captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> ifill: good evening, i'm gwen ifill. judy woodruff is away. on the newshour tonight: open just 30 minutes, china's stock market shuts down again to stem major losses, driving investor skittishness across the globe. also ahead, how the race for the white house is playing on and off the air. we dissect the ads, and the money and, a new true-crime documentary-- "making a murderer"-- raises questions about justice in america. plus, the economic science of altruism, or, why it pays to be good to others. >> people who'd been randomly assigned to spend this money on somebody else felt better by the end of the day than people who'd been assigned to spend that same small amount of money on themselves. >> ifill: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals.

>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: call it the great fall. an explosive new sell-off hit the chinese market today, and routed stocks around the world. on wall street, the dow jones industrial average lost 392 points to close at 16,514. the nasdaq fell 146 points, and the s&p 500 dropped 47. we'll look at what's going on in china, after the news summary. and in the day's other news, a powerful truck bomb in libya killed at least 47 people and wounded more than 100 others. the target was a police training center outside tripoli, where hundreds of recruits had gathered. cars lay crushed and strewn around the area after the blast.

it was the country's worst bombing since the fall of moammar gadhafi in 2011 and was quickly condemned. >> ( translated ): we confirm that we are totally committed to carrying out a full investigation and following developments and updates and providing full disclosure that deals with this cowardly terrorist act. >> ifill: the government based in tripoli is an islamist regime. a rival government operates in eastern libya, along with various armed factions. in yemen, dozens of saudi air strikes hit the capital city in the heaviest bombardment yet. the saudis and other sunni arab states are supporting yemen's president against shiite rebels. today's attacks hit the presidential palace in sanaa, and a rebel military base. meanwhile, loyalist forces also landed at a key port overnight, opening a new front. iran claimed its embassy in sanaa was hit by the air strikes, but there was no visible damage. paris spent a tense anniversary

today: one year since islamist gunmen attacked the satirical newspaper "charlie hebdo," killing 11 people. the city was already on edge when an apparent suicide bomber, with a note referencing the islamic state group, confronted police. alex thomson, of independent television news, reports from paris. >> reporter: it's around midday in the gar du nord in central paris, when a young man carrying a butchers hatchet, shouting allahu akbar and wearing what looks like an explosive belt approaches a small police station. >> ( translated ): i heard gunshots, four i think, it's just across the street from the school, next to the police station, where there's a kindergarten. >> ( translated ): usually i see this on the television. and it's true, it's shocking to see this unfolding live. >> reporter: it's a busy area, people quickly surrounded the body before it was eventually stretchered away. but only after a remote controlled approach to what was

initially assumed to be a real suicide belt device. we may well never know what this man's motivations were nor if he had any real connection with is or daesh, but after the events in recent months, not just in paris, but across europe, anybody approaching armed officers with a butcher's hatchet, apparent signs of an explosive device, and shouting allahu akbar, is signing their own death warrant. all of this, a year to the day from the massacre across town at the satirical magazine, "charlie hebdo." the journalists killed there remembered today. and whether this man actually had any connection to i.s., the president of france spoke today as if the incident had been masterminded in raqqa. >> ( translated ): inside france, we are tackling it by hunting down terrorists, dismantling their networks, drying up sources of financing, and by blocking the propaganda of radicalization. >> reporter: later in the day,

the interior minster, bernard cazeneuve, visited the scene, expressing solidarity with police officers. paris remains understandably edgy and today's incident merely underscores that. >> ifill: the "charlie hebdo" killings last january were followed by the attacks in november that claimed another 130 lives. south korea is firing up its cross-border propaganda broadcasts against the north again. today's announcement came a day after north korea tested what it said was a hydrogen bomb. the south's earlier broadcasts ended in august in a bid to ease tensions with the communist north. they're due to resume tomorrow, the birthday of north korean leader kim jong un. back in this country, there's word that efforts to extend health insurance coverage to all americans stalled in 2015. a closely watched survey out today finds nearly 12% of u.s. adults still lacked health coverage at the end of the year. the "gallup-healthways well- being index" says that was virtually unchanged from 12

months earlier. and, 2015 officially goes down as the second warmest year in the united states since they started keeping records-- 121 years ago. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration reports the average temperature was 54.4 degrees. that's about one degree shy of the record, set in 2012. still to come on the newshour, why china's stock market is plummeting. who's spending how much, and for what, in the 2016 race for the white house. what's not in the new national dietary guidelines. and much more. >> ifill: in just 29 minutes today, china's stock market plunged 7%, and then was shut down altogether for the day. it's the second time in just

