tv Real Money With Ali Velshi Al Jazeera March 6, 2015 3:30am-4:01am EST
restricting animal acts. but treatment becomes more controversial. another factor the $65,000 a year maintenance cost per an plal which is not exactly peanuts. tom ackerman, al jazeera. >> a reminder, you can keep updated at aljazeera.com. lapped of the free. tell that to the leakers who risk their lives to tell you what the government doesn't want you to know. i'll look at how national security sometimes trumps the first amendment, and talk to a legend in journalism who says president obama may be the worst for press freedom since nixon. and the hidden by as that could boardroom. i talk to a woman who knows the system for beating the system and closing the gender gap. i'm ali velshi, and this is "real money".
[ ♪♪ ] the price of free speech. we are fixated by crackdowns on the freedom of expression, to express dissent in places like russia or china, those countries. the government justify censorship and rolling back press freedom and expression in the name of national security, and we criticize them. let's turn the lens on ourselves and look at curbs on free expression in the united states. edward snowden is a deeply divisive figure, praised by some as a civil rights campaigner, and whistleblower, and condemned by others, including president
obama, a traitor who did damage to u.s. national security. he is a former contractor who worked for the n.s.a. and leaked information on electronic surveillance, his leaks revealed the extent of u.s. government spying on american communication. ironically he net to russia to avoid arrest and prison time. there's talk that he's ready to come back and take his chances. rory challands in moscow. >> the man who has been edward snowden's lawyer pretty. since he arrived in russia launched his book on tuesday. at the book launch he made interesting comments about what seems to be going on now behind the screens, legal discussion that is would potentially lead to edward snowden's return back to the united states. let's listen to what he had to say. >> of course, i won't keep the secrets that he is considering
it and wants to return home. her doing everything possible to self-the issue. >> it's pretty much inconceivable that if edward snowden would go to the united states that he wouldn't be put on trial. he's been a fugitive of justice from two years. the debate about leaks on national security were not knew. before edward snowden was painted as the enemy, there was another. a man that nixon said damaged the war against communism. ellsworth leaked pentagon papers, secret military works confirming what the public new to be true. america was losing the war in vietnam. the administration wept after emms worth and the "new york times" but lost the case in the supreme court. 40 years later, the obama administration is accused of
taking the same tack six. james is a reporter facing gaol time over refusing to reveal a source. he denounced president obama as the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation. >> the first amendment of the constitution made the united states a symbol. reporters without boarders ranked the united states 49th in the world for press freedom. the obama administration pursuit of journalists has put a chill on reporters who cover the u.s. government. james goodell was the former counsel to the "new york times", representing them during the pentagon papers case, and is the author of fighting for the press. an inside story, and in a conversation he said president obama may be worse than president nixon, when it comes to the damage that he is doing
to u.s. journalism. >> he could be worth if, in assange. what he wants do do this that progress is say every reporter, when they talk to someone with a national security clearance and that person leaks, he's complicit. you can put a criminal prosecution against the reporter and the leaker. it hasn't happened. guess what, after i wrote the book, there was a reporter, james rosen. he was a reporter a few years ago. it turned out he was subject to a search warrant. on the theory that he was complicit with the leaker. obama did it once, therefore you can say he's better than nixon, nixon never did it, but it will be bad if they prosecute our friend julian assange. >> the
obama administration prosecuted more alleged larks. they have prosecuted more alleged leak ertion under the espionage act from 1917. that's more than any ert administration combined, ever. is there a place for national security trumping the national amendment, where the leakers should be prosecuted, let alone the journalists who report it? >> i don't think the leakers should be prosecuted. we talked about the espionage act. find the leaker, and you are a reporter, and say i leak something to you, i haven't committed espionage, i have just given you information that you are in a position to publicise. if, in fact, me as a leaker, i gave the information in question to the russian government. we have something to act against.
generally speaking i'm against prosecution. if you are going to prosecute, don't do eight. the law is not clear. do one, wait another eight years. >> what do you think happens with julian assange? >> what is happening? >> what will happen and what is the impact? >> the deal is he's in ecuadorian embassy. the moment he takes a step outside he'll be picked up by the europe police, and send to sweden more sexual misconduct. and he'll be sent to the united states. he'll be prosecuted not for leaking, but for receiving a leak and being complicit. thor was chelsea manning. that means you are not well advised if your reporter - talking to anybody with access to national security. >> you buy the report, the ranking of 49th in the world of fresh freedom, putting united
states in a position where it's less free than el salvador and niger. it's a low ranking. >> obama has been terrible for the press. he's number one. he's deep six... >> let's talk about the shield law. a lot of states have it. there's no federal shield law. if you are a reporter in federal >>. >> the implication is that you are protected. if you want to protect the course. you say i have the shield law, shielding me from being asked about my source. fine, there's a law there. a lot of states have. the united states doesn't have it. there was a law by the house. guess who deep six. >> president obama. >> why? >> it's hard to know. i think that basically it's in the hands of national security.
