How Much Has Really Changed in 27 Years?; Websites Smearing Ford to Help Kavanaugh.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST: Hey, I'm Brian Stelter. It's time for RELIABLE SOURCES, our weekly look at the story behind the story, of how the media really works, how the news gets made and how all of us can make it better. This hour, a blockbuster story from "The New York Times", lots of reactions to these headlines about Rod Rosenstein. We'll get into the sourcing and the motives and all of it. Plus, Sean Hannity, the president's favorite interviewer, but at this point, I think really more co-host? And later, the death of the White House daily briefing. Yes, there really isn't a daily briefing anymore. What's the press corps doing to get it back? But, first, reading now from the front page of the "New York Times." The facts are still in dispute about a bitter he said/she said case. A Supreme Court confirmation drama unfolding but lawmakers are being accused of a lack of sensitivity and some prominent politicians are saying, hey, what's the rush? We need a little more time to follow up on the accusations and allegations. All of this playing out in Washington, a city where men have always made the rules and the Senate remains an overwhelmingly male club. This case is sending what one expert called an electric current of anger through women and a greater conviction that women must be represented in high places in greater numbers. All of that from "The New York Times" from the fall of 1991, days before another climactic Senate confirmation hearing. The title of the story, by the way, was my Maureen Dowd. The title that day says the Senate and sexism. It was all about concerns that the mostly male club was mishandling Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas. Now, 27 years later, some of the same men in the same club are in charge of a sequel of sorts. Dowd, now writing for the opinion pages, says in this morning's "New York Times" that it's unnerving to think how far women have come to find ourselves dragged back to the same place. It may be tempting to think that a lot has changed since this day, since Anita Hill sat down to testify and certainly some things have. But America seems even more divided along gender and partisan lines and nowadays, the media environment is even more complicated, even more of a mess. Viewers are hearing about the same set of allegations but reacting to them in very different ways and keep in mind as we head into what could be a very consequential week for the United States, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was supposed to be on his way to confirmation right now. But "The Washington Post" interview with Christine Blasey Ford may have changed all that. She went into detail in a story published one week ago today about the night she says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. But much of the account is in dispute and for a week now, there has been story after story, rampant speculation about what is going to happen next, about whether she will testify and in what way and in what form. At the moment, there is a tentative agreement for a Thursday hearing. Let's talk about the media's role in this, what it was back then in 1991 and what it is today with an all-star panel here to help break this down is Jill Abramson, former executive editor and managing editor of the "New York Times", also the co-author of "The Strange Justice", this is the book about the Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill hearings that had so much vital information afterwards. Also here with me, Charles Blow, a columnist for "The New York Times" and a CNN commentator who wrote, "Fire Shut Up in my Bones", a memoir which chronicles the abuse he suffered as a child. And here with me as well, Rachel Sklar, the writer and founder of TheLi.st, a network for professional women. Great to have you all here. I'd like to start by going back in time, back to the Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas hearing. Jill, your book afterwards reveal what really was going on behind the scenes. Do you look at this and see a sequel? Do down see parallels today?</s>JILL ABRAMSON, CO-AUTHOR, "STRANGE JUSTICE: THE SELLING OF CLARENCE THOMAS": I see tremendous parallels. I was in the hearing room back in 1991. In fact, sitting directly across from Maureen Dowd, who was covering the hearings for "The New York Times" and this has so many eerie parallels, down to the fact that even though now we think we're having a hearing Thursday, that's no time to really get to the bottom of the facts in this case. To report "Strange Justice", the book that Jane Mayer and I co-wrote which had, you know, a large amount of new evidence showing that Anita Hill absolutely told the truth when she testified and that Clarence Thomas' categorical denial amounted to perjury. But to put that case together meticulously and find all the people who knew exactly what happened back then was difficult and took time and --</s>STELTER: Years, right, Jill? Years?</s>ABRAMSON: Took us almost three years.</s>STELTER: Right, right.</s>ABRAMSON: So, you know? And just the parallels where Anita Hill's story leaked out to the press.</s>STELTER: Right, right.</s>ABRAMSON: She had signed a sworn avid but wanted to keep her identity confidential in the beginning, the same thing for Dr. Blasey Ford. So, you know, how their stories leaked out in the media similar -- what is completely different is there is no Fox back then and no social media back then, both of which have served to, you know, intensify people's emotions about this and incited some of the regrettable reaction to Dr. Blasey Ford so far.