kuwait, lebanon, saudi arabia, oman. i will see you next week, stay tuned for "reliable sources." i just got off the phone with jonathan karl who for the first time is expressing regret for his reporting on the administration benghazi talking points. we'll bring you that. part of his story was based on inaccurate summary of e-mails that made things look worse for the white house and that has sparked all kinds of questions. >> abc has not obtained e-mails. they bizarrely decided to update their story. >> should abc now retract its error in the talking points story? it was almost like a declaration of war against the media. the justice department secretly seizing two months of phone records involving associated press reporters and editors without so much as a subpoena to the wire service. president spokesman insisting

that his boss really does care about freedom of the press. >> the president is a strong defender of the first amendment. and a firm believer in the need for the press to be unfedered in investigative journalism. purdue investigative journalism and be unfedered in that pursuit. >> unfedered, got that. can a leak investigation justify and as scandal coverage, is the press turning on the president? plus, angelina jolie reveals she underwent a double mastectomy. we'll talk to a journalist who just had that story and why she decided to share the details with the world. i'm howard kurtz and this is "reliable sources."

this administration is hardly the first to go after reporters sources, although the obama justice department has been particularly aggressive about it. but the way in which federal prosecutors secretly went after the ap obtaining phone records policiy involving more than 100 journalists is sweeping, almost stunning in its scope. eric holder saying he recused himself of the case, but it infuriated the media establishment. >> totally inexcusable. the object of it is to intimidate people who talk to reporters. >> the administration is not violating the first amendment, but they are certainly doing more than has ever been done before in pursuing the private information of journalists. >> i mean, they really don't like to be accused of stomping all over the first amendment, but exactly what they're doing. >> we get to our media analyst in just a moment. but, first, i spoke earlier with ap jennifer loven who covered

the white house under president obama and president bush. when you found out about it, what was your gut reaction? >> i'm a former ap reporter. my gut reaction was to be pretty concerned, pretty appalled. >> were you angry? >> of course i was angry. >> are your former colleagues angry? >> of course they're angry. >> a sense of being violated by the government? >> i think that's an important question but to me the broader question is the question of access. right? it's not about the ap. it's not about what happened to the a a p. it's about the issue of access in general and the obama administration definition of classified information. their definition of unfedered which is a word we're hearing a lot. >> justice department says this was necessary in the course of investigating national security leaks and president obama said the other day, no apologies for what was done to the ap. >> look, i think, again, he doesn't owe an apology to the ap, necessarily, but i think the ap what it stands for is this

administration's aggressive prosecution of leaks. more, i mean, it's a statistic we have heard a lot lately, which is that his administration is prosecuting leak investigations at the rate double all of his predecessors combined. it bears repeating because it is an amazing statistic that that is the stance that president obama would take. >> journalists trying to do their jobs. is there to use the cliche, a chilling effect? >> i think there probably is. what i would say, i think you know this as well as i do, that reporters aren't easily chilled. >> but sources can be chilled. >> sources can be chilled. >> somebody might find out who they were talking to on the phone at the associated press or any other news organization. >> i think a reporter knows their phone is tapped they're like okay, fine, my phone is tapped. i'll keep taking calls and making calls but your point is exactly right. how many people will return those calls and reach out to them to give them inform agz

th to get out to the public. what is in the interest of national security to keep private. but, the classifications, the classified material, it goes really, really far. >> talk about the culture of the ap, which, of course, serves all news organizations. you think the news organization is comfortable being in the news and being part of the story? >> the ap is the objective arbiter of the news and events around the world every single day and that's what ap journalists strive to do. to be the behind the camera and behind the story and not to be the story. so, i'm sure it feels like an uncomfortable position to be in. >> but in this case, important to speak out. >> absolutely. >> because? >> i think they're speaking out and fighting aggressively against this effort by the administration, as they should. >> jennifer loven, thanks very much for talking with us. >> glad to be here. she says the ap is speaking out, but the organization declined our request to have somebody appear on this program.

