tv John King Reliable Sources CNN January 31, 2010 10:00am-11:00am EST
that's what all of these -- the 50-state tour has been about. connecting the dots. i swear we won't use that phrase. but it's really true. it has to be about how does what goes on here and what goes on in the world affect you and what do you need to know about that? an hour sounds like, wow, that's a long time. but it's really not. you've got to win know down the relevance. >> candy crowley be l be on this side of the table next sunday. obviously this program, some reflects who i am. you want to make it a program that reflects who you are. talk about that little bit. >> i think you're right. you can only be comfortable in something that is shaped around how you view journalism. i think you and i view journalism very much the same, as a huge responsibility to look at the totality of the picture. but i think i'm fairly laid back, i think, although again my children might disagree with
that at times. i think i like, believe it or not, the poetry of politics. i like the kind of -- i like politics and i like global things because they relate so personally to everyone. and to be able to kind of bring that in and bring some poetry to their lives to the show, i hope we can do that. >> part of our sunday conversation at cnn is not only taking a look at what the politicians are saying, but at how our business is doing. in that regard i want to bring in howie kurtz into our conversation as we turn things over to him. >> breaking new, let me first say congratulations to candy. do you see this as being an interesting transition to go from correspondent to the exalted post of sunday morning? >> actually, i view it -- i look back and think, i have been out there on the trail or around the world, wherever you've been, it kind of prepares you for this. out can't sit here, as jon has shown, and know things. you have to be other places
because you tend to get tunnel vision. and i think having spent decades talking to people about their lives and worries and questions, i hope i bring that to the table. >> jon king, wheel talk to you later. congratulations on a great year. you visited all 50 states, lived up to that promise. we'll turnl to reliable sources now. there is an age-old journalistic formula for covering any political event. you lay the sharpest and harshest sound bhooit from one side and then the other side. you write that the political rivals slammed each other, which side won and which side lost. when president obama showed up at a house republican retreat, they had an exchange of views, a discussion about how they could work together. the somewhat surprised journalists had to find some other way tell a story. >> we've never seen a face-off quite like this between a president and members of the opposition party. >> no one who was watching had ever seen anything like it
before. >> we have lost, it turns out -- >> there were a few jabs as when the president complained that the republicans had turned his health care legislation into a caricature. >> if you were to listen to the debate, and frankly how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some bol shav vic plaque. >> the problem we have is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn style politics. you don't get credit if i say i think paul ryan is a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family. no one will run that in the newspapers. >> is the president right about our slg a slash-and-burn media? joaning us joan walsh, editor and chief of sal con.com. and chip reed, chief white house correspondent for cbs news, and david frum who runs a web side,
frumforeign.com. does the president have a point about our addition to the hot side of politics? >> absolutely. what is the bane of our existence. when i was in local news, you ran to the fire or double murder. here we run to the political equivalent of that and sometimes don't get into the substance of that. it is frustrating. you've got to get people's attention. you to start with the fire first and try to segue into the more important substance. >> that can have a distorting effect. joan walsh, this is what voters at least in pulse say they want, civility, working together. you wrote about friday's session in baltimore, that the president kicked some ill-informed and unstrep rouse gop butt -- i'm cleaning it up a little bit for television. >> i was being a tad partisan. i was on twitter trance fixed, i had so much else to do that day. the television was on and i had
never seen anything like it. i wrote nice things about the republicans during the day. but the cumulative effect at the end of it, i think was a big win for president obama. you had mike pence saying i'm not sure we would do this again. he was like the first person to say, oh, the president has to go. we've taken way too many questions. so there was a sense that it may have backfired on the gop. let me step back for one second. i don't want to be partisan about this. i think if we did this regularly with whomever was the president with both parties, i'd like do see obama and progressives do the same thing over the public option and the thing that progress zifs don't like in the health care reform bill. it was great tv, maybe just for wonks like us. >> i thought it was great tv as well. david, the parties have real differences. is there a press bias toward moderation, cooperation, can't we all just get along? >> no. there's a press bias to conflict. on a thing like this health care bill where the president has a
