important milestone in the integration of the economize economy into the global financial system. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week, and happy new year. this is cnn breaking news. >> good morning. happy new year. i'm brian stelter and it's time for "reliable sources" you're weekly look of the story behind the story. and we have a lot planned this hour but let's start with breaking news out of oregon where an armed group which some are calling a militia have taken over the headquarters of a national wildlife refuge in rural eastern oregon. this is federal property managed by the u.s. fish and wildlife service, so this has a potential to become a big very, very combustible story. on twitter it has been a top trending hash tag all night and all morning. the hash tag being utesed a oregon under attack with some people laubling these men extremists and even terrorists. but they say they're patriots

protesting government overreach. the occupation grew out of a rally earlier on saturday in the nearby small town of burns, oregon. it was a rally supporting two local ranchers, dwight and steven hammond, who have been convicted of arson on federal lands. they're expected to sush render tomorrow. now, second, during the takeover yesterday, no government employees were hurt. none were actually there at all because the refuge was closed for the holidays. and, third, one of the men leading this option is amon bundy, son of nevada rancher cliven bundy. he spoke to cnn's victor blackwell earlier this morning. >> we want the government to abide by the constitution, abide by the authorities in which the people have given it, and to play by the rules. we have no intention on using force or being aggressive or going on the offense, but just as all people have the right to

defend themselves, that's exactly what that means. >> there are big media questions here about the language we use to describe these men and about how they're getting their message out and, of course, about the difficulty of even getting to this story in the first place. one of the reasons why there hasn't been more immediate coverage of this news is because it is so remote. one reporter in oregon said to me overnight, this is a journalistic no man's land. we are standing by for a call from a reporter who is actually driving to the site from the oregonian newspaper. as soon as he's able to reach us, we'll beep him in but umpl he has weak cell service. let's bring in art brock rick, a former u.s. assistant director at the u.s. marshal's office. what was your first thought? >> over my career in the marshal service i probably have dealt with situations like that on at least three or four different occasions, specifically with these types of groups, and i know we're lumping them into calling them -- they're arguing whether we should call them a

militia or not, but mr. bundy has gone out and made a call for supporters to show up at the fish and wildlife refuge -- >> that's right. >> they've facilities for them to stay at. what's going to happen is what happened in all these other situations. you're going to have militia groups show up, you're going to have right wing white supremists show up and it could turn into a bad situation. hopefully the law enforcement side of the house will learn what the marshal service has learned since the early '80s, if we just wait these people out, we can go in very peacefully and take this property back. >> what do you think the conversations are right now within the federal government and within the local law enforcement about what to do next? we're looking at pictures from last night and from yesterday. we don't have anything new from there this morning. it's still early in the morning there, but we know there are at least a dozen, maybe more, people on this property presumably some law enforcement is either on the way or already there. >> yeah. i think what's going to happen, hopefully we won't do what had

happened at the bundy ranch last year sometime or a couple years ago is that we don't go out there with a large force because that's exactly what they're looking for. and, you know, we've got to negotiate this through and i think a key part is going to be tomorrow what happens at the federal courthouse. i know there was a quote that you guys had picked up from the u.s. attorney out there in oregon, and hopefully calmer heads will prevail here. the last thing we need is some type of large confrontation because that's when stuff goes bad. and i think in this particular instance, if we just wait them out, see what they've got to say, that eventually they're all going to go home. people are just starting to show up now, and this group could get fairly large with supporters as this news spreads out throughout the country and hopefully if we just sit back, wait them out, things will calm down and everybody will go home. >> you know what's going to happen next though. you know the presidential candidates will get asked about this, you know president obama is going to be asked about this.