now, joining us to examine the clash between the force of state and the government desire to track down leakers here in washington joe concha and jane hall, associate professor at the american university school of communications. jane, with dozens of ap reporters in three different offices, potentially affected by the seizure of these phone records, the cliche is it has a chilling effect. i would say seems almost subzero. >> well, you know, i think it is. the problem is that it's not really about the journalists, it's about the role of the media in the democracy. and journalists need to be better to explain that it is important. it is true that the obama administration has gone after more leakers than all of the other administrations in the last few years combined and they say they're for whistle blowers, but they are now secretly going after phone records. they don't even need to both to subpoena the reporter and get the reporter to talk any more. >> in that kind of environment why would any source worried

about his or her job or his or her security talk to a reporter and worry about their exposure. >> reporters need to do their job without big brother watching over them. sources need to be able to tell a story or go behind the scenes or whistleblow without being exposed. in boston there is a race to be first and then there are mistakes made and the race to be accurate. the reporters that won the day were the ones most accurate because they have the most, pun intended, reliable sources around. so, you know, this isn't just one or two reporters, howie, they're going after. after 100 reporters in two months. that's a wide dragnet. >> it is. let's look at both sides of this. doesn't the government have a legitimate right to protect national security secrets. some people are calling this a scandal. what is the justice department did was legal. going after these phone records or other private information of journalists is supposed to be a narrowly drawn operation and news organizations are supposed to be notified so they can

object but there is an exception in the rule which justice invoked in the case, if there is a substantial threat to the investigation. so, address, please, the question of whether or not the justice department also has a responsibility to protect classified information. >> they do have a responsibility to protect classified information, but a lot of facts that are very murky about this and they have had a policy with which the ap cooperated. the ap held the story for several days because they said there was a real security risk. they've had a policy of notifying and this is supposed to be a court of last resort. >> that's a really important point. what is at issue here, we believe, is a story in which the ap found out about a terror plot that was being hatched in yemen and in which someone was going to try to smuggle a bomb on to an airline. so, at the request of the administration, the ap did hold that story and was asked to hold the story one more day and refused because in that one more day, the administration was going to have a press conference and reveal the fact that the plot had been foiled. so, i'm not clear, it's not

clear to me that the ap was in any way revealing or planning to reveal any national security secrets, although, obviously, sources and methods can be compromised in this kind of case. >> okay, guys, you're fine to run the story. the white house gets involved and it becomes political. they want to be there to take credit for it before the story gets out. the problem is, when you talk about 100 reporters in over two months, that wide spot i was talking about, you know what it tells me, they have no idea what they're looking for. go down to a couple reporters and two months means, let's see. don't mess with us because we're going to mess with you. >> of course, that dragnet brings in other reporters who are working on other stories that they don't want compromised. i don't know, there is a cnn poll showing that a majority of people consider this a serious issue. but is there any possibility here that the press is exaggerating the importance of this disagreement between one

news organization and the department of justice because our own special interests are threatened and there is a knee jerk reaction. hey, they shouldn't do that to reporters? >> well, there may be a knee jerk reaction. i think we need to do pr for the first amendment. the first amendment is for the democracy. it's a constitutionally protected profession journalism. >> that suggests the government was trying to stop publication. >> that suggested the government is going on a fishing expedition to stop leaks and to intrude on the news gathering process of a lot of reporters who weren't even on this story. >> to play devil's advocate, while it is illegal and half dozen people have been prosecuted for leaking classified information, it is not illegal for journalists to receive it. maybe a fine distinction. so, the government prosecutors say, look, the only way we can find out who did it, is by looking at the journalists. >> part of the problem is after wikileaks and after 9/11, a lot of people, of course, feel the