point, where so many of the ideas contained have been pioneered by republicans, he set up some possibilities for actually achieving something that i think the political system as well as the media system oppose. i want to say something about the institutionalization of this. this not something we'll be able to do again. >> like the british prime minister at question time. >> i grew up in canada. question time is nobody's idea of a good conversation, because the next time it happens -- the reason it was so powerful was the republicans didn't plan their line of questioning. they didn't have a thought about we're going to focus on jobs, this is jobs day. >> it was unscripted. >> a real question time is like a cross examination, and the next time it happens, the questions will be lined up in order, the an centers will be more staged. i'm afraid this is a one-off. we'll never see anything like this again. >> can i ask a question david? it wasn't entirely unscripted. they came up with a lot of questions, some of which contained errors or false
assumptions or narrow partisan setups for the president. i wouldn't call it completely unscripted or like he just wandered into a republican meeting. they were prepared to some extent. i don't think they were prepared for him to do it as long as he did or for him to push back as hard as he did. he really -- he was jean y'all, charming, he asked about their kids and then said, that's not true frn true, you're misrepresenting me. >> parliamently question time starts with the opposition party saying what answer do we want theperson to say on television and work backward from there. that obviously didn't happen. when he meets with the democratic caucus, that may happen. they may have, especially the left side of the party, may have a more coordinated attack that will be harder to deal with and less susceptible to obama's genial qualities. >> let me get to chip reid here. in terms of the image projected during that 90 minutes, how is it that the camera stayed only on the president and we didn't see the republican members of
congress asking the questions? >> i think in many ways i think the president walloped them there. it was because the republicans were fighting with maybe both hands tied behind their back. they were not on camera asking the question. it was a disembodied voice, at least in the live version. they didn't have it set up to have two live cameras at the same time. it was a technical thing. later we used the questions in my evening news piece, for example. if you were watching it live, it was like the president alone was up there. >> up on mtd olympus. >> the republicans are back off from that. they're not in a position to chat. they wanted so badly to say that's nonsense or you know that's not true, to fight back, but they couldn't because of the format. basically what happened, whatever sports metaphor you want to use, mine is they would ask the question, the republican defense would leave the field and obama would run for the
touch down. >> let's now turn to the state of the union. comment staters were saying the president was reeling, remote, detached, out of touch. as obama tackles all kinds of issues in the speech, he found time to take on one target not usually featured in such addresses. that would be us. >> the more the tv pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bytes, our citizens turn away. >> but those sound bytes continue, the pundits lining up rather predictably along liberal and conservative lines. >> if the president's goal was to hit the reset button, i think he succeeded. >> a tone deaf speech. >> the tone was remarkably reasonable and commanding. >> i thought it was like a cold bowl of oatmeal. >> i thought his first speech was just inspiring and genuine.
>> one conclusion i dprau from last night is the president thinks we're all stupid. >> i thought it was a wonderful night for him. >> there was no fundamental anything other than the same old stuff he's been saying for a year. somewhere between inspiring and oatmeal. look, the president, chip reid used your all the air waves go after you. >> i would expect them to. >> i can't recall the media being a target in the state of the union speech before. >> that may be true. he targeted me personally at a town hall once. he saw me off to the side and made that same attack and said, right, chip. and the whole audience turned and looked at me. unfortunately i wasn't in a position to defend myself or my possession. at that time anyway. joan walsh, you wrote that you liked the speech, but you were a little concerned that president borrowed too much republican rhetoric. that didn't seem to be the lead or theme on most of the news accounts. >> no.
