judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. judy: on the "newshour" tonight. the crisis continues. shelling in eastern ukraine sparks dire warnings that russia could be looking for a pretext for invading the country in the coming days. then, the pandemic. we asked dr. anthony fauci about the uncertain future of covid-19 amid changing blic health guidelines. dr. fauci: if we enter been the known interventions, it will be much more likely that we will get back to normal. judy: and, officers on trial. the other police offirs charged in the killing of george floyd are cross-examined about whether they should appear -- all that and more tonight on the

"pbs newshour." ♪ >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> fidelity dig headed that visor's are here to help you create a wealth plan -- fidelity , planning focused on tomorrow, while you focus on today. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. >> consumer cellular. bnsf railway the kendeda fund

carnegie corporation of new york and with the ongoing support of these individuals and 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. judy: war in ukraine could come within days. president biden said today as , artillery that ukraine blamed on russian-backed separatists hit a kindergarten in the eastern part of the country, and as a tense standoff between the

west and russia came to a point in the united nations security council. more than 150,000 russian troops remain massed tonight on the borders of ukraine. nick schifrin again starts our coverage. ni: near the line of contact between the ukrainian military and russian-backed separatists, this morning, a shell pierced the wall of a kindergarten classroom that, on tueay, had been full of 5-year-olds and their teachers. this morning, they fled from what the ukrainian government called separatist shelling. the u.s.ears a russian attack like this could be the first shot fired in a wider war that's about to start. pres. biden: we have reason to believe that they are engaged in a false flag operation to have an excuse to go in. >> is your sense that this is going to happen now? pres. biden: yes. not my sense is, it will happen within the next several days. nick: secretary of state antony blinken made a last-minute visit to new york to reveal new intelligence about a possible russian pretext.

>> it could be a fabricated, so-called terrorist bombing inside russia, the invented discovery of a mass grave, a staged drone strike against civilians, or a fake, even a real attack using chemical weapons. russia may describe this event as ethnic cleansing or a genocide. nick: indeed, ahead of the meeting, russia delivered to the security council what it called a joint project with the news channel r.t. about "war crimes" in eastern ukraine. r.t., formerly known as russia today, has already been publishing stories about british-trained "saboteurs" planning attacks, and american mercenaries preparing a "provocation" using chemical weapons. deputy foreign affairs minister sergey vershinin blamed today's violence on ukraine. >> people for many years he been subject to shelling by the ukrainian army, and that has continued today. nick: but u.s. officials say it's the russian army that continues shelling in massive exercises in belarus. russia says it's withdrawing some troops, but senior u.s.

officials say the number of russian troops increased by 7,000, and they are poised for invasion. british intelligence even tweeted what it called russia's possible axis of invasion on seven fronts. >> saddam hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort. nick: and 19 years after one of blinken's predecessors gave a speech based on false intelligence, blinken embraced the comparison. antony blinken: i'm mindful that some have called into question our information, recalling previous instances where intelligence ultimately did not bear out. but let me be clear. i am here today not to start a war, but to prevent one. nick: preventing war requires diplomacy. in moscow, u.s. ambassador john sullivan visited the foreign ministry to receive a new russian document that said, "we welcome the readiness of the united states for appropriate consultations," a reference to

u.s. offers to discuss arms control, military exercises, and missile deployments. but the document added: "this work cannot replace the settlement of key problems." that's a reference to russian demands already rejected, that nato refrain from any fuher enlargement, including ukraine, roll back to before nato expanded in the late 1990s to former soviet satellites and states, and pledge not to deploy missiles near russia's borders. moscow also acknowledged today that, last week, it cked out deputy u.s. chief of mission bart gorman, the embassy's number two. but, this morning, foreign minister sergey lavrov said there's still room for diplomacy. >> we will continue talks on all aspects of our proposals. nick: and, for more, we're joined by victoria nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs. victoria nuland, welcome back to the "newshour." president biden today said that

