>> the u.n. and syrian opposition will continue to

talk, but they've been talking about that for years and nothing has changed. the syrian government led by assad clearly thinks that it can continue to attack in any way it wants to, other than those chemical weapons it has now given up. the hope from the u.s. is hey look, we're finally getting the two sides on the same table, maybe, just maybe these talks can begin to lead to small localized peace deals or humanitarian corridors into syria. >> you're just back from a refugee camp in turkey. that's the other big part of the story, 2.5 million syrians have fled the country, 6 million displaced inside syria. lebanon, jordan, receiving these refugees are completely overwhelmed and you are seeing really just heartbreaking stories when you go to these camps. >> it's absolutely heart breakerring. just to give you a sense of how bad the war is in syria, before we get to the camps, one of out

of every three homes in syria have either been damaged or destroyed. one out of every three homes in the entire country. that has led so many millions of those people out of their homes. in jordan, the fourth largest city in the country is now a syrian refugee camp. in lebanon, with the head of the international rescue committee pointing out tonight, the number of refugees is the equivalent of the entire united kingdom suddenly moving into the united states. it's extraordinary these numbers. in turkey, what we saw is heartbreaking. three quarters of a million refugees there officially and about one third of them illegally, so they fall outside of anybody's help, not being housed by the turkish red cross helping a lot of other people. they're not helped by the u.n. they are paying to live in squatters's conditions, no toilets, windows, running water.

nobody is helping them. they are day laborers during the day and landlords saying we're going to kick you out if you can't pay the rent. really, this war is really a humanitarian crisis. in addition to all that violence, it's one of the worse humanitarian crisis the world has seen in decades. the hope is that maybe just maybe we can begin to talk about as i said those localized peace deals for humanitarian corridors. there is no evidence at that time all that the syrian government is willing to do that yet and no evidence at all that there's movement for the better for those refugees, whether inside of sir yes or outside. >> a terrible tragedy on so many different levels. thank you for joining us from switzerland. for more on these terrible pictures of the detainees in syria, i'm joined by david crane, a co author of the newly released report that details torture in syria. he formerly served as a chief

prosecutor for the special court of sierra leone, then indicting the president of liberia among others. the report draws its evidence from the testimony of the syrian government defector code named caesar. almost 27,000 photographs he provided, in all, 55,000 such images were brought out of the country. what can you tell us about sear san and what he told you. >> we found caesar to be very credible. i wouldn't call him a defector. he was an asset in place when he signaled that i have the ability to give you copies of these photos that he's taken, which he did to the tune of over 55,000 photographs. >> he claimed to have photographed as many as 50 bodies a day, showing signs of starvation, brought albeitings, strangulation, all sorts of torture. this all occurred between 2011

and 2013? >> yes, that's correct. a little short of two years. >> now, of the photos, of these 101 examined 150 individuals in detail, you had forensics experts analyzing them and found 62% of those bodies showed emakessation, the majority of the victims were also young. were you spiced at the magnitude and horror of what you saw? >> in the business of international criminal law, you're rarely surprised, but certainly horrified. it doesn't diminish the horror that these people went through when they were tortured, starved, beaten, and then subsequently executed. >> when you have evidence of this magnitude, do you have any doubt that the syrian government is torturing and killing people on a very large scale?

>> i have no doubt in my professional mind that president assad had a systematic killing machine going on and direct evidence in a court of law that he has committed crimes against humanity. >> the photographs explain the reason the photographs were taken, it was two fold, to permit a death certificate to be produced without families requiring to see the body and that would then have the authorities avoid giving a full account of their deaths, and second, to confirm the orders that executions had been carried on you. families were told it was a heart attack or breathing problems. the families never got to see their loved ones. they are buried without anybody being able to see what happened to them. >> that's correct, but the horrific part of this is that it was an affirmation by those individuals who ordered these

poor wretches to be executed, they were going back with photographs and a written report identifying them that they had in fact indeed been executed after being starved, tortured and beaten to death. >> now again, as you said, you had no doubt to the assad regime has an ongoing killing machine and this evidence is a smoking gun. what is the next step? >> well, again, at the end of the day, it's a political decision to decide what to do with these tie rants and thugs. we have the ability. we have the juries prudence, evidence and procedure to prosecute heads of state, their regime, what have you, but again, it's a political decision on a diplomatic decision as to how or when or if that happens. >> i guess one of the things that you will face if it does go to that point and there is a prosecution for war crimes is somehow connecting it to assad and determining whether he was