that's my theme. that's what i thought. i thought the main thing about it was that -- i was surprised and pleased that he took on republican recalcitrants. i think it's fair to take on the media. it's not chip. it's not about chip. it's more about people like me, although david and i certainly try to strive for common ground when we can. he's had a year when cable news treated the death panels like they were a real story and like they really existed. i think he's got a fair complaint. on the other hand, liberals loved his combative tone. but there was a lot of conservative rhetoric. he either believes that spending our way through this recession is necessary or he believes that the budget deficit is really a terrible thing. i'm not sure you can have both. his energy policy would have i'm sure made sarah palin smile. there were definitely things that worried liberals. >> on that point, you've worked on these kind of speechless. did the coverage reflect the
substance of these proposals on hiring tax credits, offshore oil drilling, or is it really all about the theater? how does the president come off when he has the spotlight on him? >> since it is theater, the coverage is right. a lot of these proposals find a way of never seeing the light of day again. they're often there for how they sound. for a president who complains about the media. he's very capable of playing off the media's weaknesses. you're very kochb shows of the time. you know people are going to change the channel at the top of the hour. president obama borrowed the old clinton trick. you go to 70 minutes and put all your most liberal stuff in the last ten. you know your people will watch all the way through the 70 minutes. the people you're trying to reach, they stop at 60. they don't hear about the gays in the military. >> you think that was a machiavellian plot? >> no, i'm sure it was completely random. how much thought goes into these things? not more than two months. >> we do all analyze whether
he's scaled down his agenda. >> the bottom line is when you have a 70-minute speech, you can reach whatever conclusion you want to reach. you can reach into the speech and pull out the liberal stuff. of course, the liberals were saying, oh, my god, he's abandoned his base. the conservativeless were saying oh, my god, he's a wild eyed liberal. when you look back historically, they're everything. they have everything. >> the state of the union is written like an old-fashioned newspaper article. everyone is reading sentence one. with each sentence, we lose readers. in a state of the union, with each minute you lose viewers. the stuff you want everybody to hear is at the top. the stuff you want almost nobody to hear is at the bottom. it's not built in lornlg cal order, but in order of attention. >> there tends to be a one-liner in these speeches. in this case it wasn't spoken by the president, but chris matthews. >> he is post racial by all
appearances. i forgot he was black tonight for an hour. >> joan walsh, i have less than a minute. your reaction to those words? >> there's no such thing as post racial, and so i disagree with chris about that. on the other hand, i think his heart really is in the right place in terms of -- he roots for this president. like that or not, people criticize him for that. but, you know, he was trying to say something positive on -- >> definitely trying to say something positive. did he put it rather clumsily? >> i would say it was clum si, yes. >> i think the meaning so leaps out o at people. it defies comment. you wonder what happens all the other hours of his life. >> all right, thanks very much for joining us. when we come back, have the media missed the point on the supreme court ruling lifting the ban on campaign spending? floyd abrams and jeffrey toobin
face off. well, it's not just m. you're so funny. i like you. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. you may save a little money on your arthritis pain relief. but you could end up taking twice as many pills... compared to aleve. choose aleve, it just makes sense. just two aleve have the strength to relieve arthritis pain all day. most people try to get rid of algae, and we're trying to grow it. the algae are very beautiful. they come in blue or red, golden, green. algae could be converted into biofuels... that we could someday run our cars on. in using algae to form biofuels, we're not competing with the food supply. and they absorb co2, so they help solve the greenhouse problem, as well. we're making a big commitment to finding out... just how much algae can help to meet... the fuel demands of the world.
