:00:00. > :00:00.as a purveyor of lies. Well, my guest today is the executive editor
:00:00. > :00:00.of the Times, Dean Baquet. Is what is printed in here fake news off
:00:00. > :00:18.there? -- or fair. Dean Baquet, welcome to HARDtalk.
:00:19. > :00:21.Thank you. I think we have to start
:00:22. > :00:25.with the relationship between President Trump
:00:26. > :00:27.and the established, This is something you said,
:00:28. > :00:40.even before he was elected, the month before he won the White
:00:41. > :00:44.House. You said, "Trump says things that
:00:45. > :00:47.are demonstrably false, I think he is challenging our language -
:00:48. > :00:49.he will have changed How do you feel after more than 100
:00:50. > :00:57.days of the Trump Presidency? And I think what I said
:00:58. > :01:00.then still holds. We're used to politicians
:01:01. > :01:02.obfuscating, exaggerating, etc. But this President sometimes says
:01:03. > :01:05.things on Monday that goes against what his advisers said
:01:06. > :01:08.on Sunday and then he But that's not the most
:01:09. > :01:19.profound way he has changed. He does things, he makes
:01:20. > :01:22.decisions that defy the logic of American politics,
:01:23. > :01:26.firing James Comey, If you had asked me why
:01:27. > :01:30.the President fired the FBI director who was investigating him,
:01:31. > :01:35.I would say that it is He did it and, so far,
:01:36. > :01:40.no major political repercussions. I mean, a lot of stories,
:01:41. > :01:43.a lot of questions. I think he just sort of challenges
:01:44. > :01:47.the way we look at the world, Not only because of the way
:01:48. > :01:59.he stretches the truth but because he does things other
:02:00. > :02:01.American politicians just One of the challenges he presents
:02:02. > :02:06.is a very direct challenge to you because he calls
:02:07. > :02:09.you and your newspaper liars. He says that you are
:02:10. > :02:13.fundamentally bad people. He has called the press
:02:14. > :02:16.and particularly the New York Times Which is an even more
:02:17. > :02:20.profound statement to make. So what I am getting
:02:21. > :02:25.at is it seems to me, There is a sense of metaphorical
:02:26. > :02:32.warfare between you and him. I think he may have dug a trench
:02:33. > :02:38.but I'm not going to dig one. My job is to take the things
:02:39. > :02:42.that he says like that, make them part of the coverage,
:02:43. > :02:45.but my job is not to I actually think it is his tactic
:02:46. > :02:51.to try to coax us into war, I think it is a tactic
:02:52. > :02:54.of his to try to discredit us. The biggest mistake I can make
:02:55. > :02:59.and we can make is to fall for it. Well, you tell me, then,
:03:00. > :03:12.about something that your media commentator and columnist
:03:13. > :03:15.Jim Rutenburg said not so long ago. "If you view a Trump Presidency
:03:16. > :03:18.as something that is potentially dangerous, then your reporting
:03:19. > :03:20.is bound to reflect that." "You would move closer than you ever
:03:21. > :03:23.have before to being - and this is an important
:03:24. > :03:26.word - oppositional." And I would put it to
:03:27. > :03:29.you that the New York Times has But you said, with all respect,
:03:30. > :03:36.you said that after Rutenberg's column, you were quoted as saying,
:03:37. > :03:38."he has nailed it". Yeah, but I don't think he nailed
:03:39. > :03:43.the fact that we have become oppositional,
:03:44. > :03:45.that column was written I don't think, and I'm working
:03:46. > :03:52.really hard not to do this, I don't Here is the problem
:03:53. > :03:59.with being the opposition party to Donald Trump,
:04:00. > :04:01.in the end. It's not just about
:04:02. > :04:03.covering Donald Trump. If you are the opposition party
:04:04. > :04:06.to Donald Trump, what happens? Whether it is three or four years
:04:07. > :04:10.from now, or eight years from now, Maybe a President who you
