they were very practical and pragmatic. we said, okay, let's do this book about what kind of accountability can exist. and to our surprise, as we began to look at what the criminal statutes were, what we saw was not just the possibility of accountability, but that the bush team was excruciating sensitive to the possibility of prosecution. and had tried to erect barriers to in a variety of ways including slicing and dicing and rewriting criminal laws to expect themselves from accountability. and to protect themselves specifically from criminal liability. .
and lots of room to talk about journalism careers and the future of journalism and all the stories dan has covered and truly has been there, done that, starting with the civil-rights movement and i always say great stories make great journalists. people came out of world war ii, dan was informed by the civil-rights movement, by vietnam, by watergate, those great stories. they have not read it, dan has always said he pulled no punches and this is a pull no punches book and the armies of people who are infuriated by what he
says, he doesn't hold back and i have known him well enough, it is the genuine article. an underlying theme in all this is he writes about how his father liked to repeat winston churchill's never give up, never be brazil never, never. if there is a story of a ban it is never give up, never, never, never. little act of grace help you never give up. i will start with one of the very special moments in this book.
the end of 44 years at cbs news, you are out on the streets, in a moment like that, he writes my out of the blue moment arrived courtesy of george clooney. now he received an award from the writers guild to the movie good night, good luck and invited me to los angeles to present it to him. george put me up in a first-rate hotels. i sat with him and his agents. they couldn't have been warmer or more genuine. clinique never said anything about cbs or the thornburgh report except for 1 offhand comment. my head close to his ear, you got screwed. happens all the time in my business. for get it. that had to be a great moment. it was a great moment.
>> george is that kind of person. it is very easy when someone works in hollywood as high as george clooney to beg people to create something as a hard-working really good guy. i don't want to add my part. i am not a close friend of george clooney. he is the real thing. exceptionally hard worker who cares what is happening in the world. given his schedule as an actor you have to admire that. >> to a degree you did forget it, got a new job producing 42 hours of programming every year but to would agree you didn't
forget. six years ago, well covered at the time, took it to a court case that was dismissed by the appellate court. why was it important to you to still go back over this, to write a book about it? why do you think it is important for people to know about it and read about it? >> very good question. i set out to write this book because i wanted to tell stories. i am a pretty good storyteller on my best days. i should be after being a reporter of this time and i have stories to tell, stories you tell your family or friends around the fireplace or the campfire. what was it like in vietnam? these are stories itel with
people i know well. i wanted to put those between hard covers. i said to myself which is true? i have moved on. from leaving cbs news. i am at peace. i am happier in my work than i ever remember being and i had a dilemma. if i do a book that doesn't deal with what happened to cbs news, how it happened and why anybody should care. the book would be dismissed. on the other hand if i speak candidly, held to that as well so i decided okay, i will write the book the way i wanted. i will include a chapter or two. a little less than 1-fourth of the book has to do with the story of abu ghraib and what
happened to cbs. i am not after revenge or redemption. however it may appear it was a long time ago. the george bush story ran eight years ago. cbs news six years ago. not something i think about every day. it is e v to write that. that is not the case. >> this is a partisan town and i will ask a partisan question. you have painted going back to the nixon years as the icon of the liberals, the person who has got it in for the republicans. if i am an average guy who heard that all my life than i see that that campaign in september you are running a story about george
bush, and his record with the texas national guard. i have to say maybe those conservatives are right. he really has it in for republicans. going in you knew good and well that would be the charge. why did you go ahead and say we're going to do it anyway? >> because the story was true. one can talk till the cows come home, the story of george bush -- not something i contend or speculation or doubt about fact. he got in the air national guard because of his father's position. he got the champagne yet of the air national guard. finally when he was supposed to be on duty he disappeared for a year. if you are a corporal in the u.s. army and disappear for a day or two you are in a heap of trouble.
this is the story. it was an inconvenient time for the store to come out, if the accusations are old news they have been around sins one i was covering are licking and the civil-rights movement, here is the way it works in news and most people understand it. my experience with the audience is they understand it. as the reporter, if you are worthy of the name of being an american reporter, your role in life is to be an honest broker of information. in that role if you report stories that highly partisan political people and/or committed ideological people don't like they will start calling you names. when we were covering dr. king and the civil-rights movement i
was with cbs and we were beating coverage of that story we recall the color broadcasting system and the communist broadcasting system. out of that group, rather is, quote, liberal or a bomb throwing bolshevik. my answer to that has always been along the lines of the following. you are what your record is. i am professionally what's my record is. take a look at the record. i grew up with a transitional neighborhood in houston, texas. a rough and tumble for neighborhood. i never saw the inside of anything other than the public school. i want to go all the way through elementary and middle school, high school and colleg having gone to public institutions. i volunteered twice for the u.s.
