he delivered a speech from the balcony of st. peter's basilica at the vatican. i'm victor blackwell. "reliable sources" starts right now. >> good morning and welcome to "reliable sources." up first this morning, serious accusationsjournalastic accusations. they come from a resignation of someone who was hired with fox twice. attkisson left cbs because she sensed liberal bias. in other words, because supposedly liberal exec tutive producers didn't like her stories critical of the obama administration like health care overall and the killing of four americans in benghazi, libya.

when i sat down to talk to attkisson this week, it turns out she had a story to tell she had not told before. a new organization that she claimed will cave corporate interests and that political bias tell what stories have to air. i also told her important questions fox news had not asked her, about claims of accuracy and rigor in her own work. listen to her story. sharyl, thank you for joining me. you worked for 28 years for cbs. what led you to end it? >> there was a climbing requirement for reporting of the kind i was offering, and it came to a point where it didn't seem like there was much left to do. >> you said there wasn't much of an appetite for your kind? >> i think in general the correspondence will tell you at cbs and other places as well that there is a declining appetite for this on the

broadcasts. and in some cases, i think it's seen maybe as too much trouble because of the push-back and the organized campaigns that come to bear on us when we're working on these stories and afterwards as well. >> what kind of campaign? >> special interests. government has adopted campaigns that remind me much of what corporations have always done. e-mail campaigns, telephone calls. >> you mean complaints about a story after it's aired, that kind of thing? >> prior to it airing when they get wind that it's going to air. as it airs, after it airs. there are surrogates who act in the capacity of bloggers. some hold themselves out to be independent and really aren't independent at all, but they've launched this sort of opposition campaign or effort that starts very early, as soon as they catch wind that a controversial story might be done. >> with various stories you get the idea that at some point they just want you to stop. and it's not just political stories. you went on to say it's stories

of other things. who are they in that case? is that cbs producers, executives? someone else? >> over the years it's been a variety of people, but i would say more recently the unstoppable force has been the broadcast, the producers that decide what gets on the air in a given day. >> the executive producers of cbs news or cbs this morning? >> yes. >> can you tell me a concrete example of a story that seemed to get quarterbacksquashed alonr shut down along the way? >> there was a capitalist who i know was trying to call capitol hill to try to squelch reporting on the topic. i know they were also talking to cbs because that's the regular process. i thought it was a meaningful story. my producers did as well after looking at it, and in the end that story wasn't allowed to air. they didn't say it wasn't airing because there was a corporate

interest at stake. we were told at the last minute after it had been approved and done and people liked it that perhaps it wasn't all that interesting or perhaps we should wait until the government came down and made up its mind on the controversy at hand, and then perhaps we could do the story. >> what are the reasons, so far as you can tell, you had increasing difficulty getting on the air. we said earlier a 21-year history at cbs. are there particular reasons you can cite for why you think you were having a hard time getting stories on? >> we had a total change in management. at the time after katie couric left, the top managers very much in the stories of government waste and government oversight, all of them left at one time. >> new president came in, new chairman of cbs news, a bunch of new bosses as well. >> yes. >> let me read this from the "washington post." this was right around the time you were resigning from cbs. according to a cbs news source you felt you were being kept off

cbs evening news because of political considerations. did you feel that way? were there political considerations at times? >> it's very well discussed inside cbs news that there are some managers recently who have been so idealogically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value. >> so you're saying they are liberal or democrats? >> i don't know what their registered party is, i just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example, and i did plenty of them, go against the grain of the republican party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive on stories that could make the government look bad. even if it's a story that's as simple as a government waers story that doesn't pinpoint

anybody. it seems as though some of them were sensible about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government. >> a couple news story about your resignation cited. is that an example of someone you felt had this idealogical stand and was uncomfortable with stories about the administration that were unflattering. >> pat scheffler was the executive producer of the evening news, and i think there's no secret that there were a number of people at cbs news that had serious issues, but -- >> serious issues. what do you mean? >> there were discussions about certain types of stories that got on the air, there were discussions about the heavy-handed editing. in other words, we had not experienced -- at least i had not experienced and some of them said they had not experienced the extent to which some of the editing went on. that may not be just her. there are certainly a group of managers in what they call the fishbowl of new york who are responsible, so it's hard to say it's all at the guidance of her,

