finally, the height no-show rate for immigrant families told to report back to immigration officials after crossing into the u.s. illegally has led to a new experiment to try to. keep track of their whereaboutsgps-enabled ankle bracelets. the homeland security department has told immigrant advocates that about 70% of immigrants traveling as families failed to report back after being detained and then released. those are some of the latest headlines from c-span radio. sunday, glenn kessler on the pinocchio awards. democrats tend to get more upset at them. i think they have bought into the myth of the liberal media and they think the media's on their side. believe in firmly the myth of the liberal media so that they will not

be fair. i kind of hoped that over the last four years, i have done enough back and forth and treated both parties with equal fervor, that people have now come to grudgingly say, ok, you are someone we can do business with. which ise majority pac affiliated with harry reid, they stopped answering my questions midway through the campaign season because they felt they were not getting a fair shake from me. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q and a." "washington journal" continues -- host: we will wrap up today show

with your thoughts on sony's decision to now release "the interview." the headline from local the washington post" -- the phone lines are on your screen. orl us if you plan to see it do not plan to see it as well as if you're not sure. we want to get your thoughts on that this morning. this is from "the washington post" - the studio did not say how many theaters will be part of the release. release this on dvd as well. let's go to don in south carolina, you plan to see it?

caller: yes, i think it should be shown twice a day of possible on regular tv. host: why? that,: because if we do anytime we have someone acting like this, the government should justin and -- they should just show it. host: you think the government should pay sony for it? caller: sure. host: emmanuel in california, you don't want to see it? caller: hello, no, i do not plan to see it. embarrassing as the leader of his country to have a video made. i know it's a comedy and they went too far bringing up 9/11 and everything. moviebelieve it we made a

about their leader and they made a movie about our leader being assassinated, we would be upset about that as they are. believe all the hacks they due are probably something to race relations in america. host: you think that was behind the decision for sony to not release the movie is because of the e-mails that north korea or whoever did this supposedly had? caller: yes, i believe that information is very harmful. they were speaking bad about obama and stuff like that. it's not right but i believe summit should be held accountable for the things they have that north korea brought out. i don't the get is right what they did. i do believe that there are some

things they have that are probably harmful to sony and they don't want them to get out. problemsace relations as it is and everyone knows this. host: in "the wall street journal" --

alan in brooklyn, why don't you plan to see it? caller: i'm remembering a supreme court decision two decades ago on the subject of obscenity one of the justices described protected and unprotected speech by saying is this the sort of speech for which we send our soldiers off to fight and die in other countries? if it is the kind of speech that ofso obscene and avoid redeeming value that you would not send a soldier abroad to

die, and that is a measure of something you might not protect in the first place. this is not obscene in the traditional sense but you could ask the same question -- is this right to mock a living leader of a another country in a way that is foreseeably inspiring outraged by that country? weather is justified or not, it's foreseeable. is that this for a speech we want to centric to fight and die for or to endanger the lives of people in theaters? i gather from most of the media that this is something that is not happened before. we have not had live, living leaders made the subject of this kind of satire during their lifetimes. it is foreseeable it would cause a reaction and we should not be doing things that force us to risk theatergoers were soldiers to defend things that cause that foreseeable kind of risk. host: this is "the washington times" -

stephen fort lauderdale, florida, you plan to see it, why? caller: yes, i plan to see a to

stand up for the fact that no foreign dictatorship can influence censorship in our country. i'm going to see it in fort lauderdale. the owner of that establishment stands up for freedom in america and the right to see whatever you want as our first amendment dictates. arbor,ll right, ann michigan, you plan to see it? caller: caller: yes, i plan on seeing the movie. going to be intimidated by these foreigners in our country. they can't sit down and decide what we watch in our country and then we would not have the freedom of choice. we need to protect our constitutional right for freedom of the press. we're going to the state here in ann arbor, michigan. host: fred, you're not sure? caller: i sought the interview with the ceo of sony corporation. living in colorado, i can understand his reluctance to put

it out right away. e had a movie theater shooting in colorado and a still has not come to trial and there is an attempted lawsuit against the theater. i can understand there has been a threat and that sony corporation does not respond in an appropriate way, they could also be held liable and undergo a lawsuit. i can understand why sonny has taken their position. the reason i am not so sure to see the movie is because i want to see the movie. host: this is from "the washington post" -