russia could launch war "within the next several days." what are you seeing that leads to that conclusion? victoria: nick, as my secretary said at the united nations today, we are seeing russian forces not moving back from the front, but, in fact, moving forward, and more forces coming in every day. we're seeing them moving into ready positions. we are seeing spetsnaz units at the ready. we're seeing large amounts of aviation, large amounts of naval power surrounding ukraine. and we are starting to see the kinds of pretexts that the secretary was warning about today, including the bombing of the kindergarten, unbelievable, by russia-backed separatists today. nick: on the number of pretexts that the secretary of state listed that we heard in our piece, one caught our eye. he said that russia could use chemical weapons as a pretext for war. what is your evidence for that? victoria: well, these are the kinds of things that russia is predicting that the ukrainians would do. and this is a tried-and-true

russia technique, accuse the other guy of doing exactly what you, yourself, are planning to do. now, whether they would actually be as brutal as to use chemical weapons or just make it look like the chemical weapons had been used, that is one of the pretexts that we want to warn the world about, because it is in their playbook, and we could see it in the next couple of da. nick: and, certainly, as i pointed out, r.t. has been talking about chemical weapons. but i think you have gotten this question before, and it is important to ask. why should we trust u.s. intelligence when, of course, it has been wrong in the past? and, as you know, many russian-ukrainian experts who i talk to doubt that putin would benefit or even be able to occupy ukraine and conduct a regime change. victoria: well, nick, as you know, we have been warning about these russian military plans since november. we started warning when there were 50,000 troops around ukraine's borders. and then our warnings got stronger when there were 100,000 troops around ukraine's borders. and then, when they moved 30,000

troops through belarus, we warned again. and now we're up to 150,000 troops, including very high-tech weapons, and, as i said, spetsnaz forces. so we are depending, obviously, on our intelligence, but it is being borne out by what we're seeing on the ground, unfortunately. nick: spetsnaz, of course, the russian special operations forces that we have seen in ukraine in the past. and just to put a point on this, of course, we do hear that the russians say that they're going to end exercises in the black sea and in belarus in the next few days. is that the critical moment? is that what you're fearing, that those russian troops won't actually end those exercises, and instead will be used for an invasion? victoria: absolutely, nick. as secretary blinken said today, they have everything in theater ready to go. and if they want to prove to the world that that is not tir intention, they can see -- they can say unequivocally

that they have no intention of invading ukraine, and they can begin pulling back those forces, those aircraft, those ships, and come to the diplomatic table. nick: on the diplomatic table, are there off-ramps? russia delivered a letter today. we reported a little bit about what it said. is it, do you believe, an opening for diplomacy? and has foreign minister lavrov agreed to meet secretary blinken, as blinken invited him to, next week? victoria: we have not yet had a response to secretary blinken's offer of this morning to secretary lavrov, to minister lavrov, to mt anywhere of his choosingn europe next week. we hope he will accept that. there is grounds, both in the u.s. proposal and in the russian proposal, for us to work seriously on arms control, on military deconfliction, on restraints. the russians, in fact, in their document today, said that they wanted to talk about some of

these things, paicularly intermediate-range nuclear weapons and short-range nuclear weapons and missile defenses. so, let's come to the diplomatic table and talk. and let's pull back forces from ukraine. nick: it's hard to read some of these messages. they are mixed. while the letter did say that they wanted to talk about those topics, at the same time, it said that the u.s. had not responded to positively the core demand about nato's future and ukraine's future. so, bottom line, do you believe that that letter is an opening to diplomacy or not? victoria: nick, i believe that the united states and our allies have to take every opening we possibly can to try to get the russians to the table and to try to avert a war that will be incredibly bloody for ukraine, for russia, incredibly dangerous for europe, for peace and security around the world, and would really draw new dividing lines like we haven't seen since i was young and you were even younger. so, we have to try to get russia back to the diplomatic table.