:04:11. > :04:19.were not in opposition to. And then you are just nothing
:04:20. > :04:22.but a lapdog for the next person. So we can be tough but we don't
:04:23. > :04:26.want to be oppositional. I do not want to be seen
:04:27. > :04:29.as the leader of the opposition But do you, as Jim Rutenberg
:04:30. > :04:33.obviously does, see I will let Jim have his
:04:34. > :04:37.opinion about that one. He has expressed his opinion,
:04:38. > :04:41.that is what he is paid to do. You are the editor of the New York
:04:42. > :04:45.Times and I want to pursue this idea that the paper appears
:04:46. > :04:49.to have a world view which says The world view I have
:04:50. > :04:56.is that we are tough on Presidents. We are especially tough
:04:57. > :04:58.on Presidents who sometimes say one thing Monday and do something else
:04:59. > :05:06.Tuesday. He is also the subject,
:05:07. > :05:09.or his campaign is the subject, He is also the wealthiest man ever
:05:10. > :05:19.to be in the White House, We don't know enough
:05:20. > :05:23.about his income. If you add up all of my coverage
:05:24. > :05:27.of all of those things, I can see that where he sits,
:05:28. > :05:30.that looks like we're I see it as covering all those
:05:31. > :05:37.things aggressively. But you are sounding so Zen-like
:05:38. > :05:40.in your approach to Donald Trump. I am mindful of very specific things
:05:41. > :05:45.which have happened in the last few months which seem to me
:05:46. > :05:47.to be quite important. For example, I think back
:05:48. > :05:53.in February there was an important White House briefing
:05:54. > :05:55.where your reporter was disinvited, effectively barred,
:05:56. > :06:01.from being present. We have also had other
:06:02. > :06:03.straws in the wind. Donald Trump at one point musing
:06:04. > :06:06.aloud, I think on Twitter, that he might do away
:06:07. > :06:09.with White House briefings altogether because he could not see
:06:10. > :06:13.the use for them and he might just pronounce now and again
:06:14. > :06:16.himself to reporters. There are all sorts of different
:06:17. > :06:20.ways in which he is challenging the way that the mainstream media
:06:21. > :06:23.has in the past had a relationship with power, particularly
:06:24. > :06:25.with White House power. This is a President who does not
:06:26. > :06:31.like the press he gets, no President ever likes
:06:32. > :06:33.the press he gets. This is a man who made his name
:06:34. > :06:41.in the real estate industry He manipulated them
:06:42. > :06:50.about his love life. He manipulated them
:06:51. > :06:52.about the size of his buildings. He manipulated them
:06:53. > :06:54.about his success and his wealth and his values
:06:55. > :06:57.and their importance to society. He becomes President and I think
:06:58. > :07:00.he was expecting the same thing. What lessons do you take
:07:01. > :07:08.from the campaign itself? From the whole Trump phenomenon,
:07:09. > :07:11.going back to the early days when few people took him seriously,
:07:12. > :07:14.all the way through the campaign, the convention and actually
:07:15. > :07:24.winning the White House. I think it is fair to say,
:07:25. > :07:27.for a long time, as a paper, you did not appear to take
:07:28. > :07:30.Trump that seriously. I don't think it is that we did
:07:31. > :07:37.not take him seriously because we covered the heck
:07:38. > :07:39.out of him. I think we did not quite
:07:40. > :07:42.have our minds wrapped around the anger in America that
:07:43. > :07:44.led to him. I guess the way I would flip it,
:07:45. > :07:48.it wasn't that we didn't take him seriously, we didn't take
:07:49. > :07:50.the Trump phenomenon seriously. I don't think that's the wrong
:07:51. > :07:55.phrase, I will accept that. By the way, I'm not
:07:56. > :07:58.sure anybody did. I think there was an anger
:07:59. > :08:02.in the country, not unlike the anger There was anger in the country
:08:03. > :08:11.and anger at elites. I don't think we had our finger