four days the china markets have crashed badly, sending major ripples around the world, including on wall street, where the dow dropped nearly 400 points, which continued a two week slide. let's look at what's behind the great fall in china, with david wessel, director of the hutchins center on fiscal and monetary policy at the brookings institution. he is also a contributing correspondent to the wall street journal. david, help us puzzle this out. china's economy or at least the markets are not that big but the reverberations certainly were. >> right. china's economy is pretty big and i think the one thing that's going on here is people are saying, huh-oh, the chinese economy might be slowing more than we thought and the government is having a hard time stimulating again. so there are worries about that. but china's stock market is not big and when there is a drop in

china, yiewp and we have a bad day. >> ifill: what's the difference? >> it's harder to understand in economics and easier in psychology. it's a panic or a sense that the world economy is just not in good shapes we thought and so everybody is chasing everybody else. >> ifill: that is something in which the psychological panic always is in markets, not something which makes economic sense. >> that's right. but people have had a lot of confidence the chinese leadership could fix whatever was wrong with their economy so it didn't have ripple effect around the world. i think that confidence the shaken in managing their stock market and the currency. >> ifill: managing the currency was part of the solution which was to let the currency fall. but that seems to be making it worse? >> right. i think it's seen as a symptom that the chinese leadership may be scared about their economy. why would they want their currency to fall? the only reason you would want your currency to fall if you

could control it is in order to get more exports. why would you want to depend more on exports if you're a country that has a stated policy relying less on exports and more on consume around domestic spending. they must be worried about consumer spending. >> ifill: and trade, i remember wall street here and it was a complete panic here. >> the chinese are amateurs when it comes to running markets. they don't really believe in markets. they like stability and control. so we have circuit breakers here and if the stock market falls some we take a pause in trading, but in the u.s. stocks have to fall 20% before we shut down trading for the day. the chinese shut down trading after only 7%, and i think what they put in as a way to make people collect their wits, cool down a little bit has, instead, accelerated panic. i wouldn't be at all surprised if they change the rules. >> ifill: i expect there will be continued volatility as well as here?

>> nobody knows what the market is going to do but sure looks like we'll have a lot more volatility. at some point people may decide the u.s. stock market has falon enough. after tall the u.s. economy see seems to be getting better. what happens in china is not going to have that devastating effect on car sales here or how many people buy apple phones or how many people shop at wal-mart. it may be that the u.s. stock market start to rise if people think it's gone far enough. >> ifill: you have alluded to the fact that people are worried it's not what happening to the chinese and it may not be as resill sent. >> -- resilient. people have an illusion that there are six people in china that have their hand on every button. we're learning it's a big economy and they're not that good at it. people's confidence in their leader has been shaken. if the government can't get the economy moving again, they have a lot of fundamental problems that may now show.

>> ifill: is there a way to draw a route between what's happening in china's economy, here, and the depressed price of oil around the world? >> yes, there is. i think oil prices are down for two reasons. one, there is a lot of supply because the u.s. now produces a lot of oil and there is a lot of supply because saudis want to produce a lot maybe to punish iranians and russians. but there is concern because of a lack of demand of oil. when commodity prices fall, it's good if you're a consumer but is seen as symptom of a weakening economy. so that exacerbates the feel china is slowing down, will buyless for africa and latin america and other lari(6çñr companies will sell less in those countries. >> ifill: thank you as usual for clearing it you will up a for us. >> you're welcome. >> ifill: one sign that

presidential primaries are near: candidates are starting to ramp up their tv ad spending. political director lisa desjardins takes a look at the mountain of cash being spent on ads, and whether it's worth it. >> reporter: the much-used, and often reviled, campaign ad faces a real test in 2016. first, the sheer numbers could break records: some experts estimate we'll see an astonishing $4.4 billion in political tv ads. but ads so far have not brought results for some. >> serious times require serious leadership. >> reporter: republican jeb bush has spent more on ads than any other candidate but is stalled in fifth or sixth place. >> i have to say it's pay more, get less. tv advertising is not nearly as effective as it once was especially for high level races. >> reporter: peter fenn is

president of fenn communications and has worked in over 300 campaigns. >> jeb bush's idea initially was to buy a lot of advertising, to use the $100 million he'd raise from his super pac and flood iowa, flood new hampshire. >> reporter: it has not worked yet. but, frontrunner donald trump is trying ads nonetheless, launching his first this week. >> donald trump calls it radical islamic terrorism. >> reporter: with dark colors and striking music, the spot talks of fears, but it may also address one of trump's worries. >> i think his fear is that he needs a strong turnout, if people don't see him in paid ads, don't see him going all out- it might discourage some of these voters from voting. >> reporter: another ad with strong tones. from ted cruz-- using a visual metaphor at the border. >> i understand that when the mainstream covers immigration, it often doesn't see it as an economic issue. >> cruz i think with his ad this time of people dressed in suits and women in high heels walking across what would be the border.

