listen, none of which makes any sense because you can't see the images. the correct answer to the gps challenge question was c. set to be speeds 200 times faster than the u.s. average. i will see you next week. stay tuned for "reliable sources." at first there seem to be a journalistic no fly zone when it came to questioning the bombing of libya. now news organizations have zoomed into action with important questions about what president obama is trying to accomplish. i have my own questions. are they giving a democratic president a pass? and the fox news charge that cnn's nic robertson became a human shield for gadhafi by inspecting bomb damage with escorts even though fox had some

facts wrong. the anchor who launched "night line" says the media have become too partisan and too superficial and too disengaged from the rest of the world. this is nostalgia for a by gone era. we take our cameras to advice the ted koppel. this is "reliable sources." >> as you can see we have a different look in the studio and new music and we hope it matches the fast changing media landscape we're trying to cover. the military intervention in libya sneaked up on the media, no oval office address and the white house won't call it a war, which it obviously is. apparent contradictions the president is staying that moammar gadhafi must go.

some liberal pundits chiding obama for not consulting congress but still backing the decision, kind of. >> what is the goal of the mission? the goal of the mission is to remove gadhafi. >> what is s real mission in libya, no the know fly zone? how do we end this thing. >>? civil war rages on the gound yet president obama hasn't answered the most basic question about military questions, what is our mission? >> you've got conflicting messages within the administration with hillary and the defense secretary. they can't define what the actual mission is. >> seems to be confusion on mission. jane hall, associate professor at school of communication and former fox news commentator. jennifer ruben. and bill press.

>> has the news agency been fair to president obama as he trieded to make a case about libya and this not really a war war. >> i think journalists tried to raise questions about the discrepancy or the seeming discrepancy. i think it is -- >> not for the first couple of days. i don't think they liked hanging out there by themselves before other politicians started to criticize. >> they were depending upon politicians. jane harman came on. the new york times on day after had a story questioning. within the stories i think journalists have to rely on officialdom too often. there weren't a lot of voices saying, should we be doing this? now that you have republicans criticizing and democrats, now you've got the media dealing with that. >> it took two or three days for it to kick into high gear. >> conservative commentators are generally supportive but nobody seems to like this approach.

>> there are a lot of qualms, rightfully so about the lack of leadership, that he hasn't explained what the aims are. >> a speech tomorrow night for the first time, nine days after the bomting began. >> that there was no preparation with congress. george bush got authorization from congress and of course, he had a very large coalition. >> but, of course, this was a ground invasion of iraq -- >> this is a major war. and i think the president generally because of political reasons not constitutional ones, find it advisable to get the country on board to explain what they are doing. this president hasn't. >> i want to quote from bill press. you want through some of the reservations and you have about this whole approach in libya then you wrote, what's a good liberal to do, hold your nose and support it at least for now? you're just being a partisan cheer leader, hold your nose and support it. >> wait, i think the idea of hold your nose is different from

the conservative people commentators we saw with the war in iraq what said ra ra ra, dick cheney, go go go. >> if it had been george bush still in office, sending bombers into libya, not calling in a war, you wouldn't be holding your nose, you would be thumbing your nose. >> i don't think so. that's a hypothetical. but look, there's a quality tative difference between the way george bush went into iraq and barack obama went into libya. the lack of clarity, i would say not leadership, has been pretty stunning and reporters have been really asking since he got back from south america, really tough questions that have to be answered, like what is the mission? what is our role? how long are we going to be there? >> jon stewart was early to say, aren't we in two wars already and how come we're not going into yemen?

the questions were not asked the day of. >> if this was a republican president, saying it's not a war while bombing the country, wouldn't they be going apock clip tick over at msnbc? >> i'm not sure. it is hard for the media, until people begin to expression opposition, to express opposition. >> i think that's not right. i think there was this suspension of disbelief in part and i give the media a little bit of a pass. because there's there was no run-up to the action, there was a lot of explaining to do. what are we doing? who's doing what? there's a predicate they have to set before they begin to comment. >> the new york times in the initialing story when the bombs starting dropping, raised questions. it is very hard for media to step outside official voices condemning this. it's very different. >> on your point, this is a war.