military and was deemed unworthy of being in the army. i lied about it i have to confess in the marines and i was in the marines for a short time. one of the shortest and least distinguished record in the history of the marine corps. with no connections with anybody i started at the bottom of journalism and worked my way up. i was born and raised in taxes. judge didn't see anything any place else and july was 18 years old. this is the record. does this sound like the record of a bomb throwing bolshevik person? my record is i have dueled in journalism with every president i have covered. i had a helluva time with lyndon johnson who because i was a texan thought he should fall in line and get on board. i did it with jimmy carter which
he hated because he graded himself without realizing it, gave himself a seat for us. i think he deserves better than that but that is a story. i am what my record is personally and professionally. anyone who cares to look at the record will see i have my flaws. i made my mistakes but my life as a pro is dedicated to trying to be an honest broker of information. play no favorite, pull punches, don't back down, i am not a particularly brave person but professionally it may not be the, quote, right time to run a story, you may have to face the furnace and take the heat but if you are going to be a reporter,
aspiring to be a world-class reporter it goes with the territory. >> one of the underlying themes in the book is how journalism has changed, how the corporate environment for journalism has changed in the manner in which the firewall you say exists between those divisions and -- never infringed on those has changed. an important thing for all journalism. the big part of the book. in the book you begin with the of the great story. dan and 60 minutes broke the story of the extreme measures being taken at on abu ghraib prison, the gruesome pictures
that came out of that. they are the ones who broke that story. one of the great stories you have done but in the book this is where people will be infuriated. you basically say and you can correct me if i'm wrong that the corporation did not want the story to run. did not want that story to run because it is controversial. you know people will get upset and say you are doing bad things to voice-over fair and some side circumstances, cbs would have very bad stories. that is a pretty serious charge and if that is true they could have kept the story from coming out. it would change a great deal in the nature of the iraq war. why are you that sure?
>> i was there. i was fair and i ought to know. running the abu great story as outlined was a i didn't realize at the time was the beginning of the end for me. i am convinced of that. that is my opinion. it is not my opinion but factual that we got the story. we were gone a long time. the abuses of the u.s. military in on abu ghraib fresen, when we started the of the great story, i know people in the u.s. military and i don't believe this is the case. i said to myself i certainly hope it is not the case but we confirmed it has i say on the street that we had eyewitness testimony of people who were
there. from the beginning of those in command of the news division who worked closely with those in corporate were nervous about it with good reason. you run that kind of story you are going to have to take the heat. we were ready to run the story. no doubt about it. totally confirmed. better have the pictures. we got the pictures. after the pictures they moved the goal post again saying you can't run it this week either and it was the three week period which became increasingly apparent to me and others who worked on the story they don't want to own the story. we had the story exclusively and they didn't want to own it and kept delaying it they delayed it until it became obvious some of our sources kept calling every week saying when is it going to
run? is not going to run this week. maybe next week. they call next week. they believed we were not going to run the story so some contacted one of the great investigative reporters of our time. if it had not been the sound of the footsteps of sy hearst i don't think they would have run. their attitude was this is so controversial it will bring down so much heat that the corporate entity which has interests in washington asking sins, lead legislation passed and regulations done away with and all kinds of things. it became very hard because they didn't want to run it. not saying they would never run it but what they didn't want to do was own the story. this was a worldwide exclusive. with is the big deal about that?