but she is executive producer of the show. >> the president of cbs news the last couple years has been david rhodes and his brother ben rhodes is a speaker at the white house. do you think it had any effect on their interest or lack of interest on stories involving the administration. >> in one or more conversations that david and i had, he was very much in tune with, he told me at least, the types of stories that i do, the types of journalism he thought we should be doing, and i said we had a meeting of the minds on that that didn't translate to the broadcasts. >> is there a pattern you detected if you were to pitch a story about republicans that was troubling that it would get rejected, or if you pictured a story about democrats, it would get supported? in general there are patterns of recent stories being embraced. if they were seen as being positive to government.

>> and is that -- is that after 2009 or is that at all times, including when a republican was in the white house? >> i don't remember having political troubles per se. you're asking me a question i really have to think hard about and i don't have the time to go through it right now. i would say it general, i don't remember any of the same kind of problems when we had the last management of administration. rick kaplan was executive producer, paul friedman was vice president, shawn mcmanus was president of the news. in that era, i proposed stories and no one ever asked me where they were going and what side they might come down on in the end, because we often didn't know. we would cover a story and it ended up where it ended up. i think the change now is there are managers in new york who wants to know how the story will come out, and if it doesn't come out the way they like, for many different reasons, they'll die

the death of a thousand cuts. >> there is a difference potentially between avoiding stories that would hurt the obama administration and adjoining stories of whatever administration happened to be in power. >> i didn't sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived whatsoever. i have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly on this administration. >> i need to fit in a quick break, but when i come back, i want to play a key part of my interview with sharyl attkisson digging into her own journalism. there are some critics who say she just got stories plain wrong. you'll want to hear my answers. we'll be back in two minutes. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact. and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum... tums!

why relocating manufacturingpany to upstate new york? i tell people it's for the climate. the conditions in new york state are great for business. new york is ranked #2 in the nation for new private sector job creation. and now it's even better because they've introduced startup new york - dozens of tax-free zones

where businesses pay no taxes for ten years. you'll get a warm welcome in the new new york. see if your business qualifies at startupny.com (music) defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed. welcome back. returning now to part 2 of my interview with former cbs investigative reporter sharyl attkisson. she told me a story she hasn't told before. she talked about how the

esteemed staff is supporting what the network connotes. she told me people don't have the stomachs for such tough, adversarial stories. she also told me of accusations that you can read on line of repeated errors in her reporting. here's what she had to say. on the flip side you've been treated harshly by some on the left who say you're having conservative bias. how do you feel when you hear that? >> i do think, again, that's a campaign by those who really want to controversialize the reporting i do so you wouldn't listen to it, because if people took the few minutes to do a google search, you would see the dozens and dozens of stories i've done which were, in many cases, complemented by liberal press as being a very good story, and i have been criticized by the conservative side in the past.

it wouldn't take much for someone -- >> do you think that's what media matters is doing? media matters has been campaigning against you and saying you're controversial in the matters? >> media matters san independent watchdog group, and yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. they used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories, and at some point -- >> that's interesting. >> don't they call you? i mean, they call journalists and they're trying to -- >> right, they try to act outraged about something, right. >> i was certainly friendly with them as with anybody, good information can come from any source. but when i persisted with fast and furious and some of the green energy stories i was doing, i quickly became a target. i don't know if someone paid them to do it or if they took it on their own -- >> do you think that's possible that someone paid them? >> they get contributions