visually people now are looking for more creativity in their advertising. >> reporter: contrast those hard-hitting ads in the crowded g.o.p. race, with the approach in the smaller democratic field, which is more biographical. >> praised as one of america's best mayors, who governed as a pragmatist. >> when i think about why i'm doing this i think about my mother dorothy. >> reporter: both of those got big play online. but fenn says 70% of campaign ad dollars still go to on-air. >> my sense of this is changing but we're still going to see this election cycle, television will be king. >> reporter: but, for all the dollars it brings, we don't yet know how much television will influence the choice for president. for the pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjardins. >> ifill: we follow the money now with matea gold. she's a national political reporter for the "washington post." matea, you've covered a lot of these campaigns, but compare

this to last cycle. how is the money being raised and spent differently? >> what we've seen is a full-flowering of the super pac effect and nearly every candidate with the exception of bernie sanders and most recently donald trump are running with the support of super pacs this time and that's changed everything. that's changed the way they've gotten in the race, raised money and the way money is being spent. through mid-december, we saw more than 40% more ads on tv than at the last cycle and eight out of ten were by outside groups. >> ifill: as lisa pointed out, it's not biographical. it's not let me tell you who i am anymore. >> one of the things i think we're seeing in the republican contest is because it is so incredibly competitive and it's really been focused on issues about terrorism and i.s.i.s. that these issues have really come to the foreign advertising much sooner than you see at this point in a campaign. >> ifill: so who benefits so far, especially in the crowded

republican field for this approach? for whom is this approach res resonating? >> i think there is a big question about whether the super pac is going to be the panacea some thought in this election. we already saw scott walker and rick perry forced out even though they had millions of dollars left in their super pacs. there is a question whether you can succeed with the support of super pacs or need more substantial resources in your campaign. >> ifill: explain for us, for example, you wrote about this in a big piece in the "washington post" this week, when jeb bush got into the field, he raised the money but clearly didn't clear the field. what happened? >> money is different in this election than the past. in the past, it's$myjz seen as a predictor of success. when money comes, it's also a sense there is a grassroots support behind that. now that donors that are

incredibly wealthy can give these massive donations, it's not necessarily indicative of any deeper support. one of the challenges i think jeb bush has had is supporting the support among the millionaire class that put amazing resources in the super pac to support on the ground. while he had a huge amount of money, other candidates had their own billionaires supporting them and weren't scared by his coffers. >> ifill: ben carson was raising money hand over fist for awhy else and reflected in his standing in the polls. now his standing in the polls has dropped. is it because he didn't spend it correctly? >> he still raise add substantial amount, $20 million in the last quarter. one of the things that online fundraising allows you to do is wretch reach out to a cohort of non-professional donors. these aren't professional donors that got involved in politics. looks like a lot are still giving him money. >> ifill: how is he spending it? >> a lot mas gone back to

raising more money and we'll get more details about his finances when the reports come out at the end of this month but that will be an indicator of campaign success, how much cash they have on hand in the last stretch. >> ifill: you talked about the billionaires, sanders call them the millionaires in business. are they spending their money differently? last time i remember sheldon adleson kept newt gingrich in the race and rick santorum by writing another check. another millionaire gave money to the clintons and is supporting john kasich tore now. that seems to be a different way of organizing this. >> one of the things that's so interesting is that the donor class expanded. we're seeing your new names that are not your traditional political givers. some of the biggest backers of senator ted cruz are a family in texas, a willic brothers, who made a lot of money through fracking and put together

$15 million of contributions into a super pac supporting ted cruz. so a lot of folks who are not bold-face names in the political world are engaged and partly because there are new mechanisms for them to do so. >> what we haven't seen is the rise of donald trump before he spent a lot of money and now even though he's putting ads on the air, seems he's changed the formula as well. >> the trump impact has completely transformed how money is being spent and whether it's effective this time. his rivals complain he's basically getting free air time and their paid media won't be as potent because he's getting more air time just getting on cable news. that will be a real question. he's starting to spend money now but will resucceed largely through earned media. >> ifill: is this something the candidates are scrambling to counter, specifically to deal with trump or his approach by maybe, i don't know, talking about issues? >> the issues are different in each part of the race and

obviously the republicans right now are trying to really outdo each other with warnings about the threats facing america. that seems to be consuming the republican electorate right now. i me-n, concerns about i.s.i.s. and terrorism have overtaken concerns about taxes and healthcare in the poll. so whereas obamacare looked like a driving issue, right now that's not something that gets much attention e at least not on the air. >> ifill: who does that benefit and hurt so far at least in fundraising. >> i think we'll see at the end of the month but ted cruz and ben carson has had the most success in the campaigns and donald trump has done the betts in the polls. >> we'll see how it shakes out when people vote soon. matea gold with the "washington post." always a pleasure to see you. >> thanks. >> ifill: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: how doing for others benefits you. life-long consequences of segregated schools.

