critics say almost a billion dollars in ten years should buy more than one verdict. and remember, the u.s. is currently not a party to the international criminal court. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. stay tuned for "reliable sources." it was the most hotly anticipated supreme court ruling in a dozen years. the news business on full alert for the decision on obamacare. the president's signature law hanging in the balance. then the big moment arrived, and we saw this -- >> it appears as if the supreme court justices have struck down the individual mandate, the centerpiece of the health care legislation. >> we have breaking news here on the fox newschannel. the individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional. >> wrong, wrong, wrong. how did cnn and fox news blow

the story? why did they rush to judgment? and what about the pundits who have been saying for months that the health care mandate was toast? it was an extraordinary, an extraordinarily uncomfortable television moment. ann curry bidding farewell to the "today" show couch. >> i love all of our brilliant, brilliant producers. and for all of you who saw me as a groundbreaker, i'm sorry i couldn't carry the ball over the finish line. but man, i did try. >> was the veteran correspondent humiliated by nbc? plus, a magazine article by a woman who quit the obama administration because she couldn't juggle the demands of motherhood strikes a very deep chord. >> no one says any more this is no job for a woman because, a, that's discrimination. but plenty of people say this is no job for a mother. >> but have women in the media trumpeted this because they're all part of a privileged elite? i'm howard kurtz, and this is

"reliable sources." let me say at the outset, it is not easy to grab a long, dense, legal opinion at the supreme court and instantly decipher what the esteemed justices decided. it's understandable that there was confusion when the ruling was handed down thursday. >> we got the opinion, i'm taking a quick look. it's very long. a very brief look at it. >> it appears the decision has been affirmed in part -- >> invalid -- >> reversed at part -- >> pete williams is ready at the supreme court. pete, good morning. take us through. >> reporter: okay. the bottom line here is the supreme court has upheld the health care case. >> here's how it played out on cnn, and it wasn't pretty. >> we're still going through the reading -- the opinion, but i want to bring you the breaking news that according to producer bill mears, the individual

mandate is not a valid exercise of the commerce clause. so it appears as if the supreme court justices have struck down the individual mandate. the centerpiece of the health care legislation. >> wow, that's a dramatic moment if, in fact, the supreme court has ruled that the individual mandate is, in fact, unconstitutional. that would be history unfolding now. >> the court striking down that mandate is a dramatic blow to the policy and to the president politically. >> as we're reading through this again, we're reading that the entire law has been upheld, wolf. >> if in fact that is the justification, then it's a huge, huge victory for president obama. >> fox news also started down the wrong path. >> we have breaking news here on the fox newschannel. the individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional. >> we're getting conflicting information. if you follow -- covering the high court, they say despite what shannon just read, that the

individual mandate is surviving as a tax. >> be cautious with us, we're trying to do the best we can right now as we sort through it. >> joining us to scrutinize the media's performance, in seattle, host of the syndicated radio show "the michael medved show." in washington, margaret carlson, columnist for "bloomberg view." markfeld stein, broadca journalism professor at the university of maryland and former correspondent for abc and cnn. mark, let's not mince words. how big a blunder for cnn and fox news? >> it was a pretty big blunder. there's egg on the face. face it, cable news is not known for depth. people turn to it for immediacy and for accuracy. and it was immediate, but it was wrong. there's no way to spin it. and, you know -- but it wasn't deliberate. it wasn't intentional. it wasn't political bias. it was, you know, reading page one. the first few pages and not getting to the end. and we watched the sausage being

made. that's what happens in this hyper warp speed where we live in. the public now sees the sausage being made, and it's not always an appetizing sight. >> what drives me crazy, michael medved, is if the cable news channels had waited an extra two or three minutes for producers and correspondents to keep reading in the opinion to see the part where justice -- chief just roberts actually upheld as a tax the individual health care mandate, then they would have been right. they don't seem to have the patience to do that. >> they don't have the patience, and it's competive who's going to be up first with the story. everyone was breathlessly awaiting this. i think the bigger problem is that there was not the proper preparation. in other words, you said earlier and you were exactly right, the general consensus was that the obamacare was toast. it was going to be overruled all based on the oral arguments. and people hadn't read the briefs. in the briefs submitted by the government, they attacked the