this is america's war. it's a third war we're involved? >> let's not play semantic game. >> speaking of semantics, let's look at newt ging rrich about wt he said a few weeks ago and what he says now. >> what would you do about libya? >> exercise a no-fly zone this evening. we don't need to have the united nations. all we have to say is that we think slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and we're intervening, this is a moment to get rid of him, do it. get it over with. >> i would not have intervened. >> that was on the "today" show this week. now, this has gotten traction on cable and on the web. here's a guy gearing up to run for president. why not more attention to what you would have to call a flip flop? >> i think there should be a lot of attention to this. it is maybe destroyed his chances of being taken seriously. >> destroyed his chances? >> yes. early on to make a mistake like this so publicly is a fatal flaw

and shows him as somebody who's for it if obama is against it and against it if obama is for it. >> this does revive the concerns that he's unpredictable and sort of in every pie on every side simultaneously. >> i like politicians who aren't political but i don't think they should be doing a 180 within two weeks. >> i will take exception to one thing jane said. i think it's their job and they do step outside of officialdom. you saw the different between new media and old media. >> i'm speaking mainstream. >> there's this blurring who is old and who is new. i think old media has to lay the factual predicate and explain what's going on. because the president did not briefing, they didn't have a lot of zplangs that preceded the iraq invasion, for example. the new media was able to offer analysis and criticism. >> it's an interesting

distinction. i want to get to an amazing piece of video that happened yesterday. you may have heard about this. it is when reporters were sitting in a hotel in tripoli where many are based and this libyan woman started to scream about how she had been gang raped by gadhafi's forces and had visible injuries and then the government escorts and minders who keep an eye on journalists started to drag her away. in the second part of the tape, you will see some the journalists getting roughed up or in a tousle with police security forces. cnn's camera was taken and smashed. let's look at this video. [ screaming

>> we're not seeing the part where the journalists are getting knocked to the ground in one case. what do you do in some situation? we saw gadhafi's government in action on the other hand. >> it's a shocking video. you have to jump in and try to protect her and then get -- >> is that the role of journalist? >> if someone's life is in danger, i think it is, particularly protect her against the government thugz. i wouldn't be able to stand aside and watch that. >> i think most journalists would take that stance and did take that stance. you don't know if she's telling the truth. but it points up, she said this is what happened and points up the inadequacies of journalists until she burst into the hotel room. >> and dra ma tiesed the way the gadhafi regime treats the press. it's hard to do your job with that kind of constant surveillan surveillance. >> this is the continuing story we now have in the 24/7 media

realm where we are investigating, when we're reporting on wars, military incurses, whatever you want to call them, that the media cannot separate itself. they are part of the story -- >> i've got to get a break. when we come back, talking about the fog of war, nic robertson angrily denying the fact he was used as a human shield. then a sitdown with ted koppel. 

it is a serious charge to hurl, nic robertson was among a group of journalists to inspect bomb damage in tripoli. i tracked down jennifer griffin to report that robertson's presence had foiled an alli attack on the gadhafi compound. >> fox news has learned from british sources that the coalition had to call off the mission to complete the strike when they noticed journalists broadcasting from the scene. about 15 journalists including cnn and reuteres were taken to the compound and found themselves serving as human shield. >> robt son responded with considerable anger in an interview with wolf blitzer. >> it is outrageous and absolutely hip critical. you expect lies and deceit from a dictatorship but don't expect

it from a journalist. they said it was a quote unquote propaganda trip. they sent a member of their team and the idea we were some kind of human shields is nuts. >> jennifer griffin later apologized for not knowing if a staffer was sent on the same trip and robertson chided harry began saying he seemed to spend most of his time at hotels. he said he was too busy doing live reports as fox's own correspondent in tripoli. nic robertson is dull, i can stand outside my balcony and report what i see and talk to people what i see. to someone to say i'm lazy, this guy has a screw loose. we didn't invite nic robertson and try to get someone from fox because we didn't want to

further the he said, he said. when -- are you aiding propaganda? >> you could be. i've traveled -- sometimes you have no choigs. i traveled in israel to get around with a guide and nicaragua and same thing in bosnia. you have to understand that your probably being used and do the best you can and keep your objectivity. i don't blame either one of these guys. i have to say as a talk show host i loved it because they took the gloves off. >> jennifer ruben, this came up in the iraq war, that the bush administration claim was being used for legal weapons. if you take into consideration it's a waste of time and don't go on the trips, you're passing up a chance to see for yourself what's going on in the war zone,