and the netflix phenomenon that takes true-crime to a whole new level. but first, in issuing guidelines for how we should eat for the first time in five years, the federal government revises some of its long-standing advice. hari sreenivasan has that. >> sreenivasan: despite all the warnings over the years, you may be surprised that for the first time, the government put a limit on added sugar, saying it should comprise no more than 10% of your daily calories. the guidelines also dropped prior advice about limiting or avoiding cholesterol, and eggs. the government warned about eating too much protein or red meat, but stopped short of what some experts wanted. and it said moderate drinking of alcohol or coffee is ok. to help guide us through some of these guidelines, their impact and the controversy, i'm joined by allison aubrey, food and health correspondent for npr. so, allison, let's start with sugar first. >> sure. >> sreenivasan: what is the right amount of sugar and put it in terms i can understand.

>> sure, basically the guidelines are coming out and saying you should get no more than 10% of your calories per day from sugar, and that translates to about 10 to 12-teaspoons per day. keep in mind, this adds up really quickly. it translates to about maybe 40 grams of sugar, the unit of measurement people are used to seeing on labels. so for instance, this morning, i had a yogurt for breakfast that had about 20 grams of sugar. you had one sugar ridrink or a muffin, you're at your daily limit. basically now americans are eating about twice as much. we've reported on studies that show that many americans are eating 22-teaspoon a day. so people are going to start following these recommendations, it really means cutting consumption of sugar in half. >> sreenivasan: maybe that will help keep my new year's eve resolutions going. why the change in snetion.

>> it's been involving nutrition science, i would say. there used to be a belief that if you were to eat a lot of cholesterol-rich foods, animal-based foods with cholesterol, eggs or shrimp, that that high cholesterol would lead to high ldl cholesterol in your bloodstream. so there is clearly a concern about elevated cholesterol in bloodstream. that's why many americans are on statins. but it's not recognized that high cholesterol foods don't necessarily translate into higher cholesterol in our blood. >> sreenivasan: so the guidelines did not say eat less red meat, it said supplement with more seafood and other things. why? >> well, i think the goal is one of the committee members told me americans don't want to be told what not to eat, what to avoid. they want to be told what they -- how to expand their diet or add more variety.

so the role of the guidelines and the people supporting communication about the new guidelines, the word they're using is "shift." the idea is to shift away from red meat and try alternative sources of protein. so anything from seafood to nuts to beans. implicitly, that might mean eating less red meat, if you're eating these other sources of protein. it's a little controversial. the committee that helped advise the administration on what should be in these guidelines came out last year and said, hey, we think you should tell americans to eat less red meat, but in the end, that's not what's in their dietary guidelines. >> sreenivasan: and what are nenutritionists and experts in this thing saying? >> i've spoken to several top nutrition researchers who say a limit on red meat should have been put into the guidelines, otherwise americans might be confused by this message about

shifting. and i think the range of opinion goes something like this -- some people say, well, if you nudge americans to eat a little less, that's enough. the other point of view is americans need to be told, hey, there is too much red meat in your diet, they need a specific limit that's not there. >> sreenivasan: the fact that the guidelines come out only once every five years almost makes ate political document. it's a statement by the administration on what they think the government thinks people should or shouldn't eat, right? >> well, i don't see it so much of a political document as i see it as kind of a consensus report. there is a lag factor here. you point to that in the beginning, but just now do we have a recommendation to limit sugar. your grandmother could tell you too much sugar is bad for you. you have to understand the way the process works, every feef years, the department of health and human services and the u.s. department of agriculture assign

this expert committee to review all the new evidence. they pore over all the nutrition science and try to come up with a consensus. so five years ago, we knew sugar would rot your teeth but didn't know what 22-teaspoon of sugar a day would lead to an increase of diabetes of heart disease. so it needs enough evidence to lead scientists to say we need a clear recommendation here, so a bit of a lag time. >> sreenivasan: allison aubrey, n.p.r., thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> ifill: now, the power of altruism, not just for those on the receiving end, but also how it provides physical and emotional benefits for the giver. economics correspondent, paul solman, takes a look, part of our weekly segment "making