you know it's going to politicized and we've already heard from activists online, many of them who say if these were black lives matter protesters or if these were peaceful muslim-americans, they'd be treated very differently by law enforcement. do you think that's truth to this argument? >> i think you mentioned it in the opening, this is a very rural area. it is out in the middle of nowhere. what are they actually doing? they're not destroying property. they're not -- >> no shots fired. >> exactly. i mean, you know, there's a whole separate situation going on as to exactly why they're there and that will be worked out through the legal process, but i think now they've taken over this location out at the fish and wildlife, this brings in the federal side, and i know the federal government has learned over the years how to deal with these types of incidences and hopefully fish and wildlife will call in their federal partners, which i know they will, and sit down and figure out how to resolve this as peacefully as possible. >> thank you so much for being

here this morning. >> thanks, brian. >> very much appreciate it. let's go to a media perspective. talking about the coverage of this story with dan abrams, former executive at msnbc, the founder of medite. you know in cases like this, as soon as there's a news alert, there are cries about why the press is not covering it enough. i understand why that happens often times, but at the same time it's hard to get resources out there, hard to get live trucks out there, hard to get ahold of the people who are occupying. tell at the what you think viewers and readers should know about the practical difficulties of covering a situation like this. >> well, look, there's no question there are practical difficulties but let me also take the flip side of that which is i hope the media doesn't give this too much coverage. what we don't want to do is to sort of agrahn dies these folks who are calling themselves militia members when really what they are is armed anti-government protesters. that's what they are. and the key is armed. that's what makes it different from a lot of the other

scenarios you were talking about. these people are armed there and talking about the fact that they are armed. they're not just happen to be having their arms with them. they are bringing them with them for a purpose to defend against possible federal action against a federal building. >> i'm just pulling up a picture i hope we can put on screen from a reporter who is there, one of the few reporters who is in the area, jason wilson. he posted a picture last night of a couple of the occupiers, of their vehicles, and he said he was encouraged, he was urged to leave by these men with weapons. he said he saw about a dozen people and he said he expects many more reporters to be arriving there today. but that's an important point. they are armed, not just with handguns, in some cases he says with automatic rifles. there's some heavy weaponry in this area. >> media is going to have a delicate balance here. as a practical matter, getting to an area like this is

difficult, but the media can overcome that marley theparticue days. it's become easier than it used to be. the more interesting and important question is how much coverage do we give it? and i think that depending on the amount of coverage is also potentially going to impact what both they do and the federal government does and so the media has a huge obligation here to think long and hard about how big a deal to make this and to focus on the sorts of questions you were asking, which is what do we call these people? how do we refer to them? and i think it's really important that we don't lionize these people who are taking owe every a federal building because they don't agree with a federal judge and they're armed. >> i think we remember how when cliven bundy was in the news he was treated sympathetically bike

news outlets like fox. i want to go to ian, a reporter for "the oregonian." he's on the phone with us now. give us a sense of how remote this occupied building is, ian. >> well, to give you an idea, brian, driving out here right now it was very hard to get cell phone service. that's about how remote. so remote one of my editors suggested we fly to boise, idaho, perhaps, and drive there because that would be faster. i think when most people think of oregon, they think of courtlandia, portland, urban living, mountains, streams. rural oregon is very, very different. this is branch country. this is high desert. these are people who have been hit very hard by the economic recession and the collapse of the timber industry, problems with the ranch industry, and it's a completely different world. >> let me ask you, you were able to reach two of the occupiers last night. you were able to speak with them. were they unwilling or were they wary of talking to you as a

member of the media? how are they getting their message out and what did they tell you? >> they were definitely a little wary of talking to me. you know, they're worried -- they ultimately stressed concern over talking to what they fear is the liberal media. they're really trying to get the message out by their own channels. >> facebook, videos. >> they've got bloggers. they've got people who are more, you know, sympathetic to their cause who they have been talking to who are echoing their message from inside there as well. >> and you were told by the occupiers last night, they are willing to stay there for years if need be and they are willing to use violence if they feel they are attacked first. am i getting that right? >> yes, yes, that's right, brian. they said they have enough supplies to stay there for years. they didn't really elaborate on what kind of supplies they have, if they have weapons. they said they're in a defensive

position and they don't really want to talk about that right now. you know, they did stress though they are not looking for violence. they say they are trying to, you know, get a movement going really and get more people to join them and occupy the spaces almost like they want to start the world version of occupy wall street or something like that. >> we're using the word occupy, that does come to mind, that movement many years ago. these are different kind of protesters. you have seen the hash tag oregon under attack. you have seen that trending for the last 12 hours. do you feel that's a rhetorical advice, under attack, because there hasn't been any violent action taken eastern them seizing this area with weapons. >> yes, that's true. >> and i think right then we're losing his cell reception as he drives out to remote oregon. i'll leave it there. ian, dan abram, art rodderick,