from -- >> but specifically to target you? >> perhaps, sure. i think that's what some of these groups do, absolutely. >> i want to see if you can respond to some of the criticisms i've read on line that i've seen charnged when it comes to your stories. one of them is from last november. you report about security risks on the healthcare.gov website, and you had received a transcript by one that it seems like to him, he had been leaking to the republicans. that was broadcast on the cbs evening news, these words that he says were rearranged, that were misleading. >> if you would check, you would see -- i don't know what you have access to, but there wasn't any rearrangement of words. so just because someone says this, or someone works at the administration who is under pressure, perhaps, for system

management and missed deeds doesn't mean it's the case. sometimes we're with the bush administration on some stories and just because someone said something doesn't mean it's the truth. i think it would be a mistake to take the words that were put out by one side or the oert without doing the checking yourself and believing in it. >> this is something that was written about by the "washington post." it's not just a liberal group but -- controversialize your reporting, as i mentioned earlier? >> i didn't understand the kwechlt. >> when you see the "washington post," for example, mostly saving that for. >> it's my understanding what the post did was just take the

word of the democrats who put out a press release. >> the loudest criticism ofs i've heard about your report is dinking to whether there is a rise to autism. . do you regret those stories, now years later. i would like to continue along that line at. . does it encourage them not to get vaccinated? >> i'm not here to advocate for one side or the other, i'm just saying factually, there are many peer review studies that do make an association, and the

government has believed me. they can do their own research. they don't have to gig me or one doctor over another. >> if there is one takeaway that t the? >> i would say generally look at the big of but maybe not overly suspicious of the material you see when we're not working on the firsthand source. there are very speculative efforts in ways you don't see every day. >> sharyl attkisson, thank you so much for joining me. >> thank you. >> people responded direct lg. my impression is they want to go separate ways as quickly as they can. a spokeswoman did send along this statement, the same one cbs put out when she resigned in

march. quote, we appreciate her many contributions and we wish her well. coming up, glenn greenberg has not spoken since he won a pulitzer prize

. welcome back to "reliable sources." in the previous segment, sharyl attkisson talked about how some people tried to controversialize her reporting.

our next guest, glenn greenwald, may know what she's talking about. he may be one of the most controversial journalists in the businesses and he may like it that way. last june right after the first leaks, republican congressman peter king of new york even said greenwald should be prosecuted for his journalism. >> not only did he disclose this information, he has said that he has names of cia agents and assets around the world and they're threatening to disclose that. but in this case, we have someone who has disclosed secrets like this and threatens to release more. to me, yes, thelegal action sho be taken against him. this is a very unusual case with life and death implications for americans. >> for the record, greenwald never actually threatened to release the names of cia agents. neither he or his colleagues ever have done so. for some reason the cia rejected

our questions about greenwald. the pollsters are tulitzer is t sought award in writing. he said it was a vindication. quote, this reminds us that what no individual conscience can change, a free press can. so what does greenwald think? he hasn't really commented on the polls for this week, but now he joins me with an exclusive interview. >> thank you for joining me. >> great to be with you. >> where were you on 3r:00 p.m. on monday when the awards were announced? >> i was actually having lunch. i didn't want to follow it too closely but i had my phone on the table and i knew that the hour was upon us. and so, you know, as i said, i think there was an expectation that the committee had to

recognize the reporting in one way or another and the question was going to be how, and to learn that it was a public service award and that it was given to the guardian and to the "washington post" for the work that we had done was really rat fi fiing because i think that is what we always try to fill which is doing the reporting in public service. >> we saw congressman peter king, one of your sharpest critics right on twitter on monday right afterwards. he said awarding the pulitzer to snowden enablers is a disgrace. anything you want to say back to that? >> i look at peter king's condemnation as an enormous badge of honor. if you look at what they were saying about daniel baldner in 1971, which was actually noble reporting, they were actually threatening the "new york times" with prosecution, they em panelled a grand jury to consider abolishing them.

