Transcripts For CSPAN2 David McCraw Truth In Our Times 20240

CSPAN2 David McCraw Truth In Our Times July 14, 2024

Counsel of a newspaper. In fact, i dont know of any precedent for this but david mccraw is not just any deputy general counsel. Hes the newsroom lawyer for the New York Times where he has worked for a decade and a half now. That means he gets to do a lot of interesting and stressfulthings. He gets to defend the times against actual and threatened suits, advise reporters on stories, file suits seeking government documents, hidden from view and work for the release of journalists kidnapped by extremists or detained by hostile governments. As david says in the first chapter of his book truth in our times, its been a hell of a time to be a lawyer for the new yorktimes. David gained notoriety himself after the fall of 2016 in the waning days of the president ial campaign. The times had published an article about two women who said from and groped them. A lawyer for trump to manage our attraction and threatened to sue for libel. David responded with a letter that suggested trumps reputation regarding the treatment of women was so tarnished by things he previously said and done that it couldnt really be tarnished more. And further, david asserted the article contained newsworthy information and was within the law. Then david added this. If mister trump disagrees, if he believes that american citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country versus us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight. David doesnt usually write such pointed legal letters inviting others to sue the New York Times. He tends in his own words to be a little more down the middle, a little more accommodating. But he made a decision as he says to stand tall on this one. By giving what was at stake and when his letter was published online, it went viral and many applauded. In his book david recounts what its been like providing legal advice to the times for its coverage of trump , Harvey Weinstein and other subjects but isnt just a behindthescenes look at a great newspaper. Its also a passionate argument for preserving press freedom during these turbulent times, times when the president himself no longer merely threatens to sue but aims to erode First Amendment, to delegitimize the media by labeling them fake and enemies of the people. David will be in conversation with Michael Smith who started as a news clerk for the New York Times 14 years ago and now covers federal investigations, specifically these days the mueller investigation. Michael was part of two New York Times teams that won Pulitzer Prizes last year, one for reporting on Workplace Sexual Harassment issues, the other for coverage of trump and his campaign ties to russia. He is not having any hard questions. He is a good lawyer, i guess. [laughter] before we get into the stuff about the book, can you explain to us, what does a general counsel do for newsroom. What do you do here . I am the deputy general counsel. My most Important Role is to correct the general counsel. Wonderful general counsel. He keeps me out of trouble. That concludes everything from seeing the government over freedom of information issues or vetting stories in advance of publication. A lot of times im answering questions about what can reporters do to get a story. Sometimes i get some copyright questions. All of those things are part of it. I am deeply involved with our security operation. The kidnap david road in 2008. You are in charge of that as well . Yeah. As you know you have in outstanding. He does the work. A meeting critical point for trial. You thought it would be initially. The legal structure that we have has really protected the media. It is Something Else that we will get to after you answer this that becomes a problem. The current legal structure very sound for journalists. It was an up freedom at the Supreme Court over and over again. The cases came one after another all of that is still there and has been again and again over time. Despite what Clarence Thomas said that got it right. He got it right because it understood libel suits are usually not they are about silencing speech that somebody doesnt like. They are used as weapons. That is what was going on in 1964. A Police Commissioner in alabama many of the others were suing the Northern Press. They didnt want the Northern Press to come down and talk about the civil rights movement. They didnt want them to talk about jim crow laws. This was the way they were stopping that from happening 500,000 verdict against the New York Times in Alabama Court in the sullivan case even though he is not mentioned at all. Here is that they that i find so interesting. Yesterday. Yesterday President Trump lost an appeal and a libel suit. He is being sued for what he set on twitter. He is going to have to face trial in all likelihood or at least go through the process of trial court. He should be lining up on the other side of the ball. He will be using exactly the same defenses i do. They are really good. They encourage free speech. We dont face the threat despite we are told all the time that we will get sued. Especially by the president. There is a range of things. In terms of libel, i feel feel very confident. The book is a tribute to misplaced optimism. Over and over again, i say things will be fine. They are fine. I will say they are fine. Legally, they are fine. What do you think is the real issue . Let me walk up to that a bit. The attack on the press is just bad ideas. We could look at the league investigation. His ranting about the laws, we can look at how press conferences become reality tv and they will do survivor. When it comes down to it, i really think the thing that concerns me is this whole business about fake news, the enemy of the people. Attempt to discredit and in many ways, like we see in other countries, is not that different from a press that is not believed. The only power of the press is to reach people, motivate Public Public opinion, get people to be a check on their own government and change things they want to change. There was a poll last year that found 26 of respondents think that the president should be allowed to shut down news organizations before they misbehave. When i see a number like that dash. It is not a legal problem. What is the answer . Let me diagnose the problem. A very satisfying number. Giving you a chance to try to think of an answer. [laughter] the problem with fake news. There is an evil genius to that. It sounds like the pursuit of truth. Im against fake news. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is an attempt to get people not to think. Label and dismiss. We should have a debate over whether it is true or false. Circumvention of that important process. What should be done . Mike is right. I keep blaming you. I keep blaming the public that they should do something about it. Here is what i think. We dont need to get 100 of people to believe in free press. There are a lot of folks i believe in free press. I do think that people need to stand up and talk about the issues. Talk about why having a free press is particularly important for republicans to do that. To stand up and say, look, i may not like the New York Times or may not like the Washington Post, but, you know what, i do throw that in there once in a while, but, i believe that having a free press is important i grew up in a very small town in illinois. My mother was a world war ii veteran. My father was a world war ii veteran. Deeply patriotic. A conservative small part of downtown. The one thing you knew was when the governor went to jail. When i was a kid, the governor went to jail. He died before he could go to jail. They found shoe boxes full of money and his office. The lesson of that was a really important conservative lesson. Dont trust government. That is white is so important to get back to that. Going out and debating. We should go around the country talk about why this is important. Besides the president using the megaphone to come after the press, what other things have happened that have contributed the current state of the media. How did we get here . We can talk about this at various levels. Part of it is that polar surprise asian of america is now affected and people dividing up. I think thats a Bad Development for those of us in the New York Times continuing to be an honest broker is really important. As much as the right wing wants to portray us as leftwing in the leftwing wanting to embrace us at this particular moment. We will see what happens. Being an honest broker is where we want to end up. Economic has been a problem. Lets face it, you live outside of washington, if you you live outside of new york, if you live outside of certain big cities, your newspaper is in dire strength and its not coming back. If you are the mayor in a small city, you are very happy person today. You can have your shoebox full of money and nobodys going to catch that. We have all been affected by it wherever we are in the market. That has met we have had to do things to make money and to drive audience and it is very important i think we do a good job of understanding that we still have to do journalism that people need, not just journalism that people want. Some extent i just think that Donald Trumps instincts about these things have been incredible. Sitting there to be taken advantage of. I am sure that Richard Nixon i wish i had tried that. I may not like what they are saying. Saying it differently. Are you saying that nixon may have had a different lyrical fortune if the existed today. He is not very charismatic, is he . He certainly could have made it much more of an issue. When he confronts dan rather, dan rather stands up and gets applause. Are you running for something . He responds, no, are you . He is criticized. That kind of direct hostility was not seen as the game. In the book you seem confident in the structure that is emerging. The legal structure. Allowing us to function and do the work that we do. How do you think that we are faring in terms of the reporters of the washington bureau. How do you think we are protected . You talk about press freedom. One is liable. I feel pretty good about that. I am optimistic. Look how well it worked out for him, okay. When you get to the informal things that are going on, the law does not have much to say about that. Cnn, as you know, sued. I think most people in media law wonder whether that was a good idea. The earlier incident with sean spicer. I talk about it in the book about how the law is very gray on this. Whether an officeholder can do that. Who to talk to and who not to talk to. Just because you are a political officeholder not mean you lose your First Amendment rights. You are not forced to talk to people. Who travels with the secretary of state. The press corps or are they left behind . That area i think has been really tough. The hack on that democratic norms has been a real problem as a result. You then get to the sensitive legal issues because they are undecided. The publication of classified secrets. The legal problems come in two flavors. Can you protect your source . The law on the federal side is in disarray. It makes me nervous. We need to protect sources. The other thing would be an absolute legal revolution if it took place. Can a reporter actually be prosecuted under the espionage act for publishing classified information. Never happened. No administration has ever said i want to push that. I want to push to see where that law is overcome by the First Amendment or whether it is in fact superior to the First Amendment and we