it was nothing short of a legal bombshell when the supreme court struck down limits on political spending by corporations nine days ago. big companies and unions can now pour unlimited amounts into advocacy advertising aimed at defeating a candidate in final 60 days of a general election. many expressed alarm at the ruling with a "new york times" editorial calling it a disastrous decision that has thrust politics back to the robber baron era of the 19th century oopsz. >> yesterday floyd abrams said the media missed the point. if free speech means anything, it must apply to corporations as
well. joining us from new york is floyd abrams and jeffrey toobin, senior legal analyst for cnn. a lot of the attention has been on samuel alito because he was caught mouthing the words "not true." to get to the ruling itself, you recognize, you now are okay with the fact that exxon or microsoft could spend $1 million or $10 million on ads against a candidate and in the name of free speech, you find that acceptable. >> i'm okay with that, and the same way i'm okay with the fact that cnn and "the new york times" can speak out as they choose to. i think it's all inseparable. as far as i'm concerned, we don't distinguish and shouldn't distinguish based on the corporate nature of an entity. the basic first amendment principles here are two. one is when you speak about who to vote for for president which
is what this documentary and this case is about, that's the most protected sort of speech of all, and the second is that when we decide whether we can ban or punish or criminalize speech, we don't do it on the basis of who is speaking. >> let me go to jeffrey toobin on that point. does floyd abrams have a point in saying until this law media companies were exempted. you and i could come on cnn the day before an election and say anything we want about a campaign, but citigroup or merrill lynch didn't have that right. >> let's start a distinction between speech you pay for, television commercials and speech that is part of the freedom of the press which is spoken of in the first amendment explicitly. television advertisements which is ultimately what this case is all about, have always been heavily regulated. marlboro kind buy an ad that says cigarettes are good for you. you can't call your product organic when you advertise it if
it's not. you can't lie about the price of the product you're selling in an ad. the government has always regulated that kind of speech. this was another kind of regulation of commercial speech. and that i think is something congress has always done, and the government has always done. that's why this decision was really inappropriate. >> go ahead, floyd. >> this has never been considered commercial speech. this is political speech. there's no speech more political than this sort of speech. sure, sure the courts have said in a purely commercial area, you can't get on television and lie about your products, but they have always said that the first amendment protects speech about who to vote for. here we have consumers -- here we have citizens united doing a movie blasting hillary clinton and we're saying that can be criminal because it's broadcast too close to an election? >> the regulation of commercial speech and the regulation of the
campaign process, who gives money, how much money you can give, how you can spend that money, this has been done since the beginning of the 20th century. this is very routine stuff, that the government has been regulating commercial speech that relates to politics or, if you want to call it political speech, that's what makes this speech -- this decision so unusual. this is an area where they've been regulating for decades. >> jeff, let me jump in and ask you a question about the coverage. floyd is suggesting you and your colleagues kind of missed the point in that many journalists work for corporations, it's important for corporations to have rights just like individual reporters and editors and producers do. >> i can't speak for all the press. it is certainly true it's important to all of us. you and i, we work for time warner. time warner in addition to being a very big company is a company that does news gathering. we desperately need the
protections of a first amendment. a corporation in that sense should have rights. but the question is, is that right to be extended to every corporation the doing anything including things that have nothing to do with news gathering or news media. >> floyd abrams, "the new york times" and others in their news coverage have raised this question. at what point does this become bribery. xyz corporation says we really would like your vote on this piece of deregulatory legislation, and it would really be a shame if we had to spend $1 million, $2 million on ads supporting your opponent. that kind of pressure clearly could happen now that this ban has been lifted? >> that sort of pressure always could have lapped. as you rightly pointed out at the beginning, the change in law here, very important though it is -- the change in law is not to allow this political speech during the last 60 days of a campaign and 30 days before a
