miami herald. Allow me to start our discussion tonight with a simple proposition, that in a democracy such as ours, if freedom of the press is jeopardized, then democracy itself is jeopardized. Since one is intimately linked to the other. During the president ial campaign of 2016, candidate donald trump routinely criticized the press or the media, humiliating a number of reporters, bullying others, challenging the very concept of freedom of the press as written into the First Amendment of the u. S. Constitution. Many said this was all campaign talk. If you want this would inevitably change. That is the way it has always been. Well, he whined and it has not changed. Indeed, it is gotten much worse. Even on occasion frightening pic and i use the word deliberately. The word of the president is much more consequential than the word of a candidate. I know that of the president have had their quarrels with the media, but donald trump crossed a bright red line. When you accuse reporters of being the enemies of the American People, forgetting that phrase was a favorite of many 20th century dictators. And trump has gone further, warning that it might change libel laws. That reporters might have revealed their sources on Sensitive National security stories, or risk imprisonment. Even Warning Network such as nbc that their license to broadcast may be revoked if their new stories displease the white house. Stories called fake news. What is President Trump seeking to accomplish in this one work with the media . And what should the press response really be . So, dean, marty, welcome. Good to have you both with us. How does one cover a President Trump in a wild era of expanding Digital Horizons . How do you do that without, at the same time perhaps undercutting your own traditional standards of mainstream journalism . Dean, starters, please. First off, he will dodge your standards of journalism. There are bedrock standards which are the obvious ones, truth, fairness, that good journalist are aggressive, skeptical. I think you hold onto those things, and obviously you have to cover him as we would in the president by the at a remarkable speed. And with him get to dodge the fact that yes, all the things you opened up work too. I think you saw to undefined the press, undermine the press. I think an attempt to appeal to his base by making the press look like its not fair and by making, by turning the press sorted into a punching bag. I think over the long haul if you tell the truth, if youre accurate, if you are aggressive and fair and hold onto your principles, i think in the end thats the only way you can cover him. Marty, im sure you agree with all that. The question im getting at, trying to get at is this president has a way, a very skillful way, of dominating the environment. Hes all over the place and he does that with his tweets picky does that with his personality, his style. How do you keep up with that kind of domination of the environment . Do you have enough reporters . Do you have to stick to your basic rules asking was saying before and still be able to cover him . Well, i think so. I agree with the dean. We have new ways of publishing. We publish at a greater speed. We publish not just with four hours a day seven days a week but now we have to publish immediately. People expect to get the news immediately, typically on your cell phone, the instant that happens. At all poses challenges to us. But we still have our values we still have our mission. That remains the same, and every day when i walked into our newsroom we have the principles of the Washington Post on the wall facing the. The very first principle which has been around there for more than eight decades, that is to tell the truth is known new ase truth may be ascertained. Theres a sense of striving there because the truth may be elusive, can be elusive, but it says that there is such a thing as the truth. Its not just a matter of personal opinion. There is the truth and our job is to come in every day, do our job, do our work and try to determine the truth. That is exactly what we do. Its nothing fancy. Its our work the same work weve been doing for decades. Use the word truth. This is a president who has been violating the truth almost on a daily basis. We use the word lie now routinely describe many of the things that a president of the United States is saying. Now, you have your standards, and in my judgment they are the right standards, but how do you maintain them when the man you are covering isnt dealing with the truth on many occasions . We actually, i actually che to use the word lie on the front page of the New York Times which was a controversial decision in our newsroom and actually think that a lot of thoughtful editors would disagree with it, but we dont do it all the time. We did it at one time. I think the way you cover him is, if he says acts and if its on you report out why. I think one thing marty says is true. I think you report aggressively and i think you sort of layout the facts. I think thats what weve been doing since i started as a reporter in 1977. I dont think its different. I think its faster. I think its even more aggressive. We have done things, newspapers, have done things like set up old truth squad operations. We no longer wait the way we did when i started for two or three days to evaluate whether a politician is telling the truth. We try to do it immediately. We set up systems to do it immediately. On the other hand, i do say its sometimes easier to check things today. The internet may have perils but also has great gifts. Its hard to check ally that quickly, isnt . If the president says that he cut a program by half a billion dollars, i