they're suggesting what we're doing is criminal as well. i think that's just part of what journalism is, if you want to serve to those who yield power, those who yield power won't like what you're doing so much. i see that as a vindication that what i'm doing is the right thing. >> let me play the now infamous clip of david gregory talking to you last year on "meet the press." >> why shouldn't you, mr. greenwald, be charged with a crime? >> i think it's pretty extraordinary that anyone who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse as to whether or not other journal lists would call themselves a felonist. >> i wonder if you think the pulitzer board was sending a message with this public service award to people who may actually wonder why you weren't charged with a crime. were they trying to make a statement by presenting this public service award? >> i think it made a statement. whether that was their intent or not, i don't know. i assume it was. people on the committee are long-time journal lists and

presumably interested in basic press freedoms. brian, this is one of the most important things i think happened in the story which is it wasn't just david gregory, it was a series. it escalated with people like peter king and james clapper and peter alexander, explicitly calling me personally and my colleagues criminals for reporting on the story, and they wanted to create this climate where there was a serious possibility that those of us doing the reporting could be criminally prosecuted. i think one of the reasons why i was willing to come back to the united states when i did because i knew the pulitzers were this week and it would make them very difficult to follow through on those threats. but that climate of fear was cultivated at the highest levels of the u.s. government and i think they did respond to that resoundingly. >> when we spoke on this program before, you came to us from brazil where you spent most of your time. you hadn't come to the united

states until the snowden stories were becoming published. did you also seek out assurances from the u.s. government that you would be able to enter the country freely? >> we did. i had lawyers working for several months, including some who have connections at the highest levels of the justice department trying to get some indication about what the government's intentions were if i tried to turn. the government wouldn't say if there was a jury impanld. if you combine that with the rest, there certainly is some risk of coming back. at the same time, we felt on principal that i was no longer willing to be kept in a single country and kept out of my own country based on these sort of implicit threats and bullying techniques, and if they really wanted to do something, i wanted to force the issue and make them

do it. >> your critics might say you trumped up this possible threat. did you really feel you were concerned about coming back, that they could actually, for example, stop you at customs and enter ga interrogate you or even arrest you? >> othe official at the obama administration repeatedly called us accomplices. michael rogers explicitly called me a criminal and thief and tried to get them to arrest me. the u.k. government detained my partner for 12 hours under a terrorism law. of course it was a threat, and they wanted us to think it was a threat. we didn't concoct those actions, they came up with them themselves to permeate this climate. i think the material in the book, which includes a lot of new stories from the snowden archive, has a lot of impact for the united states, and i want to be able to come back and talk to the people most affected by that

story, which are americans. >> i thought the book was mostly going to be about the reporting so far, but you're saying it's also going to have new information from the documents? >> yeah, there were stories i felt from the beginning fleed kne -- needed a length of a book, and there is new information in the book that i feel will forward things further. >> do you think the pulitzer award and other awards you'll be accepting in the future legitimizes reporting that might change people's minds? maybe take a random person who doesn't believe the document ever should have been leaked, and maybe persuade them they, in fact, should have been leaked? do you think people's minds are already made up about this topic? >> i think we've seen opinion polls who originally were the view in the disclosures much differently. sure, if it was just a matter of a single award, i don't think that would sway anyone, but

given that pretty much every single major journalism award in the western week-old has recognized the vital importance of these disclosures, i think the a cumulative effect of all of that is to convey to the public that this information needed to get out and it was in the public interest that it did so. and i do think that can sway a lot of people to understand why edward snowden did what he did and why we did what we did. >> glen greenwald, thanks for being here. >> thanks a lot, brian. thanks for having me. >> as usual, i want to know what you think about the show today. please send me a facebook or twitter message. i'll be responding to your comments right after the show today. after this break, there is a war going on between president barack obama and president vladimir putin, a propaganda war. who is winning this war with words? it depends where you get your news. my continued look at red news, blue news is next. ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪

♪ hooking up the country helping business run ♪ ♪ trains! they haul everything, safely and on time. ♪ tracks! they connect the factories built along the lines. and that means jobs, lots of people, making lots and lots of things. let's get your business rolling now, everybody sing. ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪ ♪ helping this big country move ahead as one ♪ ♪ norfolk southern how's that function? ♪

we did a 27-point inspection on your chevy,ce, you got new tires and our price match guarantee. who's this little guy? that's birney. oh, i bet that cone gives him supersonic hearing. watch what you say around him. i've been talking a lot about his procedure... (whispering) what? get our everyday price match guarantee plus a $100 rebate on 4 select tires from your tire experts. chevy certified service.

it's that time again, red and blue time. a look at how particular stories are told in completely different ways by the right and left wing media. then we look at what's reliable. we call it red news, blue knees, a and today's example is obama and putin. you probably think mr. obama is showing strength in this case. he's being blunt and trying to prevent unrest in ukraine. on the other hand, you probably presume mr. obama is a wimp that wears mom jeans. that's sarah palin's memorable phrase and he all but cowers at

the sight of the russian president. let's start on the right with fox. this was janine pirro on her show a few weeks ago. >> with all due respect, mr. president, putin is a pig but he's been bitch-slapping you. your secret service bozos passing out drunk in hotel hallways traveling in europe makes you look weak yet again. do you think putin's kgb guys would dare do something like that? >> and eric bowling showed what a weak leader barack obama is. >> i should just stop because a picture says a thousand words. watch. which one? which one do you want leading your country? >> i'm going with the bike. i'm going to go with the bike. >> you like the shirtless guy holding the rifle. >> that was not russia today, that was fox news. i know i don't have to tell you it was a completely different

story over on left-leaning msnbc. listen to ed schultz from last month. >> president obama, i think, is playing this very close to the vest. i think the president is playing it exactly right. he has to. he's not jumping to any conclusions or jumping on the gun or anything like that. he's using diplomacy and sanctions and exhausting, i think, every diplomatic effort. it's the right thing to do. >> so there's red news, there's blue news and then there's the actual news. i've invited former state department spokesman jamie rubin here to examine the propaganda about both leaders and get at the facts. welcome, jamie. >> nice to be with you. >> why do the press tend to boil these things down into caricatures? >> part of it is because it's easier to do that. part of it is because these leaders would like the whole issue of ukraine to be seen as kind of a single player operation where president putin is making every decision all by

himself or where president obama, for that matter, is making every decision by himself. i think it's more true on the russian side. on the west, you know, the response is going to matter of the whole west european countries of france, of germany, of britain and the american people. one of the problems here is that the american public has tended to look inward, doesn't seem to care about what's going on in the rest of the world, let alone in places where you can't pronounce their names. >> is it a situation where the media can compel them to care or where no amount of reporting from ukraine will really result in engagement by the public? >> well, i think the media can compel people to care. it takes time, it takes compelling stories and doing the hard work of foreign correspondents on the ground telling the story as it truly is. but after iraq and afghanistan, it's a fact that the country is tired, and i think where the

criticism of president obama is somewhat justified is that i think it's up to our president to convince the public, convince the west, unify europe and the united states behind this seminole principle that big countries don't get to gobble up little countries. i think all of us, the media, the congress, the president need to do more to take this issue seriously because there is no bigger issue in foreign affairs. >> i've heard some drum beating from conservative media suggesting military action. i haven't heard a lot of that elsewhere. how much of that have you picked up on, and what do you make of some of that? >> well, i don't think there is any serious proposal for the united states to send troops into ukraine to help ukraine defend itself against russia. i think conservatives, what they tend to do, is to try to attack

the president and imagine that if it was a republican in office, things would be different. let's remember, george bush was president in 2008, and vladimir putin essentially invaded the country of georgia, and the president didn't do much about it. >> if both the right and left portrayals we've been talking about are both incomplete or both wrong in some ways, which one does more damage in this case? >> well, i think -- i have a tough time. they're both pretty damaging, you know. on the right i don't think it helps our country or foreign policy or our security for the american president to be mocked and made fun of as if he hasn't shown great leadership on many issues over the last six years. similarly, i don't think the left does us any favors by imagining that president obama has played this perfectly. he obviously hasn't.