in the tradition of cbs news i would say on any story anywhere near this level of story that would never -- it would not delay the story. we ran our abu ghraib in early 2004. the network was nervous about it. they didn't run it until we got information from sy hearst about writing an article in the new yorker and sources got nervous and the george bush story came along. they wanted to kill 60 minutes 2 immediately after we ran the abu great story. they wanted to take off the table. they would argue it wasn't doing well and we had great entertainment programs in place. the argument i and others made,
you can't take this program off the air. a couple months after we run a story on all abu ghraib people will make the connection and say you are taking off because the law abu ghraib. we believe that on the schedule while longer but i say in the book because it backs of the situation leading to the inevitable conclusion that the light didn't realize it at the time that was the beginning of the end. >> let me take one of the things that happened when the george bush story came out, one of the first examples of the internet -- we are now seeing this happening in this campaign, twitter feeds come quickly but within hours there was a controversy and there were charges through the blogoskier and the documents were there,
people claiming to be experts in documents saying these are clearly forged and that he immediately took off on the internet which set off a firestorm which again -- the news division, we don't need this controversy which grows and grows as we become faster 24-hour world and in a more politicized world and in this end, you write that all of that would get wrong. >> i right about that. cbs in general and particularly cbs news was unprepared. most of it calculated political
counterattack on the story. even in quotation marks it was chosen among george bush's friends and even they concluded most if not all of what we accused them on the internet was wrong. their campaign, they couldn't protect the basic truth of the story that george bush got preferential treatment and disappeared for a year when he was supposed to be on duty. they could detect that because it was rock solid so they put a smokescreen of saying it is not the truth of the story but the use of documents. to this day because the
smokescreen campaign the emphasis of is the story true, they make all about the document. i believe at the time the documents were genuine. i believe ever since they were genuine and i believe now they were what they were purported to be. no one has proven -- the commission to investigate didn't -- would you read in here time after time, the commission decided they didn't. what they said was we can't determine whether they are or not but we talk a lot about this and the want to emphasize this is what most of the book is about but i understand the interest in it that whatever one thinks about the documents, the short version and what i detail in the boat, was outspoken. it isn't the process by which reporters get to the truth but whether they get to the truth or
as close to the truth as humanly possible. the story was true. the president and his division, you know the story is true. that is not the point. let's pause. the leader of a major network news operations says it is not be point with the story is true or not. the point is -- only one part of what you use to support the story, that is what happened and how it happened and details in the book. there is interest in this but for most readers it happened eight years ago and most people move. >> moving to the floor in a second but want to turn to -- dan has always said i may not be
the best educated broadcaster but i can outwork anybody which is true. i was ted koppel's executive producer on nightline for 14 years and we were out in the field chasing dan. ted and i would say if you are competing with an you might win day one or day 2. you might tie on day 3 but this is going to be a one week story or a two week story come a four five or six or seven or eight dan will win those days because we are going to lose steam and he will be picking up speed. would agree for all of us who have a lot of road to go in the environment -- we may work past 65. how do you at age 74 get knocked
to the ground, get up at age 80 doing 42 hours a year on planes to afghanistan and india constantly. tell us how you do this. >> i love what i do. i always had a great passion for covering news stories. began when i was 5 years old because my mother and father were such courageous newspaper people. let me pause and say i appreciate the compliment you just said but i am reminded what abraham lincoln said. never take time to deny it. the audience will find out the truth soon enough for themselves but i appreciate it very much. the reason i still do is i still
love that. i can't wait to get to work. i always had high curiosity. i'm not the best educated correspondent for the smartest correspondent by a long shot. i don't learn fast but i learned good. the basic answer is i love what i do. i have a passion for reporting news and it is important that quality journalism, journalism at its best is extremely important to the country as a whole. not just to journalists such as myself because we know and you know we don't think often enough in my opinion that a free and independent press is the beating heart of freedom and democracy. journalism is best people american journalism sir as a
check in balance of power in the country. whatever one thinks of the george bush story worthy of a great story, we spoke truth about power. when you do that there will be a price to pay and we paid the price. you may say it was justified. i don't think it was justified but you are entitled to your opinion. it is important to understand how lucky -- there are a lot of reasons for. contraction of jobs and journalism. another is the political news not to mention tribune of the news but whether you read the book or not or like the book or not, i asked you to think hard about the importance of truly free and independent american
journalism particularly hard edge journalism. >> can i invite questions from the floor? thank you. >> my job is to work network news. i asked to leave that job for one day to say thank you for telling the truth. is a national tragedy what is happening with the national news. i have been in these networks 35 years and seen this happen. is a genuine tragedy and i thank you for this and the rest of the world. thank you so much. [applause] >> i was curious what was the most profound story and how did it affect your life?