dont think thats easy. Thats easy. Thats actually 90 of the things i think youre talking about. Thats sort of easy. You just challenging and you report them out and you lay it out. Marty, when the president dismisses some of your best reporting as fake news, and when, according to many polls, from 3040 of the American People are buying into that description, how do you do with that . How do you fight back . We do our job. Im sorry, i realize you are looking for something more but i dont think theres a lot more to it. Look, the president on his first day in office he went to the cia headquarters and he said, i have a war with the press. The round is, we dont have a war with them. We are not at war. We are at work were doing our job every day the same way with always done it. Look, you talk about fact checking. We have a fact checker at the Washington Post for well come for a long time, well before the trump administration. In fact, we doubled the size. We added an extra person. We have two people doing it and theyve been doing fact check for a long time. They happen to be a little busier these days and it were in the past i have to say, but they are doing the same sort of work every single day. The very fact the president is attacking us doesnt change things. We cant just be reacted to that. We have to go out, gather the facts, provide the context, do it in an honorable and honest way, and thats what we endeavor to do every single day. What is indifferent about covering trump . What is then different its a much more hostile environment, no question about that. He was attacking as during the campaign regularly, even withdrew press credentials from the Washington Post during the primary and then for a time during the general election as well. He condemned us. He condemned us. He sought to delegitimize us, even dehumanizes calling us this, and garbage, the lowest form of humanity. When that wasnt enough he called his the lowest form of life itself. So he sought to dehumanize us, and so thats to prepare keys also threatened us in a way its are talking about the possibility of litigation against us, suggesting as has been reported by us in the New York Times in his conversation with a former fbi director, the prospect of wanting to send some reporters to jail for leaks, particularly of classified information leaks. This is whats different. Its a more threatening and more hostile environment. If i can i agree with marty. If i can add. Its also a significant shift in the culture of washington. Theres always been potential relationship between, i i mean, its a myth, i was the Washington Bureau chief of the New York Times for five years and i never met barack obama the entire time i was the Washington Bureau chief. There was a notion of papers i could post at the New York Times had a cozy relationship. I dont want to the cozy relationship with any president. I dont go to the christmas parties. I dont go to the white house correspondents dinner. I want to tell you a story. Back in 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the baseball barrier on color he still faced a great deal of prejudice and got into a lot of fights. His boss pulled him aside one day and said jackie, dont punch back just beat them on the field. Turn that into journalism now. How do you adjust to the almost daily taunts and jabs and insults of the president without punching back . You are making it seem as if this is the same in your principles are the same and you dont touch but everything is with the story. It can be. This is the thing, this is what im trying to do here. I dont think that is true. I think that we come to expect it. It happens every other day, maybe every day and it has become to some degree background music. Is a pleasant background music but it is background music. If only to react this every sunday and get all worked up about it and spend our time making an issue out of it all the time we wouldnt be able to do our jobs. Look, if that is what he wants to do that is what he wants to do. We know what we want to do. We want to do our jobs and thats what were going to continue to do. Dean, you know and i know when everyone in this we know that people argue that the two of you, New York Times and Washington Post are in a unseemly competition to topple this president , to topple this president , to pull another watergate. What i would like to view is how do you respond to that kind of criticism which is not widespread but there. I would say two things. First, marty and i are friends, in fact, we have a tremendous and our only competition is between us. Its not a competition to topple the presidency. I sincerely believe i do agree that the Washington Post and the New York Times are at the forefront of the story right now. I cannot imagine what it would be like if it was only one of us because it would mean that the other newspaper would be under tremendous pressure. I will say that one of the most under discussed in undervalued qualities in journalism that drives much more journalism than anyone realizes is competition. I hate it when i get beat. He hates it when he gets beat and the thought that we could collude to do anything is utterly ridiculous. Except we could collude to fight for our values and to talk about the First Amendment. The thought that we would be anything other than family and admiring but vicious he is vicious. [laughter] competitors. It is better that both of us are in there but ive invited him to see the territory. We can test it and see how it goes without i would like to get your judgment on both of you when the president keeps attacking the press what is his ultimate aim . What is he seeking to accomplish . You