but, as you said at the beginning of your segment here, a lot of russia'unacceptable demands remain. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try talking and try closing the gaps. but they have to de-escalate if they're serious about diplomacy, rather than war. nick: washington especially and london behind it have been very aggressive at releasing russian military assessments, russian military plans. do you believe that can make putin sweat, change his calculus? because there's not a lot of history of putin changing his behavior after being called out. victoria: well, as you know, nick, putin loves the element of surprise. that's what he was able to achieve when he jumped into crimea in 2014 and some of his other moves the last time we saw him escalate in ukraine. so what we have tried to do here is not only remove from his toolkithe element of surprise,

make sure that the ukrainians and our allies and partners are ready, but also that the international community sees this bag of dirty tricks that he and the kremlin have used so often and recognizes them. today's example was a prime one, where, when the kindergarten was hit with those awful pictures, definitely, based on the trajectory of the missiles, by russian proxies in the donbass, they were unable to succeed in gaining traction that this came from the ukrainians because we had prepared people. so we will continue to do that. and, unfortunately, we believe that our intelligence is being borne out here. but there is still time for diplomacy. that is our message today. nick: victoria nuland, thank you very much. victoria: thank you, nick.

stephanie: we will return to the full program after the latest headlines. night, this and approve legislation funding the government, averting a shut down this weekend. both parties hope the bipartisan vote, passing 65-27, will buy them enough time to reach a longer-term deal to finance federal agencies. to finance federal agencies. the have until march 11 for the legislation just passed expires. california will shift its approach from pandemic to endemic, still a threat, but considered manageable. governor gavin newsom announced the move today, the first by any state. it emphasizes prevention and quick response but lee's various emergency orders intact. meanwhile, researchers at the university of washington estimated that 73% of americans are now immune to the omicron variant. we'll talk to dr. anthony fauci about the pandemic after the news summary. busloads of canadian police began arriving in downtown

ottawa today as hundreds of truckers race for crackdown. today work crews put up fences outside parliament and the city's police chief warned that authorities won't wait much longer to make their move. >> we have been bolstering our resources, developing clear plans, and preparing to take action. the action is imminent. to those engaged in the unlawful protests, if you want to leave under your own terms, now is the time to do it. stephanie: most of the truckers insisted again they won't be moved, but, as night fell, police arrested one of the protest organizers. in brazil, the death toll reached 117 today in flooding and mudslides near rio de janeiro, after 10 inches of rain fell in three hours. tuesday's storm swept aw homes and cars in the city of petropolis. more than 116 peop are still missing. authorities fear many were buried in the mud. back in this country, florida has joined states moving to ban abortions after 15 weeks of

pregnancy. the republican-controlled state house approved it early today, with no exceptions for rape or incest. the bill now goes to the state senate. a similar bill also passed in the arizona senate this week. both are modeled after a mississippi law that is now before the u.s. supreme court. hundreds of people gathered in minneapolis today to remember the 22-year-old black man who was shot and killed by police serving a no knock warrant earlier this month. the reverend al sharpton told mourners today that he was not guilty of anything except "being young and black in america." and relatives rejected the official response to the killing. linda: we don't want to continue to hear about being a police officer, it's a difficult job. you have to make split-decisions. you fear for your life. you were not drafted into the police department. you chose that profession.

and if you think being a police officer is a difficult profession, try to be a black man. stephanie locke was killed as : police hunted a hocide suspect who had stayed in the home, but it turned out he was not the man they were looking for. a texas grand jury has indicted several police officers in austin on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for their actions during 2020 racial injustice protests. the austin police association unit said that 20 officers were facing charges. new york state judge has ordered former president trump to answer questions under oath and a probe on his business practices. he's been subpoenaed by the state attorney general. today's order also applies to donald trump junior and ivanka trump. the ruling is almost certain to be appealed. the supreme court of oregon

barred former new york times journalist nicholas kristof from running for governor. he called it very disappointing. at the winter olympics, the russian teenager failed to medal in women's individual figure skating is a doping scandal swirled around her. she fell twice in her free skate competition and finished fourth. her teammates won gold and silver. and american mikaela shiffrin was disqualified for the third time this olympics after skiing off-course in the alpine combined. and the women's curling team faces canada in the bronze world match. at a mammoth strawberry declared the heaviest ever recorded. the palm size strawberry weighed in at more than 10 ounces. it took a year for guinness to confirm its claim to fame.