sense," which airs every thursday on the newshour. >> i want you to meet my friend monkey. hello! do you want to say hello? >> reporter: it is better to give than to receive. you may have heard it when you were about this age or even in the last few weeks, when you bought out the entire christmas list. >> look - monkey has a bowl just like you. you don't have any treats and neither does monkey. >> reporter: but better for whom? a behavioral economics experiment has come up with a provocative answer. >> i'm going to give them all to you. >> reporter: psychology professor elizabeth dunn designed this test to see if even very young kids could be happier giving than receiving. >> we worked with kind of the toddler equivalent of gold, namely goldfish crackers. we gave them a bunch goldfish for themselves, and then we gave them the chance to give some of these goldfish away to a puppet named monkey. >> will you give one to monkey? >>yeah.

>> reporter: dunn recorded dozens of kids doing this, then had students who knew nothing about the experiment compare the facial expressions when receiving... and when giving. when were they happiest? >> and, what we see is that the toddlers are happier when they're getting the chance to give the goldfish away as compared to when they're getting the goldfish for themselves. >> reporter: much happier. so it's no surprise that, with fellow happiness scholar michael norton, dunn has written a book" happy money: the science of happier spending." it features five key takeaways. >> if you want to use money to buy happiness, we suggest you should buy experiences; you should buy time; you should make it a treat; you should pay now and consume later; and, you should invest in others. >> reporter: invest in others: the most surprising finding of the five. and one which regularly elicits skepticism, says business school professor norton. >> a lot of people, when we talk about the fact that giving makes

you happy and you're better off giving than spending money on yourself, will argue back, first off, that we're crazy and secondly, that that can't be true because i don't really know what you like, but i definitely know what i like. and so, just by definition, i'm better at spending my money on myself and getting happiness than you because i don't know everything about you. >> can panda have one? can one go in his bowl? >> it's just not what we see in this study. so, even with these toddlers who are two years old, even if it's the case that their parents are making them give in order to be a nice person, they're smiling. and, smiling is something that just comes out. it's not something that you can control very well. >> reporter: and it's not just toddlers. dunn also designed an experiment for grownups. >> we went out on our campus at the university of british columbia and just walked up to people in the morning and handed them either a five- or a 20- dollar bill, which we asked them to spend by the end of the day. there was a catch. we told some people they had to spend the money on themselves. we told some people they had to spend the money on somebody else. what we found was that people who'd been randomly assigned to

spend this money on somebody else felt better by the end of the day than people who'd been assigned to spend that same small amount of money on themselves. >> reporter: a small experiment: small money, small number of subjects. and canadians are unusually nice, eh? >> so then, we conducted parallel experiments in canada, uganda, south africa, as well as collecting correlational data from around the world. and what we saw was that in poor and rich countries alike, people felt happier when they had the chance to spend money on others rather than themselves. >> reporter: best of all, though, is the chance to spend it on others you can actually see. >> a lot of the charitable giving that a lot of us do, we write a check and it goes somewhere. and, we can show that that does make you happier, but think of the difference between the check goes into the ether and you don't know what happened with the money compared to you really tangibly see the impact that your money had on another person. >> reporter: or even just the imaginary effect on a stuffie.

>> can you give one to giraffe? >> reporter: but are all kids equally altruistic? is there a normal distribution a kind of bell curve some give a lot and are really happy, some are not happy at all, most in the middle? >> it's actually surprisingly consistent. so, most of the toddlers are happier when they're giving than when they're getting the treats or themselves. >> reporter: so what's that red spot on the brain? >> the red mark in the brain is a mark of functional activation in the region called the amygdala. >> reporter: georgetown university psychology professor abigail marsh measures the brain activity of what she terms extraordinary altruists, people who donated a kidney to a total stranger. >> the amygdala is part of what's called the mammalian brain-- it's involved with emotions like fear and social processes like, to some extent, love and caring. this is an image from a brain scan we did looking at differences in amygdala activation in people who had donated a kidney to a stranger relative to people who have not. >> reporter: her research, she

says, was unequivocal: the altruistic amygdalas were about 8% larger than normal. >> altruistic kidney donors showed increased activation in the amygdala when they saw somebody in distress, which is the opposite of people at the other end of the compassion spectrum,opaths, who show reduced activation in the amygdala when they see somebody in distress. >> reporter: and in one study of psychopaths' brains... >> their amgydalas in one study were shown to be 17 to 18 percent smaller than controls, so this also seems to be related to having lower levels of concern or compassion for other people. >> reporter: so dr. seuss was right, the grinch's heart was too small? >> yes, i do use that analogy sometimes, in fact, maybe it was his amygdala that was too small. >> reporter: so when people find giving is more gratifying than receiving, what's going on? >> everything we've learned from our research is consistent with the idea that it is a good thing and beneficial for a person to be giving and generous to other people.