involved and directed this. do you think there will be a war crimes trial? >> i would like to think that there were. there are four options available to the international community, and we've developed a statute which would assist them in doing all four. the first one would be a prosecution by under syrian domestic law. syrians trying syrians for syrian crimes. the second opposite would be an internationalized domestic court, coming in with experience and assist them to seek justice for the victims. the third would be a regional court, perhaps the arab league or likewise organization would provide assistance to prosecute these individuals. of course, the fourth option would be the international criminal court. >> david crane, thank you for your time and for bringing this horror to light. >> it's good talking to you and your listeners. >> for another perspective, i'm joined by senior advisor to the

syrian opposition, joining us via skype from switzerland. i want to start with this terrible report and all these pictures allegedly showing massive torture and killings by the assad government of detainees. as an advisor to the syrian option, you have said that the timing of this report may actually help the opposition in these talks in geneva? >> absolutely. this report is direct evidence of what we in the syrian revolution have been trying to tell the whole world for the past three years, that the assad regime is directly responsible for genocide, for the worst war crimes in our generation, for the worst humanitarian disaster and mass killings since rwanda and it is time for the international community to rally and support our efforts to transition syria to democracy without assad, so especially at this crucial time when the syrian opposition that clearly voiced support to a political

process, to transition to a syria with a government that is free of bashar al assad, free of his henchmen, free of the system ike killing machine responsible for the deaths of hundred was thousands. these photographs and this report simply document the killing, systemic killing of heavy thousand souls and that is simply the tip of the iceberg. these were the execution of individuals in one area, in one area of syria, so this brings to mind the fact that there are hundred was thousands of more cases that haven't come to light and so this time when the syrian opposition is gathered to here in switzerland, the full backing of the western -- of the western governments and the international community to push for a transition without syria, without bashar al assad. we are reminded of the urgency of the absolute absolute urgency

to get bashar al assad out of syria to save lives before even more horrific killings take place in syria at the behest and order bashar al assad. >> at these talks, much has been made about the division within the syrian opposition. there was a substantial group that did not want to be involved in these talks. is there at least a majority in agreement about what should happen there in montro? >> absolutely. we have to move forward. i sat down for countless hours and discussions with representatives of the free syrian army and rebel forces and revolutionary forces on the ground. the overwhelming consensus is that we must support a pathway to ending bashar al assad reign. our support for a political solution is not mutually exclusive to our commitment to defend the syrian people and to enable and empower the free

syrian army to defend communities from the aljazeera militias and sponsored death squads that are responsible for the killings and deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals of which this report clearly documents. we have to do whatever we can to end this, to end this misery and to save the syrian people. this political process is one pathway, and we hope as this report comes to light, that the whole world pace attention, that the whole world bears witness to the true collars of the assad regime and we hope that at the end of the day, had this provides the leverage that we in the syrian opposition require the backing of the international community to get bashar al assad out of the country and to transition to a democratic government that represents all of the syrian people and ends asses willing machine. >> end this devastating war and

get rid of assad, but assad has said he is not interested in a transitional government or leaving early. we talked about what outside observers believe might happen in these talks, echoing what someone said yesterday, that the likelihood is that these talks will at best provide small steps, maybe humanitarian quarter to say provide food for people, to help the humanitarian crisis that's there. do you recall hope much more than that will happen? >> our objective in attending these talks is to end the bashar al assad regime and ensure a pathway toward a transitional governing body that leads to a democratic syria without assad. the parameters of the geneva one protocols are clear and parameters whiff the bashar al assad accepted it's participation in these discussions were very clear. the western governments of the

international community have made it very clear that the assad regime must sech as part oaccept as partof the discussioe parameters of a transitional government of mutual consent, which bashar al assad and those with blood on their hands cannot take place. >> assad is still insisting what should come out of this conference is a commitment to defeating terrorism. he had a long interview and was kind of spinning all this as assad being a champion against terrorism. he kept saying that that's what needs to come out of these talks and he even talked about running again for president in a few months whenever an election date is set. what do you make of thieves statements fro from assad?

