washington, d.c. and hyde park, new york at the invitation of president franklin delano roosevelt. they took insights and even a picnic where the king and king were served hot dogs. thanks to all for being part of my program this week. i'll see you next week. the agency that protects the presidents and some of the biggest news outlets in the country. it started with this headline in "the washington post." secret service investigated for late night car accident at the white house. written by a dogged reporter

that exposed other examples of secret service misbehavior in the past. last month she won an award for her coverage. her most recent story has been heavily scrutinized. let me read what it said. obama administration investigating allegations that two senior secret service agents drove a government car into white house security barricades after drinking at a late night party last week. it went on to say, "an agency official said wednesday they ran through tape before hitting barricades. they wanted to arrest the agent and perform sobriety tests but a supervisor ordered them to be sent home p. one online headline said a crash occurred dramatic stuff and the story broke just in time for the "nightly news." you know what happened next. tv amped this up even more. here is what i mean. >> breaking news from the white house, two secret service now under investigation facing allegations they were driving under the influence in a government vehicle and hit a

barrier outside the white house. >> developing story this morning, a black eye for the secret service. >> news alert, while you were sleeping two secret service agents including a top member of the president's detail now under investigation for drinking and driving. they allegedly crashed a government car into a white house barricade after a night of partying. >> at one point "good morning america" made it sound like the car actually hit the white house. but the story started to change. the post changed its headline softened it a bit. it now reads secret service agents investigated after car hits white house barricade. not a car accident. then sources started telling other reporters that the "washington post's" reporting was way overblown. here is what michelle kosinski reported two days after the original story. >> reporter: these sources say they were going one miles an hour. they nudged a plastic barrier out of the way a few feet. they are also casting some major doubts about the story that first emerged that a supervisor

let them go home even though officers at the scene thought they should be tested to see if they were drunk. from what these sources are saying there's nobody in their view who can corroborate that story and that is seriously in question. >> this is sort of like a snowball rolling down the hill. this controversy madity way to capitol hill where secret service director clancy was unsparing in his media critique. >> there was no crash. the video shows a vehicle entering white house complex at a speed of one to two miles per hour and push aside a plastic barrel. there was no damage to the vehicle. >> one prominent journalist directly came out and apologized for his role in exaggerating the story. he's standing by in l.a. but i want to get to the original source joining me from washington. thank you for being here. i know this story is complicated and secret service trying to spin things in their favor.

is it fair to say your initial story overstated what happened? >> no. director clancy on tuesday on the hill told members of congress exactly what we wrote in our story, that his initial reports when he learned about this event on march 9th were allegations on the ground there had been some sort of if i can use the word crash, in his testimony, make sort of -- the allegation again, he received and was investigating was there was suspicion the agents had been drinking. our story is completely accurate. in fact the only thing i quibbled with at the time was headline and i asked for the word "crash" to be taken out of the headline. in fact they did in 19 minutes. i can't be responsible for a bunch of people then later reporting, citing their own

sources, that the crash happened. we wrote that he was investigating allegations on the ground of exactly what we wrote. i explained it interesting, brian, truly everyone is quibbling with our word choices about something, barricade, barricades. all this focus and misrepresentation of our reporting. five different -- four or five forgive me i've lost track, media organizations have now corrected their reporting on our reporting. so i guess it's just sort of amusing in a way and also troubling. a lot of people took this as fact. the fact was this the secret service got a fairly significant and serious allegation and they were investigating it and we reported what was alleged. >> the reason why i'm concentrating on it words do matter. word like crash. i've been exactly where you are

where an editor puts a headline on a story that goes further than what the story says. seems to me in this case the story got so far ahead of what the facts were. for example, your initial story didn't mention the idea this car was only going one to two miles per hour. >> so we were among the most -- i hear what you're saying. we were among the most cautious of all media organizations in how we described what happened and we broke the story. we were also on the second day reporting that it and in realtime that people who were reviewing the video had seen something that most likely was going near the -- we reported that. in our first story we reported viewing the tape they thought it could be this could be that. as soon as they reported they determine it we reported that. i find it interesting so much pushback against the idea that