he put an exception in the bill making national security reporting not covered by it. way. >> that's the question. do you think this is a president obama specific thing or do you think you are in a world in the last 15 years in america where national security is the here? >> i think it's the former. president obama, because he should stand up for national security. he doesn't stand up for it. he was before it before he became president. i think he's within captured by the established. and, of course, it's abbing sen tutored because of the present -- abbing sen tuated because of the environment. >> do you think under a shield law, an administration that respects journalists and freedom of the press some exceptions would be made?
>> i wouldn't make any. there was never exceptions there before. the house passed. 40 people assented. it went to the senate. expired. president obama was for it. it was in his office and then there's app exception. >> government attempts to limit free speech occur over the world. china tightens its group on chinese citizens by curbing the eighty -- ability to publicly criticize. a rule has been implemented for blogsers to register under their real names so they can be better monitored. adrian brown describes what is going on. >> writing under a pen name in china went back to days before the internet. useful, but now the same authorities say that social media and internet users have to register the accounts. you can use a pen name, it's the
government will know who you are. >> reporter: a song in praise of chinese censorship. performed by men and women that police the internet. it's the official cyber space administration. posted on the website days before china announced a tightening of internet restrictions. the economist is not for those singing along. he blocks on corruption and >> there's so much information out there. and, of course, there's criticism. this is normal. the sky won't fall if you let people criticize the government will pan social media and internet accounts that are not registered in the names
of real users. the government fears the most, social insecurity. >> yes. >> arab spring movement had an impact. they crack down on any voices promoting such campaigns, if a group tries something similar, they'd be suppressed. permitted. these comments from people reacting to a news report about how eight inmates died in a prison. what is wrong with this country, it's dark and horrible says a post. another says if we don't get rid of corrupt government officials, the party is finished. >> this is a good way of letting the government vent their anger, and it would not go on to do strikes or demonstrations. >> reporter: but for the
guardians of cyber sovereignty, the song is the same. censorship, go the lyrics, is transforming china to power. >> ali, people know there's an invisible line you can't cross here. they know you can criticize officials online. you can't call for protests against the officials thanks adrian brown, when we come back, the truth behind why women earn less than men for doing the same work.
>> sunday night. >> 140 world leaders will take the podium. >> get the full story. >> there is real disunity in the security council. >> about issues that impact your world. >> infectious diseases are a major threat to health. >> "the week ahead". sunday 8:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. working women in america earn less than men, that much is true.
how much less, and why, and you have started an argument. the data shows women earn $0.77 for every dollar a man makes. yesterday i talked to a scholar at the american enterprise institute who says the 23% gap is a myth and the true situation is not that bad. he's not alone. my colleague interviewed a woman at the heritage foundation who explained to this way. >> once you adjust for the choices men and women make, the wage gap all but disappears. once you account for factors like college factor, and having children. in other words after making sure there's apple to apples comparison there's a distance of 7%. once you control for other factors, distrim in addition is the only viable splings.
the problem is -- in silicon valley. women are under-represented and pay lags behind. a c.e.o. got a lot of negative advice. >> it's not really about asking for the wage, but knowing and having faith that it will give you the right raises as you go along. >> within hours he admitted he was wrong, but the issue of gender equality in the workforce is real, ongoing and calls out for solutions. one of the smartest people i know is a director of the center for talent innovation, an economist with 20 years of experience in global talent management and the author of 12 books, i asked how much of the discrimination? >> i think there's a consensus, but 10-15% is
discriminations. i don't think the macro, you know useful. >> per industry. >> you have to look at specific industries, age groups. i work around managers and executives. what is happening to the top talent. so the wage gap is 52%. >> wow. >> guess what, women, if they make it to the levels leave or languish in the bottom level of leadership, they are not making it to the high paying positions, and it has gotten worse was as we all know, there has been a polarization of pay. there's a huge differential these days when what we get. >> and someone two rungs below. >> exactly. >> the wage gap increased. the solution is not really to beat up everyone about the
general techniques, but say look, in these areas, sponsorship is what gets you. >> is and when you say sponsorship. that what we mentorship. >> no, i wrote a book about this. sponsors do three things that mentors don't do. first off, they are willing to take a bet, use up political capital, allow you to walk around with their brand on your forehead. you are taking a risk. mentors do not do that. they add is it for you in ways you are not pressed. the november raise review, someone is piping up saying you deserve a wage. they believe in you. and lastly they are in your corner to take risks. it's said that women take fewer risks than men.