</s>STELTER: And Hill wrote a piece, an op-ed this week, describing what Ford makes. We can put part on screen. She says the difficulty -- she points out the difficulty of testifying on national television about sexual assault. You know, I just want to think about what that had to have been like for Hill and what it could be like for Ford. Hill also points out in this piece, Ford may have encouraging letters, support from friends but she cannot match the organized support that Judge Kavanaugh has. So, Anita Hill inject -- you know, her voice being really important at this moment even though decades have passed. It's interesting to see that.</s>ABRAMSON: It's fascinating. And Anita Hill continued to speak out over the years on behalf of younger women and, you know, I think it's true that Judge Kavanaugh has tremendous organized support but what I've been struck by is the anger of women who I've heard from and like are all over social media right now that this has touched a nerve. Every woman in America has a similar experience from their teenage years, that they haven't thought about. It was traumatic. They've tried to bury it and this is just like lit a match for them.</s>STELTER: And with that in mind, the difference between --</s>ABRAMSON: If they feel unheard at the end of these hearings, I think there are going to be big political consequences just like there were after 1991 when the Senate rushed to confirm Clarence Thomas after the Anita Hill hearings. There was anger among women and then in '92, the election of six new women senators and the so-called Year of the Woman.</s>STELTER: The difference this time is the midterms are just -- or that election is just a few weeks away. In 1991, a year later, we had the '92 election. Now, we're what, 51 days away from the midterms.</s>ABRAMSON: Right, everything happens in warped speed.</s>STELTER: And I think it does make this feel even more intense, even more consequential. Rachel, isn't this sort of a strange way what we're experiencing right now in this debate about gender and about power and about how to handle allegations of assault feels like the end of two years of discussion that started with President Trump and the allegations against him during the campaign.</s>RACHEL SKLAR, WRITER AND FOUNDER, THELI.ST: There is no question that he's certainly a lightning rod in all of this. The why I didn't report hashtag flared up directly in response to Donald Trump grope- plaining if I may what Christine Blasey Ford truly would have done had she really experienced this. She would have filed a report or her loving parents would have. And many people piped up and, myself included, saying that, guess what? This happens and you don't tell your parents and you don't file a report because of a variety of reasons which again and again women have to take to social media and layout their personal stories in the hopes that maybe, just maybe the tide will turn and they will be believed.</s>STELTER: This is the hashtag why I didn't report, which erupted on Friday after -- we can put the president's tweet on screen where he really started to cast doubt in a big way on Ford's claims.</s>SKLAR: But that's what he does, deny, deny, deny. And this happened with the hashtag not okay after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out that we al know what he said. Am I allowed to say it?</s>STELTER: You're on cable.</s>SKLAR: OK. All right. He said that he -- talked about grabbing women by the pussy, and when you're a star, they let you do it. I mean -- and then women came forward with credible allegations against him of sexual assault.</s>STELTER: And I appreciate you saying, am I allowed to say this. By bringing up the words, the specific words seems like you're trying to remind people --</s>SKLAR: It's not my word.</s>STELTER: -- because I think there is a numbness or it is possible to sort of for some people to forget what we learned during the campaign.</s>SKLAR: Look, anybody whose been grabbed there, sorry to use that language, it's not my language but if that's happened to you, you don't forget it.</s>STELTER: Right, not going to forget. Interestingly, the why I didn't report hashtag that takes off on Friday, in the wake of the president's tweet. Rain is the advocacy group that tries to help people who have suffered sexual assault. They have a national hotline number, 1800-656-4673. A spokeswoman for Rain just said to me, we've had a 42 percent uptick in calls since Friday, 42 percent uptick in calls to that hotline. So, it's clear there, Charles, that there could be -- that people are paying attention. There is an awareness of the conversation and the ability for folks to share on social media their own accounts can make a difference. It might be helping some folks to choose to call the hot line and seek help.</s>CHARLES BLOW, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: The underreporting of childhood sexual abuse, particular child sexual abuse, I want to make sure that I keep going back to the fact that this is a child. She was 15 years old. And when children are abused, they have a different sense of agency than even adults. Even -- there is underreporting even for adults, but for children in particularly, it's an acute problem because they don't know -- you know, you're trapped. You go to the school you go to. You can't make your parents get up and move. Maybe they don't have the option to move you to a different school. Maybe this is a person who's in your family, maybe this is a family acquaintance, all those things are happening and that child is forced to make a decision about, do I disrupt the school? Do I disrupt the family relationships? Do I disrupt what my parents believe is a happy kind of existence for me? And those are big questions for a child to have to comprehend. At 15 years old, she's coming out of fresh man year. We've all seen these guys, whether you call them hound dogs. There were all kinds of names for them, the guys that want to reset their reputation by preying on the freshman who come into school, right? That is a real thing that occurs all the time. There are a lot of different ways in which older children prey on younger children. I try to remind people all the time about the statistics around childhood sexual abuse. The number one age that has the most aggressive is not an adult. It's a 14-year-old boy. We have to stop thinking about this type of abuse as to catch a predator. You know, that television show where some grown 40-year-old man shows up with beer and condoms. That's not really the way it happens. It's very often an older child preying on a younger child, and that is what is happening here, and I really think that the media makes a mistake when they allow people to come on air and say, well, these were just two drunk teenagers as if there is not a huge developmental difference between a freshman and senior. I mean, I have three kids. It's like different human beings. They have a freshman and then almost an adult.