this might have been a serious incident because director clancy has said it's a serious incident. he has said he's really troubled this wasn't reported to him. in fact he said the other day not everything comes onto my desk but this one certainly should have. he's going to hold people accountable for not reporting to him. >> you mentioned pushback. obviously administration has a reason to push back on reporting if they don't want secret service to appear to have bad behavior or be in trouble. i'm curious about your reporting as well because we've seen stories questioning that you once reported president's elevator ride to cdc with an armed flown turned out he never had been convicted of a crime. you were the one to follow up and report no he was not an armed flown after all. do you think there's legitimacy to the idea some of your sources have tried to lead you astray and paint a picture of a very troubled secret service. >> i think if you talk to

director clancy and listen to his own testimony on capitol hill he'll tell you every single one of the incidents we reported and broke exclusively is very troubling to him. it was a violation of security protocol in that incident. we did correct it before anybody else -- before it was ever publicly we were asked about that. we corrected it as soon as we found out. >> do you find yourself needing to challenge those sources? >> i'm sorry, i couldn't hear you. you said something interesting about the pushback. many agents and officials inside secret service who are sources of mine say they feel as though "the washington post" reporting flagging kind of security vulnerabilities are ultimately going to make the president safer. one thing that's odd is why is there all this pushback against reporting that would make the president safer? i would assume the administration wants that too.

>> that's a very interesting question for it to leave it on carol. thank you for calling in this morning. i greatly appreciate it. >> of course brian. thanks for having me. >> thank you. the initial "washington post" story, one of the many reporters who followed up was markhambinder. he heard the crash story, heard the word "crash" wrote a piece about this headline. hi i'm the secret service, and i'm an alcoholic. now he's deeply regreeding what he wrote. he says the story is greatly exaggerated. let's quote what he wrought other day. i have no excuse other than what i was basing my opinion on the facts that other news outlets reported. the problem with stories like these, the initial impressions stick and the corrects don't. the press can report something fantastic, a bunch of inaccuracies and slowly walk it over a few days until the original story no longer resembles current version. all i can do is write about my mistake. let's hear what mark thinks about this.

contributing editor for "the week" and in los angeles. what you're describing in follow-up essay is something i see all the time in the media. a story comes out, overstated people don't see follow-up stories that try to correct the record. is that what happened here you think? >> that is what happened. there's one particular aspect of this story that disturbs me and prompted by essay. it was the suggestion that these two agents which were named, had been drunk. that they left a party and had somehow gone over to the white house and crashed a barrier and were under the influence. what that triggered to me was this sense of heartbreaking, this sense that the secret service is in some ways victimizing itself from within. i reacted emotionally to it.

i wrote that there were a bunch of high-functioning alcoholics surrounding the president, all of which was based on the details that other news organizations, a number of them have reported. >> we should say, mark not just "washington post" but cnn and other outlets repeated this stuff and it led abc world news tonight on the day it came out. >> i agree. i think that's what happens. that's the way our modern age -- >> we should not accept that. it happens. we've got to find a better way. >> we have to find a way, particularly when individuals are maligned unfairly to redress that. that's to me the biggest issue. the secret service can really speak for itself. i think in general we want aggressive reporting, including reporting that makes mistakes rather than having a timid press corps and timid reporters but there has to be some middle ground. there has to be make way for us

to be able to not just apologize but somehow change change the record of history. i had in my head this fanciful idea of teams sitting down at certainly engines of bing and yahoo! and google going back and reconfiguring algorithmses so corrections in media age are somehow contextualized and placed onto the sort of global historical record they are writing even better the corrects policies that many newspapers and news organizations have are for a news cycle that doesn't exist anymore. we really have to figure out a better way. >> part of it is on the odd llenas well. we all know sometimes we're reading our first drafts, there's going to be changes, more information later. some of it on the news media for sure. sometimes it's about how we phrase the headlines, how we phrase the banners and things like that. this feels like an opportunity for lessons learned even though as carol was saying there are

systemic problems at the secret service. i think everybody agrees on that. >> absolutely. i have written, based on the post reporting and my own reporting at years there's an alcohol problem at secret service. i don't certainly retract that. i think the headline i wrote was provocative. what i feel really really bad about is maligning these two individuals and really having no way to go back and do anything about it. >> marc i've only got a few seconds left. i'm curious, you apologized but "politico" who published your column said it didn't feel the need to. what do you make of that? >> i will leave "politico" and "washington post" and other news organizations to speak for themselves. i think my essay speaks for themselves -- speaks for itself. i think their decision speaks to -- i think their decision speaks generally to their own impression of the matter. it just wouldn't be fair for me to talk to that.