:08:12. > :08:16.on the pulse of that anger. We wrote about the anger
:08:17. > :08:19.in the country but I don't think we quite understood the scope of it
:08:20. > :08:23.and how much people wanted change. You are talking past tense but I'm
:08:24. > :08:28.talking present tense. I was listening yesterday
:08:29. > :08:30.to one of this country's well-known media commentators,
:08:31. > :08:31.Howard Kurtz. "Millions are still disgusted with
:08:32. > :08:35.an out of touch press", he said. There are all sorts
:08:36. > :08:38.of polls I could quote you. I would say Howie is a very
:08:39. > :08:41.nice guy but he writes But he has worked for
:08:42. > :08:46.the Washington Post. Howie is a very nice guy,
:08:47. > :08:48.but that is a completely unscientific estimate that
:08:49. > :08:54.millions of people... Well, here's something that at least
:08:55. > :08:56.has stats behind it. PBS, I'm sure you couldn't argue
:08:57. > :09:02.was in any way having an agenda which was against the mainstream
:09:03. > :09:04.media, but their poll suggested 32% of Americans
:09:05. > :09:07.have trust in the media, First, there is less
:09:08. > :09:23.trust in the media. But I also think the definition
:09:24. > :09:30.of what is the media is different. When I grew up, when I started,
:09:31. > :09:34.the media was your local paper, the New York Times,
:09:35. > :09:36.the Washington Post, the Journal and three
:09:37. > :09:37.television stations. Do I think I would like for people
:09:38. > :09:44.to have more trust in the New York Times and do I think
:09:45. > :09:48.that is an issue for me? I am just not completely convinced
:09:49. > :09:51.that the numbers reflect just the New York Times or the Washington
:09:52. > :09:53.Post. I think they reflect a wide
:09:54. > :09:58.definition of media. A Gallup poll in April that showed
:09:59. > :10:03.that two thirds of those Americans who believe there is media bias
:10:04. > :10:06.think it is a liberal media bias I do think and I have said
:10:07. > :10:18.that the big media institutions in America happen to be
:10:19. > :10:20.in liberal cities. Washington, mainly Washington,
:10:21. > :10:23.New York and Los Angeles. I do think that skews
:10:24. > :10:25.our view of the world. I think it is something
:10:26. > :10:30.that we need to work on. It is unfortunate that that the most
:10:31. > :10:35.powerful media organisations left You are saying to me that you don't
:10:36. > :10:49.believe your newspaper right now I am going to make it a little more
:10:50. > :10:55.complicated than that. And not because I am
:10:56. > :10:59.obfuscating on the issue. I think there are some things
:11:00. > :11:06.about Middle America that we don't My parents went to church
:11:07. > :11:12.every Sunday, I went I am not particularly
:11:13. > :11:17.religious any more. I think that in New York
:11:18. > :11:21.and Washington and Los Angeles, I don't think we understood
:11:22. > :11:33.in New York and Washington or Los Angeles just how much
:11:34. > :11:35.the trade imbalance was affecting the lives
:11:36. > :11:39.of people in Middle America. I do think that we could
:11:40. > :11:42.do a much better job. You talked about the importance
:11:43. > :11:44.of trust and you suggested that the New York Times still has
:11:45. > :11:48.to do work to make sure that that bond of trust between newspaper
:11:49. > :11:51.and reader is strong. So let's talk a little bit
:11:52. > :11:54.about the mechanics of reporting, particularly in the era of the Trump
:11:55. > :11:56.Presidency. You, and I have been looking closely
:11:57. > :11:59.at the way you have reported, particularly the unfolding story
:12:00. > :12:02.of the allegations of connections, both pre-election and post-election,
:12:03. > :12:05.between the Trump team and Russia. Your reporting has been out
:12:06. > :12:13.front in many locations but it is heavily reliant
:12:14. > :12:15.on anonymous, unnamed sources. Do you worry about that?
