Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  October 10, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT

6:00 pm
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: deadly fires rage in wine country. fast moving flames sweep across northern california, forcing tens of thousands to flee, and leaving incinerated homes and buildings in their wake. then, e.p.a. chief scott pruitt rolls back obama-era power plant rules intended to reduce carbon emissions. what the repeal means for coal, and climate change. and, the battle for truth. one company's growing monopoly over america's local news stations, and how it's shaping the political narrative. >> the most trusted news source of most americans is going to be allowed to be turned into an opinion organization, an opinion
6:01 pm
machine. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ >> bnsf railway.
6:02 pm
>> 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. >> woodruff: the toll from the fires racing across northern california is climbing tonight. at least 15 people have died so far, more than 2,000 homes and buildings have burned down, and hundreds more firefighters have been called to action. tonya mosely of pbs member station kqed begins our coverage. >> reporter: it's already one of the deadliest, most destructive outbreaks of wildfires in california's history. from above, tanker planes bombed the flames with water and retardant today, and on the ground, an army of 1,100
6:03 pm
firefighters hoped for help from cooler weather and lighter winds. the fires erupted sunday night, and their speed and ferocity caught homeowners and officials off guard. >> the first 24-36 hours of these incidents were fairly unprecedented in california, right. to have so many fires burning in this way, in such a condensed area, with such a big population was fairly unprecedented. >> reporter: causes are still unknown, but the fires sprang up almost simultaneously, across nine counties and a 200-square-mile area of northern california's wine country. >> this is my neighborhood. in flames. completely in flames. >> reporter: the flames were fed by dry brush and driven by 50-mile-an-hour winds. some people awoke to honking cars, their neighbors sounding the alarm as they fled without much more than they could carry. the city of santa rosa in sonoma
6:04 pm
county was among the hardest hit. the tubbs fire jumped a six-lane highway and barreled through the city of 175,000. it left behind a charred shopping center and cars, melted from the heat. >> you can't even recognize the place. we used to go over there and hang out, but i don't even know if we're going to do that, ever again. i just hope we can all come back as a community and get together and help everybody. >> reporter: the flames struck at all ends of the economic spectrum, incinerating the city's hilton hotel, as well as homes in this mobile home park. part of a high school was burned, and hospitals had to be evacuated. in nearby napa county, the atlas fire burned through vineyards and wineries-- the very heart of the region. and, officials this morning said an elderly couple died in their home, unable to evacuate. charles and sara rippey, 100 and 98 years old, had recently celebrated their 75th wedding
6:05 pm
anniversary. across the region, scores of others are still missing. some who survived the onslaught have begun returning to the remains, whole neighborhoods reduced to ashes. >> been here 25 years. it was a great neighborhood. it's going to be a lot of work getting it back. >> our prayers are with you, and we will be with you every day until we put these fires out and stand with these families to rebuild these communities. >> reporter: in sacramento today, vice president mike pence pledged federal assistance. but state officials say california already has a backlog of federal disaster assistance. >> napa county still hasn't received all the funding that they are due from the last natural disaster that we experienced. that's why it's incredibly important that congress do its job and appropriate the funds so >> reporter: meanwhile, fire officials say with so many fires
6:06 pm
burning, they're strained to the limit. >> we have folks on the fire line starting their third shift right now that have not been relieved, because there's folks not available to come in with so many fires in the area. >> reporter: and in southern california, another fire is raging again today near anaheim, 30 minutes south from los angeles. the 7,500-acre blaze has swallowed up homes and buildings. for the pbs newshour, i'm tonya mosely in santa clara, california. >> woodruff: later, president trump promised full federal support for the fire victims. he said, "we will be there for you." we turn now to mark ghilarducci, he is director of the california sate office of emergency services. i spoke with him a short time ago, and began by asking how large an area has been affected so far. >> well, right now i think we've got about 100,000 acres that have been scorched by the fires, and we still have a number of
6:07 pm
these fires at no or very little containment. so it's still a very active fire situation. >> woodruff: why so little progress in fighting them? >> well, a big part of it is because, you know, we continue to have what we call a red flag wind conditions. these are wind -- this is a wind event that has continued with high gusts or sustained winds that continues to push the fire out in front and expand the fire's perimeter. so that makes it a challenge when you're dealing with a fire like this. the other part is it's some very, very rough terrain. so it's a combination of efforts. that's been a big problem with the overall effort during this particular fire siege. >> woodruff: so i was reading that yesterday was considered one of the worst days in california's history when it comes to fires. is that your experience, that this is that much worse than
6:08 pm
what you've seen before? >> well, i would characterize it as being one of the worst that we've seen. california has experienced some very catastrophic fires. you know, certainly the oakland hills fire back in the '90s where several thousand homes were burned down. we had the cedar fire i think in 2003 in san diego. we've had our share of major fires in the past, but this one obviously with the number of structures that have been lost and unfortunately the lives that have been lost, the injuries, will rate up there as one of the worst we've had. >> woodruff: we are hearing about the people who are missing. how much concern is there about people you can't find? >> well, it's a huge concern for us, and it is a major priority that we're collectively working with the local authorities, with the cal fire units and the fire teams that are out there. this fire came roaring through.