thank you for being here. a lot more to get to. al jazeera on the defensive. the dark side suggests a link between paiton manning and the use of human growth hormone. and steve jobs. do you think you know all there is to know about the founder of apple? a new documentary shows there's more to the man behind the machine. we'll share that and coming up next, the 2016 presidential campaign is on, it's official. it's 2016 now, so we'll talk about the man on top of the gop polls right after this. does your mouth often feel dry? multiple medications, a dry mouth can be a side effect of many medications. but it can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath. that's why there's biotene, available as an oral rinse, toothpaste, spray or gel. biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy too. remember, while your medication is doing you good, a dry mouth isn't.

biotene, for people who suffer from a dry mouth. polls right after this. y long... and sometimes, i just don't eat the way i should. so i drink boost® to get the nutrition that i'm missing. 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 great taste. i don't plan on slowing down any time soon. look for savings on boost® in your sunday paper. about the man on top of the gop i take prilosec otc each morning

for my frequent heartburn because you can't beat zero heartburn! ahhh the sweet taste of victory! prilosec otc. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. child: ♪ i want to eat, eat, eat apples and bananas ♪ ♪ i need to eat, eat, eat apples and bananas ♪ ♪ why can't i eat, eat, eat... ♪ scarlett johansson: one in 5 children struggles with hunger in america. support the feeding america nationwide network of food banks to help provide meals to those in need. join us at feedingamerica.org.

welcome back. as the ball dropped on 2015 it kicked off the 2016 presidential campaign triggering the countdown to the nation's first caucus, iowa, voers caucus in 29 days. the big question isn't who will win, it's whether donald trump will win. that's the tone of the media coverage. we all know, of course, the

press has had an intense love/hate relationship with trump but will that relationship end up souring the gop. jeb bush said something remarkable the other day. he said this to "the wall street journal" talking about the mode. >>'s focus on trump. he said the people following and covering the campaigns, they are obsessed with trump. he's pavlov and they're the dog basically. i've never seen anything quite like it. what i want to explore in the next few minutes, whether all this coverage could come back to hurt the gop ten months from now when it's time for a national election. let me show what you i mean. we remember donald trump's love/hate relationship with fox news in 2015, his public view of megyn kelly and a mbarrage of tweets aimed at the network. like this one. i am having a really hard time watching fox news. but it's a new year a new start, and fox embraced the entertainment value of trump by making him a star of the new year's eve show. take a look at this. >> everybody has been waiting for this big moment in america.

>> donald trump, the gop front-runner joining us. mr. trump -- >> with his beautiful family. melania looking so gorgeous. she would make an amazing first lady of america. >> you're leading in all the polls, national polls across the board. >> if we call you in 2017 to come ring in new year's, are we calling the white house and can we get the call through? what is your resolution for 2016? >> i'll tell you what, my resolution is to make america great again, and that's what we're going to do. >> good choice, good choice. >> it is great entertainment. never mind the fact if they call the white house on january 1st, 2017, president obama would still answer. there is a name for what we just saw. drofd prom a david frahm and others have called it the entertainment complex. >> let's talk with it with kay,

the author of "the wilderness" a and molly hemingway. thank you for being here. do you believe in the notion of the conservative entertainment complex? >> there is an issue with the more populist forms of conservative media helping donald trump, but i'm not entirely sure this fox news example is a great one. i think on new year's eve coverage, startsds are just lowered if not completely eye nile lated. at cnn you had kathy griffin begin her coverage by asking d anderson cooper about how far he'd gotten sexually with caitlyn jenner. the standards get lowered. fox news had more political coverage. they did have different political candidates on from carly fiorina to martin o'malley and a more newsy political version of entertaining coverage. >> it was like fox was having so