even though you fully aware and always share with viewers or raerds it's being stage managed. >> the key is to explain that you are brought there and they are making a reputation and raise exactly that issue with the audience that we don't know what this is. to try to counter pose that with facts that you do know, including the regime's ability to suppress and abuse journalists so there are not allowed to roem freely. we don't know whether the story is true or not. we don't have independent confirmation. >> robertson said they were there for a half of hour, how much of a human shield could they have been. robert gates saying on face the nation this morning that the gadhafi regime moving corpses to bomb sites to trump up the idea there are civilian casualties. you work at fox news, was this a half bake attempt to whack cnn or don't you know?

>> i don't really know. it looks like fox trashing cnn. if i were nic robertson and i would be pretty pitted. he said we went because we didn't want the government editing video. secretary gates says they are moving corpses. all you can do as generjennifer, show the context and say hamas has led us here or gadhafi has led us here. the subtext is fox trashing cnn. cnn is doing well with the story and i can't help there's a connection there. >> should robertson slammed harrigan. >> then it becomes personal and ugly. he can have his reporting to stand on its own. people can make that judgment, who's doing better reporting. >> my hat is off to these guys

in the field like richard engle and the detention that they are working under and to have -- i can understand nick having his credibility challenged by a representative of another network did pit him off. >> they used to criticize richard engle. go out there yourself. sit in the studio and say he's not doing enough. >> i don't thing nik helped his cause. >> he was angry. never seen him show so much anger. >> he clearly lost his temper and many of us don't like the stories that are journalists versus journalists that get off the point. understandably, he and others had this problem. how do they determine whether they are being ugsed or not or whether what they are seeing is accurate. that is a problem he shares and everyone involved there shares. >> in this war, so much more this operation whatever you want to call it, so much more so than egypt, reporters are like the

slaves of gadhafi's regime. every movement is controlled. they can't go out of the hotel unless they go on -- >> from what i've read. >> richard engle pointed out somebody was carrying a toy gun that he was with. >> i would be remiss not to mention, it was after our show aired that the four new york times journalists were released and they ran a har rowing front page account about how they had been beaten up and threatened with death. we're so glad they are home safely, it underscores difficulties that libya. in the second part of reliability sources, we'll take you to the home office of ted koppel for a wide ranging conversation on foreign news plays in the media and why he thinks cable news is heading downhill and how he responds to sharp criticism from keith olbermann.

network news was a different business years ago and owners willing to lose money on these operations. they were seen and sounds kinds of quaint to say so as a public service. these day they must compete with opinion ated cable channels and not surprising, some broadcast veterans believes that business is going to hell in a

handbasket. >> good evening. this is a new broadcast in the sense that it is permanent and will continue after the iran crisis is over. there will also be nights when iran is not the major story. >> i'm ted koppel. >> wilmington, delaware. >> moss cow. >> i saw down with ted koppel in his home office in a converted barn in the maryland suburbs. our conversation took place before the earthquake and military action in libya. >> ted koppel, welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you for having us to the barn. we're in a rear period where they are devoting stories to international stories, first egypt then libya. that refreshing or temporary? >> i think it's one of these regular occurrences that happens when there's an international crisis and it lasts for a couple of weeks and sometimes even a couple of months and i mean, is

there any doubt in your mind that we're not going to be hearing much out of egypt a month from now or -- >> very little doubt. where is there so little appetite on american television in particular, media in general, for covering the rest of world? there's a war in afghanistan going on ten years sean almost seems to be a forgotten war. >> you're absolutely right. there are two reasons, one it is incredibly expensive as you know to cover overseas news and particularly to cover war zones. >> it was expensive back in the day when you did a lot of globe trotting. >> it was. and back in those days, back in the 1960s and '70, they were making money on the comedy shows and very possibly losing money, although there's some argument about that on their news divisions.