>> he is living in a dream land of his own concoction. actively campaigning against al-qaeda, since january 3, 5 al-qaeda lieders in syria have been killed by the free syrian army. the free syrian army has liberated mull pell headquarters of al-qaeda in syria, for which we strongly suspect the assad regime has haled direction connection of facilitating. it's become very clear to the whole word especially in these past two days as information corroborated by western intelligence comes to light of assad's direct involvement in supporting al-qaeda elements in syria, it's become very clear to the whole world that the flee syria army's empowering the opposition, empowering local governance and supporting the syrian people's revolution against the assad regime and transition into a democratic syria is the only and the dote

to terrorism. it is not the assad regime that with him provide the solution. >> please keep us up to date on your efforts. thank you. >> coming up, president obama has consistently talked about the need to address income inequality, but do his solutions miss the point? our associate media producer hermela is tracking the web. >> we talked about the archdiocese of chicago. documents were released to the public, the details coming up. >> what do you think, join the conversation throughout the show by tweeting to us oh are posting on our facebook and google plus pages.

we saw people who need clean water, who are in these u.n. n e half a million people displaced within the country, refugees are fleeing everyday and more people are actually going into these

compounds. there are close to 100,000 in the compounds and doesn't look to me like people are ready to go homens and go back to homes in the country and people are country. >> reporter: the president said the military will ensure >> when president obama gives his state of the union speech next tuesday, he's expected to highlight an issue he's focused on for months, income inequality. >> it's not only morally wrong, it's bad economics. a good education, a home to call your own, afford only health care when you get sick, a secure retirement, even if you're not rich, reducing poverty, reducing

inequality, growing opportunity, that's what we need. >> it sounds great, but can the president's solutions from extended long term unemployment insurance to a hike in the minimum wage really put those goals within reach? my next guest believes mr. obama's solutions are "wholly naive." i am joined by economist and professor at the university of maryland. great to see you. let's talk about these wage inequality numbers. they do seem stark and the gap has been growing. according to estimates from the i.r.s., the top 1% enjoyed better than 22% have the nation's income in 2012, while everybody in the bottom 90% saw their total share of the nation's income fall below 50% for the first time since numbers were measured. a quarter of a century ago, the numbers were very different. the 1%'s income share was 15.4% while the bottom 90% had almost

60% of the nation's income. is this a problem that the government needs to address? >> well, it certainly is a problem amounted does need to be addressed. globalization has a lot to do with this. an opera singer can now send their voice around the world and sell c.d.'s or better still, just their compute are file of their voice around the world, so their income goes up astronomically. they put lots of local performers out of business. they no longer have work, because people are listening to the digital voice of a man in new york. american workers are subject to wage arbitration, namely, that is that ordinary folks, a very large number have to compete with workers in chain in a, and they face much lower wages because of that. the answer doesn't lie in just simply redistributing income, but in creating more opportunities for people at the bottom making the economy grow faster, but also, we need to

look at what's going on at the top. there's a lots of concentration of economic power going on in new york in banking, looks a lot like the standard oil trust of the turn of the 20th century. maybe it's time to bust up the big banks so the bankers can't pay themselves lavishly while they work their interns like slaves. >> paul krugman argued that it's not really the top 1% that's the issue, it's the top .1%, the one 10th of 1% where the huge disparity has been created. >> i don't agree with him. i think it's more like the top 5%, including people like myself. if you look at mr. obama's policies, they heavily tax people below us, for people who make $100,000 a year to $50,000. that's not the target audience. folks like jami diamond at j.p. morgan, they don't have to pay

regular income tax. they get most of their income in stock options and use the carried income provision that mitt romney use to say shelter his income. we don't see barack obama going after those guys. they talk about it, why? they harvest lots of big campaign contributions on wall treat. that a lot of this is more political than economic, has to do with sacred cows that neither party wants to slay. >> the people at the bottom end, we need opportunities for them, but one of the big discussions now is whether there should be an increase in minimum wage. the president called for an increase to $9 an hour and tying it to inflation. a bill has been put forward to raise it to $10.10 an hour. harkin said it's the smart substantive position, the smart economic position, humanitarian and political position. i don't think there's much doubt among the democrats focusing on

