>> david: i'm david sirota in for michael shure. the media world is shifting in to the happens of a few bill air citizen kanes. what does that mean? we'll explore those issues. "the war room" starts right now. [♪ theme music ] ♪ >> rosebud. ♪ >> david: yesterday, jeff bezos

became the newest member of the billionaire newspaper owner's club when he scooped up the "washington post" for a cool quarter billion dollars. he joins a growing list which includes among others . . . and so who cares? newspapers are dying anyway, right? not so fast, a 2009 report showed that not only do 75% of adults still read newspapers, but local and online news overwhelmingly originates from traditional papers like the "washington post." so most americans newspaper still originates there. the idea that newspapers have been marginalized and replaced by the internet is a total fallacy. they have the kind of power that

charles foster cane dreamed of. >> people will think -- >> what i tell them to think. >> david: and alex wrote today . . . jeff bezos is a man who can afford that kind of influence. the purchase price of a quarter billion dollars is less than 1% of his $28 billion net worth. so is he just bored, a rich guy buying a new toy? his company is definitely politically engaged. under his leadership, amazon has vigorously opposed anti-just legislation. they have also lobbies for lower taxes and the company was until

2012 a member of alec, the conservative policy group. bezos himself has directly contributed to politicians from both parties, and been a major supporter of gay marriage. this is the guy who pulled the plug on wiki links, blocking access to the site. all of this is to say we may not know his exact politics, but jeff bezos has a political agenda. he has an ideology that makes the platform of a major newspaper quite appealing. joining us from new york is david cay johnston, author of "the fine print: how big companies use plain english to rob you blind." david, welcome back into "the war room." >> well, thank you for having me david. let's start with what you think

about this in general. did they buy the post for political influence? i have heard there has been speculation that this is a great move for lobbying on behalf of amazon. you have an instrument to exploit amazon.com's personal agenda. >> while we don't know a lot about how bezos will approach this, we do know a couple of things about him. he is not part of the legacy newspaper business that is tied to the notion of printing presses and dependence on classified advertising, which has been going away rapidly. we also know that he is very focused on the long term. amazon didn't make a pinny for seven years, it made raiser thin profit margins last year, but the equity shareholders have in amazon has been exploding.

it went up 55% from 2009 to 2012. that's just three years. so i suspect he sees an opportunity to make some money to show that he can change yet another area of commerce because no one has had a bigger influence on changing commerce than jeff bezos. and i expect we'll find over time, he will in fact use his editorial page to further his use, which i suspect won't be that much different than those under the current head of the company, donald graham who spent eight years as a uniformed police officer in washington, d.c., and who it's editorial page is almost all white, almost all male, warmongering, and opposed to unofficial leaks, of course the "washington post" is famous for official leaks. . >> let's talk about ownership

and how ownership affects reporters in the news room. the post has published 52 separate articles on jeff bezos. it's a reminder of the broadcast news coast, let's never forget we're the real story, not them. and most of the commentary from the post have been on mystic ariel cast about their new boss. but could there be a chilling effect where reporters change their coverage to appease his political agenda? how does it work in the news room? >> yeah, except for fox news which is anomaly is not as most people imagine. at the "new york times" the publisher often attended the news meeting where the editors pitch the stories they would like to get on page one. but when that part of the meeting end, and the editors leave the room, so does the

publisher. so he has an ideas on what is going on in the newspaper, but he doesn't know about each section. a news room is full of a bunch of highly neurotic and very competitive -- at least historically people who you are not going to be able to tell them what to do. and that's what makes fox such an oddity, they hand out directives as to what they want them to do. the way the publisher wants them to do is he picks the top editor, so if that is someone like bill thomas who ran the l.a. times, who liked nice soft features, you get a paper that

is a little spongier. >> david: so then the follow-up question to that is what does all of this mean in general. if we have more and more of these figures buying up newspapers, what does this mean for the average american reader? what does it mean for american democracy. this is a shift, what do you think it actually means in terms of real world impact? >> i think if it leads to competition. if what happens is the koch brothers buy the l.a. times, mayor bloomberg buys the "new york times," because the su sulsberger have run through their money. and this leads to competition, and gets away from the --