>> a good question and i will try to answer it. would you are looking at here is a reporter who got lucky. i was able to practice my craft, always difficult to pick one story. when i covered my first full time assignment, in 1962, are assigned to cover martin luther king and a beginning to build civil-rights movement. that coverage change to me as a professional and as a man. i grew up in a segregated society. texas was segregated and institutionalized and state law authorized such things as separate schools and lunge
counters and restaurants and so on. the texas i grew up in was not deep mississippi alabama or south carolina. and covering dr. king and the civil-rights movement was my job to cover him and the civil rights movement. i could not believe some of the things i saw. i saw a ku klux klan rally for the first time. i had heard about them but never seen one. to see one, the chill that went through me as a white person and i could only imagine what went through the minds of people of color. i couldn't believe the police in any city in the united states of america would turn high-pressure fire hoses on women and children in a non-violent large. i couldn't believe they would
turn vicious dogs on them but i saw these things. it was my job to get them on film. if i had to pick one story that influenced me the most that would be it. >> thank you very much. >> i was wondering if you would share your last few memories of your time in dallas, the kennedy assassination. >> thank you for being here and thank you for the question. because -- i was fooled away from coverage of the civil-rights movement to cover president kennedy's trip to texas which was somewhat routine political trip to the state in preparation of the 1964 presidential campaign. i was in dallas when president kennedy was assassinated and the dark days in dallas when the
president was assassinated, saturday when his assassin was interrogating and sunday -- seems incredible to me when the assassin was assassinated and national day of mourning and the funeral on monday, as a reporter and the journalists the immediate reaction that i had when we determined the president was dead and we broke the story and reported the president was dead i had the same immediate reaction almost every american of any political persuasion had. of the emotional reaction but at that point i said to myself and every other reporter said some version of the same thing. i can't go through this emotionally.
i am a pro. everything has to be driven down. the story is the only thing that counts. we find out what we find out and report it so i didn't sleep much those four days because we were working around the clock. the foremost impact did not hit me until about a week later about the time the country was coming out of it. i went through my deep emotional time. on a personal level i recognized to this day there's a lot of speculation and controversy and difference of opinion of who killed the president and why and did they have held. i spent a fair amount of my professional career pursuing those questions. i lead one cbs news investigation and was part of three and others over the years.
our goal is if we can demonstrate the harvey oswald didn't shoot the president or others were shooting at the time more people helped him there wouldn't be a bigger story we could never break. we couldn't do that. this is what i believe. i think the harvey oswald was a shooter. he was not the shooter. he was the only person shooting. that is number one. number 2, there is no conclusive evidence that anybody helped him in any substantial way. the warren commission given their original report to the warren commission, should have kept an office open and kept their minds open to such things. we don't know of anybody who helped the harvey oswald in a
substantial way but we ought to keep investigating and be open minded and have an ongoing investigation. i want to emphasize i thought about a lot and studied a lot. it doesn't mean there's certainty about it but the overwhelming evidence leaves no reasonable doubt of walt was the shooter and the only shooter. weather held from cubans or russians or the mafia, there are theories that could be true. to look for conclusive evidence i have found no conclusive evidence of any persuasive eyewitness testimony or witness testimony but as with other points of the which i respect and i am open-minded about it. bring me solid evidence. bring me solid witness
testimony. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming tonight. i grew up in a middle-class family watching you and tom brokaw and we look forward to your broadcasts. i want you to speak to the point that news has turned into entertainment. do you see come back around to the news? >> it is a theme that is threaded through this book. entertainment has overwhelmed the news value for the most part. not only in television but most forms of journalism. there are a few exceptions and there has always been a struggle in terms of television. should television be an instrument to educate, to
inform, teach citizens or shed its main role the entertainment? the owners of television, entertainment is the way we are going to go. it has always been a struggle between news and entertainment. entertainment trying to keep its values and overwhelm this values. the best address anybody in electronic journalism has given in the late 1950s, he was leading the struggle along the lines of listen, entertainment is important to society. it has much to contribute but entertainment values are different from news values and he argued on television -- some succeed him to carry this better. in my case not very well that
certainly a large national network will be overwhelmingly entertaining but there should be and for a long time there was at least a small part of it that operated in the public interest. that took the attitude of a news organization as a public trust and we the network owners are business people who want to make money and we see the news as a public service. our way of contributing. as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century that has just about disappeared. the preeminent executive producer of news programs in this country at this time will attest that if you walk into any network ivory tower and say i think we should do a prime-time hour at 10:00 at night on afghanistan or what is happening
in sudan because it is in the public interest and the public needs to know these days if you suggested that one of two things would happen. either they would consider you a candidate for a mental institution or they would think you were smoking something very expensive. which is a way of saying it is not even considered. the ratings for the program were poor and the democratic 44. we will do a minute and a half of afghanistan but in the prime-time hour forget it. the struggle between entertainment values and news values and entertainment to make money and shareholder value as opposed to news as a public service, that battle has been decided and entertainment won. i don't want anyone to