it had been kept in a freezer and had since shrunk from its prime. still to come, conspiracy theories run rampant in the online personal wellness community. a new book on civil rights legend constance ber motley, plus much more. >> this is the pbs newshour from w -- and from the walter cronkite school of journalism in arizona. judy: the world health organization reported that infections are down globally, in the u.s., new cases are down by more than 60% over the past two weeks. a number of states and cities are lifting masking requirements, but the who and many others are still morning of letting down our guard too soon. in the last week, there were

more than 70,000 deaths globally, in the u.s., more than 2,100 deaths a day. we look at where we stand with dr. anthony fauci. he is the chief medical adviser to the president. i spoke with him a short time ago. dr. fauci, welcome back to the "newshour." let me begin by asking you where we are as a country with regard to covid. there is a new modeling study out today that says something like three-quarters of the country is protected, either by virtue of the vaccine or having been infected with covid. and then you look at other statistics that say only about half of eligible americans have been vaccinated and boosted. so, ifeople want to understand how safe we should feel, are we overestimating that? dr. fauci: well, i'm not so sure if it is an over- or under-estimation, judy. i think it is the reality that, if you look at where we are right now, clearly, there is a sharp decrement in the cases and in the hospitalizations, with a

little bit less of a lagging or more of a lagging with deaths. but, every day, when you look at the data, and you do weekly averages, you're seeing the cases and the hospitalizations go down. that's very good news. however, when you look at the cdc map of high and substantial activity, it's still really mostly red oorange, which means that it's right up there where a lot of activity. the good news, judy, is that we're going in the right direction. there's no doubt about it. now, getting to your original question. when you look at what people are referring to as the degree of immunity in the community, that means a combination of people who've been vaccinated, as well as those who've been infected and recovered. the only confounding issue with that is the durability of protection.

and when you have variants like omicron, which can evade the immunity, the number of people who are so-called seropositive, which means they have either been infected or they have been vaccinated, sometimes can be misleading with regard to the vulnerability, because you could get infected, recover, be protected for a while, and then your immunity wanes. you get vaccinated, and we already know that, after a while, your immunity wanes and you need to get boostered. judy: there are several things i want to ask you about, dr. fauci. one is, as you know, mask mandates around the country, they seem to be dropping like flies. i mean, we're almost at a point where the vast majority of states will have dropped mask mandates. but, at the same time, the cdc is saying to americans, it's too soon to take off the mask, citing the kind of evidence you were quoting just a moment ago.

americans, frankly, are confused and wondering, how can you lead -- leave this decision up to individual americans, when the guidance they're getting is conflicting? dr. fauci: well, i think what it is, judy, is a reflection of the need, and an understandable need, for people to get back to some form of normality, all the stresses and all of those things that go into people just being so tired of this. that's totally understandable. what the cdc is doing is giving you the data as it exists and the recommendation, based on where we are now. the thing that's important is that many of thoseocations are likely, in some respects, anticipating what's going to happen. judy: but you can understand why people are confused at this point. i mean, that the signals are

different. dr. fauci: yes, of course. what there is -- and i hope that this helps to explain it, judy -- there's a public health recommendation that is a broad recommendation. clearly, the implementation of those is always left to the local level, what the conditions on the ground are locally, what the community can and cannot tolerate. so you have to understand, the recommendations that the cdc made are based on the science, the epidemiology, what they're observing. that doesn't mean that that's going to apply absolutely to every single different location in a different way. and that's why they always say, they make the recommendation, but the ultimate decision is at the level of the local authorities. judy: which is put -- again, putting a lot on people's shoulders to follow all this, as much as they want to dit. let me ask about boosters, dr. fauci. new information came out not too many days ago from the cdc that

there appears to be a waning of protection from the boosters after four months or so. so, people are asking, do we need to think about a next -- the next booster? when, six months, five months? what's the best guidance on that, on how to think about that? dr. fauci: you have to look at where we are now, judy, and where we might be a couple of months from now. so, where we are now, if you look at the waning, there's no doubt there is substantial waning when it comes to what's called symptomatically recognizable disease. but when you look at severe disease, as reflected by hospitalization, at four to five months, you still see about a 78% protection overall against hospitalization. and in the world of vaccination, that's pretty good. and that's the reason why the cdc is saying, if you are an