6:09 pm
it came roaring through in the middle of the night. many people were asleep. you know, it's highly conceivable that people were unable to escape the flames. so it's going to be very, very important for us to go through and ensure that we are crosschecking where people who are missing with possibly still being in some of these buildings. so the search operations that are going on now will continue for several days until we can be 100% sure we've accounted for everybody. >> woodruff: we heard the napa county fire chief say that his resourcings were stretched to the limit. are they getting the resources they need from the state and any place else? >> they are. resources, you know, certainly it's a big state and we have close to 4,000 personnel assigned to these fires. that's fire and law enforcement
6:10 pm
and emergency management and emergency medical. we have our california national guard. all these assets have been deployed. of course, california has the most robust mutual aid system in the world. we utilize it regularly, and this summer has been no different than in the past. we have been very, very active and very, very busy, and we've been working with the fire agencies throughout california. we have fire agencies as far south as san diego and as far north as fescu county coming in to assist sonoma county. but we have other fires going on in the state, as well. so it's always a balance of where we're going to place resources. and we prioritize these fires, and we provide that support to the fires with the highest priority. >> woodruff: what's your expectation at this point, mr. ghilarducci? do you simply have to wait for these winds to die down in order to get control of these fires? >> well, no. we are actively... you know, we
6:11 pm
have hand crews and crews on the ground that are actively working to suppress the fires. we have... during the days we have done a tremendous amount of air support. we have a 747. we have large air tankers. we have retardant-dropping aircraft. all of those are actively working on the fires, and they are having an effect. but, you know, there's a lot of fuel, and these fires are pushed by wind. they can be very challenging. the big hope, and we understand the winds are going to die down now for a day or so, but we look to the forecast, and we know there is another wind event that's shortly happening. so we're expecting that and we're gearing up for that appropriately. >> woodruff: mark ghilarducci, the california office of emergency services director, and i'm sorry you've been having trouble with your earpiece, but thank you very much. >> i apologize for that. thank you very much.
6:12 pm
>> woodruff: and in the >> woodruff: and in the day's other news, the confirmed death toll in puerto rico rose to 43, nearly three weeks after hurricane maria wrecked the u.s. territory. authorities blamed infections and bad road conditions, among other factors. at the same time, local officials said power has been restored to 16% of the island's customers. maria knocked out electricity to all of puerto rico. president trump today denied he is undercutting his secretary of state, rex tillerson. the president spoke as he met with former secretary of state henry kissinger. he told reporters, "i don't believe in undercutting people." earlier, in a "forbes magazine" interview, mr. trump reacted to reports that tillerson had called him "a moron." he said: "if he did that, i guess we'll have to compare i.q. tests. and i can tell you who is going to win." this afternoon, white house spokeswoman sarah sanders dismissed questions about the president's quip. >> he wasn't questioning the secretary of state's intelligence.
6:13 pm
he made a joke. maybe you guys should get a sense of humor and try it sometime. but, he simply made a joke. he's been extremely clear, time and time again, despite the fact that you guys want to continue to bring this up and create a story. he's got a 100% confidence in the secretary of state. >> woodruff: all of this came on a day when president trump had lunch with secretary tillerson, and defense secretary jim mattis. the president also went after democrats today over immigration reform. in a morning tweet, he charged, "the democrats don't want secure borders," and, he said, they "don't care about safety for u.s.a." last month, mr. trump met with democratic leaders about protecting young, undocumented immigrants. he now says that a border wall and other measures must be included in any deal. u.n. humanitarian agencies say they are on "full alert," as a new exodus of refugees from myanmar floods into bangladesh.