>> david: is it competition when you have cities where most cities are not two newspaper towns or three newspaper towns like they used to be. most cities they are consolidated. it's a monopoly situation. >> that's what went wrong with monopolies. we used to have a saying if it didn't appear in the l.a. times it didn't happen regarding news in southern california. but these guys have different interests. major bloomberg does not have the same world new as the koch brothers. and they are going to appoint editors who have different points of view. that's the hope. what can go wrong is we end up with newspapers that have libertarian editors at the top, who hate government, who believe the worst possible thing is tax, and we end up then without the tools we need to monitor -- i'm sorry monitor politics and

government and other big institutions in a way that holds them to account. what we have right now is newspapers that are way too lap dog. we have to turn to the guardian to learn about our government lying to us is a screaming indictment to our newspapers. >> >> david: you have written a lot about taxes. if you were a reporter at the "washington post," and you were on the tax beat, and you know that amazon.com has fought a lot of tax fights in a scorched earth kind of way, would it go through your mind as a reporter, that hey, maybe i don't want to write an adversarial piece about the unfairness of amazon not having to pay internet sales taxes? would that kind of thinking be in your mind? >> no, but it would probably be in the thinking of the senior editors. the very senior editors are

going to know about it, and tread a little gingerly because they have to have respect in the news room to get what they want, but they are the ones who are likely to feel somewhat inhibited about what to do, and their response could well be, maybe we need to send johnston to do an extensive investigation of beaches in the caribbean. >> david: david cay johnston as always great to see you. coming up, major bloomberg already tells new yorkers what to drink. so why should he tell them what to think? then that is a photo of a drone allegedly captured on instagram by yemenian citizens last night. and later the alex gibney joins

us. he is the direct of "we steal secrets." it's tuesday night. you are in "the war room," and it's only on current tv.

>> did anyone tell the pilgrims they should self-deport? >> no, they said "make us a turkey and make it fast". >> (laughter). >> she gets the comedians laughing. >> that's the best! >> that's hilarious. >> ... and the thinkers thinking. >> okay, so there is wiggle room in the ten commandments is what you're telling me. >> she's joy behar. >> ya, i consider you jew-talian. >> okay, whatever you want. >> who plays kafka? >> who saw kafka? >> who ever saw kafka? >> (laughter). >> asking the tough questions. >> chris brown, i mean you wouldn't let one of your daughters go out with him. >> absolutely not. >> you would rather deal with ahmadinejad then me? >> absolutely! >> (singing) >> i take lipitor, thats it. >> are you improving your lips? >> (laughter). >> when she's talking, you never know where the conversation is going to go. >> it looks like anthony wiener is throwing his hat in the ring. >> his what in the ring? >> his hat. >> always outspoken, joy behar.

>> and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? >> only on current tv. >> david: welcome back to "the war room." i'm david sirota. jeff bezos isn't the only billionaire interested in the newspaper business. this past weekend, john henry bout the "boston globe" along with their website and other assets for $70 million bucks. he refused to talk about his plans, saying it would be presumptuous to talk about plans before we close the deal. three other moguls also made bids. this is the beginning of the new trend of the uber wealthy buying

news service. some special take that michael bloomberg will try to buy the "new york times" and/or the financial times after he leaves office. and the koch brothers have expressed an interest in the tribune company. their interest has sparked multiple protests because of their strong conservative views, deep pockets and unapologetic views. joining us from new york to answer some questions are sam seder, and a guy -- i think his name is michael shure. he is the host of this program, and i'm just his under study. let's start with the "boston globe."

it is widely accepted that newspapers are not profitable right now. michael we'll start with you. why would a billionaire want to get into an interest like this if not for the political influence that comes with newspapers? >> first of all it is pretty clear that only a billionaire would be buying these kinds of papers. they are the only people that can afford them. so we have to defer to the fact that it is going to be a wealthy individual if anyone buys them at all. so there are two schools of thoughts, one is like it's a hood ornament. i don't buy that with jeff bezos. because i think the "washington post" is $250 million when compared to his wealth of approximately $25 billion, people are saying it is like a millionaire buying a newspaper for $10,000. but i do think there is a responsibility that he recognizes, and there is a new

platform. whoever is buying newspapers right now is going to change the way that newspapers are run. i think from what i know from him and what we have all learned about, is he is the kind of guy who has a long-term view of things. and you can say his political ambitions -- we all have them. he is no different. >> david: sam assuming these moguls are savvy businessmen, could the shift to individual ownership help the newspapers become profitable again? what do you say to michael who says that, yeah, there is probably political influence here. does that matter? and is it there anyway. >> yeah, i think the ca case -- john henry is very vested in boston and the surrounding area. i think he probably wants -- i think for him, part of it is a certain amount of ego here, and