immune-compromised person, cancer chemotherapy, transplant, or what have you, get your fourth shot now. if you're in the general population of immunocompetent people, you're pretty good now, but we -- and we meaning they, the cdc, with their large cohorts -- are following the durability of that protection. if it goes down over the next couple of months, then they will modify the recommendation of when and who should get now the fourth shot. but, in general, for the population level, 78% is pretty good. it likely will go down sometime. we don't know for sure. we're hoping it'll hold tight up there. but if it does go down, i think you can expect some modification of the recommendation. judy: part of the reason i'm asking is because you do hear from people who are so-called immunocompromised. their immune systems are weakened. there are millions of people who fall in that category.

and they're wondering, what about us? what about me? one other question in connection with that, dr. fauci, is the people who've had the johnson & johnson vaccine. there's something like, what, 15, 16 million americans. they have had the shot. they have had the booster, but they have been told that's not as much protection as those who have received the mrna vaccine. dr. fauci: yes. judy: some of them are saying, we have just been left out and forgotten. dr. fauci: well, that's understandable because that kind of word is going around. but if you look at the recent data and studies that have looked at the durability of protection, it was that one shot of j&j would be equivalent to the two-shot regimen of mrna. if you give a third shot boost, which is what the j&j people are concerned about, they get either another shot of j&j or a mix-match boost with an mrna. and they have already --

recommendation to do that. so, it's not that that's not available. if you look at the data, the level of protection against a j&j person who gets either another j&j or an mrna is right up there as good as someone who gets three mrna. so, people who've gotten j&j, it's understandable there's maybe some confusion out there, but they're pretty well-protected if they get the second j&j or an mrna after the j&j original. judy: well, that may well be reassuring for them. i also want to ask you, dr. fauci, about children under the age of 5. as you know, the fda had originally sent the signal that we were close to approving the vaccine, a lower-dose vaccine for children under 5. and then it turned around -- they turned around and said, no, we need more time. we want more studying done. you're hearing from a number of parents of these young children. they feel the rug was pulled out from underneath them.

they thought it was about to happen. it's not happening. they're told it's soon, but they don't know when. did the government let these families, these -- and children down? dr. fauci: no, no, no, judy, not at all, not even close. and let me explain why. when you get an approval from the fda, which is the gold standard for efficacy and safety determination, what they originally thought, when the studies were done by the company, that this was going to be a two-dose vaccine for the children. it became very clear that, across the board, from children from 6 months over and above up to 5 years, that it did not meet the efficacy standard that they thought. so, it now is a three-dose vaccine. there is no doubt about e safety. so parents should not be concerned about safety. what's coming on now are data, what the third dose does.

so it isn't that anyone was let down, because the fda, and then, ultimately, with the cdc, with their advisory committee on immunization practices and the recommendation, they will be receiving the data, at least according to what we hea from pfizer, somewhere around april. they will be getting the data to the fda, who will look at it. and if it is effective, they will then give an eua for its use. but you don't want to do that until you are sure it's safe and effective. we know it's safe now. we're going to get information as to whether it's effective. so it isn't really a question, judy, of anyone being let down. you want to make sure that, when you recommend a vaccine for your child, you want to make sure it's safe and it works. judy: and, finally, dr. fauci, for all the americans who are listening to you, watching you who want to know, when is my

life going to get back to something like normal, what are you saying to them right now? dr. fauci: we're saying, it's going in the right direction, judy. but, as you know, we're dealing with a very formidable virus. we -- if we keep going in this direction, there are things that we can do to make it much more likely that we will get back to some degree of normality. and it's something that i have said over and over again. we know the vaccines work. we know that, when the immunity wanes, the boosters work. we know that masks, particularly high-quality maskswork. we know, when you test someone and find out they' infected, if you keep them out of circulation, they don't infect anyone else. if we implement the known interventions, it will be much more likely that we will get back to normal and that, when