>> marc i'll speak to that. i think apologies make us stronger. thanks for being here this morning. >> thank you. >> we're going to take a quick break but a lot of news ahead including this. why does popular blogger say everyone on the right is scared of fox news everyone other than himself, i suppose, because he'll join me to explain why he quit his job over a no trashing fox rule. later in the hour all sorts of ethical questions about "the jinx," astonishing documentary about robert durst, did they collude with police did the interview hold up in court. we'll be right back. it's more than a network and the cloud. it's reliable uptime. and multi-layered security. it's how you stay connected to each other and to your customers. with centurylink you get advanced technology solutions, including an industry leading broadband network,

and cloud and hosting services - all with dedicated responsive support. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner you're free to focus on growing your business. centurylink. your link to what's next. look! this is the new asian inspired broth bowl from panera bread. our hero is the soba noodle. (mmmm) which we pair with fresh spinach (ahhh) mushrooms (yes) and chicken raised without antibiotics. (very nice) then top with a soy-miso broth. that noise! panera broth bowls should be slurped with gusto! (yumm) to explore further order online or visit your neighborhood panera bread. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com.

meet the world's newest energy superpower. surprised? in fact, america is now the world's number one natural gas producer... and we could soon become number one in oil. because hydraulic fracturing technology is safely recovering lots more oil and natural gas. supporting millions of new jobs. billions in tax revenue... and a new century of american energy security. the new energy superpower? it's red, white and blue. log on to learn more.

. welcome back "reliable sources." fox news channel gets attention, most popular cable news. when i say slant, i mean to the right. obviously some shows are exceptions. usually when i watch fox i'm watching to hear a conservative view of the news even if bill

o'reilly is in denial of that. >> liberal news organizations play down liberal screw ups. fox news play down conservative screw ups. >> i disagree with you. i'll tell you why. >> bernie goldberg speaking some truth to power. common critique of fox, it miss leads its audience being too conservative while pretending not to be. what happens when fox is criticized for not being conservative enough. my next guest says any criticism of the news channel is in no-go zone how fox news channel makes it easy for amnesty. why? carlson's other job at fox news as a weekend host of fox and friends. to carlson's credit he was up front why the article came down. carlson told them we can't trash fox on the site i work there. so he quit. fox can't be off limits. it's too big a part of gop

politics. he also says something else. he says everyone is scared of fox what exactly does he mean? well he's joining me now from los angeles with his first television interview about this. mickey thanks for being here. >> thanks, brian. >> must have been strange for you. you wake up see your column taken off line after pretty happy four-year time with the daily caller. >> that's right. i had no problems with them before. i posted this piece on the web early in the morning monday morning, very early. i stayed up all night doing it. i went to sleep and got up and it disappeared. there's a note from tucker saying can't trash fox on the site. sorry, i work there. i wrote back saying is that really the rule? if it is i have to quit. has he a right to have a rule like that but i don't have to be nice to the people he has to be nice to. so he said, well, i'm sorry but it's a hard and fast rule. so think about it for a day.

i thought about it for a day and then i quit. >> there we are. now you republished your column over on your own website. i've asked carlson for comment, he hasn't gotten back to me. he told "politico" he was sorry to see you guy. you're one of the few independent thinkers out there. does it mean it's not possible for someone like carlson to run a website and work for fox. >> he can run a website and say roger ails is the most handsome man in the world. at some point it stops being journalism. i think people there do good work. it's not a no-go zone. they write about fox all the time. they just can't write nasty things about fox. it's a little deceptive for their readers. ondo readers know there's this hard and fast rule they can't say anything nasty about fox? i don't think so. i don't think reporters know it. >> there's been pushback against you and this idea. they say there's no media outlet that can talk about itself.