by the way, the president applauded sony's decision to authorize the screenings of the film. bill,go to william in and pennsylvania, you're not sure? yes, i probably won't go to see it in the theater but more than likely i will watch it if it comes on cable. i don't know if i am being cynical but it seems to me that this is generated an awful lot of free publicity for their movie. host: yes. caller: that's my take on it. host: does that make you not want to see it? caller: not really but it did

not help. everyone hyped to their movie for them. host: l pennsylvania,ee, you are not sure? i have no problem with the freedom of speech, that is fine and well, but the only thing as far as the decision to make such a movie, the only reason i say that is because all of the who blog going on with benghazi in the movie came out and the blame is put on the terrorists for the attack and then to make a movie about another dictatorship highly volatile and against us, i don't know how wise it was to make this movie. as far as going to see it, i would not pay the theater ticket for it. if i can rent it, maybe i will but i don't have that much interest. i'm for freedom of speech but i just question the wisdom. host: charles in rutland,

vermont, you are planning to see it? caller: yes, i am. i don't let my government tell me what i cannot cannot do. why should i let a punk government tommy what i can i can i do? host: mike in gaithersburg, maryland, you don't plan to see it? caller: good morning, i just love the irony of these progressives calling and complaining about it when i did not hear that reaction when they made a movie about killing george bush or killing tony blair. host: ok. tom, not sure? caller: you got me? maybe i will watch it on paper view or home box office but this is just a movie. said, welast caller

make a lot of movies making fun of her own president. i don't know what the big deal is and i would not put it past sony that this whole thing is a publicity stunt. host: ok, this is from "the washington times" -- hyattsville, maryland, charles, you plan to see it? caller: hello, greta.

how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: merry christmas to you and yours and everyone at c-span. you do great work. the reason i want to go see it besides james franco and seth rogen being hilarious is because i honestly think this is maybeing that shows that this was a publicity stunt. i think it got way out of control. i will see the movie but i would not be surprised if i see more of this happening in the future. i don't think it was north korea -- there was some hacking that happened. iybe i am a littlenuts but think it was a little publicity stunt to get this thing more money. movie, theyth rogen always bring in bank so i don't know what the whole deal is.

host: the front page of "the new york times" -- chris in wesley heights, massachusetts, you're not going to see the movie? caller: good morning. i think this was the greatest publicity hoax ever. created the gop hackers. i think we will wind up seeing lee "the interview" on crack which is earned ditch -- which is owned by sony and they will see much greater profit by getting people to go to their own virtual property than to go into theaters. host: you think they are coordinating this so that they can profit off of it and not the movie theaters question mark caller: i do, i think they will shift their viewership out of the theaters and online. i think there is too much money

they are giving up by dealing with theaters. jarrod in minnesota, go ahead. what do you think about this film? caller: hi, i have to agree with the last caller. i'm not really a fan of sets rub them. he is kind of a stoner comedian. i don't think it's fair that they go after the korean leader when we cannot go after people like the prophet mohammed. i don't see what stops in china or one of our allied nations making the same film about assassinating president obama. it's tit for tat. height - is a lot of hype. ok, nashville, you don't plan to see it? caller: i'm not going to see it

because i'm not into silly movies. it's a silly movie. i cannot leave the conspiracy theory. obamalad that president said he thinks people should see the movie because they have the right to see it. that thebelieve conspiracy theorists have come out on this thing. it's just a silly movie. host: ok, michael in huntsville, alabama, you will see it? caller: yes. in birmingham about an hour and a half away. i want to see it eventually. it's not playing in my city. it's the only place in alabama's being shown. sonyrd the interview with pictures on npr the other day. they asked a great question -- they said what do you think about the prospect of using an

assassination as the subject of a comedy? what was the editorial decision involved? of could tell the ceo kind cringed. hewas a great question and was a little bit sheepish when he answered the question. i think that's fine. i think it is in bad taste and i will see it eventually but what i hope happens in the movie is that instead of an assassination and putting a bullet through this guys head, they end up doing something funny like throwing him off a bridge or throwing him into the lake. i don't think a killing should be the topic of a comedy but i will see the movie. host: pete in new jersey, you are not sure? caller: i'm not sure.