russia's leader has gone step after step. it's not as if obama is responsible. on the contrary, putin is responsible. but clearly there is a lot more that we in washington and the west can do to make clear to vladimir putin that aggression doesn't pay. right now he hasn't seen that. >> and since you consume as much as this media as anybody, you're married to cnn's christian amanpo amanpo amanpour. give us a journalistic outlook on this. what do you read, what do you watch? >> the "new york times" did a huge piece on the propaganda war that vladimir putin is undertaking which taught me quite a few things about what's going on there. they're rewriting their textbooks. they're eliminating anial alternative views to putinism.

they're creating a union-like state. not fascism like it was in the '40s, but the idea that a few people get to decide what happens to a vast empire, are able to steal a billion dollars from the state and are able to rewrite textbooks and tell the truth, what we used to call back in the world war ii days, a big lie. the ft, i think, did a very good job in that case. >> jamie rubin, thank you so much for joining me. >> you're welcome. got to fit in a quick break here, but coming up, take one company's brilliant idea to connect thousands of tiny tvs to the internet and then add a pack of angry network executives. you get the most important supreme court case involving media that we have seen in 20 years. i mean this literally. stay tuned. meatball yelling c'mon, you want heartburn? when your favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast, with tums. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact. and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum... tums!

that's why i got a new windows 2 in 1. it has exactly what i need for half of what i thought i'd pay. and i don't need to be online for it to work. it runs office, so i can do schedules and budgets and even menu changes. but it's fun, too -- with touch, and tons of great apps for stuff like music, 'cause a good playlist is good for business. i need the boss's signature for this. i'm the boss. ♪ honestly ♪ i wanna see you be brave

♪ hooking up the country whelping business run ♪ ♪ build! we're investing big to keep our country in the lead. ♪ load! we keep moving to deliver what you need. and that means growth, lots of cargo going all around the globe. cars and parts, fuel and steel, peas and rice, hey that's nice! ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪ ♪ helping this big country move ahead as one ♪ ♪ norfolk southern how's that function? ♪ it's the trusted resource. and now, kbb.com has a whole new way to help you decide on your next new car by showing you what really matters. use 5-year cost to own to compare the long term cost

of maintenance, insurance and gas. read reviews. woman: gas milage is awesome. from actual owners and kelley blue book experts. and get the full picture on what it's like to own the cars you're considering kbb.com

trwith secure wifie for your business. it also comes with public wifi for your customers. not so with internet from the phone company. i would email the phone company to inquire as to why they have shortchanged these customers. but that would require wifi. switch to comcast business internet and get two wifi networks included. comcast business built for business.

aerial is a small company with a big idea and it threatens or scares the big media companies so much that this week area will be arguing for its life in front of the nine justices of the supreme court. the idea behind areo is kind of a throwback to the early days of television. for eight bucks, they will give you rabbit ears that picks up broadcast television signals and beams it to you in a very new way, a brand new way, an internet stream to your laptop, your phone, et cetera. why does this upset the big networks so much, why are they suing? it's because most people don't use antennas to get media

anymore. they udo what you're doing righ now, by paying cable stations. they pay billions of dollars in the aggregate. but aerio is not paying the broadcasters a penny so it's minimizing the growing source of revenue for all those stations. aereo says this is perfectly legal and they're introducing a the broadcasters say this is copyright infringement and it has to be stopped right away. you can see how high the stakes are here. so i went out to the antenna farm in brooklyn where they have thousands of tiny an ten in as and they use them to pick up tv signals for subscribers. i talked to the founder. >> 60 million people in this country today use antenna in some way shape or form. so clearly whatever perceived

harm there is going to be with an aptemperature in temperatura happened yet. >> these stations are technically free because they are broadcast over the public airways. but we pay for them through the satellite company. so they are getting paid for most consumers who watch their stations and is this a way for them not to get paid. sgr exact same way that an antenna allows to you watch it without an additional payment. now, here is the issue. 90 plus percent of that business is advertising. you increase audiences, you increase advertising, create more technologies that take advantage of digital delivery. >> right now it's advertising based, but these broadcasters say they need higher and higher