whole basis on the taxing power which is the way that the -- chief justice roberts ruled. so i think that the setup for the entire thing, to make it dramatic, to make it huge, to make it confrontational left people open for this kind of mistake. >> we'll come back to that. barbara carlson, you're a former cnn contributor. you know about the pressures of cable news. this is the kind of mistake that people remember for a long time. >> they do. and it's a stain on cnn, unfortunately, your network now. but -- >> as well as fox. >> yes, yes. since we're here at cnn, i thought i would dump particularly on you. >> okay. >> i think there was actually some overpreparation because, kate, your reporter, quoting bill mears, producer said, oh, under the commerce clause, the individual mandate has been struck down. she's absolutely right. they've been waiting for that. that the commerce clause was the big kahuna of the argument.

and so 90% of it was the commerce clause. so they went with it instead of reading down. if you're a more -- out there more and if, by the way, you've made a mistake in your career, if you've had egg on your face, as mark says, you'd go to the end because you've made that mistake before. and you don't want to do it again. >> we have all made mistakes, but if cnn or fox or anyone else had waited two or three more minutes, maybe some tv critics would have said, boy, they were slow, other people had it first. i think they'd rather have it right. let me make this point, as well. cnn owned up to this pretty quickly. cnn apologized. cnn statement, cnn regrets to that it didn't wait out the full and complete reading of the mandate. we made a correction within a few minutes and apologized for the errors. a long few minutes, i must say. fox news says, we gave our viewers the news as it happened. fox reported the facts as they came in. no apology, no regret. that statement sounds orwellian to me. they got it wrong. >> well, fox's identity is as --

depicts the bad boy of the broadcast outlets. they have a hard time admitting when they make a mistake. this isn't ideological like it so often is with fox. but everybody makes mistakes. do you own up to them, how do you correct them, do you acknowledge them? and cnn was belated in getting to it, but they got to it. fox still hasn't gotten to it. that's what's really troubling. >> michael medved -- go ahead. >> what was extraordinary about this thing is there were members of congress who responded immediately who also were so unwilling to wait, who responded based upon the erroneous -- the erroneous reports initially about the mandate being overruled. i do -- i do want to come back to this idea that somehow no one expected until the oral arguments in march that the entire law could be or would be overruled which, of course, four members of the supreme court voted to do.

but the fact is that expectations comes up to this changed in march during oral arguments where it seemed that the justices had doubts about it. and everything shifted. the betting was 75% according to in-trade that the mandate would be struck down. >> i want to get to that in a moment of the first, this question for margaret -- what is this whole mentality, the scoop mentality that it's a great exclusive if you get to read a piece of paper that everyone else has 20 seconds before the other guy? >> right. cnn is the breaking news network. and you have a lot riding on being first. that's what you're selling. so of course -- >> as mark said, you're selling being first and -- >> and right. you know, of course, they thought they were right given what they read. you know, pete williams is a lawyer. and he got it right because he knows to keep going. now -- >> nbc correspondent who covers legal issue. >> yes. in the cnn/fox dichotomy, fox seemed to be delighted -- you know, there was a certain amount

of delight on fox's part that cnn didn't have -- and i think therefore that's why their apology was so grudging. and cnn's was a full admission. >> well, to clarify, fox did not apologize because fox -- fox's statement was -- reading along with justice roberts. >> grudging statement. >> didn't do anything wrong. i want to get to the issue that michael keeps shore shadowing, the oral arguments -- >> sorry. >> there were pundits and straight news reporters as well who said the mandate looked to be in deep trouble. none more prominent than cnn's jeffrey toobin. here's what he said in march. >> reporter: it looked like there were five votes to strike down the mandate. this was a train wreck for the obama administration. i think it's a possibility it might be a plane wreck, as well. >> so it was a transportation disaster. i told toobin if he was wrong i was going to play that tape again. again, even if you look at the straight news accounts, mark, you see a lot of leaning toward, well, this is not going to

survive based on the skeptical questions asked by the justices. >> right. it shows an ignorance, with all due respect, to jeffrey toobin who's an sclenlt constitutional expert -- >> former prosecutor. >> former prosecutor. the problem with speculative journalism, horse race journalism, who's ahead, behind, who's going to win -- if ene jeffrey toobin had been reading the supreme court brief when it was handed down, maybe cnn wouldn't have got ten wrong. by having him focus on predictions that nobody can know, intrinsically unknowable, you're asking for trouble. >> the justices apparently hadn't made up their minds yet at least based on reports suggesting that john roberts may have switched his view to the majority opinion. so what about this notion of predictive journalism, michael medved? we do it in horse race political campaigns. but with complicated legal decisions, it's tricky business. >> it's a very tricky business. and that, again, i think shows some of the lack of perspective now. the truly extraordinary thing about all of this is -- first of