government needs to protect us. i think we need to have a better explanation of how you balance the need for national security and need for newscast. >> president obama came out and said i want to talk about getting a journalist shield law in place, again. a bill out in 2009, it died on the floor. >> it died on the floor without any support from the administration. >> exactly. that's like going to the mob saying, hey, we're here to protect you. we pay you and who are you going it protect me from? from us. we're going to shield you from us by putting together this law. >> i'm not sure the administration would appreciate that analogy, but let me make clear this was not a new issue. news organizations and the bush administration during those years. president bush, vice president cheney. i shouldn't say constantly but periodically criticizing the press for publishing leaks. a clip for the president criticizing "new york times" for

publishing the details of the big, surveillance program that mounted. >> the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. we're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the united states of america. and for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the united states of america. >> and while president obama said he wants to balance the president's interest to be aggressive in its reporting and the government's interest in protecting secrets, he also said at the news conference, no apologies for what the department of justice has done. >> he did. he said no apologies and eric holder sort of seemed to not, you know, said he recused himself. didn't even say he signed off on it. wasn't even clear in the hearings about who had signed off on it. his deputy. they're not appaologizinapologi. a lot of people thought the obama administration was liberal. they have not been liberal, if you want to characterize it on that way. >> look at the drone program.

>> let's not get into that. but are journalists so personally offended by not just the sweeping nature of obtaining these phone records, but the fact that there was no notification to the ap, no chance to defend, no chance to argue that it influences the tone of the press coverage, not just on this issue, but on irs a and benghazi talking points. >> this affects reporters directly. >> but that sounds unfair. in other words, because my interests are now threatened, i'm a journalist, i don't like what you did to these other journalists, i'm going to be harder on you. that sounds like bias. >> it's completely selfish, but, let's face it, we're a selfish society. >> human nature cannot be divorce from questions of coverage. let me get a break. bloomberg news apologized for peeking at customer information. as part of a heart healthy diet. that's true.

...but you still have to go to the gym. ♪ the one and only, cheerios ♪ the one and only, cheerios i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. ♪

(train horn) vo: wherever our trains go, the economy comes to life. norfolk southern. one line, infinite possibilities. [ male announcer ] purpose elevates what we do. raises it to a more meaningful place. makes us live what we do, love what we do and fills our work with rewarding possibility. aarp connects you to a community of experienced workers and has tools to help you find what you're good at. an ally for real possibilities. aarp. go to aarp.org/possibilities.

none of us think bad things are gonna happen to us. i'm here at my house on thanksgiving day, and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. an artery in your heart, it's called the widow maker. and mine was 95% blocked. they took me to the hospital, and the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i'm a blue-collar worker. to me, bayer aspirin is another tool. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore. ♪ you're not indestructible anymore. there's a reason no one says "easy like monday morning." sundays are the warrior's day to unplug and recharge.

what if this feeling could last all week? with centurylink as your trusted partner, it can. our visionary cloud infrastructure and global broadband network free you to focus on what matters. with custom communications solutions and dedicated support, your business can shine all week long. bloomberg news apologized for long-standing practice that reporters could look through the company data terminals. matthew winkler reporting that they should not have access and the air aer is inexcusable. how serious is an issue is this? >> mike bloomberg is involved with this -- >> he's not involved with this. >> it's his company and his name is on it. he does bear some responsibility. >> he doesn't have anything to

do with running the company, how does he bear responsibility? >> this program began back in the '90 whz s when he was runni. it was just carried on. >> bloomberg has hired an outside expert and hired somebody to promote. the information you can look on as logon information and how serious a matter do you regard this as? >> i think it's pretty serious in the sense that we can't as media reporters say, the government shouldn't be spying on us and then be spying on clients. we had one of those cool terminals when i was at "l.a. times" i had no idea it could see the other direction. it is serious and it seems odd for them to have done it until it was exposed, which is also not such a great thing. >> kind of an echo going after the ap phone records and unauthorized snooping. >> it gives ammo to people who say, yeah, media do it, why can't the government? >> before we go. everything seems to be a scandal these days involving the obama