:12:16. > :12:22.No. I worry in principle
:12:23. > :12:28.about newspapers relying on too many anonymous sources
:12:29. > :12:33.for unimportant stories. I think we are in an era
:12:34. > :12:37.when anonymous sources are important We would not know about the American
:12:38. > :12:44.drone campaign in Yemen, Pakistan, we would know nothing
:12:45. > :12:49.about the surveillance programme. I think anonymous sources
:12:50. > :12:51.are important and I don't think we would have got the stories
:12:52. > :12:54.about them and I think So let's just dig into
:12:55. > :13:05.one particular story. Can you explain to me
:13:06. > :13:07.what the readership On May 17th there was
:13:08. > :13:12.a New York Times story. "Trump appealed to Comey to halt
:13:13. > :13:14.the inquiry of Flynn". Well, good, because you were
:13:15. > :13:30.the boss that put it in the paper. Now, in your paper,
:13:31. > :13:32.the documentation of Mr Trump's request is the clearest evidence,
:13:33. > :13:36.it was said, that the President has tried to directly influence
:13:37. > :13:38.the Justice Department and the FBI investigation into links between
:13:39. > :13:41.Mr Trump's associates in Russia. This is the clearest
:13:42. > :13:45.evidence, you say. Had your reporter on that
:13:46. > :13:49.story seen the memo that was the foundation
:13:50. > :13:51.of the story? As the story describes,
:13:52. > :13:54.he had it read to him But did he know 100% that
:13:55. > :14:01.what he was quoted over the phone Certainly enough of the memo
:14:02. > :14:05.for us to be confident So he didn't know that
:14:06. > :14:11.what he was receiving on the phone At a certain point you have
:14:12. > :14:16.to rely on your sources, if they're sources you have done
:14:17. > :14:18.business with before. And the readership could have no
:14:19. > :14:21.idea who that source was? Having a story from anonymous
:14:22. > :14:27.sources or not knowing that the President of
:14:28. > :14:30.the United States did something that everybody thinks
:14:31. > :14:31.is worth investigating? You're going to pick having
:14:32. > :14:45.the story because you want to believe that you can
:14:46. > :14:47.persuade your readers that you are 100% sure
:14:48. > :14:50.of your unnamed mystery source. I'm going to pick having the story
:14:51. > :14:57.because if I don't have the story, But what seems to be important to me
:14:58. > :15:02.is that the same reporter who wrote that story,
:15:03. > :15:05.based on the unnamed source about Michael Flynn and the Trump
:15:06. > :15:07.administration's connections to Russia, he is the same
:15:08. > :15:10.reporter who, back in 2015, broke a story for you in your paper
:15:11. > :15:13.about the aftermath He had an unnamed source
:15:14. > :15:17.telling him important things about the background of the two
:15:18. > :15:19.perpetrators, which turned I guess what I would say
:15:20. > :15:26.is the story that we were talking about before the Trump story,
:15:27. > :15:29.I know the sources, I know I know the name, I know
:15:30. > :15:36.everything about the story. And I am absolutely certain it
:15:37. > :15:54.will be borne out to be true. Let's talk about a slightly
:15:55. > :15:56.different ethical challenge which has faced you in the last
:15:57. > :16:00.couple of days and I have brought with me a copy of
:16:01. > :16:03.the New York Times from yesterday. It is entirely relevant
:16:04. > :16:05.because here, inside this edition, you divulged confidential secret
:16:06. > :16:08.information which the British police had sent to US intelligence
:16:09. > :16:10.agencies about the terrible It included confidential photographs
:16:11. > :16:14.which gave a real idea of the making of the suicide bomb device,
:16:15. > :16:17.it gave the most graphic account Actually, it was not
:16:18. > :16:42.at the highest level of secrecy. It was at a level of secrecy that
:16:43. > :16:46.made it much more widely dispersed It was not a top
:16:47. > :16:49.confidential secret. As far as the British
:16:50. > :16:51.police concerned, it was But there are literal
:16:52. > :16:54.classifications of confidentiality The reason it is important,
:16:55. > :16:58.at the very top means This was much more
:16:59. > :17:01.widely distributed. The reason I am saying
:17:02. > :17:04.that is not unimportant, we're not talking about something
:17:05. > :17:07.known to two or three people. It infuriated the British
:17:08. > :17:09.authorities, starting This is what the UK
:17:10. > :17:12.National Police Chiefs Council said. Let's start with the police,
:17:13. > :17:15.it is kind of important. 48 hours after 22 young people,
:17:16. > :17:19.including children, had been murdered, you chose to put
:17:20. > :17:22.on your front page pictures which the British police regarded
:17:23. > :17:25.as highly sensitive operational And right after that,
:17:26. > :17:30.the BBC and the Guardian put it I'm not saying it is,
:17:31. > :17:44.I am just pointing it out. This is what the UK