income inquality that this is a big political issue for them. what about the minimum wage and the fact that it is really well below in inflation adjusted dollars, well below what it has been in historical terms? >> you asked a lot of questions all at the same time. when anybody on the right for the left uses the word smart five times to make an argument they're basically asserting it's good four, therefore you should do it. the real problem is why are workers making so little. why won't the market provide them with more money. the answer has to do with our immigration policies. the administration has essentially given a free pass to people who have not committed a crime. that pushes down wages. more importantly, the structure of our trade agreements allows jobs to be stolen from americans. they're excused from carbon

loading restrictions under the doha treaty. they basically can pollute as much as they want. that makes labor a lot cheaper over there and deprives us of factory jobs. likewise, they subsidize their industries, the administration hasn't addressed those things. if they did, there would be better jobs that paid more money without legislation. >> what is your solution? >> a tough minded trade policy, breaking up the large banks, developing domestic oil and gas, creating a lot of jobs in supporting industries, which we haven't done. if we actually developed our strengths in america, did the things that we do well, then we'd have plenty of jobs to go around and it would look a lot like the 1950's and 1960's. americans had a lot more manufacturing jobs. this administration and the bush administration has been giving those away that to asia where

american workers have to compete with children, with factories where there's pollution and unsafe standards and so forth. >> a lot to think about. that great to have you on show the. good to see one thanks. >> nice to be with you. >> shifting topics to what some critics are calling an on going abuse of president obama's constitutional powers. with congress ago republicans mostly opposing his programs, mr. obama has used executive orders to make changes in laws and regulation he couldn't push through capitol hill. based on what he said at the year's first cabinet meeting last week, the president plans to keep doing just that. >> i've got a pen and i've got a phone and i can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward. >> for more, i'm joined from washington, d.c. by david ripken. he served for president's reagan

and george h.w. bush. we are joined by simon lazarus, who served on the white house domestic policy staff for president jimmy carter with that dave, president obama says he can move the ball forward with executive actions and orders. should he? >> no, he should not, and this is independent of whatever you are speaking about the policy merits of the specific proposals. let me be clear. that there are a number of things the president can do utilizing his own inherent constitutional authority, particularly the case in foreign affairs and national security. he can do some things on his own in domestic policy. one thing he cannot do, he cannot fundamentally rewrite for suspend dull enacted statutes. that vital his constitutional duty to execute the laws fatefully, that destroys separation of powers by emasculating congress, but

giving the president too much power. this president has been doing it with unprecedented frequency and also quite brazenly about it, so that is a very, very unfortunate development, even if you like the particular policy innovations he has in mind. by the way, i don't want to get into politics here, let's stipulate for a second that there are a number of things that congress has blocked the president from doing, because republicans control the house. but that's what the framers intended, the two political branches can in most in to answers check mate each other. that is no excuse for the president to engage in unconstitutional conduct. >> simon, doesn't david have a point, is president obama going too far with executive powers, really breaking down the separation of powers by taking an end run around congress and really rewriting laws with some of these executive orders no. >> david is right that the president doesn't have the authority to rewrite the law, but in fact that is not at all

what he has been doing. david's article has a whole litany of allegations, which many others on his right side of the fence have made, none of them constitution rewriting laws. most concern delays and adjustments in the implementeddation of the affordable care act. this is not suspending the law. this is phasing the law in to make it more effective. all penalties do it and have to do it not just with the affordable care act. president george w. bush did it when the prescription drug benefit of medicare, which he sponsored and which was enacted in 2003 and implemented in 2006, i believe, his secretary of health and human services said that president obama's delay of the affordable care act employer mandate was-wise"" based on his

experience with the prescription drug benefit which had a bumpy first months or longer but now is a very successful program. that is exactly what president obama's doing. many others have done that. >> david, i assume you don't agree with this, and clearly there's a role for administrative regulations, but you think that the president has gone too far. >> yes. i practice administrative law for a living. quite often, challenging what agencies do in the d.c. circuit. i understand the concept of administrative discretion. i understand the concept of administrative impossibility that allows the president to do, you know, or has agencies in the department with some tweaks. that's not what the president has done. let's put obamacare aside. that what helps us here is this

president has not been subtle. this president wanted to get the dream act through, which would have immunized from deportation, which is required to be done under the immigration and nationalization act, whether you they think it's an idea good or bad, particularly from young immigrants who have arrived in this country. he got up and delivered a speech where he said i'm going to do this by executive order. whatever you think about this policy innovation, it is not for the president to basically say i am not going to apply immigration and nationalization act with regard to category of illegal aliens. now, he could have shifted his enforcement resources around to pay less attention to this and more attention to taxing other illegal aliens, but could not exempt them in wholesale fashion. you can say as part of the enforcement discretion the president had, after 9/11, we're