those cases keep coming down and down, provided we don'get surprised by another variant -- and i have to be perfectly honest with you, judy. that's possible. you can't walk away from that possibility. we hope it doesn't happen. we canelp it from not happening by getting more people vaccinated. judy: dr. anthony fauci, we thank you so much for joining us. dr. fauci: my pleasure, judy. good to be with you, as always. ♪ judy: this is the fourth week of the trial in minneapolis of three former officers who were on duty with derek chauvin when he murdered george floyd in 2020. the officers are on trial for their role in his death and over questions about what they should have done at the time. william brangham focuses on those questions. william: judy, that's right. these three former police

officers, tou thao, thomas lane, and j. alexander kueng, are charged with violating george floyd's civil rights. thao and kueng are charged with failing to intervene. all three are charged with failing to provide proper medical care. for more on this and broader issues of police behavior, i'm joined by christy lopez. she oversaw investigations of police departments at the department of justice from 2010 to 2017. she now teaches urses on policing at georgetown university law center and co-directs their innovative police program. christy lopez, very good to have you on the "newshour." we all watched that nine-plus minutes of video of derek chauvin kneeling on george oyd's neck. but we also watched ose three other officers who were on scene and what they did and did not do in that moment. at trial, what have those men been explaining about their behavior that day?

christy: they seem to be taking two tacks. one is to emphasize the hierarchy of the situation, that they were in the presence of a superior officer, and believed they should defer to that officer. and the other tack is that they seem to be saying that they were not trained in a way that would have informed them that they should be intervening. william: what does the law generally say about an officer's responsibility to intervene when something is being done that's unlawful? christy: there's been a duty to intervene for over 50 years that makes it very clear that, where an officer knows or should know that someone's constitutional rights are being violated, and has the opportunity to intervene, the officer has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to intervene. and it doesn't matter. it's specific. there's an explicit case in the eighth circuit, where this trial is being held, that says it doesn't matter if the officer against whom y need to intervene is a superior.

it doesn't matter -- that any lack of training is not a defense to that. you are supposed -- you have a responsibility to intervene regardless. william: that rule certainly makes sense. but we have seen this in so many workplaces, in the clergy, in medicine, in corporations. but, in policing in particular, this sort of quasi-military hierarchical organization, that's a very difficult stream to swim against, it seems, for junior officers to say to a senior officer, hey, what you're doing is wrong. christy: yes, that's such an important point. every industry, every field, every walk of life, we all find it hard to intervene. but there are specific what we call inhibitors to intervention that are particular to policing. and one of those inhibitors is the hierarchy of a largely paramilitary organization, right? the other is sort of the insularity and this sort of sense that you have to have each other's backs. both of those can be really powerful inhibitors. and it's really important to

make sure that officers understand that they're going to confront those and teach them how to overcome those. william: i mean, the officers at trial here, one of them, i know his lawyer said, yes, they were given some training on how to intervene, but it was sort of perfunctory, a powerpoint slide or two. it wasn't real training with scenarios and role playing. does that training exist, and does it actually work to change this culture? christy: yes, well, i first want to note that -- on the one hand, that there's -- there's that's no excuse. no one needed training to know that there was a grievous harm that was happening here. and they had quite a long time to be able to intervene. so i don't want to be seen as saying that a lack of a particular type of training should excuse the behavior of the officers on the scene. at the same time, i think it's also true that we know that there is training. the able project, which we run right here at georgetown law, is seeking to educate officers regarding the inhibitors to intervention, and actually helping them develop the skills to intervene. and our belief is that -- and

this is based on research that we have done in other places and in our experience in new orleans with the new orleans police department -- that, when you do teach these skills, officers can learn and will be more likely to intervene and prevent harm. there's a great example from sunrise, florida, of an officer intervening. and we have no reason to believe that this officer has any training in intervention. but that officer -- it's a female officer. she steps in before a superior officer is about to pepper-spray a handcuffed individual in the back of a squad car. and, again, she steps up. she pulls him away. she is repaid for her good behavior by that officer. he grabs her by the neck. again, there's no reason to think that she needed or had any particular training. and there is every reason to believe that there are officers who do this sort of intervention every day. at the same time, when you watch that video, you can see, this is a hard situation. this shows how difficult intervention is and why we need to make sure we prepare officers to know how to intervene in those sorts of circumstances. william: i know that you have called this particular trial