6:14 pm
some 11,000 rohingya muslims have made the crossing yesterday alone. today, unicef said it's working to give 900,000 doses of cholera vaccines to the refugees. they are crowded into makeshift camps, where the disease is spreading. a diplomatic row between turkey and the united states heated up today. overnight, the u.s. ambassador to ankara condemned the arrest of a turkish man employed at the u.s. consulate in istanbul. today, turkish president recep tayyip erdogan charged the man was a spy. he also criticized the ambassador, and the u.s. decision to halt visa services. in spain, the president of catalonia stopped short today of declaring the region's independence. he called instead for negotiations. the region's government says that catalans voted overwhelmingly to secede in a referendum on october 1. the catalan president addressed
6:15 pm
his parliament today and urged calm, after madrid flatly rejected the outcome. >> ( translated ): we propose that parliament suspend the effects of a declaration of independence, so that in the next few weeks we start a dialogue, without which it is not possible to get to a concerted solution. we firmly believe that at this moment, a de-escalation of tensions is necessary. >> woodruff: spain's central government has warned that it will sternly oppose any attempt to secede. kenya's opposition leader, raila odinga, declared today he will not compete in a re-run of the presidential election. that leaves president uhuru kenyatta without a challenger. odinga says the election commission has "stonewalled" reforms needed to ensure the vote is fair. kenyatta won an august election, but the kenyan supreme court overturned it. back in this country, owners of the national football league's teams will consider making it mandatory for players to stand during the national anthem.
6:16 pm
commissioner roger goodell told the executives, in a memo today, that the issue is dividing the league from fans. the owners meet next week. and on wall street, the dow jones industrial average gained nearly 70 points to close at 22,830. the nasdaq rose seven, and the s&p 500 added almost six. still to come on the newshour: president obama's e.p.a. chief and a coal company executive, on revoking the clean power plan. the iran nuclear deal, that president trump could scrap, put in context. new allegations of sexual assault against hollywood mogul harvey weinstein. and, much more. >> woodruff: president trump has repeatedly pledged to unwind many of former president obama's signature policies, including
6:17 pm
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. the trump administration has already taken a number of steps to do so, but today made the biggest move yet. e.p.a. administrator scott pruitt will roll back a plan to limit emissions from existing power plants. john yang has more on this story. >> yang: the obama era rule, known as the clean power plan, aimed to significantly cut carbon emissions from the nation's power plants by 2030. the goal, to reduce emissions by a third of 2005 levels. but, utility companies and more than two dozen state attorneys general sued, including scott pruitt, the oklahoma attorney general at the time. last year, the u.s. supreme court put the obama rule on hold. now, pruitt has started a process to kill it outright. we invited scott pruitt to join us tonight. but the e.p.a. did not get back to us. we get two views on this decision now, beginning with gina mccarthy, who headed the
6:18 pm
e.p.a. for president obama and was an architect of the plan. she's now at the kennedy school at harvard university. gina mccarthy, thanks so much for joining us. first, let me ask you about your reaction to what you heard today. >> it doesn't surprise me. it's a campaign promise they pledged to get rid of actions that would protect our kids and their future. that's exactly what this is. so there are surprises in it, but i'm not surprised they proved forward with theory peel of this rule. >> yang: what are some of the surprises? >> well, i was surprised they decided to repeal the rule without proposing anything else in its stead because of the science dictates and as the law dictates, the e.p.a.'s obligated to regulate carbon pollution from this sector. so it surprises me that they weren't a little bit more sensitive to court challenges and what the courts have been telling e.p.a. for many years, which is you need to regulate this. so instead they took a look at
6:19 pm
it and decided that they'd repeal, and some time later in the future they'll start asking questions, even fundamental questions, about whether or not they actually have to do anything. so i think that's a big risk to how it's being framed. i think the other concern that i have with this is, you know, our clean power plant was really based on a solid understanding of how the energy system was working. it demonstrates maximum flexibility to achieve reductions and it recognizes sort of the low-cost renewable energy efficiency that was coming into the market in an anticipated, reasonable, and cost effective reductions we could achieve without threatening the energy system itself. but it appears the legal interpretation they want to take right now is that the administrator is supposed to be blind to how the energy system works, and instead the only things states are going to be allowed to do is look at their coal facility, shift consumer
6:20 pm
money into keeping them alive, even if they're not marketable, which will limit the kind of protections you'll get for public health and take a significant bite out of our ability to address climate change. and it will keep our kids' future safe. so it makes really very little sense in the energy world to even be looking at it like this, because states are already far ahead of what we anticipated. recent studies show because they're a low-cost energy, we'll be better off than we ever anticipated. the benefits will be larger and the costs will be smaller. >> yang: let me pick up on a couple points you said. there. the administrator said it went beyond regulatory norms by asking the regulated utilities to do things beyond their specific individual plan, beyond the fence line. isn't that the reason why the supreme court put this on hold, so that the lower courts could
6:21 pm
look at this and decide whether that was true? >> actually, no. this very legal issue has been fully briefed in front of the d.c. circuit. and the d.c. circuit will now have to decide whether they continue to put this on hold, which will give pause to the supreme court, because e.p.a. is obligated to move forward. this administrator did not question the science in this decision. it just simply said they wanted to craft a narrower interpretation and figure that out later, which is not going to sit well. so it's going to be very challenging for them to defend this in court. and in the meantime, we have a rule that's actually working. it is actually looked at how then joy system works, and it's helping to underpin that. so we perfectly expect that the clean energy system is going to continue to move forward, but what they're trying to do is shift resources at states to coal industries only. and that's just not the way the clean air act works.