much fun with trump it almost missed the midnight countdown. i think we can speed up eight or nine minutes of tape and we'll show you what happened. it was kind of remarkable. you were shaking your head. do you think this is something that will haunt the gop ten months from now if you write another book about this election. >> i mean, i think there's no question. i think from the beginning there's been this idea in the media and in the republican party that you could just laugh donald trump off. if you laughed at him enough and kind of did enough segments on cable news, i have been one of these pundits where you kind of chuckle at the crazy things he says like he's a vaudeville act that eventually he would go away. that's proving to not only be untrue but to help trump. the more we do that, the more that we make trump the face of the republican party, which, you know, he is leading in the polls and has been for many months but the more he shows up on tv as the republican front-runner, the worse it is for the republican party because if he doesn't win the nomination, he will still be -- have spent half a year or

more as the main -- the most famous republican in america and voters are going to remember that come the general election. >> m.z., do you agree? >> i think there's a question -- you're kind of begging the question when you say it's going to hurt the republican party to have so much coverage of trump, but if we're saying that the conservative entertainment media types are hurting the republican party by covering trump so much, what does that say about the rest of the media? i mean, cnn has covered trump three times -- there was one survey that showed in the previous month cnn covered trump three times as much as all other candidates combined during a one-week period. another study showed that cnn and msnbc covered trump three times as much as fox news. so if fox news is hurting the republican party by covering trump, what is cnn doing? what is msnbc doing? to me it's more challenging when these ostensibly mainstream media outlets are giving so much coverage to a candidate not even leading in iowa.

>> and how much trump is covered and also democratic rivals. in the minute i have left, do you have a new year's resolution for the press with all of this in mind about the coverage we've seen thus far? >> i guess my new year's resolution for myself would be to take trump more seriously. that doesn't mean to treat -- to be more respectful of him but to treat him like a serious candidate and interrogate him like a serious candidate. i don't think we can laugh him off anymore. i went to a campaign rally of his in las vegas that became very ugly when black lives matter protesters kept interrupting and they were dragged out as people were shouting racial slurs at them. this was a moment where i realized this isn't really a game and it's not a performance anymore and i think reporters including myself need to stop treating it that way. >> molly, do you think my resolution should be no more predictions? no guessing about what's going to happen because it's been so unpredictable? >> in a way i do think that. the media has the same response to everything trump says and

it's clear he's figured out a good template to get media coverage. he says something outlandish, the media freaks out and he comes you will with something more outlandish to say. whether if people have understood populist resentment not just with trump but with bernie sanders who has the same am of support in his primary as donald trump has. i don't think we should mock it or treat it dismissively. i think we should try to understand it and do a better job of civilly litigating these conflicts. >> love that note there. molly, mckay, thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> coming up next here, al jazeera america coming under legal fire for naming peyton manning in a documentary about illegal doping in sports. when we come back, an exclusive intven with the reporter at the center of the controversy. she says she has new information about her story and will share it after the break. she says shen about her story and will share it after the break. you get used to sweaty odors in your car

you think it smells fine, but your passengers smell this... eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to for up to 30 days with the febreze car vent clip break out the febreze, and [inhale/exhale mnemonic] breathe happy.

in the minds of some media critics, it's been a tough week for fledgling cable news channels. there's al jazeera, this time last week it dell le advised dark side. they the network found itself needing to defend series because of suggestions that peyton manning, who by all estimation will be a future hall of famer

is potentially linked to hgh because of the repeated shismt of the drug to his wife. is this solid reporting or loose association a big black eye for al jazeera? i'm joined with debra davies who is a rorner of the documentary and i know you probably disagree with the suggestion it was a black eye. >> certainly do. >> tell me, first, what you actually did say in the documentary. >> okay. so we have a man called charlie sly who we interviewed for 27 hours under cover, not interviewed but filmed 27 hours of undercover. so what has happened in this modern prism of social media is that you put a program out which is one clear piece of programming. it goes through the prism of social media and it comes out as multicolored confusion. >> so you're saying you said "a" but some people say you said "b." what did you actually say? >> they say you say "b" -- actually we didn't say "b." now you're backtracking. >> that is what ari fleischer is