all, this had worked its way up. there were appellate court decisions where they had split decisions. it was clearly closely divided. and we now have a situation -- and it troubles me, and it should trouble every single american, where this huge change in all of our lives was dependent upon the decision of one individual. there's something inherent leap un-democratic about that and i think that's probably why chief justice roberts pulled back is the idea of taking that responsibility in your own hands. of basically you personally overruling the decision made by 535rected representatives over two years of very bitter debate. that's an awesome sort of power to confer in one individual, and it should trouble everybody. >> well, our system of government does put a lot of power in the lifetime appointments to these -- these jurists to the high court. to round it out here, toobin was not the only person staking his reputation on that prediction. here back in march is fox's bill

o'reilly saying no way that the high court would uphold this health care mandate. >> and it's going to be 5-4. if i'm wrong, i will come on -- i will play your clip, and i will apologize for being an idiot. >> all right. >> so o'reilly was -- >> where's the clip? where's the second clip? i'm an idiot. >> o'reilly was off thursday and friday, but he did phone in and discussed the supreme court decision, no apology. >> well, this provided so many hours of cable tv in the weeks leading up to this that cab drivers knew what -- that this decision was coming. so everybody expressed an opinion, and the drama of the court arguments led many of us to believe that it was going to go the other way because the government's argument was not as per sways of, and the justices got held up on the broccoli mandate. if you cannot be forced to eat broccoli, and that was picked up by pundits in the press. so you end up with this fairly, you know, simple -- simple choice that cable news has made

it into. >> i am all for informed analysis. i think predictions are not just inherently risky but can make you look very, very silly. when we come back, very different take on the bicyclecare ruling and the role of john roberts depending on which channel you're watching. the court and the partisan media next. now count the number of buttons on your tablet. isn't it time the automobile advanced? introducing cue in the all-new cadillac xts. the simplicity of a tablet has come to your car. ♪ the all-new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. great! tyler here will show you everything. check out our new mobile app. now you can use your phone to scan your car's vin or take a picture of your license. it's an easy way to start a quote. watch this -- flo, can i see your license? no.

well, all right. thanks. okay, here we go. whoa! no one said "cheese." progressive mobile -- insurance has never been easier. get a free quote today. i have to know the weather patterns. i upgraded to the new sprint direct connect. so i can get three times the coverage. [ chirp ] [ manager 2 ] it's like working in a giant sandbox with all these huge toys. and with the fastest push-to-talk... i can keep track of them all. [ chirp ]

[ chirp ] [ male announcer ] upgrade to the new "done." with access to the fastest push-to-talk and three times the coverage. now when you buy one kyocera duracore rugged phone, for $49.99, you'll get four free. visit a sprint store, or call 855-878-4biz. [ chirp ]

talking about the initial m misreporting of the supreme court decision on obamacare which misled the president of the united states for a few brief moment among others. by the way, jeff toobin, we talked about his prediction, cnn's jeff toobin, that the justices would strike down the individual mandate. he was forthright in saying i was wrong. meanwhile, one we found out what the ruling was, here's how it played on some of the cable shows. >> today will be remembered as the day that the supreme court of the united states of america upheld the largest tax increase in american history. >> today's hero -- chief just john roberts who walked to the forefront of history and said yes to progress and no to the

role prescribed for him by the right. >> what's specialing to ing ti interesting to me is the way conservative commentators didn't grapple with what he did but talking about the original debate over the health care law. >> well, that's exactly right. i think that's appropriate because one of the things that i think where the media was mall fees ant about was actually sketching out before this case. and even before the vote in congress exactly what this sweeping legislation means to people. and the president seemed to acknowledge that in his reaction. you'll notice he spent six or seven minutes describing what's in the law. this is part of the problem, and i think you're so right about this, howard, is the idea that everything has been reduced to a horse race or does this help democrats, does this help republicans, who's ahead, who's behind. what this really involves is a change in the way that every american is going to live and experience health care. >> right. well, i certainly think we tried