going to concentrate on terrorism. i am not concerned about banks robberies. the president cannot say i am not going to have f.b.i. pursue bank robbers, because you effectively decriminalize bank robbery. by the way, what the president has done, another example in regard to can bass, which has been decriminalized by two states, you can say oh, we're not going to spend that much time prosecuting can bass-related offenses, but you cannot say i'm going to tell all of my u.s. attorneys we are not going to prosecute it at all. it decriminalizes possession of can bass. whatever you think about it, that's not law enforcement discretion, that's not administrative discretion. that is a whole suspension of a law that is entirely unconstitutional and totally alien to constitutional tradition. >> your response?

>> i guess it's very difficult for me now to understand just what it is that my friend david is hyper ventilating about here. what he seems to be saying is that it would okay, if the president gave a wink and a nod and said that we're not going to be making a priority of deporting the children of immigrants who are going to school or have gone to school or served in the military, but he can't actually announce that this is a policy. by the wait, my understanding that it remains a presumptive policy, an individual in that category could still be singled out for deportation if his behavior warranted it. this again is an exercise of discretion that is at the core of the president's authority to manage immigration policy. the supreme court a you're and a half ago in an important decision which was written by

one of the conservative justice, justice kennedy and joined by chief justice roberts, said that this sort -- that non-enforcement, the decisions to not enforce the immigration laws are again at the core of the president's responsibilities and authority, and that he is -- it is appropriate for him to take into account humanitarian concerns when he is doing so on precisely the ground that someone who is employed and has a family is much less likely to be a threat to domestic tranquility than someone who is a quicked felon, so, there's just no question that the president is simply doing what others have done before him, perhaps in a more expansive way, i will acknowledge that, but nothing that is really qualitatively different. >> what is clear is that this fight will continue.

republicans in congress are proving to attack these not courts and the whole issue over whether congress has the standing to challenge these acts of the president in our courts. appreciate you joining us tonight. thank you. >> it's time now to see what's trending on aljazeera's website. let's check back in with hermela. >> thousands of documents made public showed cover up of the archdiocese in chicago of sexual cover up. the information released details how 30 priests in the church believed involved in child abuse were moved from parish to parish where they still had contact with children. >> the one thing we know that protects predators is silence and yet that's essentially has happened for years and still happening with most church employees. >> some priests were removed

from ministry witness, but not until after decades of the church knowing they were molesting children. >> the church attempt to say sweep this issue under the rug is what's really disgraceful. lynn says: >> you can read more of the come to witness names of the victims on our website. back to you. >> straight ahead, a high priced bid to hunt a black rhino sparks a major controversy. are critics missing the bigger picture? >> the ridiculous price for the worst seat is the superbowl. how did prices for the big game get to high? syria's bloody civil war has killed more than 100,000 people and displaced millions of

others. more than half a million threing the conflict are now in neighboring turkey. many of them are living outside refugee camps. he spent some time with several refugees and nick, good to see you, what are those people saying to you? those syrians? >> yeah, tony, these are stories of absolutely heartbreak, and inside syria they have all fled horrific very violent fighting and just give you one statistic, one out of every three homes inside syria has been destroyed or damaged. and so that's why these people have to leave, they feel like their lives depend on them leaving. they are fleeing to lebanon, fleeing to jordan, as you said thereforing also to turkey where i was over

>> a hunter paid $350,000 to kill a black rhino, which is an endangered species. it sounds despicable, but what if that money goes to conservation efforts essential to protect ryan knows? that's the question asked after the safari club held an auction for a permit to hunt a black rhino. what is the best way to protect critically endangered piece cease and ensure that they will continue to exist for years to come? we are joined by president and c.e.o. of the humane society of the united states. wane, good to have you with us. this incident made international headlines, caused debate among our social media followers. up to five permits are given a year. why is this case causing such an uproar? >> it is one of the most

endangered animals in the world and the u.s. policy for the most endangered animals is to prohibit trophy hunting of domestic species, and also to restrict imports of tree fees and animal parts from species listed under our act but still subject to the import restrictions. it's the a departure from long standing u.s. policy and really these sort of pay to slay programs for endangered species are driven by kind of the greed and the trophy acquisition mentality of these safari hunters who are involved in competitive trophy hunting all over the world. >> does the namibia government controlling and the club said selective hunting helps population grow, roofing old post breeding bulls which are territorial and often kill