i disagree with that i was talking about cnn covering secret service in the last block. how do you respond to that pushback? >> it's not that he can't say anything nasty about its owners he owns the site. it's independent conflict of interest he has because he happens to work at fox. fox doesn't own the site. so he's imposing his conflict on the rest of his staff. that happens all the time. but in this case fox is a big part of the story i was trying to cover, which was immigration. there's a big issue, which is will fox betray the right because rupert murdoch believes in immigration reform tamp down controversy. that's exactly what i thought they were doing. this is the bigger issue. it's not about tucker. it about will the entire right-hand side of the political spectrum not have a voice in the immigration debate. will there be opposition? if fox goes to the left then there's no opposition. then we have a stifling

consensus where half the electorate doesn't have the voice. that's the issue. >> that's what we're getting at. everyone scared of fox, lots of writers, bloggers up and coming stars in conservative media who don't take on fox, critical of fox because then it won't get on the air. is that right? >> that's right. fox is basically the only means or the main means, the dominant means of upward mobility for a whole bunch of pundits and writers and wannabe pundits. even if you don't have a show on fox like tucker does you want to have a show on fox. if you're an author and fox promotes your book your book is going to be a success. the roots to success outside of tv being mid list book author without any tv exposure those have dried up. so tv is dominant and fox is dominant on the right. >> it's an interesting issue because in a capitalistic environment, you want competition. you'd want to have other conservative leaning television channels or media outlets in

order to compete with fox. there really isn't one that strong right now. they essentially have a monopoly on this marketplace. >> that's right. there's a bunch of competing liberal outlets but fox has a monopoly. there's a huge opening for competitor to fox on the right that's righter than fox. it does wuss out on irs, immigration is one of them. >> mickey thanks for being here this morning and sharing your story with us. >> thanks brian. >> coming up after the show hbo's "the jinx" getting a lot of attention. i binge watched it there's a lot of controversy around the confession. what some are calling it the confusion. another facing a similar conundrum like "the jinx," this one made a different decision. we'll tell you about it after this.

moderate to severe crohn's disease is tough but i've managed. except that managing my symptoms was all i was doing. and when i finally told my doctor, he said humira is for adults like me who have tried other medications but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. and that in clinical studies the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb hepatitis b, are prone to infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your gastroenterologist about

humira. with humira, remission is possible. you get sick you can't breathe through your nose suddenly, you're a mouth breather. a mouth breather! well, put on a breathe right strip and shut your mouth. cold medicines open your nose over time, but add a breathe right strip and pow, it opens your nose up to 38% more. so you can breathe and do the one thing you want to do sleep. add breathe right to your cold medicine shut your mouth and sleep right. breathe right. and look for the calming scent of new breathe right lavender in the sleep aisle. when it comes to good nutrition...i'm no expert. that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with

a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost.

a bombshell finale for hbo's "the jinx." i would go a step further. i would call it a breathtaking moment in documentary history.

robert durst, millionaire suspected of three murders but never convicted in any of them was caught on tape in a bathroom seemingly unaware of being reported that's when durst said what so many people have long believed. >> what the hell did i do? kill them all, of course. >> just before that final episode aired, a made for tv coincidence or was it? news broke durst had been arrested for the murder of berman. i don't think it was a coincidence ratings went up friday night. media attention turned to filmmakers and all the ethical questions surrounding the film. here is the director addressing the handwriting evidence that he presented to durst suggesting he was involved in berman's murder. he also talked about the inconsistency with the film's time line on cbs this morning. >> well we actually interviewed

bob durst two times. the first time was for about three days in 2010. we went back to him again a couple of years later to show him this new evidence we had discovered. we thought we were done at the end of the interview. he reacted in a strong way to the material we showed him and he got up and said good-bye and we thought that was the end. the microphone kept recording. we always leave the microphone on and he went to the bathroom. it wasn't until months later when we had an editor listening to material with evidence we left behind thinking we've got to listen to everything we've got, we're about to finish the city and we discovered this shocking video. >> "new york times" said months. >> many months. it was obviously for us a shock. it was many months since we had sat down with him. after sitting down with him, we thought we've got this revelation which is he was unable to determine which was two handwritings we were showing him were his own. in fact we think both of them

were his own. >> then after that he canceled the rest of his scheduled interviews. this is not the first time documentarian has come into contact with evidence that can change the source of an investigation. a similar question in "paradise lost" child murders at robin hood hill. director for cnn films about somalian super model. did i mispronounce your name? >> you said it right. >> i was trying to practice that during the commercial. i wanted to have you here because i'm interested in this question documentarians face with evidence the police missed. in yours, grisly child murders, you became in contact with a knife before investigators had. first how do -- >> "the jinx" is a triumph of television on every level. i'm not here to criticize "the jinx," i think it's incredible piece of television.