saying, that you all are backtracking from your story. >> it's what he's being paid to say. what we said in the program is very clear. charlie sly worked at the guyer institute. he was not some low-level student. he's a very, very knowledgeable, well-connected individual who knows about drugs, has links to sportsmen, has a link -- a family link to the guyer clinic and what he said was that when he worked there, shipments of hgh were being repeatedly sent to ashley manning. >> peyton manning's wife but he did backtrack from the claim. he said he did not pen what he said on the tapes. >> so 27 hours of undercover where he doesn't know he's being filmed, no reason to lie, versus a 54-second retraction. what he cannot retract is that we got charlie sly through people in vancouver who supplied us with drugs, who wanted to dope our undercover reporter up

for the olympics. >> but that's separate from peyton manning. >> they recommended charlie sly. they said we're good at doping but here is the mastermind. go to charlie sly. we went to charlie sly and he told us the people he works with, the drugs he supplied, and the fact that while he worked at the guyer, shipments of hgh were going out to ashley manning. now, on top of that, what you didn't know until now, is that we had a second source. absolutely impeccable lib play knowledgeable, and credible who confirmed exactly what charlie sly said. shipments of hgh were repeatedly, repeatedly sent to ashley manning in florida and other places in the u.s. >> so you're sharing that for the first time. why did you not include that in the film? >> because, as you know, there are different kinds of sources. there are some you can name, some you can't.

this is a source we cannot name. we could not name. the value of that source was to add to the level of confidence we already had in what charlie sly was saying. >> let me play what peyton manning said when this film aired last weekend. here is his comment. >> i'm not sure i understand how someone can make something up about somebody. admit he made it up, and yet it somehow gets published in a story. it's completely fabricated, complete trash, garbage. there's more adjectives i'd like to be able to use, but it really makes me sick. >> so what does he have wrong >> it's what he's not saying.e? he wasn't asked and has never answered the question, was hgh shipped repeatedly to your wife in florida and elsewhere? neither he nor his spokesman or anyone else has answered that

question. if that wasn't true, do you not think they would have straightaway come out and said this has never happened, no hgh has ever been shipped. they've never said that. >> on the "today" show a few days ago you said we haven't accused peyton manning of anything, only ashley manning of receiving these shipments. is that right? >> what i was responding to were all these implications, insinuations, added to the back end of the program. >> that's my concern because i want to play a portion of the beginning of the program. this is a clip from the very beginning of it. >> and extraordinary claims that raise questions whether an american sporting hero, peyton manning, is linked to performance enhancing drugs. >> to me that is a pretty clear insinuation. you're saying payteyton manning linked to the statements even though there's no proof. would we' >> we're saying we raised questions and the questions haven't been answered. if you look back at the scandals over hgh in particular the last

couple by genesis, hgh shipped to a dozen or more baseball players from an anti-aging clinic, we got charlie sly through another scandal, a man called galea in canada, injecting players with hgh. then we came across robertson. through robertson we came across sly. so when sly says an anti-aging clinic is shipping hgh to the wife of a player, that is part of a whole trail of evidence, and it does raise questions. >> are you trying to have it both ways though by saying you're not accusing him of anything but you are insinuating there's questions being raised. >> i'm not trying to have it both ways, i'm trying to put out the clear evidence we have got through a long, rigorous, journalistic process. >> what do people not understand aboutjournalistic process? you seem surprised by -- >> i'm not surprised. what surprised us is peyton manning is one small part of a

program. you call this a manning documentary. it's not a manning documentary. >> but you knew when you included these suggestions that this was going to be covered this way. you knew al jazeera would be tarred. we've seen criticism of al jazeera attacking the messenger you might say it is. >> of course. let's talk about that criticism. first of all, al jazeera is probably one of the only met yoosh network that is could have made this program because we're not beholding to the big sporting tharts because we don't show basketball or -- >> i respect that. when you have heard this called garbage -- >> i have seen it called poor journalism by people who have misreported what was in the program. we have an investigate guy tiff unit that bucks the trend of what's going on in the unit. where people are making fast turnaround, cheap current affairs and documentaries. we have an investigative unit that is part of the international al jazeera network. we're not part of al jazeera america. we feed america. we feed al jazeera arabic in