a desire to be a -- a bigger player, both politically, but also just in the context of the community. so i think -- i think we'll probably see, you know, bezos, i think he has a far more sort of business oriented perspective on this, because you are talking about the "washington post" which is a national paper. it provides a platform. it integrates with amazon. i know amazon didn't officially buy it, but it is obviously one of his properties. so i think that's a different equation than what we see in boston. so whoever is going to buy these papers like michael said is going to have a lot of money. it's either an individual or corporation. and an individual has a little bit more invested in the reputation of the paper. that's my perspective if they don't have an overt political agenda, which i don't see john henry or bezos necessarily

having. >> david: michael yes, an individual can afford to let's say lose money, an individual like jeff bezos. and it's interesting that he bought himself personally. but the upside of a publicly traded corporation owning a newspaper is that theoretically it only cares about the bottom line. it is supposed to not care at all about political ideology, because it only has to answer to shareholders, so isn't there both an upside to an individual owning it because that person can afford to lose money and then essentially rebuild the paper from the bottom up, but also a down side in the sense that the individual owner is more at liberty to actually sa fuse news coverage with their ideology. hoo -- >> yeah, one thing and you

pointed out just now, if a company buys it -- let's say amazon did buy it, he would be beholden to the shareholders. the one thing that is important here is that same model, which is the newspaper itself and the writers and journalists and the people that go to work there, do not have to be holden either. the graham family had a point of view. they are human beings. so i think in a way this is liberating. because the corporate structure wasn't working, and the kowtowing to investors who had to come in here and plug actual leaks, i think their absence from this now is really going to help journalism. i don't think you can forget what you are talking about, though, david, and that's something they have to be wary of, but this is the better situation for a paper like the "washington post" especially to

be ushered into the next generation of how we get news. >> david: let's then turn to the koch brothers and michael bloomberg. do we make a distinction between those kind of people and somebody like jeff bezos? when l.a. times columnest steve lopez asked the staff to raise their hands if they would quit in the koch brothers bout the l.a. times. half of the staff raised their hands and said yes. so sam i would ask you, what is so frightening about the koch brothers owning a newspaper? is it frightening for michael bloomberg to buy a newspaper? >> well, i mean to me they are. the koch brothers have -- have pursued a very specific political agenda. they have spent hundred us of millions of dollars pursuing that, and we have seen the outcome of that expenditure.

so there's every reason to believe that for them a newspaper is a vehicle to espouse a very specific political agenda, and one frankly that i really really strongly disagree with, and one which i would add it would also promote industries, i think -- and lead the way for industries to do sort of the forward blocking for industries that are incredibly destructive to our planet and to our society. so, you know, specifically in the case of the koch brothers, i would be far more concerned about that. bloomberg tying the times i think is a bit of a stretch. here is a guy who basically bought himself an election in new york, and, you know, has -- has already imposed his political will. it wouldn't fit necessarily in the same way from a business perspective as the way that the "washington post" might into amazon with bloomberg's existing properties. so i would rate my concern, koch

brothers at the top, then bloomberg, and then somewhere down at the bottom guys like henry and bezos >> david: thank you both of you. i'm sure this is going to be an ongoing story. coming up, we're going to turn to drone strikes in yemen, a cue in cairo, and terror threats across the middle east. and then alex gibney joins us. this is "the war room." we'll be right back. ♪ (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.

if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think there is any chance we'll ever hear the president even say the word "carbon tax"? >> with an opened mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned great leadership so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter) >> cutting throught the clutter of today's top stories. >> this is the savior of the republican party? i mean really? >> ... with a unique >> teddy rosevelt was a weak asmatic kid who never played sports until he was a grown up. >> (laughter) >> ... and lots of fancy buzz words. >> family values, speding, liberty, economic freedom, hard-working moms, crushing debt, cute little puppies. if wayne lapierre can make up stuff that sounds logical while making no sense... hey, so can i. once again friends, this is live tv and sometimes these things

happen. >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. >> david: the state department today ordered all non-emergency personnel at the u.s. embassy in yemen to leave the country and issued a travel warning to u.s. citizens urging them to depart due to continued potential for terrorist attacks. the yemen government issued a statement says quote . . . >> david: the united states government did conduct a drone strike last night that killed four aledged al qaeda militants

in yemen. it's unclear if this is related to the threat that closed 19 embassies in the region. we are engaged in a secret war with yemen, much like with cambodia in the 1960s. but it is much harder to keep a war secret as it was back then. today instagram purposes a purpose. here are two pictures of a drone flying over yemen. this is part of their daily lives over there. joining us now is david pakman, host of "the david pakman show." and our own michael shure. thank to both of you. david we'll start with you. jeremy skahill of the nation magazine calls this a dirty war.