it differs in every situation. we received a bloody knife. it was given to us under strange circumstances. we went back to the hotel room opened up the knife hinge, this had been stabbed with a serrated knife consistent with this knife. we felt we had a moral obligation to turn this knife over to not impede with the ongoing investigation. you know i don't want the responsibility of a potential killer being out there and us withholding evidence that might bring that person to justice. so we immediately went back to new york -- we actually thought it was going to shut our film down. so much of a filmmaker subject relationship is based on trust. if that trust is eroded we thought the whole film would start to crumble. quickly we huddled with hbo, their representatives and decided good citizenship trumps any need and we had an obligation to turn it over. >> how do you react to the idea

jenks producers and directors held backhand writing evidence for months and years. >> i don't know the circumstances but if it means it leaves a killer on the streets longer because if we think durst might have been responsible for killing and there's evidence that could bring him in earlier and off the street i think there's a question there. but i don't know what the circumstances are so i don't want to cast aspersions. >> we see at the end of the series kill them all. we call that a hot mike moment in the television industry. would you have aired that audio from the mike moment if you found it months or years later as the director said they did. >> i probably would have. earlier in the series he was warned of having a hot mike. i know i warn my subjects all the time they have a hot mike. where i might have differed again, i don't know what their decision-making process was, i probably would have given durst or his representatives an opportunity at some point before the show was finalized to comment on that confession. >> unfortunately they are not

talking, given we are likely to be called as witnesses in any kay law enforcement brings against robert durst it's not appropriate to comment on the matters. did you not comment on your field because you were going to be called to the stand? >> i haven't found myself in that situation but who knows what pressures they are under. >> any documentarian who doesn't bury the lead is lying to you. in other words, you would never play the audio in first or second episode. >> real life does not conform to the narrative structure of good drama. you can't put every moment in your documentary right at the beginning. so as long as you -- the compression of chronology to me is okay as long as you don't change the chronology. it's also very important to allow -- you know allow a story to unfold so an audience can be interested in it. >> the lines between documentaries and journalism and

television that's where it's so complicated. >> and increasingly complicated. >> what do you mean increasingly? >> we're all focusing on "the jinx" as this great moment in documentary history. for the last years we've increasingly seen the lines between journalism and news and entertainment get increasingly blurred. i think this is a natural result of this kind of tension. >> thanks for being here this morning. >> thanks a lochlt appreciate it. >> last night robert durst's attorney spoke for the first time since that supposed confession was broadcast. he spoke on cbs's 48 hours and said he thinks durst was arrested for ratings not because of facts. >> what was your reaction when you heard that? >> my first reaction was what in the world are these guys doing to send somebody into the bathroom there's not a more private place. they know that bob talks to himself. that's just one of his quirks.

>> when you listen to that didn't bob durst confess to murder? >> no. >> how else could you interpret that? >> there's 100 ways of interpreting it one of them being very shakespearean. >> there's one person i want to hear from on this and it's criminal defense lawyer mark geragos. he joins me from los angeles. mark thanks for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> i wanted to hear your reaction to what the attorney said on 48 hours last night. is that the sort of positioning you would take with this as well? >> absolutely spot on. victor geron has, i think, articulated what any lawyer who defended a client in this situation would be saying. number one, there's 100 different ore maybe 500 different interpretations for what happened. yes, it is very shakespearean, king learesque.