unprecedented. and i know there was a lot of talk about that chauvin's conviction for murder might change police culture. do you think, if any of these men are found guilty of failing to intervene, that that will change culture in a meaningful way? christy: i think that we often make too much of the potential for criminal trials to change police culture. but i think, here, this particular criminal trial might have the potential to do just that, even more so than derek chauvin's criminal trial. and that's becausthis is, again, the very first federal criminal trial of an officer for failing to intervene against a superior officer. and that sds a very powerful message to police agencies and to police officers that, when you're a police officer, you are given an extraordinary responsibility, extraordinary power. and with that comes an extraordinary responsibility to step in and prevent harm, no matter which of your colleagues is causing that harm. william: all right, christy lopez of georgetown university law school, thank you so much for being here. christy: thank you for having me.

♪ judy: tonight, we examine a social media phenomenon that's having a real-world impact. some influencers in wellness communities are using their platform to promote conspiracy theories. stephanie sy takes a closer look at how one mother was pulled into this world of disinformation and how she got out. stephanie: in her home yoga studio in topanga canyon, west of los angeles, seane corn can breathe deeply and tune out the noise. but when she logs on to her instagram, it's impossible to avoid it. a yoga instructor for nearly 30 years, corn has more than 100,000 instagram followers. but,a few years ago, she began noticing a dark change in tone on her social media.

seane: i started to receive a lot of information from my friends just via text, online, sending me all this propaganda, pizzagate and their talk of drinking the blood of children. stephanie: the look of the posts blended in with the other content on her feed. seane: they'd be beautifully curated, the font, the colors, the layout, the photography. stephanie: corn saw that those carefully curated facades were being used to peddle conspiracy theories about the covid vaccine and qanon, the belief that child sex traffickers and pedophiles have infiltrated the government and that president trump was sent to stop them. what's more, qanon's online recruiters were specifically co-opting yoga language. you bring up this yogic idea of, i can't be free unless my community is free. seane: yes. stephanie: qanon's motto is,

where we go one, we go all. seane: mm-hmm. and when i first heard that statement, it caught me in my throat. they also talk about the great awakening and the great reset. language like this is also very much in alignment with spiritual principles. we are here to wake up. stephanie: and this was other yoga teachers and wellness inuencers? seane: yes. yes. yes. stephanie: was it the majority of them? seane: if i was just to look at my tight-knit group of colleagues, 50/50. stephanie: 50% of your inner circle of wellness teachers and influencers believe that donald trump was sent here for cosmic good? seane: yes, i would have to say. derek: ok, let me hit record. stephanie: derek beres is a co-host of the podcast "conspirituality," which examines why the wellness industry is such fertile ground for counternarratives. derek: the intersection between

the new age and the right-wing conspiratorial thinking, i believe, is rooted in individualism. america is an individualist culture. everything we produce and promote is all about the sovereignty of the self, and sovereignty is o of those words that crosses over between those two communities. stephanie: and it intensified during the pandemic. derek: so you start looking on instagram, and then there's your favorite yoga instructor talking about child sex trafficking, and 5g causing cancer, and the vaccine that's coming is going to give you cancer or is going to kill you. and some people looked in horror, but some people were like, wait a second, i'm going to go this route and explore this and do my research. stephanie: that phrase, "do your own research," is rampant on anti-vaccine forums, as well as qanon spaces. the research often leads people to what the center for countering digital hate calls the disinformation dozen, responsible for some 65% of all

vaccine disinformation spread online. they have reached tens of millions of users. >> hi. this is dr. mercola, helping you take control of your health. stephanie: they include dr. joseph mercola, who peddles dietary supplements to his 3.6 million followers, and has claimed that hydrogen peroxide can cure covid-19, sherri tenpenny, an osteopath physician who claims that wearing a mask has negative health effects, and sayer ji, who runs a popular alternative health web site and shares false claims, like that the pfizer vaccine has killed more elderly people than covid-19. heather simpson spent years under the influence of the disinformation dozen. she recalls how she was drawn in. heather: it all started when i kind of looked into the wellness community when i was trying to get pregnant, and it was like ads started popping up for anti-vaccine issues. it was like one and the same.