and they were prepared to do that because among other things the fcc in those days had some clout. and among other things, the fcc in those days actually had the ability and an apparent willingness to take the licenses away from radio stations and television stations and although it never happened, even hypothetically a television network. >> and now news is expected to be profitability? >> that's correct. >> therefore you think -- i also wonder whether it's not just the expense that's clearly a major factor, isn't there a sense that there's been a great appetite among the public for -- >> it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. if you tell people long enough you don't have an appetite for foreign news and convince yourself the american public doesn't have an appetite for foreign news. after a while you say, they don't have an appetite and we don't have the budget, perfect.

i would argue it's our responsibility to develop an appetite. most people don't start life enjoying a good steak. they only learn to do that. >> an acquired taste. >> let me ask you about "washington post" opinion piece you wrote a while back. you said you were saddened by the partisanship in prime time on fox news and msnbc. why saddened. . people know the headlines and red the newspaper and like opinion. >> if we're only talking about it through the pris many of entertainment, i take the point. but if the purpose is to provide some journalism, then i think the journalism requires -- and our times require a little more serious objectivity. i think there has to be a willingness on the part of the public to accept that journalism is trying to do an honest job of

giving them an objective accounting of what's going on in the world and an objective appraisal of what's really important in the world. in the face of what fox is doing and the face of what msnbc is doing, there's no reason for the public to assume anything other than what we're doing is putting forth our own opinions. >> you particularly went after keith olbermann said he was unabashedly partisan. >> i went after mr. olbermann at that time because he was very much in the news. at that point he had been suspended -- >> for contributing money to three democratic candidates and the fallout from the episode led pretly directly to his leaving msnbc. >> i could just have easily have picked on someone over at fox or other people at msnbc. >> he came back at you pretty hard. >> he did.

>> and said on air among other things that you were worshipping the false god of utter objectivity and then he brought up the run-up to the iraq war. >> the stories mr. koppel's career will emphasize the light he shown on the iran hostages, those stories that will probably not em pa size in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005. mr. koppel did not shine that same light on the decreasingly coherent excuses presented by the government of this nation for the war in iraq. >> i'm sure you would like a chance to respond. >> well, i'm not sure i feel i need a chance to respond. he clearly didn't see all of the night lines that we did and most particularly he cannot have seen a 90 minute or two-hour town meeting that we did, the title of which was self-explanatory, why now? and we did that in early march of 2003.

literally a couple of weeks just before the war began. and the whole point of the program was, why is it so important that we go in and that we invade iraq? so i don't expect mr. olbermann to have seen all of the programs but before he makes a wide ranging charge like that, i do expect that he have someone else do the research. >> but, you know, he got good ratings at msnbc and glenn beck with good ratings at fox. cnn has struggled a bit with an approach closer to the news -- there are exceptions eliot spitzer. >> if they were not getting good news doing wildly opinionated material, they wouldn't be doing that. >> why is it a problem if people like to watch it? >> because we're not talking about entertainment. we're talking about news. and news is important in a democracy because the idea that a voting public actually have

access to objective information and that the focus of the journalism be on issues that are of genuine importance, not just of wide-ranging interest, i realize that mr. two and a half men -- >> charlie sheen. >> charlie sheen clearly is entertaining an awful lot of people in his real life world. but is that really important? >> your former network gave charlie sheen an hour on prime time and other networks gave him a platform. a highly paid television star who got a public divorce from cbs over popular show. is that not news in some fashion? >> sure it is. is it worth a prime time documentary, i don't think so. and i don't think so in particular in a world in which however many people it is now and the numbers vary 15 to 20

million people unemployed in this country, 6,000 americans who have died over the course of the last eight or nine years in iraq and afghanistan, the whole mediterranean north africa, persian gulf up in flames and danger of going up in flames. i think there are things we need to know about as an informed -- >> you see the media as kind of chasing the shiny, superficial, sensational? >> i see the media as chasing the -- what are we going to call it? the popcorn rather than the broccoli and even the steak and the baked potato. i think the media these days with notable exceptions, i think the media is so dispar at to try

to turn a buck at a time when the competition has become much fiercer than it's ever been in years past, that the inclination to do hard news over the kind of fluffy news that draws a big audience is ir resistible. more of my conversation with the long-time abc anchor in a moment. including his thoughts on the undercover sting against npr and whether the taxpayers should keep subsidizing the embattled network. ♪