misinterpret. i never worked for anything other than a commercial broadcasting enterprise. i am not any corporate or anti capitalism. i believe in both but with the consolidation of media to the point where we have reached the stage where no more than six large international companies with all kinds of other business, weapons production, theme parks and all those things, 8% of truly national distribution of news in the country. these large corporations i mentioned before, they need things out of washington whether they're republican or democrat they need things like that to increase profits. the powers that be in washington need things from the
corporations such as big campaign contributions and that $3 billion presidential campaign. that money has to come from somewhere. much of it is from these large corporations so excuse my reporter's frenzy if you must but big business is in bed with big government. not very well with your republican or democrat whether you consider yourself a conservative or reactionary or liberal or progressive or muslim this is not what we want in this country. we need more competition. we are getting less competition. there is no hope much as that hope is that in the leaf the internet will continue to grow. as we move forward i am a populist by nature and experience.
people are waking up to what are described of these large corporations being in bed with power centers in washington and when i say the word revolt i don't mean a revolution the streets. people are beginning to wake up and notice of this. we are americans. one of the things we do best is a just -- we adjust. we read do better and faster than anybody in the history of the globe. looking forward i am determined to be optimistic. >> this is more of a comment than a question. i was watching you on the news,
cbs evening news and -- i was the one -- [inaudible] >> started talking about vehement aspect. and with politics to say i am sorry and for me, no reason to be sorry because in those moments you should -- [inaudible] >> the opportunity to say thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> a quick thing to point out. we were very lucky in that
moment that there were three, jennings, brokaw and rather who had 20 years' experience and when cheney was in the bunker the president was in air force one. no place to go that was 3 people we had seen for two decades do and at moments like that, the kennedy assassination was like that, the only place to go was television. though there were many news networks around at that time the huge for ponderous went to those three men because they knew them and that was a critical role of television. >> i appreciate you being here. if you could talk about how you use to go about how that might give her handpicking major projects and planning and executing them and what criteria you use and how long it takes.
>> i am not sure i heard the question. >> how you fix the stories for investigative journalism and how you proceed. >> the stories pick you which is to say people those things. they are afraid to reveal those sins themselves. in another age when they whispered to a priest or confide in a wife or girlfriend people call and say looking to this. many of the elite come that way. it is based on experience. look at something. journalism students. is important for the public to
understand. is important for a journalist to be skeptical but never cynical. we have a representation of being stubble beaded and whiskey brecht cynics. frequently the way the investigation starts this someone in power will say something and you report and say that is what they say. now let's find out the truth. sometimes it is true. a lot of times it isn't. stories come in all sizes and all directions and some times the joy of journalism when i talk about that happiness i have about journalism. if you are a curious person and i have always been a very curious person, a person over
the phone will write as a letter and realize on a worldwide basis how many prescription drugs are fake drugs. you have no idea how basic that it is. we got the letter and began looking into it and i was surprised in some parts of africa below the sahara 60% to 70% of prescription drugs are fake. they are counterfeit. contain things like baby powder or sawdust or all kinds of be done. they are delivered in boxes that look exactly like the drugs. they contain -- containers have the same marks on them. a big chemicalmaker. i use that as an example. when we are digging in to the story we find it is worse than
we had been told. i use that as an example because it is fairly common. once you decide on both story you are going to cover and that is a big decision. investigating journalism is among the most expensive forms. one reason we have so little of it these days. is expensive and time-consuming and frequently when you go down the alley and hit the end of it there isn't what you thought was there so you have to be careful. once you select the story pictures are important and we have to have something to put on screen. the most difficult stories are those in which no vivid pictures are available. television is great at some things. television is at its best when it takes you there but it says
weaknesses. and background -- you can't take a picture of an idea. sometimes you have a story where you say it is picture for. sometimes it happens in journalism that someone in television will say this is a great story but too picture of for so we will do something else. that gives you insight into how it works. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. >> time for four more questions. two at this microphone and two over there. >> thank you for your time. i want to know what your opinion was of julian assange and wiki leaks. >> i always try to talk straight to you. there have been from the
beginning somewhat split in lima on mind about wiki leaks. part of me says this was a great thing. and terrific thing to expose a lot. there was news in wiki leaks. one definition of news would be it isn't, that news is what is important for people to know, that somebody somewhere, often some powerful people some margin not want people to know. that is news. all the rest is advertising and publicity. just dumped all kinds of documents. on other days in other times i say to myself that may be true but dumping all this information
unquestionably they put lives at risk in terms of intelligence and sources from intelligence overseas and that is not a good thing so i don't want to dodge the question. what do i think about it? i am -- i have to say overall-information has contributed in a short while but i am concerned about putting lives at risk with it. we are dedicated as a society, give us the information and the people decide what to make of it. thanks. >> thank you. >> i grew up in austin on the floor in front of my parents watching the evening news coming every night and my understanding was it came out of your mouth only out of your mouth.