convention and the like. so that was always possible. the reality is we've got 25 states out there that already allow unlimited, absolutely unlimited spending by corporations, and we have not seen examples that, as a matter of reality indicates anything bad has happened. all we've had is more speech about politics. for people who care about the first amendment, i would have thought they said, hey, that's a good thing. that's what the first amendment is all about. >> jeff toobin, whether you agree with this decision or not, doesn't this vis rate the argument that only liberal judges engage in judicial activism. job roberts and hips majority here have overturned decades of precedence in order to come up with this ruling. >> in many respects, howie, i think that's the biggest message of this case. the conservatives in this court are engaged in a big project to overturn lots of precedent, to overturn the work of
legislatures, whether it's legislatures that pass gun control laws, that sponsor affirmative action, that allow abortion rights. all of those precedents are going to be attacked by this -- four of these justices, anthony kennedy harder to say. it all depends on who is on the court. >> appreciate both of you coming in on short notice. floyd abrams, jeffrey toobin, thanks for stopping by. coming back in the second half of "reliable sources," apple's super gizmo. is the media hype out of control? conservative activist james o'keefe arrested at a office. no joke. jay leno opens up to oprah about bumping conan. >> let some time pass, i would hope we can talk about it. to stay on top of my game after 50,
don: now get free delivery of walmart's $10 90-day generic prescriptions... don: ...no matter where you live. don: plus get free shipping on over 3,000 other prescriptions. don: call 1-800-2-refill for your free home delivery. save money. live better. walmart. when james o'keefe posed as a pimp last year gathering that devastating undercover footage
of a.c.o.r.n. staffers appearing to tolerate teenage prostitution, he appeared a hero. the story was legitimate and the mainstream media disturbingly slow in covering it. the o'keefe sting ran constantly around the clock on fox news. >> there is new and big trouble for a.c.o.r.n. >> the people sitting there and saying don't worry about those 13-year-olds being used as hookers -- it's corrupt. >> this is a fox news alert. the massive scandal involving a.c.o.r.n. continues to spread tonight. >> rarely does a piece of investigative reporting get such a big and quick response. and rarely is the undercover reporter such a fascinating character. here is our power player of the week. >> if you use their rules against them, you can really just tease them and mock them and really destroy them. response was dramatically different this week when o'keefe was arrested at the office of louisiana senator mary landrieu charged in a plot to interfere
with her telephone lines. that day there was no mention of o'keefe's arrest on bill o'reilly or sean hannity's show. cnn covered it moss evidently. msnbc's liberal host kept leading with it in prime time. >> if some democrat operative liberal, young liberal, liberal with a video camera were allegeed to have done this in the offices of a republican senator, no matter how rin ki dink the operation was, would not the right wing echo chamber have already jumped to treason by now? >> if not treason, possibly terrorism. >> bill o'reilly did call o'keefe's actions insane. is this a case of ideological outrage? joining us in new york, cultural commentator low wa org in that case ki and ashton, lauren ashburn.
>> i think because of who he is, they are playing to both sides. they're ideologically based in their evening shows as you have said. they're report lg it from a splant, not fair and balanced in the evening when you have people like bill o'reilly on. they have a choice at that point. they can make their point, their message about what they want or don't want to do. i think the long answer to your question is yes. >> lola, o'keefe is going to appear tomorrow on sean hannity's show to tell his side. there were reports during the day about this. o'keefe is a guy that fox championed as a new kind of undercover analyst. >> i think it's interesting they're trying to down play him. to treat him like an inconsequential figure seems a bit hypocritical to me. at one point this guy was championed as a new face of journalism, being held up as a here re. for them to virtually ignore him in the evening calls into
question where they're coming from and there seems to be an ulterior motive there. >> on the other hand, lauren ashburn, msnbc went wild when this broke. and olbermann led with is on thursday night. they seem delighted. >> i was talking to somebody and they said the only thing that was missing is he wasn't wearing a costume at this time, maybe he was in drag. >> no good video. >> that's exactly my point. i think that this is a really good ad for the columbia journalism school or the ma dill school. is this guy really an investigative journalist? everybody seemed to believe that last time around. is he? does he know what he's doing? has he taken ethics 101 in school? i think this guy is really going down a dangerous path here and he will be lucky, he will be lucky if something doesn't happen. >> on the other hand, lola, o'keefe put out a statement and said on reflection i could have used a different approach to