6:22 pm
>> yang: but even with this rule on hold, these regulations aren't in place right now, there are studies that show that emissions around electrical power planteds are going to decline to the targets envisioned by the clean power plan anyway because of economic forces. so is the worry overstated about what happened today? >> well, actually, i don't think it's overstated because they're still trying between the e.p.a. and d.o.e. to set a case to go backward to more coal, even though it's not marketable, even though the future is in clean energy. and so we just have to be cautious and careful. the one thing that this does, and you're right, you're giving a great case for why the clean power plants should continue, because it is continuing to underpin the way the energy world is heading, but what this could do is create uncertainty. that's what the utility industry does not want, because they make
6:23 pm
long-term investments. the utility industry themselves are some of the big power producers, and they'll tell you that they are investing where the future is, not in the past, because that is where money will be made, that's where reliability will be stronger, that's where it's less expensive for consumers. they know we're moving to clean energy, but the worry is will uncertainty cause us to hesitate? will uncertainty cause us to not invest in the next traunch of great technologies and cede that to other countries so they can make the jobs, they can make the economic growth impacts that are associated with looking to the future instead of going back in time to a technology that is no longer marketable. that's what we're talking about here. >> yang: former e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy, thank you for joining us. >> thanks.
6:24 pm
>> yang: for a different view, we're joined by robert murray, the founder, chairman and c.e.o. of murray energy corporation, the nation's largest privately held coal company. the company the first lawsuit against the clean power plan. mr. murray, thank you for joining us. first of all, let me just ask you your reaction the what administrator pruitt did today. >> we fully support president trump and administrator prosecute's -- pruitt's decision to repeal the clean power plants. it will preserve low-cost, reliable electric power in america for those families on fixed incomes that are paying out 21% of their earnings for energy and for those single moms that are paying out the same amount. ms. mccarthy was wrong in her statement, blatantly wrong and misleading. we paid out $15 billion, the american taxpayer did last year for wind mills and solar panels for subsidies. it costs 26 cents a kilowatt hour.
6:25 pm
coal-fired power costs 4 cents an hour. gina mccarthy and barack obama destroyed reliable, low-cost electricity in america, and donald trump and scott pruitt are trying to bring it back. >> yang: let me ask you also about this question about whether or not there should be regulation on carbon dioxide at all. the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the edison electric institute say that... acknowledge there probably will be some regulation on co2. what's your stand on that? >> my stand is that the endangerment funding needs to be repealed, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. i have 4,000 scientists that tell me that it is not a pollutant. a lot of people, john, have made money off of promoting the politics of climate change and the politics of the democrat party. in promoting their wind mills, their solar panels, and all
6:26 pm
other restraints and alarmist restraints on low-cost, reliable electricity. we need to get back... we have an energy poverty problem in this country, john. we need to have low-cost reliable electricity for all americans, and coal is four cents a kilowatt hour. a windmill and a solar panel is 25 cents that they have promoted. it's all going back now to the science, back the what should have been. low-cost electricity is a staple of life in this country. we must have it for jobs, for manufacturing, for people on fixed incomes, for that single mom. and obama and mccarthy destroyed it. we're putting it back. >> yang: you mentioned the endangerment finding. that's the basis for the e.p.a.'s regulation of co2. you want it reversed. i know you talk to the president. is that something that is also on the president's agenda, do you think? >> i don't know, john, whether
6:27 pm
it is for sure or not. we have discussed it. it should be. it was never intended in the clean air act of 1971, john, where all of these regulations of obama came from that carbon dioxide be a regulated pollutant. that was only recently decided. all of this that they've been doing has been illegal. what mccarthy did here is illegal. i was joined by 29 states. i filed a lawsuit and got a stay on february 9, 2016, before the united states security. i was joined by 29 states that obama and his director of the e.p.a. had done something illegal. and they have. so we're trying to put it back now and put it right. i believe there needs to be a lot of discussion as to what the effects are of any climate
6:28 pm
change on society, on our standard of living. we have an energy poverty problem. we this not have a climate change problem. >> yang: you don't see climate change as an issue or problem at all despite what other scientists say? >>i do not. i this not. i listen to 4,000 scientists who tell me that mankind is not affecting climate change. climate change has occurred over the cycle for decades. the antarctic ice field is larger than it has ever been right now. the earth has cooled for the last 19 years. it's a natural cycle. and to cause people to pay too much for their electricity or have unreliable electricity because of this scare, which a lot of people, like albert gore have made a lot of money off of, is wrong. it's wrong for our americans.