what are your thoughts on my generation transitioning especially now that you and the other institutions of the evening news are transitioning to the internet. more people my age watch steven colbert and john stuart than any other form of news program. do you feel what was a huge part of your life, the cbs evening news that people like me will never understand what that was like? >> i don't worry about it because time moves on and things change. at the heart of your question, i respond to that if it isn't true already at leave it is true already but if it isn't it soon will be. most people get most of their news off of the internet. i am optimistic about that future. the internet has its problems. you can severe somebody's
reputation for boyfriend or girlfriend with anonymity. moving forward the internet's power to communicate more information including news is the greatest we ever had. radio, newspapers are dead television came along and said pollution kills radio and newspapers. has been supplemental. as for the evening news, that is only my opinion but the evening news as you have known it and we still know it to a degree would not surprise me if one of the works over the next three or seven years decided not to do
evening news or nightly news. wouldn't surprise me but as we move forward i am optimistic about new things come along. right now the problem is finding a business model to make -- pay for international reporting, quality journalism and find a way to pay for it. most of the business model has few perceptions viewed on the internet and i think they will and i am optimistic weather the evening news is now constructed less -- last for decades or not we will find a way. >> we're coming into a presidential election. i was wondering, in terms of journalists in covering
politicians? there has been a dramatic change talking about the fact the kennedy had affairs that they kept quiet. every detail about -- and what about that and where this is? >> the nature of campaign coverage like everything else changes as we go along. this month has not changed. political reporters -- i used the phrase earlier -- the good ones are dedicated to being honest brokers of information. the most underreported story in which i have covered and i have been covering two campaigns since 1952 is a version of follow the money. follow the dollar. i mentioned before we are in an age where it takes $3 billion
for a president to campaign. the core question of top quality political coverage in general particularly in the presidential race is to question who is giving what money to whom expecting to get what? that is not to say exposs of a candidate's personal life won't be part and parcel of coverage. i hope the silent coverage following the money, the single most important in. in many ways coverage of presidential campaigns is better now than it has been in the entire time i can remember partly because there are more reporters covering campaigns in general and more outfits of big
networks and small over satellite, cable, radio and the internet to say nothing of the development of individuals saying i went to a rally and this is what i did. i am not pessimistic about presidential campaign coverage. i don't think there has ever been enough and there may not be in of this year trying to answer the question to give the money to whom expecting to get what? thank you. >> your perspective as someone to the rise of the internet and corporate influence over the news. to what degree does the public change just getting the truth of the major news that the public should know? >> we talked earlier one of the big problems is entertainment values of overwhelming news
value. many programs on your television today are, quote, news programs are not in fact news programs. their entertainment programs. they are designed to the entertainment programs and they developed trend whine of instead of sending reporters to cover the war in afghanistan or iraq or cover what is happening in the nation in most interior regions of africa, instead of having reporters walked the ground with stories the trend is to put people in a room shouting at one another about their opinions. that may be valuable but it is not the quality news of integrity that we need. some problems with the consolidation of media, of big corporations being in concert in washington play into this but i want to come back and say this has to do with either