retransmission fees to survive and you're taking it away. >> we're not taking it away. the question is do they want to be broadcasters. if you want to be a broadcaster, you required to program in the public interest and convenience free to air anybody with an antenna can pick it up. but the debate i don't understand why the lotion of the antenna changes that equation in any way shape or form. when functionally they have been proven to be equivalent and nobody has disputed those facts. >> so the broadcasters say this is theft. you say it's what? >> it's consumers' right. they have a right to pick the tech knowledge they want to use as long as they control it. >> whether an an tantenna or -- >> antenna or dvr, no prohibition, absolutely. the market is changing unquestionably. we don't force that change. this trend was beginning way before we existed. netflix, all of these things put a lot of pressure on the companies. and the challenge they face

which is why this lawsuit is a business model problem because they sell these large bundles of products to consumer and 245's how they maintain -- >> you mean the other thanes op broadcast owners of the broadcast networks. >> exactly. you have comcast which is the largest cable company about to get larger. for them it is critical the bundle stays intact. >> you're at the core talking about trying to break the cable bund bundle. >> we're trying to create an open system because in this closed vertically integrated system, rates have always gone up. less choice has been available to the consumers. less technology has been available to consumers. all of these factors are anti-consumer. all built on a public spectrum grant. so the question we're trying to bring forward is why should it

be that only one or two monopolies are allowed in consumers homes and why not different other technologies that legitimately make use of spectrum granted. >> where does aereo grow? >> we're in about 13 markets. so we want to expand. we want to simplify our product more. we have to start marketing the product. explain to people would we're trying to do. and i think try to add more and more value in that. i think it's important to not recreate the cable system. we're not interested in that. because then we have done a disservice to the consumer sentiment that supported us. >> let's say i'm a kirm and i want to buy the broadcast. i want to buy cnn, fox news. can i be mixing and matching different channels? >> that would be ideal for consumers, but i don't think that is the future in any short

term view. >> because the major media companies won't allow it. >> they won't allow it and they will only allow the bundled products to exist. our hope is as these technologies become pervasive and as more people realize there are different ways to think about their media con sumpnecti su consumption, the market will evolve and change. incumbents don't change their approach because they make too much money.change. incumbents don't change their approach because they make too much money. >> thank you so much for joining me. the parent company of cnn time warner is among the media companies that stands opposed to aereo. in a filing with the court, it assumed the broadcasters and said the court's intervention is urgently needed now to set will this vital area of copyright what you back on course. i'll be back in a moment and tell you the one piece of media news you should be watching out for this week. if i told you that a free ten-second test

could mean less waiting for things like security backups and file downloads you'd take that test, right? what are you waiting for?

you could literally be done with the test by now. now you could have done it twice. this is awkward. go to comcastbusiness.com/ checkyourspeed. if we can't offer faster speeds or save you money we'll give you $150. comcast business built for business. finally this morning, a look ahead to what will be making media new this is coming week. this week i think it will be that hearing we were talking about right before the break. the oral arts guments are on tuesday morning and i'll be in washington for them, so check out my story on cnn.com right afterwards. i'll try to recap what traps entired in the courtroom. you can find all of that and the rest of our coverage all week

long on cnn.com. so check it out and let's meet right back here next sunday 11:00 a.m. eastern time. and set your dvr if you won't be home live at 11:00 a.m.. up next, state of the union with candy crowley. on easter sunday, prayers for modern day miracles from the depths of the indian ocean to the chilly waters of the yellow sea. today, in jindo, south korea, bitter anger and heartbreak among families waiting for news as heavy currents hamper efforts to find 250 passengers missing since a ferry capsized wednesday. and with 11 ships and 12 planes and a sophisticated underwater device, the australian led search for malaysia flight 370 ends day 44 the same way as the others, empty handed. >> i appeal to everybody around the world to pray and pray hard. thatfi