6:29 pm
and scott pruitt and president trump are trying to put it back to where it should be in the best interests of all americans. >> yang: robert murray, the founder and chairman of murray energy, thank you very much for joining us. >> woodruff: another hallmark of the obama administration is the iran nuclear deal, and a deadline looms this weekend to certify whether tehran is in compliance, and whether the agreement is in the u.s. national security interest. there is fierce debate over what president trump should do. but, we wanted to step back to look at what the deal does and does not do, and what the president's decision could mean. nick schifrin is here to put it in context. >> reporter: in 2015, the united states and a united world community made a deal with iran. iran severely restricted its nuclear program, allowed more access to international
6:30 pm
inspectors, and promised never to "seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons." before the deal, u.s. and israeli intelligence believed that "breakout time" for iran to build a nuclear weapon was as little as one month. after the deal, the breakout time was at least 12 months. in return, the u.s. and the u.n. lifted sanctions related to ian's nuclear program worth more than $100 billion, and promised not to discourage investment in iran. the deal was announced by the european union's top diplomat, federica mogherini. >> we delivered on what the world was hoping for. a shared commitment to peace and to join hands in order to make our world safer. >> reporter: the deal's critics were unconvinced. >> i know deal-making. and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic. for america, for israel, and for the whole of the middle east. >> reporter: the first criticism is the deal's expiry dates, or so-called sunsets: after eight years, iran can begin to slowly
6:31 pm
manufacture increasingly advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium. after 15 years, iran can start producing higher grade uranium, and can expand its stockpile of uranium. and after 20 years, iran can restrict international monitoring. the deal's advocates counter that all arms deal have sunsets, and that the deal has important permanent restrictions: iran is forever banned from activities that "could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device," and is forever required to notify inspectors if it's building a nuclear facility. the critics also condemn what's not in the deal. iran helps arm militant groups in the middle east, including hezbollah, deemed a terrorist group. the deal doesn't prevent that. iran launches and trades ballistic missiles. the deal doesn't prevent that. and iran helps the syrian regime's brutal crackdown. the deal doesn't prevent that. the deal's defenders say it was never designed to confront those other issues, and it's better to do that confrontation when iran doesn't have an active nuclear
6:32 pm
program. but the deal does say world powers expect iran to "positively contribute to regional and international peace and security." and critics argue iran, even if it's in technical compliance, is going against that, against the so-called spirit of the deal. >> we cannot let a murderous we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. >> reporter: so, what's next? administration and congressional officials tell me they expect the president will not certify iran is in compliance with the deal based on national security grounds. that will trigger a 60 day window, during which congress "snapping back sanctions," meaning re-imposing nuclear related sanctions on iran. that would likely kill the deal. but even the deal's most strident critics, such as senator tom cotton, say congress
6:33 pm
shouldn't kill the deal. they want the 60-day window so the u.s. can gain leverage to get iran to change the deal, even if that takes many months. >> the world needs to know we're serious, we're willing to walk away, and we're willing to re-impose sanctions, and a lot more than that. and they'll know that when the president declines to certify the deal, and not before. >> reporter: the trump administration wants to change all iranian behavior. but it's not clear it's possible to do so by renegotiating the nuclear deal. iran says it won't renegtoiate. and, with the possible exception of france, none of the other countries who signed the deal want to renegotiate. wendy sherman led the obama team that negotiated the deal. >> if the president doesn't certify, even if congress does not snap back sanctions, which is a kabuki smackdown, their ability to pull off this kabuki dance is in great question. as a result, we will isolate ourselveses from the rest of the world. >> reporter: the next few months will be dominated by uncertainty. uncertainty of what congress will do, and uncertainty how iran will respond to washington's decisions. the deadline for the president to announce his decision is sunday. i'm nick schifrin.
6:34 pm
>> woodruff: there are growing allegations of sexual harrassment, and now, outright assault, by movie mogul harvey weinstein. the "new york times," which broke the original story, followed up with more allegations of harrassment, including from gwyneth paltrow and angelina jolie. paltrow said that she was "petrified" and refused his advances, as a 22-year-old, when weinstein allegedly put his hands on her and suggested they go to the bedroom for massages. the "new yorker" magazine went even further. it published a long report that included allegations by three women, including actress asia argento, who say weinstein raped them. the report also included numerous allegations of harassment of other women, including actress rosanna arquette. weinstein's spokeswoman said he "unequivocally denied any allegations of nonconsensual sex or acts of retaliation against woman refusing his advances."