said he was playing space, fine, is that all he is trying to accomplish . I will fall short of psychoanalyzing him but if you looked at Donald Trumps pattern through the campaign and as president , first off, he clearly goes after his critics. I think he goes after, in particular, critics and people who of independent standing which the press certainly does. Early in his presidency and arguably the most independent and protected entities in society are the judiciary and the press. First off, i think all president s are frustrated by the power of the press and by the fact they cant tell us what to do and by the fact that we push back hard but i think for a guy who grew up in a world of business i think it makes them nuts. He is also a guy who as a new yorker grew up manipulating the press. I think page six was his playground. He famously announced his divorce on page six before he told his wife. Suddenly he arrived in washington at the pinnacle of it all and here are these jerks, the press, who push and push and do our jobs. You dont see a larger political purpose . I mean there is the obvious one which is he plays to a base that generally may not believe the press anyway. I think some of it is personal frustration. His mo in new york was to manipulate the press and he got his way with press, mainly the tablets. Is it possible part of it is a guy who suddenly finds himself confronting a very different press that he confronted when he lived in the world of tabloid journalism in new york. Is a possible that by attacking the press by creating this sense of big news by g delegitimizing the American People and what they do for living that he may succeed and that at the end of the day his vision may try a . Do you think this is possible . Whewhat would that happen . What is the price of letting this happen . It has a corrosive effect, no doubt about it. He is saying something that appeals to the large segment of the american population. Approval ratings were quite low and continue to go down over decades. That is true about most institutions, major institutions in american society. We have the not great distinction of being the head of congress on that front but, you know, the actual polls have shown a sharp decline, significant decline in the last year and approval of the president had presidency as well. To the point that our standing in the president standings are intersecting. If you look at the polls if you look at the polls recently weve seen more of an uptick in the standing of the press among the American Public. People see us doing our work and my view is we have to look at the long run. Will the reporting be validated over the long run . If you go back to watergate and im not making an analogy here but we had a president at that time was sharply critical of the press, [inaudible] the designated attack dog embraced that role and the Approval Ratings for the press were very low. The american segment saw that as an enterprise and that turns out that reporting was validated. The Approval Rating for the press after nixons resignation went sharply up to the highest point weve seen. This is not always so high. Maybe the midfifties is high is we will ever get but i take the long view of this. Reporting needs to be solid, ultimately i am confident that the reporting will be validated over time and i take the long view of our standing among the American Public. Is trust be lost to whatever degree how does one reconstitute trust . How do you gain back the confidence of the American People that what you spend an awful lot of time and money doing is valuable and important. How do you sell that again . I may be naive but i actually think that when the press does its job and does its job which is to be an aggressive questioning watchdog of government that even if it drops, it will come back. If the press does its job, vietnam, watergate, press didnt do its job as well build up to the iraq war and when the press does its job and is aggressive, even if it temporarily loses trust, if it holds on to its values i think history is filled with examples of where it comes back. I think as long as you get it right, as long as you stand up to power and as long as you aggressively question and as long as you aggressively question a lot. I dont thank you lose. I think history is behind us on that. You dont feel neither one of you that the combination of president ial taunts perhaps actual action against you and atmosphere that gets clouded with doubt and suspicion. That is a tough action it makes me nervous. We havent gotten to the realm of action. If this white house, for instance, remember the last white house was not so press to the press. If they chose to be more aggressive that would be bad that would be something we would have to pay to. If this president im not sure i buy the licensing issue but if this president chooses to go after reporters and Jeff Sessions has said the attorney general has said that he is open leak investigation that makes me more nervous than marty and im with him. The terms and traits have become background music. At a certain point we would look at them and debate about how to respond and he did 12 days ago at us and we dont even respond anymore. Let me give you a little bit of history before i asked my next question. When i was covering Lyndon Johnson during the vietnam war there were a couple of occasions when he would call me on the phone, yell and curse and accuse me of all kinds of horrors and when those calls and did i was a shaken leaf. It was to. Then during the nixon ministration i found myself on an enemies list. My office was broken into twice. Phone was tapped. I worry that do any of your reporters and has