i agree with joe, your previous guest, this is a triumph of a documentary. who i would fault here is our local police department if you will for waiting, if you will to arrest kind of on the heels of the last episode to boost the ratings. it looks like exactly what dick said a made for tv spectacular and made for tv prosecution. >> do you think the audio from durst audio in the bathroom will be admissible in court? >> yes. unfortunately i don't think the mother of the judge has been born that is going to exclude that from evidence. that forces the defense to have to explain it. as he said there's so many different explanations for it. you have a different situation here because unless you can show that the documentarians were working hand in glove with the

prosecution, and i don't think that's going to be the case i don't think that took place until later on at least from what's been publicly reported. there's no state action it probably will come in. >> you said you think "the jinx" the make it harder to prosecute the case. why is that? >> i think it definitely will make it harder to prosecute the case. i think you'll have the specter hanging over this prosecution that for some reason it was made for tv. it was engineered. this was not something where it was a direct answer to a direct question but instead tried to take out of context. who knows if you sliced and diced and remembered somebody the editor listening to this later on. the handwriting, i have real problems with that as well. i think that's actually more problematic to mr. durst than statements on the audio itself. the whole idea and i was in new york before he was arrested and

everybody knew it was kind of an unspoken little secret that he was going to be arrested in conjunction with the finale. that's out there. that's going to come to the foreduring prosecution if they get him out to los angeles. >> why was it an open secret? prosecutors didn't want to be embarrassed to have it air on hbo and have him free on the streets? >> i think that's exactly right. it was going to be an enormous embarrassment if that had played and he was out. they are saying now they didn't want him to flee. the question remains if they had possession of this evidence well before then why didn't they get a warrant four episodes ago or before it even aired or anything else. i think almost anybody who has got a couple of neurons firing is going to say to themselves i don't think it's just a coincidence he's arrested in connection with the finale of the six episodes.

i just think life does not present itself that way. >> cnn legal analyst mark geragos, thanks for being here. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> a reminder here hbo and cnn both owned by the same company time-warner. up next the runaway hit of the tv season "empire," hailed as example of prime time diversity. is it hurting stereotypes? we'll take a closer look at that when we come back.

the television industry has never seen anything like "empire." i mean that literally. the musical drama on fox is best described as a prime time soap opera. it has an entirely black cast almost entirely black cast. that matters force reasons we're about to get into. every wednesday a new episode of "empire" aired leading up to the finale. every thursday executives at fox

rejoiced when those ratings went up. every week. the show was like a rocket rising every week which simply doesn't happen in this splintered tv world anymore. to celebrate fox bought the cast rolex watches. you know the online old line with great power comes great responsibility. here is a twist. with great ratings comes great responsibility. some people feel that "empire" failed. early in the season professor and cultural commentator watkins called it a ghettoified hood drama. this has become subject of a great debate. i want to you hear both sides. ucla expert darnell hunt joins me from los angeles. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> boys you used those phrases earlier in the season. coonery is another word you used to describe it. do you stand by that? >> i stand by it. sometimes the words may come off harsher than they are. it really depends on the lens

through which you're looking. i've been a black man for most of my life now. one of the things i know about being black male black men are the most incarcerated people on the entire planet. the reason we are so heavily incarcerated in many cases it's very easy to convince a jury say an all white jury the black man standing in front of them is a thug. it's interesting when you consider the fact all white jurors may not have black friends, you have to ask yourself why is it so easy to convince people this black male is a thug? why would they be so ready to accept that stereotype? they get it from media. we've been inundated with media in music and television that constantly perpetuates this myth as black men being criminal dangerous, violent. unfortunately it bothers me. it doesn't mean i can't enjoy the show it's not a good show we have to think about what we're watching. >> let me play an example from the show and have you react.

here is a clip from an earlier episode. >> you going down. i'm not going to let you take my company with you. seventeen years. get off of me. everybody is just waiting for you to die lucious. you go to die a lonely man, just like you deserve. you going to need cookie. >> i feel this this is my company. >> darnell, do you ever worry this role reinforces stereotypes the way the voice is describing. >> i believe with dr. watkins that we are very important in shaping the way we see others particularly when we don't have face-to-face experiences with those people. however, this show i believe, is a little bit more complex. stereotypes we have to remember are simplified representations of a group. they tend to be one-dimensional, flatten an individual how the