:17:45. > :17:48.National Police Chiefs Council said. The revelations, they said,
:17:49. > :17:49.undermined our investigation. And not only that, they also
:17:50. > :17:52.undermined the confidence of victims, witnesses
:17:53. > :17:53.and their families. They have given no evidence that
:17:54. > :18:19.illustrates how this This is a kind of standard
:18:20. > :18:23.information that has been made public after terror attacks
:18:24. > :18:25.since September the 11th. If you go back and look
:18:26. > :18:28.at everything from the Boston bombing to the September
:18:29. > :18:30.the 11th attacks. Nobody has ever offered any evidence
:18:31. > :18:34.that that got in the way But it was actually a picture
:18:35. > :18:38.of a timing device that They do not want the terrorists,
:18:39. > :18:44.the enemies, to know what they know about a very active ongoing
:18:45. > :18:47.operation because the terrorist not knowing is a very important part
:18:48. > :18:50.of destabilising them and allowing Boy, we live in
:18:51. > :18:55.different press worlds. When our police say that,
:18:56. > :18:57.we say "prove it". I don't buy that this
:18:58. > :19:02.hurt their investigation. We very thoughtfully and carefully
:19:03. > :19:03.published information that we publish after every terror
:19:04. > :19:13.attack in the world. While the operation is still
:19:14. > :19:16.ongoing, after 48 hours? The Boston bombing, we put
:19:17. > :19:20.stuff up within hours. Some people watching this will think
:19:21. > :19:22.that is deeply arrogant. You say, I don't buy it,
:19:23. > :19:25.as though the police and the anti-terror,
:19:26. > :19:27.counter-terror personnel When they say this could
:19:28. > :19:30.damage the operation, The British press and the American
:19:31. > :19:39.press have different attitudes here. You guys tend to believe
:19:40. > :19:42.what the authorities say right away. And in this case, I erred
:19:43. > :19:47.on the side of publishing. It is just as important for people
:19:48. > :19:50.in the world to know about the mundane details
:19:51. > :19:52.of terrorist attacks, it is really important
:19:53. > :19:55.and that is what this is. I have seen no evidence, none,
:19:56. > :19:58.except for the broad statements of police,
:19:59. > :19:59.that it affected And that is probably not quite
:20:00. > :20:12.enough for the American press. And what about the argument made
:20:13. > :20:15.by the Prime Minister, made by the Mayor of Manchester
:20:16. > :20:18.and made by the police also that not only did it
:20:19. > :20:20.undermine the investigation, it also fundamentally disrespected
:20:21. > :20:23.the people at the heart of this, the families of the victims,
:20:24. > :20:26.who did not want all of this information coming out just 48 hours
:20:27. > :20:29.after their own relatives That is a much more sympathetic
:20:30. > :20:43.argument and it is one I would ask you to look
:20:44. > :20:47.at the totality of our coverage. We wrote about the victims,
:20:48. > :20:52.we wrote about their lives, I don't think any news
:20:53. > :20:55.organisation that is respectful, that is respectable and that
:20:56. > :20:58.understands its worth in society will hold back all information
:20:59. > :21:01.for fear of upsetting the family. Would you have done the same thing
:21:02. > :21:22.if these victims had been in New York City and not
:21:23. > :21:24.in Manchester, England? We did it after September the 11th,
:21:25. > :21:29.we did it after the Boston bombings. You mean you published
:21:30. > :21:31.stories which you knew could upset the victims right
:21:32. > :21:34.after the attack itself? I think that is a very skewed
:21:35. > :21:37.way of looking at it. We have never heard an outcry
:21:38. > :21:40.from victims over publishing I came in this morning
:21:41. > :21:44.and I have been answering Before we end, let's just
:21:45. > :21:53.talk about the future Your business model has been
:21:54. > :21:57.under enormous pressure. Not least because your paper
:21:58. > :21:59.sales are in decline, your ad revenues from the newspaper
:22:00. > :22:03.sales are in decline and, of course, you have upped your online
:22:04. > :22:05.subscriptions and your But overall, you're
:22:06. > :22:08.in a very difficult place. Look, all news organisations
:22:09. > :22:29.are in a difficult place somewhat. Because our financial models have
:22:30. > :22:32.just been completely blown up I think the best news organisations
:22:33. > :22:36.have something that can be And I think it is already proven,
:22:37. > :22:45.we have gained over half a million That is astonishing, we could never
:22:46. > :22:49.have done that in print. But do I think I can see around
:22:50. > :22:59.the corner a bright future? A very different future
:23:00. > :23:03.but I would argue a bright future. Dean Baquet, we have to end
:23:04. > :23:07.there but thanks very much Thank you so much, it has been
:23:08. > :23:23.a pleasure, it really has been.