administration, so what happened when president obama held a news conference the other day outside the white house? it started to rain and i think we have a picture here and we have the footage and he calls in for them to there the umbrella and "new york post" called this a scandal. an interesting moment an odd moment. is it a scandal? a. >> absolutely not a scandal. it happens with tiger woods and golfers. when important people are not allowed to get wet. michael jackson had a guy he hired for 20 years -- >> some people like sarah palin said, well, most people hold their own umbrellas. >> it's a medfoafore. here he is rainy day. >> when it rains it pours. >> it's a metaphor for a lot of stories. >> i'm going to go out on a limb and say that story was all wet. >> couldn't resist. >> thanks for stopping by this

sunday morning. when we come back, we'll look at the benghazi talking points and make some news here and how that story was handled. even in stupid loud places. to prove it, we set up our call center right here... [ chirp ] all good? [ chirp ] getty up. seriously, this is really happening! [ cellphone rings ] hello? it's a giant helicopter ma'am. [ male announcer ] get it done [ chirp ] with the ultra-rugged kyocera torque, only from sprint direct connect. buy one get four free for your business.

only from sprint direct connect. i am an american i'm a teacher. i'm a firefighter. i'm a carpenter. i'm an accountant. a mechanical engineer. and i shop at walmart. truth is, over sixty percent of america shops at walmart every month. i find what i need, at a great price. and the money i save goes to important things. braces for my daughter. a little something for my son's college fund. when people look at me, i hope they see someone building a better life. vo: living better: that's the real walmart.

abc news has taken a significant stepinic knowledging it mishandle an a report on the benghazi talking points. after jonathan karl reported new details on how top officials repeatedly changed those talking points after the fatal attack. >> i have obtained 12 different versions of those talking points that shows that they were dramatically edited by the administration. take a look at two of them. on the left, a draft initially written by the cia. on the right, one that was used by the white house, the final version. what was taken out? all references to al qaeda. >> but as cnn jack tapper was the first to reporter, that story had a significant inaccuracy that did not match the e-mails involving those talking points. >> previous reports suggested that ben rhodes from the white house said in an a e-mail that he wanted to make sure the state

department concerns were reflected in the talking points. but we obtained an actual copy of ben rhodes e-mail and he doesn't mention the state department. >> i spoke earlier this morning with jon karl and abc chief white house correspondent and jon karl gave me the following statement "i regret the e-mail was quoted incorrectly and regret it has become a distraction from the story. i should have been clearer about the at tribution." joining us here in washington jennifer rubin and contributor to cnbc kudlow report and jane hall. obtained those e-mails. what he got was a summary that was inaccurate in part from a congressional source, presumably a republican. should abc retract that part of the story? >> i think he has apologized for that report, but shouldn't retract the story in total. it was an important piece of

reporting that was in front of the story. i think what he did was exactly right. if you have made one mistake within the context of good reporti reporting, you apologize for that. abc was not the only one that made this air aer, "weekly standard" and i'm not aware they apologized in any shape or form. the bias, people might be asking about this, what difference does it make? >> david shuster, jon karl is a terrific reporter who has a long record of solid journalism but was not accurate when it came to ben rhodes. it is, it appears, he was misled by his source. >> i don't know how you can stand by a story if it is wrong. first, yes, he was wrong, he could have put this e-mail out and said, i have been debriefed on the e-mail from a republican congressional source and here's what they tell me. instead, abc news said they

obtained e-mailed. the story was wrong, the at tribution was wrong and still not characterizing the source as a republican source, even though other news organizations are already doing that. i think the problems continue for abc news in all of this. >> now, i should point out that this part involving ben rhodes white house official and not to get too down in the weeds here, but has to do with whether or not he said the state department's interests needed to be protected as they hashed out what they were going to say about the fatal attack in libya and he used the word equities. but that was not on the air on abc news, in the 16th paragraph of an online story. those defending abc are saying, yes, he made a minor error and, yet, he's being trashed in part for political asons as if the whole story was wrong. so, my question to you is, the viewer that abc seems to be, well, we updated the story and that was the correction, but didn't have the word correction