breeding bulls, increases surviving and productivity in a herd. >> no. >> why not have a hunter pays for experience and then have that money go to help the conservation efforts of all rhinos in that area? >> well, i would imagine that most of the safari post members are post reproduction themselves. i hope that logic doesn't apply to them, as well. the whole notion that this is a dangerous animal is false. these rhinos are not out killing other rhinos. this is all contrived because people don't want to admit the reality, which is they want to kill rhinos, bring the trophy back at a very time when the united states is demanding all over the world that they stop killing rhinos for their horns and elephants for their typhic, it's ok to kill them for trophies but not trinkets?

what sort of muddled moral message are we sending because these rich guys from dallas want to shoot the animal? >> i understand your point. there is literature that said some of these older males can be post reproductive and aggressive. rhinos have the highest mortal combat situation within a specie of any mammal, so there are aggressive rhinos. >> sure. >> south africa, they rehabilitated populations of the southern white rhino which has grown from 50 animals to more than 20,000. that has been funded since the 19 60's by the sale of hunting permits for these old rhinos. >> you know, antonio, i think that south africa's a bad example to invoke. just this year, more than a thousand rhinos have been approached in africa, and that conservation program driven by

this mentality of paying to kill wildlife as the driver is just not working. kenya generates billions of dollars of wildlife tourism and forbids trophy hunting for these animals. that what is the motivation of a person who wants to shoot a blake rhino, a several ton animal, it's the equivalent of shooting a parked bus. >> i am completely with you on that point. i don't understand it, either, but i do want to get the discussion away from the motivation of the big game humiditier. >> that's what's at stake here, antonio. >> i know, but look into the situation of the government of in a anybody i can't doing better funding their conservation efforts. >> they only have 2.5 million people in south africa. >> more than 40% of the nation's land is under some sort of conservancy and that costs

money. they've been very successful with their mountain zone dray population, their elephant population more than doubled since 1995 and they have the only growing population of free roaming lions in the world, so if they need the money for these efforts, where else should they get it, then no. >> there are all sorts of maces, the the humane society of the united states is doing conservation work by trying to attack demand. in vietnam, we're reaching children and adults, urging them not to consume rhino product it is, because the demand is driving the poaching. credit to namibia, but should we be selling permits for the world's most endangered animals because someday wants to shoot one of them. what if somebody wants to shoot a sigh we areian tiger or asian he will insanity if these folks

at the safari club want to contribute to namibia's good programs, they don't need to link their contribution to the killing of an animal, just give the money. that's what advocates do every day. >> one last quick question, where do you stand on elephants and their tusks? you justify talked about the value of rhinoceros horns and trying to fight that demand. how about elephant tusks? the u.s. and chinese governments have each destroyed massive amounts of seized ivory to discourage poachers, but the counter argument says destroying that drives up the cost. i only have 30 seconds. >> the vast majority of conservation efforts support the reduction of these ivory stockpiles. having a robust trade in ivory will be the demise of these scarce animals in a world with billions of people and a small number of those people who want

those products for display or for a potion or for some other purpose. these animals of repair. we need to save the individual animals if we're going to save the species. >> saving those animals is an important thing. we're all on that page. wane, thank you very much for joining us tonight, appreciate it. >> straight ahead, the sky high costs of superbowl tickets and why parking may be out of the question. >> also should movies like "wolf of wall street" get a worse rating because they don't feature enough women? >> to most, peter is an award winning correspondent, he is their son. >> what keeps peter doing

the job that he is doing, is his very strong sense of social justice, the need to seek the truth. and to always do whatever can be done to help those in need. >> as well as to let the world know to get it out there, so things can change. >> they have worked internationally since the early 1990's winning awards for his reports across africa, he was rayed in brisbane with where his parents still live. they were in front of the media to raise awareness of his situation and call passionately for the egyptian authorities to release their son and his colleagues. >> it is effecting the whole family.