</s>STELTER: But we are going to hear that line, we're going to hear that boys will be boys. I'm cringing thinking we'll hear that a lot in the next four days.</s>SKLAR: Why are we sending these messaging? It's not like these 15- year-old girls, 17-year-old boys aren't watching TV, aren't -- well, actually maybe they're not watching TV, but they're certainly getting it through some form on their phone. I mean, why are we sending them these messages? There should be a category no. Like enough is enough. This is terrible. And it is shocking to me. No. It is still shocking not surprising, but shocking that the leadership in this nation, the leadership on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and some of whom were on the committee --</s>ABRAMSON: Charles Grassley.</s>SKLAR: Grassley and Hatch, their first reaction still is to minimize, you know, the survivor's story and their testimony and to center the person who's being accused, I mean, the concern being for Brett Kavanaugh, oh, my goodness, how is this affecting him? Is this going to, quote/unquote, ruin his life? How is not getting a Supreme Court appointment a life ruiner? This is -- I mean, this is -- the point of a confirmation hearing is to assess fitness for this lifetime appointment and presumably anybody who's going to be casting a vote is going to be doing so with an open mind.</s>ABRAMSON: I think that we have to stop and think just for a minute as we contemplate what is going to happen on Thursday, just the courage that it takes in this media environment for Dr. Ford to walk into that hearing room, sit down and tell her story because --</s>STELTER: Yes, play that out for me.</s>ABRAMSON: -- sitting there back in '91, you know, it's almost too painful for me now to watch the beginning of the '91 hearings on TV. It's been replaying all week because I know what's in store for Anita Hill while watching that. And yes, I think the senators and especially the all male senators on the Republican side may have learned some lessons. But still, someone who is unschooled in the ways of Washington who hasn't led a public life until now, it is just unutterably, difficult, painful, et cetera.</s>STELTER: Yes, consider how there is only a couple photos of her that we've seen in the past week.</s>ABRAMSON: Right.</s>STELTER: A week full of coverage, we've barely seen a photo of her. This is not a public person with lots of Instagrams we can all look at.</s>ABRAMSON: That's true, and so far, and I want to give a shout-out to "The Washington Post" who she came forward to with her identity to first last Sunday and I thought they did a very sensitive and thorough job in the first story about her.</s>STELTER: Yes, and they have been able to follow up with her since. So far, "The Post" is the only outlet that she seems to be talking with.</s>ABRAMSON: It's interesting, she called them first. She called their tip line first and one assumes that in all of the ensuing months, they contacted her but they respected her desire to remain confidential.</s>SKLAR: This is reporting. This is good reporting and investigations that take time. Jill said that, you know, like a meticulous investigation takes three years. There is no effort to even have a slap-dash investigation.</s>STELTER: Charles, final word about how the press needs to treat the next few days?</s>BLOW: Like Jill said, it's a different media environment. There was no Fox. There was no MSNBC. There was no Internet. No internet like we have now to speak of, and so, that's a very different thing. I think -- I would like to raise one point. There are a lot of ways in which this is similar. There are some big ways in which it is very different. We remember that Clarence Thomas emerged from those hearings incredibly popular. I mean, like 62 percent wanted to confirm him after Anita Hill gave her testimony and part of that was because of the spectacle of this black men and all these white guys. And if you recall 1991, this was a few months after the Rodney King beating, which was probably kind of Black Lives Matter citizen video showing on national television. And so in the wake of this guy on the ground being beaten by all these white officers comes this hearing in which this black man sits -- is being questioned by this panel of white guys, and that, whatever black people might have thought about it, the image of that was a circle the wagon kind of moment that did not give kind of full airing to Anita's very credible account, but because of the racially charged climate, it changed the dynamic of how the hearings played out in America.</s>STELTER: And this time, with the midterms right around the corner, this is primarily about gender and about what was already the year of the women coming to vote and running her office super charged on even higher level now. To our panel, thank you so much for being here. Quick break and then a look at some of the smears, the overflow of misinformation that's been coming out about Ford. This is something that we've been seeing for a week now and these lies have to be taken head on. We'll get into that in just a moment.