>> do you want to give the last treat to you or to monkey? >> reporter: one last experiment: the effect of giving on blood pressure. professor dunn gave adults over 65 with high blood pressure pill bottles filled with money. >> we asked them to take home these pill bottles and open them on specified days over the course of three weeks. inside each bottle was $20. and if you look at the label, there are instructions about what you should be doing with that money. >> reporter: please spend this money on someone else by 4:30 p.m. on the date listed below. >> other people got pill bottles that looked very similar, except the instruction is a little bit different. >> reporter: please spend this money on yourself. >> everybody was pretty happy getting pill bottles filled with money. but when we measure their blood pressure, both before and after

the study, what we found was that people who got these pill bottles telling them to spend the money on somebody else showed a significant reduction in their blood pressure from the beginning to the end of the study. in contrast, people who got this pill bottle who were told to spend the money on themselves just showed no change from the beginning to the end. >> reporter: now dunn insists we issue this warning: no matter how generous the hypertense among you become after watching this story, please do not give up your blood pressure medication just yet. but if you want a quick ticket to happiness, it seems, whether your stash is gold or goldfish, give it away. you'll be happy you did. from washington, d.c. and boston, this is economics correspondent paul solman, happily sharing this news with you, the pbs newshour audience. >> ifill: as the supreme count considers yet another major affirmative action case, tonight's "race matters" conversation focuses on what

happens before students get to college, when they grow up in mostly segregated inner-city schools. correspondent charlayne hunter- gault is reporting a year-long series on solutions to the questions raised by race. tonight, she talks with pedro noeguera, a professor at the university of california los angeles, who has found what can work. >> reporter: despite an historic supreme court ruling some 61 years ago outlawing segregated schools, today huge numbers of students remain in separate and unequal schools most in inner cities. but it doesn't have to be that way says pedro noeguera, director of the center for study of school transformation at u.c.l.a. i met him in new york when he was about to speak with a group of educators. professor noeguera, thank you for joining us. 61 years after separate and unequal education, you say it's

still happening. why is this. >> because the courts have made it difficult to continue to pursue integration. that's after we've made quite a bit of progress in the country, especially in the south, but now we know schools in the north and west are more segregated now than 30 years ago. so now we find ourselves in a situation where not only are schools increasingly racially separate but we're also concentrating the poorest children in schools that have the fewest resources. >> reporter: why? i would say a combination of lack of investment in schools that serve poor children and the fact that we have no longer the political will. >> reporter: but you have argued that separate schools play a role in perpetuating inequality not just in the schools but in general. >> they do because separate is still unequal in education. racially separate schools. even when the schools do a good job, the learning opportunities you have with the child will influence what kind of college

you go into, what kind of profession you have access to, what kind of income you earn. if we really are interested in creating a society that's more equal and less characterized by racial divisions, then we need to put more investment in education and leveling the playing fields and integrating our schools. >> there have been schools that have started that are supposed to be making up for these disparities like the charter schools and magnet schools. what impact are those kind of schools having on public education? >> in fact, many of the charter schools are nor segregated then the public schools. middle class, particularly middle class african-american families, want integrated schools for their skids. >> not long ago i was told about an experiment that took young people out of segregated into more integrated communities and said even when those were successful, you need to fix those within the community. now you have some solutions and examples where that works. >> yeah, we do have examples.

tulsa, oklahoma, for example, here you have a city, very red state, the best high school in the city, booker t. washington is 50% black and is a school the entire city looks up to. that should be a model for the country. >> reporter: but why is it a school that everybody looks up to? >> because of the quality of education provided. >> reporter: you just said there wasn't the will in the communities. so what happens? >> tulsa is interesting. tulsa has an ugly history. 1924h there was a race riot there and booker t. was burned to the ground. there is been an effort in tulsa where every child gets quality education, every school is a community school. >> reporter: how did it get to that point? >> john hope franklin, a great historian was a leader in the effort for reformations for black folks in tulsa.

his students, white students from duke university took up the effort to rebuild greenwood after he died. there is a big monument in tulsa to john hope franklin built by his former students, mostly after fliewpt whites in -- affluent whites in tulsa. we make the greatest advances when it's not just african-americans pushing the issue. when whites, latinos, when the mosaic of america recognizes we can be a better nation if we are working together, serving each other's interests. and, you know, there are others like it in other parts of the country that are showing us that you don't have to wait until we solve the problem of poverty or inequality. you can do a lot in education now to help to move our society forward. >> reporter: but one of the things you talked about are the needs beyond just basic education particularly for urban students and i guess you mean predominantly african-american or children of color. >> absolutely.