6:35 pm
journalist ronan farrow wrote the "new yorker" article. he joins me now. ronan farrow, thank you for joining us. first of all, just quickly, how did you come to this story, and how long did you spend reporting it? >> the story was assigned to me, and it's been about ten months. i mean, look, multiple news organizations over 20 years, judy, have really circled this, and thereland been reporting that has met the right evidentiary standard until very recently. but in the last few years, i think there has been a cultural shift around this. >> woodruff: well, as we said a moment ago, you have information that builds on what "the new york times" reported. you talked to at least 13 women, three of whom said that harvey weinstein forced himself on them, forced them to have sex with him. how would you sum up what you learned about him? >> look, this is clearly an incredibly widespread set of allegations.
6:36 pm
we're talking about 13 women in this "new yorker" sory that we ran today. these are clearly incredibly serious allegations, judy. we're talking about three allegations of rape. in addition to the discussion of what these women went through, there's an incredible uprising of people within his company talking for the first time in decades about what they said was a culture of complicity, about a pattern of meetings that they said were thin cover for predatory advances on young women. this is a tipping point where a lot is being exposed right now. >> woodruff: "the new yorker" made available an audiotape recording of an exchange that weinstein had with this italian woman i mentioned, who after he groped her, she contacted the new york police department and then the next day, she agreed to wear the microphone when she saw him. we'll play that right now, part of that. >> please, i am not going to do anything, i swear on my
6:37 pm
children. please, on everything, i'm famous guy. >> i'm feeling very uncomfortable. >> please come in now, in one minute, and if you want the leave, when the guy comes. >> please, i'm sorry, come on in. come in. >> but i'm not used to that. >> i won't do it again. come on. sit here. sit here for a minute. please? >> new york i don't want to. >> if you don't do it now, you'll embarrass me. okay. i promise you, i won't do anything. >> woodruff: so ronan farrow, harvey weinstein was never prosecuted. the new york police didn't act on this. there were some compcations around ms. guttierez. but that was an important moment, wasn't it? >> it was a critical moment and reveals a lot. first of all we include in full the decision by the district attorney's office not to pursue charge, but we also spoke to a lot of sources close to this investigation, and we quote one
6:38 pm
officer on the police force involved in this operation saying how angry she was, saying they had the evidence. so this reveals a lot about the system around allegations like this, too. >> woodruff: and again, what harvey weinstein's office is saying is that he denies having any non-consensual relations with any of these women. >> and, of course, we include his statement in full. you know, this is "the new yorker." he had a very full and fair opportunity to respond and engage with us on this. he is saying that there was no non-consensual sex. he's saying that he never retaliated against women. and in this group of women, with allegations again and again, they say otherwise. >> woodruff: how much of what harvey weinstein is accused of was enabled by people who worked around him or by agents who worked in hollywood, worked in the industry? >> you know, judy, again and again i heard from a group of 16
6:39 pm
former employees in his companies that they felt guilty, that they felt a sense that they needed to speak out earlier and they had been too afraid for many years. and they did a very brave thing speaking in this story. and one after another they described exactly what you refer to, a culture of complicity, and ways in which they were asked to aid and abet some of this predation. >> woodruff: which plays into the next question i have, which is how did he get away with this, if he did, again, it's allegation, but the evidence is pretty damning, how did he get away with this for so long? >> you know, the thing that you run into reporting on this story, auburn i have been immersed in it over the last year, is there is a vast machine set up to silence these women. we are talking about legal settlements where women were paid to sign very restrictive non-disclosure agreements.