do you think it's a fair term? is this a war or is it more of a covert operation? it is a dirty war using all of the ugly tactics that come associateded with that kind of term. >> without knowing more about it, which is part of the problem, we certainly can't rule out that it is a dirty war. and the reality is when we think about this, even looking at how it was reported that americans were being told to evacuate, because of the risk of terrorist attacks, but isn't it also possible that they might accidentally get hit by a drone? it's not unheard of for innocent people to be killed by drones. so that aspect, the fact that we don't know much about it, and the warnings suggest that if it's not dirty, it's certainly not clean. >> david: michael we'll turn to

you. the government claims to be cooperating with the quote international alliance against terrorism. and should we believe them? and if we believe them, where are we bombing them? >> they have put out a list of the 25 most wanted fugitives, none of these four people were on that list. but the idea can we trust them? they are the government that we are now obligated to trust for the moment, because they seem to be cooperating. they are putting out rewards right now. one of the real issues in discussing this, and i heard what david -- what both davids have said -- david and david a great band from the '80s i think -- but one thing we forget here is we criticized the bush administration for not paying

attention to a memo that said al qaeda determined to strike in the united states. we criticized that. we have been the victims of the criticism because of how we handled benghazi. so this could be as simple as lesson learned. but this is what is happening right now, and perhaps by the elimination of some of these people, drones or not, we are going to hopefully, i hope, fend off whatever these scares were. if you look at it -- if you look at it as reacting to things that hand, which is what we complained about before, then this is what the administration is doing. >> but isn't part of the problem that we may be creating way more terrorists than already potentially exist in yemen? when we are drone bombing people, and we have a blowback

environment, and then we keep hitting them with more of this kind of stuff, aren't we creating more problems for ourselves than exist without us creating those problems? >> well, it is my problem with war in the first place. we always create more problems when we go into war. even when we do what we did in bagdad, and we eliminate buildings, and blocks, and great swaths of people die. yes, we are always engendering anger over there, whether it's drones or not. but if there is a credible threat, i suspect there is in this case, then this seems to me at the very lease -- and i'm not in on these meetings, that's not why i'm not in "the war room," i think we seem to be reacting in what seems to be an appropriate way. >> david: the state department was very reluctant to call the

removal of americans in yemen an evacuation, perhaps conjuring images of saigon. is this a removal or, quote unquote, cutting and running, does it serve the interest of extremist? i'm taken aback by the yemenian government using almost the language of what i can remember was the language of the bush administration? don't leave you are giving them to the terrorism. >> yeah, the argument on the other side is how drone war fair and evacuations or travel warnings or the riskover terrorist attacks as we hear them from corporate media is how that plays into the kind of pr industrial complex, and military industrial complex, in fact that

so many people are worth smithing this as you just pointed out, confirms that for whatever threat exists, there is the pr complex that is going on very close to the surface. >> david: michael to you very quickly. one of the problems with cam bodian in the 60s was military action without congressional approval. why isn't this more of an issue in congress >> i think that's a self-evident question. they are on holiday by the way. i think it is self-evident. i think we have seen this go on now for far too long and cambodia is a great thing to bring up. and what david pakman just said is so important and so true. the way they dance around the pr of this is important too, especially when they are trying to sell something that goes to congress. >> david: thank you both.

good to see you. coming up next on "the war room" a documentary that goes behind the scenes of the biggest leak in u.s. history. the director joins us next. >> this leak is industrial scale. it touches every relationship the united states has with other countries around the world. his ability, is trying to look out for us.

>> i think it's brilliant. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >> i know this stuff, and i love it.