suicidal. >> they'll take a risk if there's someone in on it. >> a woman with a sponsor will take as many risks as a man. >> okay. >> the three behaviours is what distinguishes us. me are twice as likely. >> this concept how does it play a role. companies consult with you saying how do we eliminate the successful. >> there's two pieces of work i've been involved number of the way you get from the middle to the top is through sponsorship. some see a person, value, taps you on the shoulder grooming you for leadership giving you opportunities. we show women are 47% less liking to be sponsored. not because many are
discriminating, but it's a mini me. it's easier if someone has your back if they look like you, come from the same background. if you look at people of colour, 5% ever get sponsors, no matter what the qualification. even if you control tenure, hours worked - they don't get sponsored. that is how power transfers. the work came out. lots of data, articles that are peer reviewed. there's a big difference. on. >> many argue that women who choose to have children are the reason why. some say they are wrong. after the breaks, we'll hear about how they back that up, and how having kids affected her
career. keep it >> at one time i felt that selling cocaine was my purpose. >> as the amount of drugs grew guns came in. >> murder rate was sky-high. >> this guy was the biggest in l.a. >> i was goin' through a million dollars worth of drugs every day. i liked it. it's hard to believe that a friend would set you up. people don't get federal life sentences and beat them. >> they had been trafficking on behalf of the united states government. >> the cia admitted it. >> "freeway - crack in the system". only on al jazeera america.
now more of my interview on gender pay and unconscious bias in the work place with an author, economist and the director of the center for innovation, and one of the smartest people i know when it comes to the challenges women face on the job. i ask this question about being a woman who chooses not to get married. let me ask you this - women who
are relatively young and never married have as much earning what men do. >> in a way. but look at the women in age 40. we did a study looking at women on track across 14 sectors, between 35 and 50. 38% do not have children. that is true in the u.s., in the u.k. it's 30%, germany, 41%. the rates of childlessness is going up. the women in the prime of their lives, the earning power had nothing to do with whether they had kids. we can't blame the lack of traction in female careers because the mothers of this world are handy capped. >> we do. they say
women make choices women make choices that result in them not being paid the same as men. do you believe the argument. >> i have five kids. to balance. did they say that. >> i took a brief off-ramp. i worked for a while, i got back on track. we find that you find the relationships in the decades over 30, but the truth is that bias hits single women without kids as fiercely as women about children. by the time you look at managers or executives, the story line is about who gets sponsored and where the hidden by as is. >> you and i talked years ago about - i don't know whose by as there is, but the concept that women don't push as hard. over the life span of the career, you may take 2% less
than you were entitled to, and that could amount to half a million over your career. up. >> right. >> so this study which came out last night is called women want five things, we have news. we find women on track, with ceg degrees, investing themselves, with long careers, there's no difference between levels of ambition, yearning for suck servings the number of hours they put in, it's similar to men. the thing is they have a deeper and richer opposition. they want five things. sure, they want to excel and earn money, and are seeking medium purpose and want to flourish, they want self abbing
tullisation at -- actualisation at work and empower others and themselves. guess what, men want that, but less urgently. the problem we find about success, leaping on every chance, as we know, has always been an issue for whim wolves around the question. do they get stuck at the top. they suspect they may not. they are not as seriously as that. what do they do. they measure. do women in top jobs get the five things. the great news is that they do. in other words is the ability to have influence and agencies, you may get that. the big news is we have women aged 30, hang in there.
go for the golden ring. guess what... >> once you are there it can be satisfying. >> it will deliver satisfaction with. >> tomorrow - the battle dividing america's [ chants ] >> we are one across the nation. >> another nail in the coffin of state. >> i'll go to the top, one on one with labour secretary tom perez here at 10:30 eastern. that's the show for today. i'm ali velshi. thanks for joining us. >> the new al jazeera america primetime. get the real news you've been looking for. at 7:00, a thorough wrapup of the day's events. then at 8:00, john seigenthaler digs deeper into
the stories of the day. and at 9:00, get a global perspective on the news. weeknights, on al jazeera america . a leading commander in the nusra front is killed in a syrian attack on idlib. ♪ ♪ live from do huh also coming up in the next half hour, peace talks begins but not with each other. libya's feuding factions refuse to meet face-to-face. still searching for the truth, chinese families demand answers after mysterious disappearance after flight mh370. after the drug lords we look at how