host: why not? . there are are many different issues that go on with hollywood. provokingears, another country or another country's dictator, there have been dictators the united states of dealt with. everything is for money in hollywood. all the years we have been in this country, they have been promoting violence. it has an effect on our children and society. it, the think about story of assassinating another dictator when we tortured people, all those people need to be out of office. they are dealing with governments who allow these different ideas. they need to be moved just like the politicians. ofone above 60 that allows

this with politicians and different corporations making money, it's time for a change. older people in younger people are starting to rise. they talk about violence in the the killings of officers on television all the day. they want to blame one guy who is angry at the world. hollywood does not want to take responsibility for killing they show on television every day. wake up, america. host: from twitter -- from pennsylvania, you don't want to see it? why is that? commenti want to make a that one of your callers said there was a movie made -- there were many movies made about by thers in the past united states. i think charlie chaplin made a

movie called "the great dictator" which was a satire but based on slapstick and silly devices. i will not see this movie because i saw a trailer that was released. -- that came out before the big stir was created. wanting thekorea movie not to be shown. very -- well, i do not find it humorous. for that humorous. i thought i would pass it up because of that. kentucky, you will

see it on christmas day? caller: yes, i plan on seeing it. i just want to impose my opinion about it. that obama feels good about the free speech but i if he would change his mind on the guy who has the video on benghazi. that's just what it wanted to say. host: susan in fort myers, florida, you will not see it? no, i'm not. i'm really not interested in those type of movies. having said that, i am a skeptic. i believe in free speech. condone the dictatorship in north korea. however, i cannot wonder if someone is trying to stir the pot. not merkel of germany or netanyahu of israel?

is thethe money and what reason? is this a diversion for the general public? i'm not sure. host: wisconsin, you are not sure about seeing the movie? caller: no. this is just my point of view -- it seems to me that there is a benefit towards limiting's free speech every time a film is made which could easily be regarded as western propaganda. this does not imply that i am ignorant of propaganda. to think that america does not use propaganda also is completely ignorant. host: ottawa, illinois, craig, you are going to see it? caller: i want to see it because i enjoy seth rogen's adolescent humor very much.

i also think it is hypocritical. if north korea put out a film were trying to assassinate president obama, people would be hitting the ceiling's around here. i think it is really provocative for this movie to be made. in light of the tensions on the 38th parallel with nukes and the sinking of south korean coast guard ships and artillery duels with islands. i think it is highly irresponsible. i think sony should be condemned a movie thatut purports to make entertainment out of a assassinating a world leader. however abhorrent and evil he is. if somebody were to make a movie about assassinating obama or the leader of britain or france or russia or whatever, this would be a completely host: different discussion. thank you. philadelphia, john, you will not see it? ? caller: i'm not.

we have 38,000 probably green troops on the 38th parallel across the fifth largest standing army in the world. after dick cheney and that crowd, you probably have the craziest person, that dictator, ready to do something erratic. from thetching this cheap seats, how do you think the parents of these kids over there on that parallel feel? they will knock them out within hours and they know that. realize --e don't how would you like to have your children over there and they are children just like we got sent into iraq on false pretenses. this is bizarre and there are so host: -- and there are consequences. some have wondered if this is a publicity stunt by sony. on one website they raise that question. host:

sony is so advertising the movie with a christmas release date even putting new video to its youtube channel. you can read more about that on the website movie pilot.com. john in philadelphia, you're not going to see it? caller: no, i was just speaking to you. host: caller: we'll move on to kathy in ft. wayne, you don't plan to see it? no thank you. $80 million has been put into a relations andrm

whether president obama or another dictator or president, i do not feel it is safe. start tovie theaters get attacked or anything, what is sony going to do? we have had enough terrorism. we have had enough violence in our communities. to bring attention to some movie that was $80 million, i think they could have made something else with $80 million. now they are trying to find a way to go ahead and make their money back. you could not find any other way to make a good film during christmas time? other than to go ahead and do something that is promoting violence, more violence in our communities. i have no passion to go see this

movie at all. had athe forbes website piece about the cost to sony for not releasing the movie. this is when they said that last week and they wrote that -- that doesn't for our conversation today. thank you for watching and happy holidays to all of you. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time with more of your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets.

thank you for watching. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] eve in the nations capital. a live look at the u.s. capitol here, just up the street from the white house. president george h w bush was houston-area hospital for shortness of breath. a spokesperson for bush said he would be held for observation at the houston medical hot it'll for observation. he was discharged in january of last year after treatment for bronchitnd