english and our unit is absolutely dedicated to these long running, in depth investigations. >> and you will be doing more on this topic i expect. >> for sure. >> thank you for being here this morning and sharing the story with us. appreciate it. and let's talk more about this with bob kravitz, a sports reporter for wthr in indianapolis. he's no stranger to peyton manning or controversial sports. also david from npr. you have seen accusations of poor journalism. what is your evaluation? >> well, i have seen the documentary as well. let's give debra davies a point. al jazeera is devoting time and effort, 27 hours of undercover tapes, trying to look at this issue. i think it's kind of an incremental documentary trying to present itself as something a little more of a hammer blow. i don't think this documentary would have the same resonance if peyton manning weren't part of it and it seems to me they got kind of halfway there. they seem to have with a person taped undercover shown that

somebody is credibly alleging that peyton manning's wife had been sent hgh, a banned substance. certainly not something that athletes are allowed to use and it's a highly controlled substance altogether and it was sent to their place. i think that does raise questions about peyton manning. it doesn't prove anything about his use of it, and i think, you know, she has to have expected a certain kind of pushback from a player so prominent with such a clean reputation at least in the public's eye. i think if it had been about a linebacker, a one or two-time pro bowler, i don't think it would have had anything like the same resonance. it seems to suggest credibly that the use of illegal or banned drugs by athletes is still very much going on despite the scandals of the late '90s and 2000s. >> bob, i see you shaking your head yes but shouldn't journalists be in the business of raising questions, showing their work, and trying to get to the bottom of it? >> actually i was shaking my

head at the cameraman not what he was saying so let's make that clear. yeah, no. look, i think it was a fair story as far as it went, but i agree with the previous gentleman that we're still trying to connect the dots, still trying to -- it's going to be very difficult to advance this story, to spin it forward, unless you find -- unless somebody illegally leaks the medical records in which case a journalist would have some great legal and ethical issues to work through before they released that. i think it's going to be very difficult to take that next step. i do think it raised some very legitimate questions. the only thing i can add to all of this is as somebody who did go to the guyer institute for a period of time, i do know that he does prescribe hgh when he feels that it's medically efficacious. so that's as much as i can add to it, but i do think it's going to be tough to make that next

step because, again, testing didn't start until 2014. >> and, brian, if i might add and build on something you just mentioned, the question of showing your homework along the way, we're now presented with the reassurance debra davies has a second source which she would not characterize other than being a source. i think that's something that should have been acknowledged in the documentary saying they had greater faith in this perhaps unwitting accusation made in these undercover tapes because they had a second source. i think they had an obligation to give us some characterization of the source. is there some way to convey some sense of authoritativeness to give us something more than a say-so. these are slippery characters even as i think that overall the documentary seems to substantiate the general thrust that they're still coursing through the vairns of professional and elite athletes these illegal and banned substances. >> i wasn't going to do this but since debra is still here and ask about the second source.

you were shaking your head about that question. why couldn't you characterize the source in any way? why didn't you include it in the documentary in the first place. >> all i can say is is there are sources and sources and there are some you can name and some you can't. >> why not say there was another source you couldn't name. >> i suppose because it wasn't have led to another set of fishing expedition sources. the second source is credible, well placed, knowledgeable, and cannot be named and that's all we can say for now. >> i appreciate you being here this morning. thank you for letting me bring you back for a moment to respond to that. bob, i know you have a game to get to. david, thank you for being here this morning as well. >> you bet. >> coming up here, my sitdown with media mogul barry diller, plus a look inside apple. steve jobs changed how we all interact with the media but how did he actually treat journalists. the director of a new film says not too well at all. ether, we rise above our differences. the right amount of garlic reigns supreme,

and what separates us is mostly whether we're chopping or frying. food is a language we all speak. when we cook together, we find harmony in the kitchen. we make more than a meal. enjoy fresh ingredients and healthy recipes, delivered to your door each week. subscribe today, at hellofresh.com plus a look inside apple. plus a look inside apple.

with media mogul barry diller,

with media mogul barry diller,

>> coming up here, my sitdown welcome back to reliable sources.