during two years through to see illuminate that complicated argument. >> yeah. go ahead -- >> there's been no media malfeasance, there's been media feasance. it's been covered to a faretheewell. and to people because it comes through some partisan networks, fox, msnbc, i'm thinking of, your view of the health care law is somewhat warped. but wow has this been covered. and wow has the media laid it out. >> but what do you make of not just some liberal commentators but, you know, the front page of "the new york times," other mainstream press accounts giving john roberts a halo, this guy who had been portrayed as a conservative ideologue, boy he had the wisdom and the stature and the independence to rule with the court's liberal wing on this. >> well, it's premature to say the least. that's the thing it court decisions. you just don't know what roberts is doing. and there have been some analytical articles saying that actually roberts may be running a stealth campaign to gut the commerce clause as an engine of

liberal reform. so i think both msnbc and fox in the clips you played, they're playing to their audience, playing to talking points. the republicans are pivoting to call this a tax increase, lambasts obama for the fall. msnbc is temporarily making john roberts a hero. that very much remains to be seen if it will emerge that way in liberal circles. >> i think that john roberts was a statesman here because he did not want the court to be politicized and said let us follow elections. in the long run, mark is right. if what he wrote about the commerce clause is carried out in other decisions, we'll lose a lot of civil rights law. >> we'll see about the decisions. go ahead, michael. >> no, i was going to say, this whole idea of people turning around and saying, yes, this is a tax, is appropriate. you now have a majority of the supreme court of the united states including all four of the so-called liberal justices saying, yes, it was a tax all

along. that the president and his associates and his spokespeople have said, no, no, no, there's no tax increase in this. this has nothing to do with taxes. the entire thing was found constitutional only on the basis that it actually was a tax t. the president was wrong. >> to clarify, the tax will be imposed on roughly 1% of those who don't go ahead and comply with the mandate by getting health insurance. i want to get one sentence from each of you because we're short on time. completely overshadowed on thursday of the house voting to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress for not turning over documents in the squall fast and furious gun running legislation. is this whole thing being painted by the media as a republican vendetta? and did it end up amounting to a hill of beans? mark? >> again, where you stand depends on where you sit as the old expression goes. fox news is painting it for their constituency as a major slapdown for obama. msnbc is portraying it as a partisan witch hunt.

and this is narrow casting as opposed to broadcasting. >> briefly, margaret carlson? >> alternate realities as mark says. a fast and furious contempt citation. it's going to mean nothing in the long run. >> michael medved, briefly? >> very briefly, 21 democrats total actually voted with the republicans on the civil contempt citation. 17 democrats otherwise -- only two republicans voted on the other side. that's the undercovered and very important aspect of this dispute. >> right. some might say they reacted -- under pressure of the national rifle association. has been covered -- >> the democrats are more split on this than republicans. there's no question that the democrats are surprisingly split when you have 20 members of the house voting on the other side. >> all right. i got to leave it there as they say. michael, mark, and margaret. thank you very much. up next, there was one web site that nailed the supreme court's obamacare decision, it's called scotus blog. we'll talk to its founder in a moment.

founder and publisher of scotusblog as the name implies. we heard megyn kelly quoting scotusblog, how did you get it right and so quickly? >> we actually weren't the first and decided we were happy not to be the first. i had gone to a senior reporters and said something long and complicated as this will be is the only the one someone will remember if expletive someone messes this up. rather than our reporter talking to someone transcribing it, we had a team of seven people. i had a rule that our reporter who's covered the court for

decades and his to agree on the outcome and that's what we did. we sort of took the time to go through it -- >> you took precautions and made sure you didn't go too quickly and got it right. you also predicted this, by the way. >> we were kind of -- we knew this of a possible outcome. you know, the tick tock is that both -- >> let me explain before you say the tick tock. you are going to publish later this afternoon on scotusblog a long piece, a narrative piece it who did what about this whole events of thursday morning. you talked to people at the networks, the white house. give us the highlights, and then we'll analyze it. >> sure. i think when it comes to the media, it turns out there was incredible good faith here. there was -- in both fox and cnn, an incredible desire to get there right. and both control rooms at the networks were told by people in the court this is the answer. they weren't told, you know, initially i need to keep going. then they were told -- >> you say -- >> sorry, were struck down. yes. those people kept reading. it did seem from -- the opinion