or retraction or apologize, is that good enough? >> i don't think it's quite good enough because that error. he put in direct quotes. they put in direct quotes the way it looked, it looked like it was direct quotes. they said they obtained and diane sawyer hyped the story, we obtained this exclusive and led to a whole other wave of other stories about the talking points. people are running with this and saying, they manipulated it. if it's not true, i think they need to do more than say part of it is not true. >> part of it isn't true and part of it is true. the difference that this makes is that it made it seem that the state department was the prime mover in these edits, which is not the case. but the sequence of events, the number of edits and the changes that were made were all accurate. and no one else in the main stream media were reporting it. >> when other peeping, including myself have made mistakes, you know, you have to kind of take, 95% corrected and the fact is wrong and you just updating and

don't say it is wrong. if abc had put this out earlier and i'm glad that jon karl says he regrets the e-mail was quoted inaccurately and it was not true, but abc had done that three days ago, i don't think it would have mushroomed to this extent. >> the story was not wrong. the attribution of the story -- >> excuse me. >> the administration was trying to prec the state department. the obama administration trying to protect the state department and the white house was somehow trying to characterize the talking points or change the talking points in order to minimize political damage. that republican, that republican idea is just flat out wrong. this turns out to be a boring set of e-mails where cia and state department officials are -- >> all right, you had your speech. very nice to have the media matters talking points recited -- >> what are you talking? what are you talking about, jane? >> howard. if you want to hear me, fine.

>> let's assume that everybody is giving their own views and you may disagree with them. these exact comments are coming out of media matters. absolutely. >> i don't talk to media matters. that's an unfair accusation for you to make. the argument in this is flat out wrong -- >> one person. okay, one person at a time. on the one hand, david, you have said these are boring e-mails and not significant and you said earlier and a point of consensus here, it is that this was a mistake that should have been owned up to and your point is, jennifer rubin. >> exactly. he did what was correct. i don't think making the story about jonathan karl is really the point here. there's a major story that the main stream media did not. his essential point that these talking points went through major revisions to remove information so as not to present -- i don't have a problem with him apologizing now or a few days ago. but the central point should not be lost that there are

definitely people who are spinning for the media who are trying to discredit the entire report and that's just not accurate. >> one of these e-mails. the whole point of the e-mails was that the white house simply didn't want congress to get -- >> you made that point. i want to move on. jane, i have a journalism question for you. if a confidential source that shares with you and this was a congressional source sharing with you written summaries and hand-written summaries of confidential e-mails. whi if that person lies, is your confidentiality agreement and do you have responsibility to come forth and i say, i was mislead and here is who did it. >> i think you have responsibility and i would say, i agree with rachel on this. if a source burns you, you need to come forward. you are not under obligation to protect the source who clearly leaked something for a political reason. >> wait a second.

that's not how any journalist in this town works. we get burned a lot. sometimes intensional and sometimes not intentional. >> political summary that you can say -- >> if you have given confidentiality to a source, that person has misled you some in respect. i do not. >> there have been times when journalists have said, look, i was lied to and now -- because there is a whole question. remember, white house spokesman jay carney has accused republicans of fabricating that ben rhodes e-mail. i'll give you the last word, david shuster. >> they ask still charactcan st this. abc has an opportunity and a possibili responsibility to say, look, we gault this from republicans on capitol hill you can make your own judgment on what they were trying to do. to hold that back, does abc no honor in any of this. up next, the press pounces on that irs scandal.

are journalists getting more aggressive with this white house and will it last? do you know yo. blood type? a or b positive?? have you eaten today? i had some lebanese food for lunch. i love the lebanese. i... i'm not sure. enough of the formalities... lets get started shall we? jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dracula volunteering at a blood drive. we have cookies... get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. we've been bringing people fotogether.5 years today we'd like people to come together on something that concerns all of us...obesity. and as the nations leading beverage company we can play an important role. that includes continually providing more options. giving people easy ways to help make informed choices. and offering portion controlled versions of our most popular drinks.