today's data dive rings up >> today's data dive brings up the crazy cost of a superbowl ticket. cheap seats are anything but cheap. tickets for the very last row of the upper section are sold for more than $3,500 on ticket broker websites. even if you were lucky enough to pay face value, that's $500, again for the last row of the stadium. on seatgeek.com which aggregates sites, you can't get a ticket for less than $2,000. if you thought you could pool money with friends and get a luxury sweet, forget about it. you'd have to pay $800,000 clodding a service three of $30,000. that's 25 seats plus six

standing room only and a catered party, if you divide the totally by 31, you're still paying $25,700 per person. superbowl i's top ticket went for $12. that's about $84 today. they only filled about 60% of the seats. the prices slowly increased until 1984, when the highest priced tickets face value jumped from $40 to $60. a decade later, $175, since then, it really soared. now the best tickets have a face value of $2,600, more than double the $1,250 they cost last year. don't even ask about parking. that will run you $150 and you can't even tailgate. this year, there are only 13,000 spots for more than 80,000 ticket holders because of the space taken up by security, satellite trucks and more. it's probably better to take a bus to the stadium.

we'll all have a about her look from our couches anyway and our bank accounts will look a whole lot better. >> coming up, 12 years a slave and gravity major oscar contenders, but what's the big test failed by them and other nominees? we'll tell you, next. >> every sunday night aljazeera america presents

sglfrnls should movies include a rating based on the number of >> should movies include rating based on the number of women

featured? for a film to pass the test, it has to have two named women in it. no secretary number one or flight attendant number three ar than a man. you'd be surprised how many films, including best picture oscar nominees failed this test. let's bring in bill wyman. this test has been along for years, but has buzz because of the news from sweden. why is it too hard to get two women in a film together having a normal conversation? >> the short answer is twas ever thus. the really interesting thing for us today is whether it's a market issue, whether there just

in fact isn't an audience for such films, or something inherent in the history of movie making that there's something in there subconsciously or consciously blocking it. >> looking at the best picture mom knows, more than half fame the test, 12 years a slave, captain phillips, gravity, the wolf of wall street, barely pass the test. it is 2014. is this proof that hollywood's behind the times? >> this is a very provocative testify and a trifle imprecise. i don't think you would say a movie like gravity is a sexist movie. to say the wolf of wall street understates the issue. it depends how you look at it.

what's been happening recently is the market for movies and t.v. has expanded that i think maybe we're seeing a loosening of bonds. there's different avenues to public sites these days, we might be seeing more and more. >> market, brides made and the heat were huge recent hits that featured mostly women. last year's 50 motor successful films, 17 passed the test and seven others borderline, including gravity, but those 24 films made $4.2 billion while the 26 that failed the test made only $2.6 billion. it would seem that maybe having women in a film and talking to each other about something other than a man might work. >> i started thinking about t.v. you think about nashville, a

very female centric t.v. show, "grey's anatomy" underrated. i think a lot of this stuff is hiding in plain sight and we don't talk about it enough. we've seen women oriented cable channels, lifetime struggle to find ratings and strong programming. you can make the argument either way. the way the industry is evolving we'll see different routes. >> on twitter, a lot of people didn't know the test existed. now that it's gone mainstream, do you think it will be something that studios pay attention to? >> i would really hope so. it's imprecise and really not fair to use it as the strictest benchmark, but a feminist analysis of what we see in movies these days i think is really something that was in vogue in the 1970's and 1980's and has really gone out ofvoke in a lot of ways. on the other hand, we're seeing

enormous strides in various ways. we had a best director for a woman a couple of years ago and seeing a show like nashville, there are a lot of very powerful women in hollywood. maybe we need to bling and 5-10 years from now this won't be such an issue. as far as the actual rating ala sweden, there are so many things we should rate a movie for and we should train people to think more intel any of the analysis. wolf of wall street, there's a template for you. a lot of bad things happen to women that in movie. >> not necessarily good ones. that would certainly fame the test on a lot of different levels. great to have you on the show. look forward to having you back soon. >> thank you, sir. >> the show may be over, but the conversation continues on aljazeera.com/considerthis or on facebook or google plus. you can find us also on twitter. we'll see you next time.

>> announcer: this is al jazeera. ♪ hello there. warm welcome to this news hour, i'm laura kyle in doha with our top stories. >> how many more will die in syria? lose their loved ones? be maimed for life or lose their homes if this opportunity is lost. >> after three years of fighting, both sides in syria's war meet to try to bring an end to the conflict. i'm barbara in