(vo) followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. bill press and stephanie miller. >> what a way to start the day. >> add them all up. >> come on. fire. [ gunfire ] >> roger. [ gunfire ] >> keep shooting. >> david: that was footage of a 2007 u.s. army attack in bagdad which killed 12 people including two employs of the news agency reuters. manning was convicted last week of almost 20 counts of stealing

government property. and leaking hundreds of thousands of secret files. mannings court-martial is now in the sentencing phase. and today a military judge re -- reduced the sentence. the prosecution and defense are now arguing over why manning leaked the documents, which will decide how long he spends in custody, in part. which brings us to where it all began. with a 22-year-old soldier in iraq. >> he started making references to military secrets. ♪

>> david: what would you do? after witnessing the prosecution of bradley manning, probably a lot fewer people would choose to leak, and that, after all, is the point. that clip came from the new documentary, "we steal secrets: the story of wikileaks." joining us now from new york is the director of "we steal secrets: the story of wikileaks," alex gibney. alex thanks for being here. >> good to be here, david. >> david: you set out to make a film about wikileaks and julian assange. why did it lead you to manning? >> at the end of the day it was about a relationship. the relationship between a leaker and a publisher. and it was -- for a long time we all thought of it as the

wikileaks documents. but in fact they were really the manning documents. he was the leaker. so once we found a way to tell his story, which was actually as you showed on the clip, through his chats, which were chats -- you know, that he was sending to adrian while he was in iraq, then we were able to get at mannings part of the story and let him in effect tell his own story. >> you said wikileaks was the publisher. this has been a big part of the debate over bradley manning. but the key point here is the definition of wikileaks, and not just wikileaks but other non-establishment adversarial news organizations. the prosecutor tried to say if manning leaked to the "washington post" it would have

been one kind of crime, but because he leaked to wikileaks that made it a worse kind of crime. but the point is, we're in this situation now where non-establishment news organizations are potentially being called -- essentially criminal entities. what is wikileaks in your estimation. is it a criminal entity, part of the press, a news organization, what is it? >> i think it's a publisher. wikileaks at the time of the bradley manning leaks was a publisher, pure and simple. and the prosecution is all over the map on this one in terms of the bradley manning case, because earlier in the trial of course in response to questioning from the judge they said would you see this any differently if manning leaked the times? and they said no. and the defense was able to show that parts of the u.s.

government admired wikileaks from afar in terms of some of his other human rights documentation. so i don't think there's any question that wikileaks per se at the time when manning leaked it was a publisher. end of story. which is why i was all astounded that julian assange was nervous if anybody had discovered he had spoken to bradley manning. i don't see the harm in it frankly. if you are a publisher or journalist and you are speaking to a source, so what? >> let's talk about what bradley manning is, in your estimation is bradley manning a whistleblower, trader? criminal >> davi?

do any of these labels matter. >> some of them do matter. the defense won a big victory when they won on the aiding the enemy charge. but there are charges that have to do with the espionage act. he is not a spy. he didn't leak this material for money. he didn't leak it to one particular country. so that they could have some kind of political or military gain, he leaked it for the world to see, because the thought it made the world a better place to know this stuff. but what i think is so damaging about this case is he's being portrayed by the u.s. government as a spy, and that's just not true. the function of leaking is the kind of pressure valve, that we desperately need. it may be illegal at times.

and -- and some people may have to be willing to pay a price in order to do that thing. that thing that they view as a righteous act. but nevertheless it is a key aspect of our democracy. this relationship between leakers publishers and journalists. >> david: you have an interview with michael hayden. let's take a look at a clip that explains that title. >> look, everyone has secrets. some of the activities that nation states conduct in order to keep their people safe and free need to be secret in order to be candid. we steal secrets. we steal other nation's saek t sasae saek -- secrets. >> stephanie: so the government can steal secrets, but wikileaks or bradley manning can't, and

the government can have secrets, but ordinary americans can't have access to those secrets. is the u.s. prosecuting people for doing exactly what it does every day? and is there a political motive behind the prosecutions of people like bradley manning? >> yeah, of course there is a political motive. the trial of bradley manning is an attempt to hoist the rich like the british navy used to do. but they are using a blunt instrument that is in danger of criminalizing journalism. but that quote from michael hayden makes it also clear that we have got to put this whole idea of leaking in context. i don't think we want a world where every one of our soldiers is giving out willie nilly information without sense of consequence. i don't think that would be a good world. but at the same time it's a fact that political figures are

constantly leaking information for political benefit, and indeed, as a nation state, we are stealing the secrets of other nations as we know in particular from another leaker named edward snowden. so you have to put that in context when you are looking at the bradley manning story. he may have been naive in the way that he leaked, but people have to put this in perspective, because the government talks out of both sides of its mouth, pretending that oh, my god, i'm so shocked that there was a leak when the government leaks every day for political advantage. >> david: we'll be right back to talk about eliot spitzer and lance armstrong to talk about why do smart and powerful people do such stupid things.