there are many children in the country. we have highest poverty rates of all. 22% of children in the country come from families at or below poverty level. so hundreds of children are coming to school whose needs are not met. schools serving them need social workers, psychologists, need a food program, health workers onsite, in order for those kids to concentrate on education and their kids to concentrate on teaching them. >> reporter: brockton, massachusetts. >> largest high school in the state, 4200 students, that by focusing on the student needs, even without moving them, you can create a school that's the pride to have the community. brockton is one of the only urban high schools in the state of massachusetts that gets a level one rating and that's because over one-third of their senior class gets the highest possible test score in the state and the demographics of the kids who get the score match the demographics of the school. >> reporter: how did it get

that way? >> they focus on literacy. >> reporter: they who? the school. they make sure every teacher whether it be science, math, art, music, literacy is what's promoted because they understand strong literacy skills, reading, writing, speaking, is a key to a strong education. they've stuck with that for the last 15 years or more. and it shows in the results. >> reporter: how committed do you think america is to maintaining public education? >> i think we're at a crossroads. but i try to remind people, the public education system is the only system that accepts all children. if we don't educate our children well, we're all in trouble. we have a growing number of retirees in america, mostly white, will be increasingly dependent on a younger, more diverse workforce to support them in retirement. so even if they just care about themselves, they should be concerned about the future of public education. people concerned about property

values should be concerned about public education because the value of the schools affects the value of your property. so we're all in this together. we need leadership that gets people to see it's in our interest as a countries to invest in our children, to invest in our schools. and we haven't had that for many years. >> reporter: except in the places you mentioned. >> yes, as the local level you see it. >> reporter: it's doable. absolutely. >> reporter: and you're optimistic? >> cautiously optimistic. >> reporter: professor noeguera, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, charlayne. >> ifill: netflix has announced its video streaming service will soon be available globally, leading to a wider audience for its movies and original programming. there is no bigger hit on netflix right now than "making a murderer"-- the story of a brutal case in wisconsin that

raises troubling questions about our criminal justice system. william brangham has the story. and a warning-- if you've not seen the series-- there are some spoilers ahead. >> brangham: "making a murderer" is the new, blockbuster true- crime series on netflix. in ten hour-long episodes, filmmakers laura riccardi and moira demos tell the story of steven avery, a wisconsin man who spent 18 years locked up for a sexual assault he didn't commit. but, after his release, avery was arrested for a new crime: the gruesome murder of a young photographer named teresa halbach. >> i don't know where she is. >> brangham: the series documents in incredible detail, the investigation and prosecution of stephen avery, and his young nephew, brendan dassey. both men were found guilty, are now serving life sentences for halbach's death. the series raises some troubling questions about how investigators and prosecutors pursued the case. for example: was then-16-year-

old brendan dassey coerced into making a false confession? was crucial evidence linking avery to the crime in fact planted by police? and were police trying to frame him because avery was suing them for $36 million over his earlier, wrongful conviction in the sexual-assault case? "making a murderer" was released in its entirety just before christmas, and it's quickly become a runaway success for netflix. tens of thousands of viewers are so convinced of steven avery's and brendan dassey's innocence that they've signed online petitions to president obama and to the governor of wisconsin, demanding the men be pardoned immediately. i spoke with the filmmakers, laura riccairdi and moira demo, who spent 10 years documenting this story. so what was it that originally drew you both to this case?

>> here was a man who had been clearly failed by the justice system in the mid-'80s in the and here he was being thrown back into the system and we were in a position where we could follow that case as it unfolded verite style and we look at has the system progressed. >> brangham: the prosecutor in this murder case, ken kratz, has been on a full-bore media blitz recently, denouncing the series, saying its extremely misleading, and rejecting the allegation that steven avery was framed. >> this wasn't a documentary at all. this was a defense piece. it was generated by and for steven avery by his defense team. if some of the evidence that was hand-picked or cherry picked didn't fit with the conclusion that mr. avery was the product

of a conspiracy its my belief that the filmmakers wouldn't include that information. >> brangham: kratz argues that several crucial pieces of evidence in the case were either glossed over by the netflix series, or not disclosed at all. things like the fact that steven avery called the murder victim several times the day she disappeared, or that avery's d.n.a. was found on the victim's car keys, on the hood of her car, and inside her car. the prosecutor says that you guys-- the filmmakers-- didn't include certain pieces of evidence because "you didn't want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened." >> i guess i would say he didn't want to muddy up a perfectly good prosecution with what actually happened. i mean we included the evidence that kratz himself spoke about in press conferences as being the most damning piece of evidence, the most significant pieces of physical evidence.