6:40 pm
we're talking about a public relations team that plants negative items about women. these are all allegations that were made to us by women in this story, and obviously these are allegations that have checked out to a very great extent or you wouldn't be reading about them in the "new yorker" right now some what these women have done in confronting that machine is incredibly important. i can tell you from having had these conversations with you, very brave. these were all women who were very, very afraid to speak. >> woodruff: is this finally a story about harvey weinstein and the people around him, or is it a story broadly about hollywood and the way the movie industry works? >> i think it's bigger than either of those stories, judy. i think this is a story about the abuse of power. it's a phenomenon we see across multiple industries. it's a story about the difficulty of speaking out about the topic of sexual harassment and assault. you know, these women talked at length about their struggle over many years with the decision
6:41 pm
over whether to speak. you know, women with these restrictive non-disclosure agreement, women's whose careers were on the line, women who feared for their personal safety. they made a very tough call here. that reveals what every survivor everywhere is up against when they decide whether to speak about this. so, you know, i think what you're seeing now in terms of public support for these women is indicative of something of a turning point. >> woodruff: is it your expectation that still other women are going to come out, and is there any sort of consensus about what's going to happen to harvey weinstein and to other men or women who may be doing something like what he did? >> look, judy, i don't want the commit on pieces of reporting that didn't make it into our final text, our story speaks for itself and is very, very extensetive. obviously when you work on a story of ten months of this size there is a lot of other sources out, there but it's probably best to not get into that for
6:42 pm
now. in terms of the future, we've seen how this has unfolded in multiple other cases, and it's going to be very much in the hands of these women how they want to proceed. >> woodruff: ronan farrow, the author of this disturbing piece in the "new yorker" magazine. thank you very much. >> thank you so much, judy. >> woodruff: and now, for a different kind of media story, and a question: does it matter who owns the tv station that delivers your local news? polls show many americans trust local news more than other sources. the largest owner of local stations in the country, sinclair broadcasting, is planning a merger that would make them even bigger. it is a move that is raising concerns, because of sinclair's policy of combining news with partisan political opinion. william brangham has that story. >> a train derailment in tennessee. >> some routine road maintenance
6:43 pm
has lead to a squabble. >> we have breaking news to tell you about-- this is out of bethesda tonight. >> brangham: night after night, the country's largest owner of local tv stations, the sinclair broadcast group, reaches over a third of homes across the nation. >> a compromise plan for the controversial conseus inn. >> brangham: most of us think of local news as just that-- local. they're local stories, produced and reported by local people. but if, last week, you tuned in to, say, wvtv, sinclair's station in milwaukee, you saw this: >> does the president have to repeat that fact, day in and out? >> brangham: that's boris epshteyn, former member of the trump administration, and now chief political analyst for sinclair. and here he was again on wear in pensacola: >> the president stating the fact that the fringes of the left and the right. >> brangham: and on ksas in wichita: >> are both capable of hate and violence, does not mean he is condoning any of it. >> brangham: and again, and again, on every single one of the 173 sinclair stations across
6:44 pm
the country. on those stations, you might also see these: >> "we should only tear down the bad statues," one viewer told me. but who decides what is bad? >> brangham: that's sinclair executive mark hyman: >> what responsible adult hasn't pointed to a scar as a reminder to not repeat a foolish act from their youth? >> brangham: or these: the weekly so-called "terrorism alert desk. >> i'm allison starling, from the terrorism alert desk. >> brangham: sinclair mandates that these clearly conservative editorials and features get broadcast on every one of their local stations. in some cases, stations have to run them as often as nine times a week. eric lipton is a reporter for the "new york times," who's been covering sinclair. >> they have what they call "must runs" which include boris epshysten, who was a surrogate for trump, on the air, talking about conservative issues. while the local news stations largely decide what the news coverage is going to be, you know, of covering local government, crime and local
6:45 pm
issues, there are these "must runs" that go on their networks across the united states, which have a decidedly conservative flavor. >> brangham: this partisan tilt has many free-speech advocates alarmed because, not only does sinclair own such a large chunk of the marketplace already, but sinclair is hoping to expand to reach even more. if its proposed $4 billion merger with tribune media goes forward, sinclair would now reach three out of four american households. journalism professor and former milwaukee station manager lewis friedland: >> it is a real step in a very different direction to begin to say the most trusted news source of most americans is going to be allowed to be turned into an opinion organization, an opinion machine for a very narrow, narrowly conservative point of view, night after night in local communities. >> brangham: television remains the main source of news for many americans.
6:46 pm
in 2016, 46% of adults said they got their news from local tv stations. and it's information they trust. 41% of registered voters trust local news to tell the truth, while just 27% trust national news. sinclair disputes having any kind of political bent. its executives declined to talk with us on camera for this report. but the record shows, the maryland-based sinclair has used its ownership of local stations to push partisan viewpoints for years. for example, after the 9/11 attacks, sinclair required anchors and reporters to read messages supporting president george bush's efforts against terrorism. >> brangham: in 2004, when abc news' "nightline" devoted an entire show to reading the names of u.s. service members who'd died in iraq, sinclair, which owned seven abc affiliates at the time, barred those stations
6:47 pm
from showing the broadcast. later that year, in the midst of the presidential campaign between john kerry and president george bush, sinclair mandated all its stations run a special that included clips from a distinctly one-sided documentary that questioned john kerry's vietnam war service. >> i was outraged, and still am. that he willingly said things which were untrue. >> brangham: on the night before >> brangham: and more recently, sinclair had stations run this segment, calling the national media purveyors of "fake news." >> unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. >> brangham: sinclair even caught the eye of hbo's john oliver, who poked fun at how sinclair sometimes forces conservative talking points into the scripts that their local news anchors read. >> did the f.b.i. have a
6:48 pm
personal vendetta? >> did the f.b.i. have a personal vendetta? >> did the f.b.i. have a personal vendetta? >> brangham: this blurring of news and opinion is one criticism of the company. the blurring of news and advertising is another. >> hey! is it too early to get a fish sandwich? >> brangham: there are numerous examples of sinclair stations running what are largely paid promotions masquerading as news pieces. >> more and more patients at huntsman cancer institute are recording their life stories. >> brangham: in this case, sinclair stations across the country ran these segments about the huntsman cancer institute. they looked like news spots, but were in fact funded by the cancer center, something viewers weren't told. the f.c.c. is still investigating that case. sinclair's bid to buy tribune, and thus expand its reach dramatically in the local news market, has drawn plenty of criticism. sinclair says critics have it wrong.