[ male announcer ] you can tell a lot about a man by looking at his keys. ♪ these here? they belong to men who got a silverado during chevy truck month. with a powertrain backed for 100,000 miles -- that's 40,000 more than f-150. qualified buyers get 0% apr financing for 72 months on all 2011 silverado half-ton models during chevy truck month. get your keys today.

more now of my conversation in his home office with ted koppel. >> from this very office you do commentaries for national public radio and npr suffered a big embarrassment with the top executive making disparaging remarks about the tea party. which shepd fuel debate that was already on the way. why should at a time of huge budget deficits an organization like npr get taxpayer dollars? >> i must confess, i'm not the best person to tell you about the financial breakdown but my understanding of it is. >> 10 to 15% of budget. >> most of the stations that will be hardest hit are by

definition as i understand it, the smallest stations in the smallest communities. and that those stations tend to get as much as 50% of their annual budget from that congressional funding whereas npr itself gets a relatively minor amount. it's not npr per se that is going to be most damaged by this. it's going to be the smallest stations in the communities that have the fewest options anywhere that probably don't have a local newspaper. that may not have a radio or a television station with a news department. it depends almost exclusively on npr. for any sort of insight into what is happening both in the country and in the world outside. they are the ones that are going to be the hardest hit. >> that debate will not go away. let me come back to your "washington post" piece. you wrote broadcast news has been outflanged and will be taken over by scores of other

media options. how did they lose this war? >> the same way that radio initially lost the war to television. same way that newspapers lost the war to television news. >> technology? >> technology. technology always has to be addressed but you know, when one technology i mean there's no question in my mind that the television did a lesser job of covering the news than newspapers did in their hayday. but the technology was so attractive that people just were flooded over to television by the tens of millions. and newspapers had to accommodate to it. so too i think network conversation has had to accommodate already to cable television is going to have to accommodate to the blog sites and the internet and eventually even to facebook and twitter,

but there's a danger there. >> a lot of people people are on facebook and twitter. what are we in danger of losing as we migrate to sites we like and opinions we like or agree with? >> in and of itself when you frame it as narrowly as that, the danger is not that great. when we find a large segment of the information consuming public, consuming information that is limited to 140 characters, consuming information that by virtue of facebook, for example, tends to deal with some of the more frivolous parts of our lives. that's attention then that is not being given to some of the issues out there that are of much greater importance.

there is a need -- you know, there's no way of saying this without sounding a little bit like an old man who is losing touch -- >> go ahead. >> -- with new technology. but the fact of the matter is, in a democracy, an uninformed electorate is the greatest danger that there is. if our -- if we confuse just the rapid fire exchange of small more sells of information on trivial subjects with real information, then i think we knock the props out from under a really functioning democracy. and there's a certain irony in the fact that at precisely the time when we are celebrating what we perceive to be the rise of democracy encouraged by twitter and by facebook, in places like tunisia and libya

and egypt, that we fail to see that that is just the first step in the process. and already in egypt we're beginning to see that what we thought was the revolution was just the overthrow of a tyrant. the process will take a long time. >> before we go, you have a very nice life, you do the commentary for bbc as well. after so many years at "night line" do you wish the adrenalin? >> oh, sure, i don't think anyone who has loved this business the way i love it can honestly say that when stuff starts happening in benghazi and tripoli and cairo -- >> you want to get on a plane. >> in my mind's eye packing a back pack and trying to get on the first jet. >> ted koppel. thanks for letting us visit you

at your office. >> after that conversation he showed us around the converted barn. i saw the cartoons he was in and newspaper headlines particularly around the time when abc trieded to replace night line with david letterman and photos of him with famous people. one that caught my eye was henry kissinger. here's what he had to say. >> when you get to know some of these years, kissinger, for example, do they become friends and not just interview subjects? >> henry kissinger has become a friend over the years. and that happened before i came to the conclusion that being friends with people who were still policy makers was not a good idea. we became friends and are friends and will remain friends. i never will allow that to happen again. >> you took a lesson not to get too close? >> exactly. >> after the break, our panel

returns and we'll ask, is michelle bachmann serious about becoming president or is it about journalists rooting for her to take the plunge.