this investigation. awe, yeah. also accusing the phrase media malpractice. he points out "the washington post" had to run two corrections for saying in one instance that he had been accused of bugging senator landrieu's phones. i don't know that a few mistakes in handling this means there's media malpractice. >> it's not media malpractice. this guy doesn't know the first thing about true journalism. he's a glorified prank center. he doesn't enjoy the attention we're giving him. i think what he's doing, entering into a senator's office, attempting to tamper with her phone, that's a serious issue. isn't something that should be taken lightly at all. he's facing possibly 10 years and prison and a $250 fine. that's not prank. that could land you in prison. he needs to rethink his approach to, quote, unquote, journalism. >> i want to turn now about the
jay leno soap opera. >> it broke my heart. i really did. i was devastated. this is a job that i had always wanted, and it was the only job that ever mattered in showbiz to me. >> america has taken sides. and a lot of people are not on your side. >> yeah, i understand that. >> and they're not on your side because they think you have been selfish in this. >> it all comings down to numbers in showbiz. if you're getting the ratings. think of this -- this is almost the perfect storm of bad things happening. >> do you feel you're being unfairly portrayed by the media? >> yeah, i think so. i think some i think you have to look for a bad guy. >> does it help jay leno to go on oprah and pour his heart out? >> isn't that what what
everybody does. we flog them and allow them to redeem himselves. >> he didn't cry. >> darn it, right. ratings probably would have been higher. my point here is -- there are two points. one, i think oprah is the place to go. did you notice, he didn't go to oprah. oprah came to him. so i think that it's sort of -- there was something in that that he was saying, oh, yeah, you can come to me and we'll talk this through. the other part of it was, i agree with you. i think, yes, he did have a lot to say. he was very open. but he also held his ground in a way that i think that a lot of people in society aren't going to like. >> he held his ground on these points. he kept saying that he was not being selfish. that he didn't know his show was going to be canceled at 10:00, didn't know he would be asked to go back at 11:30. he agreed to do a half hour so nbc could try to keep conan o'brien at midnight. he feels like he was not the bad guy here, even though that's how he's being portrayed in the
press. >> i think it's interesting that jay leno has decided to not quite paint himself as a victim but as someone who is just going along, going with the free-throw, i'm this accommodating guy that keeps getting jerked around by nbc when, in fact, jay leno is a pretty shrewd businessman and he's figured out how to get the job he's always wanted back. >> what exactly did he do to get his job back? what happened is that conan tanked in the ratings, jay tanked in the ratings in prime time and nbc had to make a move. >> oprah did press him on this, he could have left. he could have retired gracefully and given conan a chance and left nbc without an alternative. jay leno is right there to take his job back. >> who in television is going to do that? this is what he lives for. there are a handful of people who have been famous. they say we'll give you your job back or you can sail into the sunset. >> i completely agree with you.
i think people didn't understand how attached jay leno was to this job and how important it was until something like this happened. this is like the lord of the rings and everyone is chasing after the precious, the precious being that "tonight show" share. >> the problem is they're attacking, sometimes the wrong person. they're attacking either jay or conan. what about nbc? there is no face to nbc. nobody really knows what jeff zucker looks like. >> they actually do know what jeff zucker looks like now. david letterman has made it a point to flash his picture all the time. they know exactly what he looks like. >> leno made the point if he retired gracefully, 175 staff members would lose their jobs. before we go, "ok" magazine, the original photo of courtney kardashian. she just had a baby. she looks like she just had a baby. here is the cover of the magazine, if we can switch to
that, talks about how she limited down after the baby by diet secrets. she says this was foet shopped from the waste up. never even talked to the magazine. >> wait a minute. wait a minute. let me get this right. this is what all women in america are thinking right now. they showed her 20 points lighter and the problem is? i mean, come on. you want to show me 20 pounds lighter, fine, i'll take it. >> the problem is dishonest journalism. >> it's a complete lie. women are used to people being touched up here and there, erase the pimple or stretch marks, but to drop 20 pounds and lop off her belly. >> you know when you're reading "ok," this is not news. >> but you think the pictures are real. >> you do? how many air brush technologists
do you know? >> there are pregnant women across the country crying their eyes out right now because they don't think they can lose 20 pounds in four weeks. i feel sorry for those pregnant women. >> on that note, thanks very much for joining us. after the break, the ipad makes its world debut. did apple manage to manipulate the media once again? the census helps us know exactly what we need. so everyone can get their fair share of funding. we can't move forward until you mail it back. 2010 census transform drinks you want, into cold medicine you need. introducing fast crystal packs. a new way from alka-seltzer plus to... get cold and flu relief in a taste-free, fizz-free powder. alka-seltzer plus.