is written strangely with something -- the key issue written ads if the law couldn't be sustained. based on that, they made a mista mistake. then they told the control rooms there's something more to this. but it became impossible to take back. the networks are so integrated that the hosts -- your tape could have more in it which in both instances, the hosts and the reporters showed great judgment. they say these are the first reports, first indications -- >> you're saying even after there was some caution on the part of the producers and reporters who were actually trying to report the story, that didn't make it to air for a few long minutes. >> what happened, the hedging of the reporters, right, but what happened is that, you know, the tweets, the instant emails, the banners at the bottom 1/3 of the networks, those can't show judgment. so they had -- their internal wire services says it's been invalidated. >> it's struck down or not -- >> black and white thing. >> there's a whole online aspect, as well. and you talked to people at the sfwhous. >> right.

the white house is a fascinating story. they did unbelievably well, to be honest. they were getting conflicting information, as well, from our blog -- i actually had a conference call with most of the networks and newspapers on it, and they were on it, as well. and they say the tv screens. but where you were in the white house was pretty much determined what it is that you thought. some people were in rooms that didn't have tvs and were on the blog. critical people were in another room and were tuned to more than, so they didn't see this. then there was the "chicago tribune" indication shop downstairs. so the way they coordinated between the lawyers and communication shop in the critical five or 51/2 minutes to make sure the president got the right information, that the white house react sudden a really incredibly impressive story. >> what about msnbc, pete williams, did get the story right. how were they so confident? >> they had a different strategy. your tape shows that cnn, fox, msnbc. but what pete williams did was say, i'm not going to try and get this in the first few

seconds. he was not on the steps of the court. he was inside the press room, took the copy. and took the time to read it as he walked out. and then he heard on our conference call, me say that it had been invalidated. he figured it out from the opinion at the same time. so where fox and cnn went about it -- 10:07:50, that tape of pete williams on the air is at 10:10:37, 2 1/2 minutes later. he's taking the time to walk. and he says, that -- they don't go to the steps of the supreme court and him until he knows. >> okay. fascinating the developments that i'll look forward to reading. briefly, yours is kind of a specialty web site read by a lot of lawyers and legal experts and judges. how many more people than usual came to scotusblog on thursday morning? >> we have an average daily readership of 30,000. it's on -- on thursday we had 5.3 million hits from 1.7 million unique people. there are -- we think, we have

conflicting information -- we think at the moment the decision happened there were a million people on the blog, and this is actually -- was another sub-story here that the supreme court's web site crashed from all the interest. they couldn't get the opinion up. so the people who were trying to figure out what was going didn't have the decision itself. they were very reliant on us. >> the rock star of the moment, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and more in a moment. maybe it's time to recharge the human battery. only the beautyrest recharge sleep system combines the comfort of aircool memory foam layered on top of beautyrest pocketed coils to promote proper sleeping posture all night long. the revolutionary recharge sleep system from beautyrest... it's you, fully charged. get a free set of sheets when you buy a select beautyrest mattress. hurry, offer ends soon. and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning you can feel. introducing the all-new cadillac xts.

available with a patented safety alert seat. when there's danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all-new cadillac xts has arrived, and it's bringing the future forward. every communications provider is different but centurylink is committed to being a different kind of communications company. ♪ we link people and fortune 500 companies nationwide and around the world. and we will continue to free you to do more and focus on what matters. energy is being produced to power our lives. while energy development comes with some risk, north america's natural gas producers are committed

to safely and responsibly providing generations of cleaner-burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self-contained well systems. and, using state-of-the-art monitoring technologies, rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment. we're america's natural gas.

as everyone knows, ann curry lasted all but one year as nbc's "today" show co-host before they pushed her out. it was bound to be awkward when curry broke her silence yesterday, but i'm not sure anyone expected this. >> this is not easy to say, but

today is going to be my last morning as a regular co-host of "today." i will still be a part of the "today" show family, but i'm going to have a new title and new role. this is not as i expected to ever leave this couch after 15 years, but i'm so grateful. and i will keep trying, and i'm so sorry i've turned into a sob sister this morning. please forgive me. i hope you'll wish me well. >> can we just say it's not good-bye, not by a long shot. most importantly, you've made us better. and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. >> joining us now from philadelphia to talk about this messy breakup, gale shuster, columnist and writing fell tloe university of pennsylvania. put everything aside, let's talk about those moments, the emotion that came pouring out of ann curry as she bid farewell to the "today" show audience. >>. >> i think that she was coming off of shock really. this went down, you could argue, it went down quickly.