steve jobs. there was no one quite like him. love him or hate him, he was and still is the public face and driving force behind the stunning success of apple. so indelible was the mark he left on the new media landscape that people all over the world mourned his death in 2011. i'll never forget where i was when his death was announced, but who was jobs really? and what did he represent? that's what the new documentary "steve jobs: the man and the machine" tries to answer. it's airing tonight here on cnn, so i sat down with academy award winning filmmaker alex gibney and asked him what is it that we don't already know about steve jobs? >> what they don't know about steve jobs are the curious contradictions of his character and how those contradictions actually migrated to the machines that he promoted and made. >> give me an example of a contradiction. >> well, we've got apple products all around us, but particularly the iphone. on the one hand, it's an

extension of ourselves, it connects us, but it also in the worlds of shari turkel, makes us alone together. now our muscles in our next are changing because we're spending so much time looking down at these devices. >> is that true the muscles in our neck are changing? >> that's the way it does feel. >> it does feel like that. >> soon evolutionarily we may be like this in a few thousand years. so i think that that's the interesting contradiction is a sense of connection but with a guy who had difficulty with human connections, it's kind of baked into the machine in a funny way. >> you explore who the real steve jobs was. here is a clip from the documentary about that part. >> it's easy to make chaos, and if you're comfortable with it, you can use it as a tool, and he used a vast number of real irritating tools to get other people involved in his schemes. he's seducing you. he's vilifying you. and he's ignoring you. you're in one of those three

states. >> he sounds like a man who always believed the ends justified the means. >> i think that's fair to say. and a lot of people, including the man who we just saw on the screen, would say that steve jobs pushed them to do extraordinary work, which i think is true. but in so doing, there was a tremendous cost. >> what was the relationship like between journalists and apple when steve jobs was in charge? this is something you also explored in the film. >> relationship was terrible unless, of course, you wanted to be utterlied a latory and do a commercial about him which he would utterly control. otherwise contact was cut off completely. >> you have a comment from an editor about that in the documentary. . he here is what he said. >> this is how it's going to work. you want to do a story about us. you call us up, pose it, you know, we'll think about it, we'll basically come up with the ideas with you or come up with the ideas. we'll call you. we'll figure out who the writer is going to be on your staff to do the story, and i said, well,

you know, steve, that's not really how we do things and he goes that's how you do things with apple. so i said to myself, why don't we do a story about the stock options because no one has really figured it out. so i decided to put one of our top investigative reporters on the story, peter elkind. >> that's the former editor of "fortune" describing the stock option scandal that vereventual became a big story. >> it was a big story. >> in spite of apple's help. it was not an access story. >> definitely not. sometimes when you don't get access, that's when you get a tough investigative journalist like peter to find out the stuff that the fan boy journalists aren't getting. >> people will ask you if this is an anti-steve jobs documentary. >> it's not an anti-steve jobs documentary, it's kind of a meditation on jobs and what he means to us. there's a lot i think i find very important and valuable about steve jobs, but i think

there's a certain amount of course correcting we need to do because his values weren't the values of the plucky startup, the kind of counter cultural figure he liked to imagine himself as. he started out taking on the man. by the end he was the man. >> alex, thanks for being here. >> delighted. thanks. >> you can watch the documentary tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern time right here on cnn. coming up, we're debuting a new series, headliners, and there's a bold-faced name to begin with, media mogul barry diller. hear what he calls stupid right after this break.

[music] [splat] [evil laugh] [grunt] [page tearing] [grunt] [music]

that's why i switched from u-verse to xfinity. now i can download my dvr recordings and take them anywhere. ready or not, here i come!