sir? finding everything okay? i work for a different insurance company. my auto policy's just getting a little too expensive. with progressive, you get the "name your price" option, so we build a policy to fit your budget. wow! the price gun. ♪ ah! wish we had this. we'd just tell people what to pay. yeah, we're the only ones that do. i love your insurance! bill? tom? hey! it's an office party! the freedom to name your price. only from progressive. call or click today.
basic package. good choice. only meineke lets you choose your service, choose your savings. like an oil change for just $19.95. meineke. the suspense kept building before wednesday's big event. the reporters kept looking for leaks. what would he say? could he live up to expectations? it was the day of president obama's state of the union. the big mystery was about steve jobs, a big product roll-out in secrecy until jobs told the world about the ipad. >> also this morning, with apple shake up the world of electronic readers? it's poised to unveil its new tablet that could do for the written word what the ipod has done for music.
>> maybe not since moses has a tablet created so much buzz. apple unveils its latest must-have product. >> being called an iphone on steroids. >> apple might once again have landed on the next big thing. are the media overhyping a new guess mow. from london, robin lis, the founder of reviewed.com. and in new york, steven levy, staff writer. lookinging back at the speculation, how does apple keep pulling off this trick with the media? >> what happens, howard, is apple does create cool products. you to give them credit for that. >> absolutely. >> they use the spin cycle, tornado-like spin cycle of selective leaks, lots of chatter and lead-in and also controlling access to information in what i would call maybe a manipulative way so journalists are salivating for that scoop on the
tablet when the news does come down. >> steve levy, the media seem to give apple the equivalent of a multi billion dollar buzz campaign every time out. >> i don't think the journalists are being manipulated. it's not like we're shoving things down people's throats. there's an credible hunger for people to know what apple is going to do next. that isn't just because it's a fun story about steve jobs. it's because these products have changed people's live. they want to know if apple is going to be able to do it again. >> robin, unlike the iphone and the ipod, this tablet device is a new category. doesn't steve jobs almost need the media to help create a demand for it? >> i think he absolutely does need the media. to be fair, net books have been very popular the past two years. that's a very similar product. in many ways, as i understand it, the ipad is kind of just a larger iphone with some added features. but he does need the media to perpetuate the image and the brand of apple which is what, in
large part, carries these products to these unbelievable levels of success. and i don't have a problem with the media covering apple aggressively. it's interesting stuff. steve jobs has revolutionized electronics. what i have a problem with is that the media sometimes doesn't ask apple the tough
questions that i think they should be. specifically, ask steve jobs those questions. >> steven levy, was the ipad worth the hype? no camera or webcam. some critics are saying it's a really nice product, but nothing revolutionary. >> you have to look at what's going to happen with the ipad. it really is something a little different. the surprise is that apple isn't just spining it as a reader. this is what the magazine and newspaper industry were hoping for, but really the next generation beyond the laptop of what we'll karpry around with us all the time now. if they can get a lot of people to write applications for it, it might blossom into that and into
self perpetuating cycle where because there's so much interest, journalists want them to be successful, they don't want to be proven wrong that the products aren't successful. i don't know if it's a flop, how much you'll hear about it. >> i think if you look at what's happening on the web, there's been an unbelievable positive and negative on the ipad, an amazing discussion, really within a couple days. almost everything has been said positive and negative about it. i think there's really an amazing flourishing controversy and discussion about what's going on there. it's crazy to say that apple has not gotten positive and negative in the response to the ipad launch. >> this debate is going to continue. robin lis in london and steven levy in new york. thanks for joining us. john edwards' former pal takes to the airwaves with a sleazy look about the affair and the love child. should the press believe a guy that was part of the coverup? ra.
the only strip with an extra spring-like band, it's 50% stronger for congested noses that need extra help in opening nasal passages... so you breathe even better. and now get two free samples... and experience a better night's sleep for yourself. go to breatheright.com to try new breathe right extra. i switched to a complete multivitamin with more. only one a day men's 50+ advantage... has gingko for memp$y and concentration. plus support for heart health. ( crowd roars ) that's a great call. one a day men's.