according to an unnamed source, michelle bachmann will

form a exploratory committee in june. jonathan carl asks the minnesota congresswoman. >> i'm in for 2012 in that i want to be a part of the conversation of making sure that president obama only serves one term, not two. i want to make sure we get someone who is going to be making theagain. that's what i'm in, for work. what i -- i haven't made a decision yet to announce if i'm a candidate or not. >> why does michele bachmann get 50 times as much coverage saying she may run three months ago more than tim pawlenty? >> the media. the media wants her to become a candidate because it is a laughingstock. we are in a perpetual campaign mode and have been talking 2012 since 2008. you know who drives it? we do. we want to talk about campaign, campaign, campaigns. let me turn to jennifer.

you called her a laughingstock. here is her picture on the front of the "new york times" and this morning she -- you know, blew the rumor away and one of the cattle call events in iowa and got a great reception. i wonder if the liberal media is too quick to dismiss her. >> i think we do. she is a lawyer, multiterm congresswoman. she can be very effective in the debates. if she decides to run she will make trouble for a lot of the other candidates and will serve up, i'm sure red meat to mitt romney about his health care plan. she going to question newt gingrich about his flip-flops and could be a very potent force in the race. and i think there is a bit of sexism and bit of dismissiveness from a lot of the liberal media that she's completely out of her league. >> i think she is a twofer. she makes mistakes like sarah palin. she is an attractive woman and she may get some votes. she may be this year's ross perot. >> i don't think it is sexism

saying -- >> reverse sexism. >> the first debate to be scheduled in simi valley, so if she isn't coming until june she won't be on the stage for first debate. at this point there is not one announced candidate. not one. >> i don't know if it is sexism or not but i know the media love michele bachmann and in love with criticizing her especially she makes a gaffe. i want to talk about a story i report order katie couric almost certain to leave the cbs anchor chair when her contract expires in june. cbs looking for candidates both inside and outside the network. jane hall if that comes to pass, it is not definite, but it is likely, what will be the five-year legacy of katie couric? >> i think she did a very good job and i think that -- first woman to be solo anchor. i think diane sawyer benefited that katie couric took a lot of

shots. i think she did a very good, very straightforward newscast. >> too many people in our business called her a failure because the rateings were -- she was in third place. >> cbs set her up for that. les moonves said she would revolutionize the news. that's not her fault it didn't. >> thanks for coming by this morning. still to come, detroit auto columnist quits when his own newspaper hits the brakes on his review. the huffington post alliance with conservative andrew turns ugly.

homeowners -- rates have been going up, but you can still refinance to a fixed rate as low as 4.75% at lendingtree.com. plus, get the best deal or we'll pay you $1,000. call lending tree at... today.

time now for our mete weekly look at the hits and errors. the detroit news went into a tailspin by toning down a review of a redesigned chrysler car after an advertiser complained. the chrysler 200 is still a dog. if this car came in tortoise shell it would be on the endangered sedan list to keep enthusiasts from rightfully shooting it into extinction. vastly improvement only because it was so horrendous before. the publisher apologized this week while writing it was aour tint to improve the piece by making these passages less grating, our decision to make

these changes after fielding an advertiser's complaint was humbling mistake. scott burgess who had the integrity to quit has agreed to come back. the huffington post started putting andrew breitbart on the front page i thought that now arianna has taken her operation to aol she will start featuring a few conservatives. still her old acquaintance breitbart was responsible for the shirley sherrod video and giving a platform to james o'keefe and undercover a.c.o.r.n. videos in which he played a pimp. they bounced breitbart off the front page. breitbart didn't turn the other cheek and told the conservative daily website that a founder of change, former obama aide, a cop killer supporting racist and demagoguic freak. and a commie and eco-fraudster. huffington post said he violated

discourse. i'm all for speaking your mind but if you want to hang around nicer neighborhoods you can't quite as loud. tech crunch which sold itself to aol interviewed jake gyllenhaal. the writer assent out an e-mail from the other part called movie phone. seems the filmmaker felt it was a little snashrky. the folks at moviefone wanted to smooth things over. the editor saidpassing on a complaint. the issue is simply someone thinks they can pressurize through aol sister site into making a balanced report more glowing. what is surprising and sad is that moveryfone aol tried to come power line with a request and asked us to change our post. it is not just sad, it's wrong. four stars. good for tech cruh