into one to two characteristics. most of the characters in this show are quite complex, humanity of a number of the characters is shown. we have themes we don't typically see in mellow drama like homophobia dealt with. >> shonda rhimes talked about normalizing, her phase for diversity on television. we've seen an increase in diversity on network television. do you think this is something could be improved on "empire" in season two, the issues you have, reason you described it the way you have. things do in season two to address them? >> i'm in the going to tell them how to run their show. i'm just going to say let's be thoughtful about what we're viewing and also what we're portraying. the thing that makes "empire" original and amazing is the

extraordinary cinematography. i watched a few shoes. i see why people feel like it's a good show. just because something is good to you doesn't mean it's good for you. my argument is while cinematography makes it amazing and original the story it cast and store it tells, nothing original about that. it's a scripted version of what we see on love and hip-hop, what we see on real housewives shows. i can see as a member of a community most affected by these stereotypes, i can't really sleep at night without at least saying maybe we can do better than this. maybe black actors don't have to be restricted to entertainment ghetto like this. >> darnell, do you disagree? >> i wouldn't call this the entertainment ghetto. we're talking about one of the top shows on television, it's broken ground. what's also unique about it what typically happens on tv you don't find people of color behind the camera. a number of episodes directed by

african-americans, written by african-americans, the show created by african-american. again, i think the characters are a lot more complex. after all we're talking about a genre, talking about prime time. soap opera is similar to a "dallas" a "dynasty" with a black cast with hip-hop flavor. it does cut across and appealing to generations win the african-american community. >> i appreciate the conversation. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> important stuff, "empire" is breaking ratings records. what it does show and doesn't show doesn't matter. brand-new developments i've picked up this morning about the investigation into rolling stone university of virginia story. all the details after this.

welcome back. we are about to learn a lot more about "rolling stone" magazine's disputed college rape article. it made news for all the wrong reasons back in december when the article titled "a rape on campus" began to fall apart. you may remember what happened. remember the article alleged a horrific gang rape by seven attackers at a university of

virginia frat party. the victim was a freshman named jackie. the writer of the article, sabrina early, interviewed jackie and some of her friends but jackie asked her not to interview the alleged attackers and early agreed. turned out it was just one of the many flaws in the article. news outlets like cnn and "the washington post" turned up various contradictions and discrepancies. the frat in question said there was no party on the weekend in question. then it look outside for help. they asked columbia university's graduate school of journalism to do an independent review of the magazine's editorial process. a columbia columnist told me he couldn't remember when a school got involved like this. tomorrow local police will hold a press conference to announce the results of their investigation into jackie's case. this morning i can report that columbia has almost finished

with the "rolling stone" investigation, too. a source says it will be published in early april and pub accomplished lish he says he has no comment on what he might do editorially because he hasn't read the report yet. one other unanswered question will we hear from the columnist? i think "rolling stone" should get some credit for doing this investigation, for having it done independently and for agreeing to publish the findings. there is another investigation of journalistic trouble ongoing, inside nbc, the internal fact checking of brian williams still under way according to my sources. nbc has made no such pledge to share it with the public. i'll be right back in a moment with more "reliable sources."

i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. denver international is one of the busiest airports in the country.

we operate just like a city and that takes a lot of energy. we use natural gas throughout the airport - for heating the entire terminal generating electricity on-site and fueling hundreds of vehicles. we're very focused on reducing our environmental impact. and natural gas is a big part of that commitment.

whether you need a warm up before the big race... or a healthy start before the big meeting there's a choice hotel that's waiting for you. this spring, choose choice twice, get a night at no price at 1,500 hotels. book now at choicehotels.com

♪ ♪ i'm almost done. [ male announcer ] now you can pay your bill... ♪ ♪ ...manage your appointments... [ dog barks ] ...and check your connection status... ♪ ♪ ...anytime, anywhere. ♪ ♪ [ dog growls ] ♪ ♪ oh. so you're protesting? ♪ ♪ okay. [ male announcer ] introducing xfinity my account. available on any device.

that's all for this televised edition of "reliable sources." but send me a tweet, let me know what you thought of today's show. stay tuned "state of the union" starts right now. uncharted territory. is there a break in the u.s./israeli bond. and is senator ted cruz about to relight a 2016 white house run? this is "state of the union." senator john mccain on escalating tensions between israel and the u.s. congressman steve israel on religion and politics. new fears about the reach and influence of isis. and ted cruz he's all in for 2016. good morning from washington.