(whispers) now hide-and-seek time can also be catch-up-on-my-shows time. here i come! can't find you anywhere! don't settle for u-verse. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv.

welcome back. barry diller co-founded the fox broadcast network. he ran paramount, launched conclusiqvc. today he says the language we use to talk about media is dated and we need to come up with new words, thanks to the radical transformation called the internet, with web services like tindr and vimeo. he still starts every day with a good old fashioned print newspaper. i visited the mogul at the start of a new series called "media movers and shakers." they are the headliners. "television" is also a stupid word, because we think

about television. obviously television was three channels. then it expanded by cable to hundreds of channels, then millions of chance by broadband. is television netflix? people don't really think it is. they're trying to make these distinctions. it's a video, you know? i mean, it's video. >> are you bearish on cable as a whole industry, meaning on the bundle? >> no, no. you have to separate. i actually think that cable, which is now no longer -- there's no longer -- these words don't make sense anymore. because it really isn't cable as we know it. you can't really call them cable companies i didn't mean. i don't even think i can call broadcast companies broadcast companies anymore, because their over-the-air signals are very little in use in terms of direct

reception. they're all being carried by data systems, which is a new word for cable. >> i love when you say these words don't make sense anymore. >> they really don't. because this transformation we're going through, the radicalism which is the internet, once it got the capacity to carry rich data, meaning moving pictures and movies, whatever you call it, rich data, once that happened, it was inevitable that it would bust things wide. the result of course is that you're seeing transformations in all these are businesses. >> what's the first thing you read every morning? >> print newspapers. >> good old fashioned print. >> absolutely. >> i'm surprised. >> i love it. >> why? >> it's like a lizard brain. i'm wired that way. i like the tactileness of the pages. i like -- my eyes are trained to

scan in that way. and it's more enjoyable to me. >> some things never change, even in this period of creative disruption, create destruction, some things never change, like print newspapers. >> they don't change. but of course the people who won't change get older and are replaced by people who never were there in the first place. >> we'll share more of our interview on cnnmoney.com/media. barry diller is not the only one who enjoys his print paper first thing in the morning. find out what the staff of the "boston globe" did, after the break. ok, we're here. here's dad. mom. the twins. aunt alice... you didn't tell me aunt alice was coming. of course.

don't forget grandpa. can the test drive be over now? maybe just head back to the dealership? don't you want to meet my family? yep, totally. it's practically yours, but we still need your signature. the volkswagen sign then drive event. zero due at signing, zero down, zero deposit, and zero first months payment on a new jetta and other select models. you get used to sweaty odors you think it smells fine, but your passengers smell this... eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to

for up to 30 days with the febreze car vent clip break out the febreze, and [inhale/exhale mnemonic] breathe happy.

it's gotten squarer. over the years. brighter. bigger. it's gotten thinner. even curvier. but what's next? for all binge watchers. movie geeks.

sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. . finally this morning, my favorite journalism tale of the weekend. it stars a reporter at the "boston globe." here he is getting ready to drop it off on people's doorsteps. dozens of reporters and editors showed up at the "globe"'s printing press at midnight, volunteering to deliver the paper in bean town. why? they're fed up with delivery problems. the "globe" hired a new delivery firm and it's been rough going so far. they all showed up and bagged the papers one by one, you can

see them there, then loaded the stacks into the backs of their cars and headed out on their assigned routes. readers were grateful. i've been hearing from them all morning. one family even put out this "thank you" sign right there on the front lawn. it's a really interesting story because it shows, like barry diller was saying, there's still an appetite for printed newspapers. second, if it's not reliable, people will get frustrated. the phone server at the "boston globe" crashed earlier this week from all the customer complaints. that's when reporters started to rise up and say to the ceo, we're willing to come in and help deliver the paper. this sometimes does happen in smaller markets, with community papers, sometimes weekly papers. my college paper, i used to deliver it to campus. but to see the staff of the "boston globe" come together to do this is remarkable. they're probably asleep right now. hopefully this delivery problem will work itself out very soon.

read more of my story about this on cnnmoney.com. we're out of time on tv but our media coverage keeps going all the time including through our newsletter. see you next week. "state of the union" starts right now. bill and hillary. will his past become her problem on the campaign trail? donald trump says, you bet. >> we're going to go right after the president, the ex-president. she's got a major problem. it happens to be right in her house. >> is a new round of attacks coming? >> of course bill clinton is fair game. he's a former president. >> carly fiorina will be here live. plus trump amps up in iowa, promising to blanket the airwaves in the final days before voting. >> i'll be spending a minimum of $2 million a week and