it also means working with our industry to voluntarily change whats offered in schools. but beating obesity will take continued action by all of us. based on one simple common sense fact, all calories count. and if you eat and drink more calories then you burn off you'll gain weight. that goes for coca cola and everything else with calories. finding a solution will take all of us. but at coca cola we know when people come together good things happen to learn more visit coke.com/comingtogether

ó?

the irs scandal drawing a surge in white house attention. jay carney has been getting hammered by the press corps. >> being compared to president nixon. how is that? how does he feel about that? >> benghazi, irs, if you read some of the articles on this, it almost sounds like there is a siege going on. is there a siege mentality back there in the west wing right now? >> at any time during this administration, do you have any knowledge of any wire taps or any tapping of work space to report? this is a serious question. >> no. and, again, this is, i don't. >> jennifer rubin, the irs scandal. the targeting of mostly conservative groups really seems to have galvanized the press. . >> like all the scandals, the conservative media leads and the main stream media, which in any

other administration is out in front, gets with the story a little bit later. they are too scandalous with the irs one is these groups and the other is individual donors who, themselves have been audited and that has been carried by the -- it's a bonified story the media likes it because it is a real scandal. secondly, it's easy. you didn't have to be following from the beginning, as you did on benghazi. third of all, it does highlight this famed cluelessness that the white house has. he just learned about it on friday. >> but, david shuster, it does seem many liberal commentators denounced the irs scandal itself and the administration handling of it and top officials knew about this or certain clues about this and did not inform congress. >> the problem is that the irs should have come clean. they should have said honestly to congress a year ago, here's what we're doing. they were justified in the original actions because these organizations, they have to claim to promote the social

welfare when in reality most of them are just pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign process to pollute it. i don't think most americans think that karl rove or the brothers should deserve the tax exempt status -- >> but, david, that's not just a conservative issue. what do you think of jennifer rubin's point that the conservative media, which some say see everything that obama does as a scandal was on to this sort of thing early and complaining about tea party a groups getting extra scrutiny and the media slow to catch up on this one? >> everythingen with en wivery. i want to correct one point. >> i don't think he answered the question. >> 85% of these organizations that apply for the tax exempt status they were conservative organizations. so, all of us believe that everybody across the board should be audited if they want to claim tax exempt status. if by nature 85% of them would be conservatives. >> he's ignoring the fact,

howard. infa the fact is that these groups are specifically targeted and they had conservative buzz words in them and didn't use progressive as a screening device and they didn't use other environmental phrases. this was a set of words that were screened to specifically get a conservative groups. no one other than david is disputing that. >> let me go back to david. you did slide around my question. everyone is reporting it now. was there a tendency by some in the so-called liberal media to downplay some of these conservati conservatives, as we look back and say the media did not, was not aggressive enough on the is story. >> the media should have been more aggressive when the irs was denying this a year ago. instead of taking the irs' word for it. let's do our own digging. people reporting this out a year ago. let's not lose fact that the irs was essentially doing its job. the irs has to enforce the law

and determine whether or not organizations deserve to be tax exempt. now, jennifer may not like that karl rove and the -- >> i don't want to talk about karl rove, i want to talk about the media. let me ask you -- >> they're not doing their job, david. because their job does entail giving treatment to americans. >> your guys are debating the irs and politics of it. my question for you now, david shuster. the trifecta of scandals. ap, benghazi talking points and irs. kicking into high gear, is everything for the next six months going to be media coverage and perhaps overcoverage of the obama administration on these questions? >> the way these scand ldz tend to work, if there is an ongoing criminal investigation, it goes to the fbi. the fbi tends to operate in secret or a special counsel and the best you can get is who is going to a grand jury. i think this disappears into 30

days. >> you have hearings by congress on a number of these topics. one of the things that broke these open were congressional hearings and that is not going to be disswayed by any irs investigation -- >> i'm giving jennifer the last word. i'm giving jennifer the last word. david. >> those of us who have a point to make often do get interrupted. the ap story, the benghazi story, the irs story. these are not only scandals, but they are substantive news stories. to use the word scandal, i think, is misleading. these are important issues about whether the administration is, in fact, following the law. whether they're treating americans properly. >> jennifer rubin, david shuster, thanks very much. we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] the only patch for the treatment

of mild to moderate alzheimer's disease is exelon patch. now with more treatment options, exelon patch may improve overall function and cognition. your loved one can get a free 30-day trial. and you can have access to nurses.