you could also argue it went down very slowly depending which side you look at. the funny part is, ann curry's nickname within the shop is curry in a hurry. and she can be very emotional. but the way nbc took so long and had so many leaks before she -- she actually did leave, i think contributed to her stress level. i think that she kind of had reached her limit, and she was being very open and -- and maybe too open. it made some people uncomfortable. >> certainly didn't look like she was anxious to embrace matt lauer, who was trying to be graush us on, of course. did nbc end up humiliating ann curry as this dragged on, and unconfirmed until finally we saw the tearful exit? >> i don't know how you could say anything else. how you could say they did not drag it out. it took what seemed like forever. it took a little more than a week, and steve cappas, president of nbc news, said about the source of the leaks,

it was like chasing ghosts trying to chase ghosts. whether the leaks came from within nbc we'll never know. but it seemed like every day there was new gossip on some site of when is she going to be leavi leaving. it wasn't a question of in at a certain point. a line of demarcation had passed, when would she leave and who would she be replaced by. what i found interesting also is meredith vieira was host for five years, and they dedicated an entire show on her last day. and ann curry all together on the "today" show including her tenure as news anchor was there 15 years, and they took a total of five minutes. and it was very, very downplayed. and i think nbc was shocked by the backlash. >> let me jump in because -- tv critic of "the new york times" said they were going to bring a highlight reel air good her exploits -- an old, year-old thing to line. that was a mistake.

so she didn't get -- >> oops. >> she didn't get much of a sendoff. you know, do you think in the end that ann curry was treated shabbily, and this will -- we'll get to the new co-host in a minute, and this will affect perceptions of what the "tonight show" tries to sell as a family -- the "today" show tries to sell as a family. >> dewey beats truman. it was one of those moments on the times. i think that she was treated shabbily. i think that she's given an enormous amount to the network, and that was exemplified by the amount of backlash there was. i think nbc was very surprised by the amount of backlash that was directed at the network because she has a lot of fans out there. >> right. could this have anything to do with the fact that the new co-host, savannah guthrie, very smart -- i got to know her when she was co-hosting a cable show with chuck today at more than. she's a lawyer, she had been i guess co-hosting the 9:00 hour.

this was announced friday afternoon before the long july 4 weekend. and nbc trying to play down savannah guthrie's appointment to avoid fostering the impression that she was somehow pushing ann curry aside. >> well, when any news organization makes any announcement on -- late friday afternoon, obviously they're trying to bury it. but friday afternoon before july 4 weekend, obviously they were. one interesting thing i notice sudden that someone within nbc had compared savannah guthrie to mary tyler moore. and steve cappas, president of nbc news, said -- >> yeah? >> i think he was quoting -- >> endorsing -- >> endorsing that remark. and i thought that wassings pecial because no one -- i thought that was interesting because no one would say that about ann curry, she's quite a serious person. >> let me say quite a good journalist. maybe was not the right fit for the lighter fare of morning

television. but nevertheless, can't escape the feeling that she was not treated perhaps as well as she should have been. >> there's no question. and what is really -- ironic is that she was almost hit by a camera a couple days before she left on the set. and in philadelphia, which is one of the top five tv markets, there was a signal problem at the nbc affiliate, and the "today" show was off the air for 45 minutes on thursday, her farewell day. >> oh, boy. >> she couldn't catch a break. >> could not catch a break. thank you very much for joining us. after our break, a former top aide to hillary clinton says she quit the administration to spend more time with her teenagers, and the press goes wild. conversation about work. motherhood, and the media coming up. the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses.