can go after reporters. Despite what have you seen from the Justice Department legally in terms of going after reporters . Its been a bit of a mixed bag. Jeff sessions who was relevant at the time i was writing the book. Everybody changes. Three guys ago. Okay. Got that. Jeff sessions went to congress. Getting him to say i will not put journalists in jail for doing their job and he could not get those words out of his mouth , it was really not a reassuring day. Then he came back and did the same performance later. There certainly is a different attitude now. We have not seen a real ramp up. They have not been targeting the press. They have been forcing people in these past eight or nine years to expose sources, but they have been going after the people in the government. This is kind of the same story is liable. It is about webinars and lawsuits. Investigations are not really about protecting National Security secrets. They are about getting the message under control. I am a rules guy. I am a lawyer. Really important. Even with they are violating, its important in the democracy. Do you think the judge should not prosecute cases in which really Important Information comes out . No. Obviously, there are legitimate secrets. There are legitimate secrets. If they are exposed, they would do harm. One of the things im really proud of his awake you guys work in washington. Nobody is doing a reckless job of publishing. They are thinking about it. We also government to to get their opinion. They dont give a veto. We want to know what they think. Many times the editors choose ignore. They are legitimate secrets. You go back to the pentagon papers and read it, 1971, incredible decision because everything is classified, nothing is classified. If you over classify, you get to results. Cynicism and carelessness. That is the exact opposite of what you are. Sometimes it is very hard to understand what is classified. Lawyers, the people being investigated will call me and say, cant you get the reporter to say that no classified information was leaked . I will talk to a reporter, i cannot say that because its not true. Tell us the story of what happened in october of 2016 and how you got to the unusual place of sort of becoming part of the story. That was not very comfortable i will backup one step and talk about the tax returns. I think they started traveling in tandem as to how the Term Campaign was dealing with it. At the end of september of 2016, a reporter at the New York Times received in the mail anonymously three pages from the tax returns from two decades earlier. She and David Barstow and others do this incredible job of indicating those tax returns and explaining what it met which will not play taxes for probably the next 20 years. We ran that story and immediately there was press coverage that said we were in legal trouble. Which really irritated you. Completely irritated me. Especially when it was the New York Times. He brought this up the other day i think it is a sensitive subject. We continue backwards here. In september, the letter to the New York Times, key was on a panel with bob woodward. The conversation sort of runs out of control. The way it gets reported is he said he would risk going to jail in contravention of his lawyers advice. I started receiving emails like you really think you could bring the tax returns if you brought them . I sent dean an email, maybe two, this is embarrassing. I would never tell you not to publish those. Of course i would stand behind you. He clarified that he had not set it. He is basically saying i would go to jail to publish these tax returns. As a lawyer, you have no legal issue. That is right. You are not going to go to jail. When was the last time you saw an editor going to jail. It just doesnt happen. Under the law, we have not engaged in any legality against them. We can publish them. The Supreme Court rules on that six times. The question is, did the press do anything illegal to get them here. The idea that the Washington Post would come out the day after we ran that tax story saying we had legal trouble really got me thinking that we have done a really bad job of explaining how the First Amendment works in this country. It was obviously a sensitive issue. We move forward and that we do a story a couple weeks later about two women who say they were groped, by 12. It did what a story should do. It gave facts of the reporting period it left readers to think about will i believe this or not the facts were there if you wanted to question that. The night before the Top Administration was published, there was a time you could say it. Feels like these last two years have been my entire life. The Trump Campaign was saying that they would sue if it was published. We published. Then a whole day where they are saying the lawyers are getting geared up. The lawyers are going to come after you. Wait until the night getting emails from the Pr Department saying have you seen anything . Have you seen anything . You have to go to court with papers unless theyre going to bronx criminal court, it aint going to happen. They see some weird stuff there. When i woke up the next morning, there was an email that said, it was labeled after midnight, i was in a lot of trouble with a lot of music fans when i said it was an error often song. Here is a letter from the lawyers. I went to work, there was some discussion about whether we should responded all because there were tv crews outside the building. I did not think we could just ignore it. We decided to respond to it. The letter appears in the back of the book. Its also been in a lot, a lot lot of places. Suddenly just takes off. It is a moment while i am out front in some ways, not quite like that. A younger version of yourself looked at that and said may be a lawyer should

© 2025 Vimarsana