it does not change how the disease progresses. hospitalization, and rarely death, have been reported from wearing more than one patch at a time. the most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fall, loss of appetite or weight, application site redness, and urinary tract infection. the likelihood and severity of these side effects may increase as the dose increases or if patients weigh less than 110 pounds. people at risk for stomach ulcers who take certain other medicines should talk to their doctor as serious stomach problems such as bleeding may worsen. patients may experience slow heart rate. free trial offer for them. nurses to talk to for you. visit exelonpatchoffer.com. ♪

...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. angelina jolie used a "new york times" op-ed to she has a very high likelihood of developing breast cancer. zoraida sambolin to share her own news with the viewers. >> i thank angelina jolie for making it easier. i was trying to figure out how to tell the viewers i'll be gone for a while. how do i tell them about my

breast cancer and talk about a double mastectomy? >> correspondent for "news week" and "daily beast" who recently wrote about her own battle with breast cancer. michelle cottle, welcome. >> thanks. >> people are saying it was brave of her being international celebrity, movie star to come forward in this fashion. do you agree? >> i actually do agree. on some level people always say that. they're being nice. oh, it's so brave of you. so impressed. but with a woman like angelina jolie, she's not a regular movie star. she's a movie star whose appeal has stemmed in large part that she's ever man's fantasy. it's a kind of sensual beauty if you kind of mess with that fantasy, you never know how people are going to react. so, while, you know, practically speaking, there shouldn't be any difference on the announcement but it was a huge deal for her

to go public with something that she just didn't really have to. >> you recently underwent this surgery and as you write, you were surprised to find yourself on the opaerating table. why? >> well, you know, i had structural issues and family history issues for years. and, so, when i found out that i had a bad biopsy back a few months ago, the diagnosis i had was usually treated with kind of, they have breast conserving lumpectomies and radiation and for me it was a no brainer. i had trouble and i knew if i went the half measure i was going to have trouble, aga agai. one strike and you're out policy. >> you wanted to put this behind you. >> exactly. >> but the whole thing and the decision making process and the surgery, it feels very private. why did you decide to sit down and write about it in such detail? >> for one thing, when you tell people what you're doing, a lot of people just respond with gasps or they seem very upset or

they seem very sad for you. and, for me, this was not something to be really upset about. obviously, the initial diagnosis was, but as far as my decision to go with a bilateral mastectomy, i had no problem with it. by writing about it, you control the narrative. you don't need to be that upset about this. for me, it wasn't a difficult decision at all. i am hoping that other women look at these choices and don't necessarily kind of fear this sort of thing. >> was it hard to write? >> it actually wasn't all that hard to write. when you had the health problems for years and years you sat down and you thought these through. i actually a couple years ago thought about going the route that angelina jolie did and doing prophylactic. >> doing the surgery. >> doctors don't like to do that unless you have the genes and i had tested negative for that. so, i kind of wound up waiting one step later than i should have. but, still, it was a no brainer.