>> david: we're back with director alex gibney, his newest

fill system "we steal secrets: the story of wikileaks." we're going to turn to some of his other works that are also relevant today. alex you made a series of movies about famous and very powerful people with flawed characters. these people all have their share of problems. let's look at a clip from your 2010 film about spitzer in particular. >> they wanted to settle the case and pay some money, and say we will pay a big sum of money if you promise to keep the information secret, and i said no, because my job as attorney general is to change the system so that it's fair and will be honest, and if we sale the evidence and you pay a check and you don't change the system, i'm basically being bought off. >> the "new york times" website identifies eliot spitzer's call

girl. >> david: eliot spitzer now running for new york comptroller, a position that has holdings that could be used to go up against wall street again. why is it that these people who are such smart people, why do they do such stupid things? when they know they are going up against the power structure, the most powerful institutions in the world? why do they behave in their personal life so stupidly? >> i think it's frankly dilutions of grandeur. when you get to positions of power like spitzer had, as lance armstrong had, as julian assange had. he was mr. transparency. you begin to believe that you can't be touched; that you are

invulnerable. i think julian assange said i'm untouchable now in this country. that was just before he was held in sweden briefly for allegations of rape. so, you know, i think it has to do with a sense of arrogance that comes from power. and that's what i tend to be interested in, people with a lot of power, and what goes wrong when they have it. >> david: your next movie leads you to lance armstrong. and lance armstrong is another person democrat like jake abramoff like spitzer, why did you choose him? and how do you choose your projects? and if you choose someone for a project, should they be nervous

of a shakespearean downfall. >> sometimes i go after them after the shakespearean downfall. i -- in the case of lance armstrong, that film is going to come out soon, so i'm reluctant to talk too much about it, but one of the interesting things about armstrong was the magnitude of his lie. he didn't just say i have never tested positive for drugs. he said things like, look, i am a cancer survivor. how could you possibly say, i as a cancer survivor say i would use drugs. i think there's a psychological process frankly that a lot of these folks share, which is that -- you know, a social psychologist once said we're hard wired for moral immediamed. and sometimes when you have someone who is doing an enormous

amount of good, and i would say armstrong did good in the case of his helping cancer survivors. and spitzer did a tremendous amount of good in terms of reigning in wall street, you begin to feel entitled to do other things. >> david: one last question. i'm just curious when you now approach people, when they know your work, are they more reluctant now to work with you as sources, and do you think the government's prosecution of sources will make it harder for you as a document aryan. >> whoever talks to me, i give a pretty fair shake too. and i think that's important. >> david: alex gibney, director

of "we steal secrets: the story of wikileaks." thanks for being here. thank so much for talking us to. that was alex gibney, it's a great film. i encourage you to see it. that's the show today. thanks for joining us here in "the war room." i'll be here tomorrow. have a great night. ♪ if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think there is any chance we'll ever hear the president even say the word "carbon tax"? >> with an opened mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned great leadership so i want to talk

about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter) >> cutting throught the clutter of today's top stories. >> this is the savior of the republican party? i mean really? >> ... with a unique perspective. >> teddy rosevelt was a weak asmatic kid who never played sports until he was a grown up. >> (laughter) >> ... and lots of fancy buzz words. >> family values, speding, liberty, economic freedom, hard-working moms, crushing debt, cute little puppies. if wayne lapierre can make up stuff that sounds logical while making no sense... hey, so can i. once again friends, this is live tv and sometimes these things happen. >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

(vo) later tonight, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's

life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. ♪ theme cenk: what's up? welcome to "the young turks." we had a great show for you guys. we're going to talk about terrific, housing, and then an american hero. >> ana kasparian. cenk: not ana kasparian. ok. you guys are going to be shocked. later in the program, we're going to talk about money and politics. you didn't see that coming on "the young turks." the final story is about how the smart t.v.'s spy in on