we were following his lead on what to include of course we couldn't include everything from a six-week trial but now the things he is saying is the proof of avery's guilt are not the things he was hanging his case on so. >> i've said before we had no horse in this race whether steven avery committed the horrible crime in this case or not was no consequence to us as documentarians. >> brangham: "making a murderer" is just the latest in a recent line of extremely popular re- examinations of old criminal cases. of course, there was "serial," the blockbuster podcast that, in its first season, scrutinized the 1999 conviction of a maryland teenager for the murder of his ex-girlfriend. and before that was hbo's popular miniseries "the jinx," which looked into the crimes of accused murderer robert durst. this comes obviously in a long line of these true crime

cases of late and i wonder why they are so so popular with their audiences why do you think these peak to us so strongly. >> i mean, i guess not always, but quite often true crime revolves a marginal character an underdog so to speak. i think most people feel like underdogs in their own lives and they can attach to that feeling and of course this is true crime this is real life there is something very immediate about that the fact that people can do something with the feelings they have after they watch i think it adds a layer of intensity to it. >> brangham: as for those pardons-- president obama can't do anything about this, because these weren't federal convictions. wisconsin's governor, scott walker, could do something, but he recently threw cold water on the idea: >> just because its on tv don't make it so, y'all. >> brangham: for now, steven avery remains in jail for life.

brendan dassey won't be eligible for parole until 2048. for the pbs newshour, i'm william brangham. >> ifill: next, we turn to "brief but spectacular" our occasional series where we ask interesting people to discuss their passions. tonight, we hear from illustrator and graphic journalist wendy macnaughton, who uses her art to tell stories that might otherwise be overlooked. >> so you guys are pointing this camera in my face but the thing is i don't have a camera but i can still capture you so don't move. you guys are going to hate me for this.

illustrated journalism is the words that i use to tell stories. real stories using drawings that i do mostly from life and the words of the people who i speak with. i think a lot of times with photography for example if you take a camera and just start if you put a camera in somebody's face then they might feel a little objectified but i'm not saying i do right now. if you have a sketch pad and you're drawing instead of people wondering what you're doing to them they're curious about what you're doing and they'll come to me. it actually opens up doors where as other mediums might close them down. i have done stories on the corners of fifth and sixth street in san francisco. two streets incredibly different right next to each other. on 5th street you have a ton of people who are shopping who are going to work and working at tech companies. and then you go over to sixth

street and you have people who have been living there for 20 years. it has the highest crime rate in the city. highest drug rate in the city. it's just a really tough place to be. i think it was kind of a good metaphor for what was going on in san francisco right now. last year my aunt died and it was the first time that i had ever been really bedside while somebody was dying. drawing for me is a way of looking at things. it's like an excuse to look at something i would otherwise be afraid of, so i started drawing my aunt everyday. the drawings turned out i think beautiful and they're hard to look at but they're good to look at. the same day she died i got a call from this hospice organization asking if i would be the artist in residence. i went into the hospice project thinking that i was going to do a story about the people who were dying and it would be focused on the people who were dying but now i've drawn for several months and i can tell

it's not probably going to be more about the volunteers the amazing volunteers caring for the people and their families. i'm interested in the stories of people who don't get their stories told. my name is wendy macnaughton and this is my brief but spectacular take on illustrated documentary. >> ifill: you can find more of our brief but spectacular videos on our facebook page, facebook.com/newshour. and on our own website-- in addition to teaching children how to behave in real life, parents must now keep track of their kids' behavior online. a new survey shows nearly all parents have told their teen what's ok to view and share on social media. but that's not the only way they're keeping tabs. read more, on our home page, pbs.org/newshour. we turn again to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in iraq and afghanistan.

we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, is one more. >> ifill: tune in later tonight, on charlie rose: leonardo dicaprio and director alejandro inarritu discuss their collaboration on their new film, "the revenant." and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm gwen ifill. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening with david brooks and david corn. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention. in the u.s. and developing countries. on the web at lemelson.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ >> announcer: this is "nightly business report," with tyler mathisen and sue herera. the selling intensifies. the dow and nasdaq are now in correction territory, off 10% from their recent highs. and the dow has never fallen so far so fast at the start of a year ever. china chaos. that country suspends its new stock market rules, leaving investors on edge ahead of shanghai's open. costly pitfalls. the common mistakes investors make in a volatile market and how you can avoid them. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday january 7th. good evening, everyone, and welcome. a body blow to the stock market as another wave of selling hit wall street and knock