6:49 pm
they say it's about economics. "the proposed merger will advance the public interest by helping to shore up an industry buffeted by well-known economic challenges." traditionally, to protect against any one company becoming too dominant, congress has set certain caps on how many media outlets any one corporation can own in a given market, but the f.c.c. recently changed those rules. under the new leadership of trump appointee ajit pai, the f.c.c. has now made it easier to approve sinclair's expansion. tom wheeler is the former chair of the f.c.c. he thinks these new rule changes are a blow to a free and vibrant press. >> the trump f.c.c. has, in one very short period, moved to change three basic rules that have been in place to protect diversity of voices and avoid monopolization of broadcast television market.
6:50 pm
we have a society in which the flow of information is crucial to a democracy, and when that free flow of information gets choked off by corporate consolidation, we ought to all worry. >> brangham: eric lipton of the "new york times" discovered meetings and correspondence between ajit pai and sinclair executives that he says raise questions about the company's influence with the trump administration. >> he met with the executive officers of sinclair just a few days before trump was inaugurated, where they made clear to him that they were looking for the trump administration to roll back some of these restrictions that were essentially limiting their ability to get bigger. and it was just a matter of a couple of weeks when all of a sudden, pai was named chairman and he was actually rolling back the same rules that they had approached him on. and only as a result of rolling back these rules, the sinclair merger was going to be able to
6:51 pm
go through. >> it's not just as commissioner pai, chairman pai has suggested, a simple shift in ownership regulations. it's actually a shift in our entire broadcast eco-system. >> brangham: a final f.c.c. decision on the sinclair-tribune deal is expected later this year. in washington, d.c., i'm william brangham for the pbs newshour. >> woodruff: we have heard the harrowing tales of migrants making their way to greece. many do not survive the trip across the aegean sea. tonight, as part of our "newshour shares," a look at trying to get refugees comfortable with water, and the sea, to help alleviate stress. independent producer micah garen sent this report from lesbos, greece. >> my name is isidoros lapsatis. i'm greek. i'm from an island called kefalonia, and i work with lifeguard hellas on lesvos.
6:52 pm
we do swimming lessons here for the refugees. i think it's important for the refugees to enjoy the water. you know, it's something. they've had traumatizing experiences. most of them, some of them, if not many of them, can't swim. i believe these people deserve to have fun and relax, and appreciate the water, you know, the sea, the way we do. >> have you ever been in the sea? >> yes, in the boat. not like this, man. i'm scared sometimes, when i think about getting in the boat and driving. you know, it's different from being in the water. >> we risked our lives to find a place where we can be assured that there is security.
6:53 pm
we do that because back home there is war. there is suffering, there are a lot of things that happen in our country that we can't live with. >> ( translated ): here it's good, because we can swim a little. it takes away stress. >> many are scared of water, so we try to get them to relax in water, because you can really only swim when you relax. concentrate on swimming, doing the movements. we first do something like that. and it's surprisingly-- many people are fascinated how easy it is to do, but it's really relaxing. and it helps them a lot to gain trust in water, and how to swim. and then we slowly start by a floatie or some kind of thing.
6:54 pm
they float on water, their chest, we hold their hands. and try to do with their feet like this. >> it's really important for the people to be connected with the water, to feel like the sea is part of them. and not something that took away their family. so it's a way to get free people of-- everywhere borders, here there are no borders, people are afraid of the water, it's like a border for them. what we do here is to get people familiar with the water and get comfortable and play games because water is fun. >> ( translated ): yes, it's good. the water is good. we should continue like this.
6:55 pm
people should help us do this. we do have water in africa, but here it is good, better. it's good to swim. >> woodruff: thank you for the good news. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again right here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> collette. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org.
6:56 pm
>> 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. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> you're watching pbs.
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
♪ - you know my first trip to mexico was in 1963. it was my first bullfight, my first taste of cilantro. it took me years to actually learn to love it. and, of course, my first taste of authentic mexican food. so today, we are traveling back to central mexico to figure out how to make real guacamole-- hold the garlic. we're also going to make a chipotle shrimp dish where the shrimp almost cook themselves. and, finally, we're going to take a side trip to tulum to figure out how to make a great chili pineapple margarita.