the topic wasn't exactly new -- why women can't have it all. yet the cover story in atlanta through 800,000 hits on line in five days. the reason is that author ann marie slaughter quit her job working for hillary clinton at the state department to return to her professorship and to spend more time with her teenage sons. >> it's really hit a deep emotional chord. there are so many women out there who are struggling and blaming themselves because they think i should be able to do this, but they can't because it's so hard. >> why has this struck such a chord with female journalists? i spoke with lauren ashburn, founder and editor-in-chief of daily download.com where i'm contributor, and michelle kuttle, from "the daily beast." did this strike a chord about your choices with your career and three kids? >> of course, i had written

about this topic two years ago when supreme court justice elena kagan and sonia sotomayor were coming up, and they are childless. and i wrote, why is it that so many childless women seem to rise to the pinnacle of their career. i think that it does have a lot to do with the fact that they don't have children, and they don't have to balance all of these responsibilities. >> do you feel in some way that your career has been held back by your own choice because you're trying to balance your role as a mom? >> i tried to choose something that was work both for my family and profession. i left the gannett corporation after ten years. my children were 10, 6, and 2. i was getting to the point where it was unmanageable. do i think that was a bad career choice? no. it was a different choice so i could stay home with my children and start my own company. >> our other lady in red, michelle, how often have you grappled with these questions and your two kids? >> i don't know a woman who doesn't grapple with these no matter kind of what business she's in, what field she's in.

you always have to kind of work on the balance. and there is just compromise in life. in any field if you're going to climb to the absolute tippy top, you have to push aside other things. and women just have got to -- kind of determine what level of balance they're going to do. >> so let's talk about this as a piece of journalism. as anne-marie slaughter acknowledges in this article, we're talking here it a privileged elite here. most women have to work, they don't get to -- don't have the luxury of making these decisions. they need a job. i wonder if that limits the appeal or the impact of this piece. >> i don't think so at all. i think that what we need to talk about is the way that corporate america, which is run mostly by men, needs to change. i think that this voice that anne-marie has brought to this and the voice of other women who have written about this is extremely important. there has to be a change. we have to stop writing about this, and men who are leaders need to open their eyes and

figure out, help us and everyone figure out a way to do this better. >> does the media culture perpetuate the myth of the superwoman who can have it all, do it all, be on the blackberry while she has the young kid on the knee? >> well -- >> i mean, that it's the media culture. i mean -- >> you know, images are projected about the -- you know, the most successful women in our society. and -- and the sense that people may have is that you don't have to make these tradeoffs which is ridiculous. >> it's the wrong question, howie. it's not about that. what it's about is that women -- washington is a perfect example, are littered. the streets are littered with talented women who can't do it all. you know, there aren't that many pictures of women who can do it all because it's really difficult. >> when "the new york times" takes anne-marie slaughter's article and puts it on page one, and it starts other articles, people commenting. isn't this a case of professional media women going wild over one of their own? >> well, what it is is it's a

topic that really hit home. i think one of the things that's fascinating -- >> hits home for whom? >> for half the population. and it's not just -- >> you're not buying the idea that it's just the -- >> i feel -- this is not a conflict. if you want to help women on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, you'd do well to get women in positions of policymaking both in the corporate and the public sector on the upper end of this. >> and you can't do that, howie. you can't do that if women who are successful don't stay in the corporate culture. they leave and do other things because the corporate culture cannot bend to what they want it to be. >> you say the corporate culture. here slaughter was working for hillary clinton, in the government. >> government, media. >> she points out that a lot of the high-level appointee who's left after the first couple of years were women and many jobs were taken by men. so it wasn't that she didn't work in a family-friendly environment, she found the juggling to be too much. >> any time are you at a level

that anne-marie climbed to, you have harder choices to make. you have to be really committed and make more sacrifices. it may be at that level there's no good answer. >> part of me says what was she expecting. she was teaching at princeton and takes a job at another city. the kids are at home. and even now she says, okay, in order to be with my kids -- i admire her for her candor in writing this and admire the decision she made. but she's cut back to 50 hours a week, being a professor at princeton, giving speeches around the country. she's not typical. >> no, and that's kind of what women are doing increasingly. they're finding more flexible ways to succeed. they start their own business. you know, that i work in contract basis. they work when they can. they telecommute from home. it's a more creative way to succeed. that does not mean that you don't need women in the traditional power positions. that's why you find women doing it. >> right. i think in those traditional power positions, unless there is a way to get these powerful women to stick around in positions of leadership, we're