i've been growing algae for 35 years. most people try to get rid of algae, and we're trying to grow it. the algae are very beautiful. they come in blue or red, golden, green. algae could be converted into biofuels... that we could someday run our cars on. in using algae to form biofuels, we're not competing with the food supply. and they absorb co2, so they help solve the greenhouse problem, as well.
we're making a big commitment to finding out... just how much algae can help to meet... the fuel demands of the world. we already knew that john edwards was a liar, make that a serial liar. he finally admit thad the "national enquirer" was right along, he is the father of real hunter's baby. his ailing wife elizabeth has separated from him saying, according to "people" magazine, i want my life back. should the media keep delving into the slimy details? abc news cracked the case by interviewing ran drew young who you'll be shocked to learn has a
book coming out. young has credibility problems. the married former aide was at the heart of the coverup making the ludicrous claim that he was the father of the baby. he talked about that in an interview on friday on 20/20. >> he wanted me to issue a statement claiming paternity for the child. he starts telling me, look, i can win iowa. >> young's book, "the politician," says the former presidential candidate called his one-time videographer a crazy slut, that she thought the baby was a reincarnation of a buddhist monk. it says elizabeth learned of the affair when she answered the cell phone and heard her husband's mistress enter into a monologue. the bunny money, it was called, without her knowledge. >> there was one tape marked special. and we're just aghast. it's a sex tape of real and john
edwards made just a couple months before the iowa caucuses. >> of course, young's book may be nothing but an attempt to inflict revenge on edwards who he says was obsessed with his hair, and cash in on his role in this tragic farce. the book and the couple's separation has generated plenty of media chatter. >> dear john, i've had it. that is the explosive message today to john edwards from his wife elizabeth who has had it with his cheating sleazy ways. >> a statement, the former senator called it, quote, an extraordinarily sad moment and says he still cares deeply about his wife. >> this has been a kind of slow-mo catastrophe that the nation has participated in. what does it take to have a wife leave you? at this point you just feel, elizabeth edwards, get out of that house. >> so with edwards' political career in ruins, should we still care about this tawdry episode.
he was the party's vp candidate and had a serious shot at the democratic nomination last time around. he sent his cancer-stricken wife out to campaign while carrying on with a woman whose baby he would pretend doesn't his. the media once touted him as a golden boy ought to hold him accountable. turning the tables next. take 2 extra strength tylenol every 4 to 6 hours?!? taking 8 pills a day... and if i take it for 10 days -- that's 80 pills. just 2 aleve can last all day. perfect. chptse aleve and you can be taking four times... fewer pills than extra strength tylenol. just 2 aleve have the strength to relieve arthritis pain all day.
it's a long-standing ritual, the president inviting the network anchors and sunday morning hosts over for lunch on the day of the state of the union. since the conversation is off the record, not even on background, i've never really quite gotten what the journalists get out of it. cnn's ed henry did a bit of intrepid reporting in hunting down barack obama's guests. >> lunch was off the record. talks are fruitful and productive. >> sounds like a normal stakeout here. >> look together a good conclusion. but i think to say anything at this point would prejudice what's been aa good process of give and take on both sides. >> what did you have for lunch? >> i can't comment on anything we did or did not have or whether food was consumed. >> you're on with ali velshi right now. how was lunch? >> it was nice. it was very nice. >> can you talk about it or is
it off the record? >> it's off the record. ask your guy. he was there. >> jon king wouldn't tell me anything. i got no luck. boy, they can be as evasive as the politicians when it comes to dodgeing questions. jon king, as i turn things back over to you for the final time. you didn't give ed henry anything. what did you get? is it a good thing to do. >> a debatable thing. off the record gets you into the question why would you sit down with a poll tipgs off the record? what you get is a sense of the president's mood, his priorities, get to spend time with the senior staff as well tochlt the point where i wouldn't tell my friend and colleague ed henry anything, i gave my word to the president of the united states. when i give my word, i keep it. >> jon, as everyone knows, you're moving to start your show in february at 7:00 p.m. eastern. a twinge of regret? >> i will miss it. i love sunday mornings. sunday morning is a special time in homes around the america. many are getting ready to go to churnd