>> but, >> it was important to you that people not feel sorry for you. you were very comfortable with the decision. as you write because of your family history and the nature of your breasts, you were almost expecting this for years. something that was hanging over your head. >> women tend -- not all women and i think younger women less so these days tend to get very touchy about their breasts. they worry about body image and i had doctors and friends and relatives are you concerned about body image issues? absolutely not. we have talking about a fundamental health issue and i have a great reconstructive surgeon and it is not as big of a deal as it used to be. younger women in particular don't want to waste a lot of time going through the stages. >> are you writing for people who know you or as an example to help educate women who you will never mete meet about

confronting one way of dealing with breast cancer or in angelina jolie's case the threat of breast cancer. >> anything that takes women from being self conscious about this -- i think people need to talk about it. certainly i wrote about it but it has no comparison to what happens when angelina jolie, the sexiest woman in the world, stands up and said i did this and it is a choice that i needed to do for my family and i'm good wit. it is a mistake people often make. >> the question of body age which is a sensitive one in a society where women tend to be judged by their looks. people who appear in the movie industry or on camera and you wrote everybody loves boobs but no matter how fetching mine looked i could never shake the sense they were plotting against me. i cleaned that up.

>> kind of you. >> it's true. people get wrapped up in body image and, you know, if you go to a plastic surgeon's office the vast majority of women going through there are getting regular old boob jobs. they want them to look bigger like in the movies or whatever. but then you have to make this decision about, you know what is it worth? i think when they confront these medical realities, they have to make these kinds of decision and it shouldn't be that hard for them. >> in the end, medical reyalialty, health, future, worrying for being there for your kids. >> it matters less for me because that's not what i do for my job but it does for angelina jolie and she said it too, i did it for my kids, i want to be there for them. that trumps almost everything else. >> thank you. a lot of people will look at this at a different way. thank you for sitting down with us.

we planned that segment before theening a le before the angelina jolie's announcement. and we will look at barbara walter walte walters legacy in the media monitor. i'm tony siragusa and i've been around the toughest guys in football. and now i'm training guys who leak a little to guard their manhood. with man style protection... whoa... of new depend shields and guards. who are you? this is my house. perfect. come with me. built you a little man space under here. how 'bout that. sweet. see depend shields and guards are made to fit guys. that's awesome.

i trained that guy now it's your turn. go online for my tips to help guard your manhood. with new depend, shields and guards. [ chainsaw buzzing ] humans. sometimes, life trips us up. sometimes, we trip ourselves up. and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at... to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call...

and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

time now for "the media monitor" our look at hits and errors this the business. the last time prince harry made news is for con vorting in las vegas. look at the good press he's gotten from the latest american foray. he was mobbed in the capital an had tea with michelle obama. >> they are wild about harry. who isn't? britain's prince makes a royal splash in our nation's capital. >> prince harry has a packed schedule today as day two of his u.s. tour after he wowed people on the capitol. we have a report on prince harry's visit to the jersey shore. >> everyone gets together and things were like -- >> the prince watched wounded warriors compete in colorado and played polo in front of a v.i.p. crowd in greenwich, connecticut.

a highly successful bit of imagery rehab for prince harry and a reminder that the american media are still capable of swooning over royalty. we talked about barbara walters when word leaked she was planning to retire but it didn't pack the punch of hearing it from barbara herself. >> in the summer of 2014, a year from now, i plan to retire from appearing on television at all. it has been an absolutely joyful, rewarding, challenging, fascinating an occasionally bumpy ride and i wouldn't change a thing. >> for half a century, walters has been such a trail blazer you run out of time trying to mention it on. she went from a today girl, to abc in the evening. >> i was the first female coanchor of a network news show. i was a flop. everybody said -- oh, i was. >> what was floppy about you?

>> well it was a flop -- harry and i did it today and he didn't want a partner, b, he didn't want a woman. >> for all the specials an interviews with news makers and celebrities from fidel castro to monica lewinsky, perhaps her most lasting accomplishment is what she did in her '60s creating a talk show that is call women. the view is a cultural force of favorable forum even for presidents. she says she will continue as coexecutive producer in the summer of 2014. she says she is done in front of the cameras but i'm not sure. the om is only 83. can barbara walters really stay away? that's it for this edition. if you missed our program, check us out on ie tuns and get our podcast by searching for reliable sources on the itunes store. we are back next week for another look at the media. "state