going to continue to see the same problem perpetuated because men are not driving or going to be driving the decisions, women aren't even at the table. >> i would briefly say that to butch much, much lesser extent, dads deal with some of this. to me, my favorite part of the article is where she says wherever an official resigns to spend more time with the family, it's an excuse. but is the culture such, and i think some of this is perpetuated by the media, but some of this occurred in the four walls of these companies that when you work for big corporations, for example, and you had to take off to take the kids to the doctor or to take somebody to soccer practice, that maybe you didn't advertise that, maybe you made up an excuse because it was seen as less dedication to the job. >> i was lucky y had a flexible

job when i was working at "usa today" and he understood if i was going to be good at my job, he had to give me the leash, don't hang yourself with it, basically. >> these things take time. what you have found in recent election cycles are man political consultants who would leave their families and go off on the road and not look back for months and months and months. >> i know journalistic correspondents who do the same thing. >> i found that they can't do that so much without taking a greet deal of heat frere their wives. >> did this point the way toward solutions or ways to change the culture or is it just kind of a primal scream that many women are afraid to say, yeah, i recognize myself? >> what i love is it wasn't just a rant. it's here's what needs to be done. you deent see many articles like that written from women who have been on the inside saying corporate america or men on the

inside, you have to wake up. you're losing your brain trust. >> this is an awfully entrenched culture that she's taking on. she has found, as many women in high profile jobs as well as low profile jobs where you're expected to bow e on the job an you have kids who need to be tended to. >> when you have men and women equally balancing the role of care giving -- >> you sound more aptmioptimist. >> it's a status symbol to have two black ber berries and no li that's different, but men will play a bigger role and that will change. >> i'm firmly in favor of having a life outside of the office. >> i have rarely seen a magazine article that struck such a deep core among women. a big story in the media didn't get wrong. the latest fabrication of a

breakup of the murdoch epipire. the media monitor is straight ahead. so ithe coverage.e times [ chirp ] [ manager 2 ] it's like working in a giant sandbox with all these huge toys. and with the fastest push-to-talk... i can keep track of them all. [ chirp ] [ chirp ] [ male announcer ] upgrade to the new "done." with access to the fastest push-to-talk and three times the coverage. now when you buy one kyocera duracore rugged phone, for $49.99, you'll get four free. visit a sprint store, or call 855-878-4biz. [ chirp ] visit a sprint store, or call 855-878-4biz. this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state.

one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com. sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering so, i'm walking down the street, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering just you know walking, sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering and i found myself in the middle of this paradeeet, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering honoring america's troops. sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering which is actually in tquite fitting becauseadeeet, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering geico has been serving e military for over 75 years. aawh no, look, i know this is about the troops and not about me. right, but i don't look like that. who can i write a letter to about this? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

time now for the media

monitor, our weekly look at the hits and errors in the news business. last week, i spoke to the new york er's ryan litsa about his opinion that social media is ruining political journalism. >> one woman said, it's not ruining political journalism. it's calling them out and keeping them honest. >> what a joke. jose, correct thesis is that twitter is keeping journalists hahnalist. msm can't get away with their leftward bias. >> suzy said twitter doesn't ruin anything. >> we were talking about whether they were making politicians more weary about talking to the media, but if the open platform is twitter is helping keep the business honest, that's great. the wall street journal has dismissed an intern after

learning many of the names in her story were made up and the quotes couldn't be independently verified. they have taken down the article and removed the quotes from two other pieces she worked on. she had previously been an intern at cnn for a year. the network said they're doing an extensive review of her articles. so far, a network statement said, we have found nothing to cause us to doubt the work she prepared for cnn. >> politico is parting ways with joe williams. he was suspended for such loaded comments as saying mitt romney was only comfortable around white people. they portrayed this as a mutual decision, but wimmi iwilliams s was disappointed. >> rubeert murdoch is splitting his corporation into two. he's breaking off the new york post, the british newspapers, and harper collins, from others

like 20th century fox. they denied this was promoted by the phone hacking sandal. >> someone could look at this and say he wouldn't be doing this if not for the hacking scandal. >> nothing to do with it at all. at all. this is not in reaction to -- this is looking forward to what is best for our companies and what's best for our share holders. >> the move has boosted the stock, but he knows his newspapers will be more vulnerable without being propped up by money making movies. >> a story of enormous magnitude. a legal case with sky high stakes. in this case, one news organization rose to the occasion. >> the giant headline out of california, a dramatic hollywood hending for tom cruise and katie holmes. >> big news out of hollywood. tom cruise and katie holmes are splitting up. >> people magazine broke the