like, look up wellness stuff, anti-vax stuff pops up. stephanie: simpson soon found herself watching videos about the dangers of vaccines and approached her doctor. heather: he was like: "you're not one of those crazy anti-vaxxers, are you? and like conversation dead. all of the, i feel, gaslighting by the medical community and then them just brushing me away, like, was completely opposite from what i would find on the internet with the holistic world. they welcomed me. stephanie: conspiracy theories gain traction when people lose trust in institutions. alternative theories take root, poused by authentic and relatable influencers masquerading as truth-tellers, says researcher stephanie baker. >> really, what's at play here, rather than social media being the cause of this kind of anti-vaccine sentiment, is that, actually, social media creates the conditions for these trust relationships and for intimacy

to be fostered to a different degree. we have got to move away from seeing misinformation as an information problem to really seeing it as a relationship problem. stephanie: baker has examined how social media influencers may manipulate mothers like simpson. dr. baker: what we have found is that a lot of that content was dedicated towards actually specifically targeting mothers, and trying to encourage them to refuse vaccination, and really playing on this idea that a mother's intuition is superior to the abstract professional knowledge. stephanie: mother heather simpson soon became an influencer herself. heather: looking back, i feel like i got reported enough for misinformation that facebook could have and perhaps should have taken that stuff down. but it was racking up so many comments and just user engagement that, why would they? stephanie: she had discovered the magic formula that makes so many wellness influencers rich.

social media algorithms are known to push more provocative content, because it increases engagement, great for the social media companies, and for people selling false promises. heather: almost everyone in the wellness community that i knew was involved in a multilevel marketing company. a lot of them are stay-at-home moms or single moms. some of them are making $20,000 a month at this point. some are making $100,000. and so, naturally, i fell into that. and so i sold a product that claimed basically to detox your body. stephanie: at the time, simpson saw the scheme as a way to gain financial freedom from her husband, whom she's now separated from. heather: i was just doing anything i could just to get out, just be independent and be strong for my daughter and do everything i could to make an income and get out there and get out -- out of there. stephanie: simpson eventually grew disillusioned with the wellness community, a feeling that only increased during the pandemic, and led her to

publicly denounce the persona she'd cultivated. heather: i realized, if you're not 100% brainwashed, you're not -- yes, you are the enemy. covid hit the next month, and they changed their tune to: don't mask me. i have freedom. and i was like: why not? just wear a mask. like, it could save an entire life. stephanie: she's now not only fully vaccinated. she runs a group encouraging others to get the covid vaccine. seane corn is also fighting against the tide of conspiracy theories that have gripped her yoga community, but it hasn't been easy to take a stand. when she posted a statement against qanon, the backlash came quick. seane: the vitriol was intense. the messages that i received privately were definitely violent. stephanie: her tactic for helping fellow yogis find their way back from the conspiracy brink goes back to a basic yogic principle, engaging the student in their own healing. seane: i want to ask questions. like, tell me more.

why do you believe that? and then see if we can get to the root, because the root is always going to come down to fear. stephanie: it's a process, she says, and, like the practice of yoga, a slow one. for the "pbs newshour," i'm stephanie sy. ♪ judy: as president biden prepares to nominate the first black woman to the supreme court, it's an apt time to revisit another historic first. nicole ellis has more. >> constance bakermotley was the first black woman appointed to the federal judiciary. alongside thurgood marshall, she changed the lives of millions in the jim crow south. but most people never heard of her. harvard law professor hopes to

change that in her new book. thank you for joining me. constance was one of the best litigators of her time. she was also the first woman to argue before the supreme court. what do you think are some of the most important things about her legacy? >> the first think to know is that she was there in the thick of the civil-rights movement, alongside thurgood marshall. she had tremendous impact as a lawyer, helping gather support for education in a range of cases that change the legal architecture of this country, ranging from the higher education cases two cases involving the right to counsel and civil protests. her legacy is tremendous, including because after she made history as a civil rights leader, she was in new york city politics and then appointed to the bench. >> she wrote the original

complaint in brown versus board of education and several school segregation places. she was at the supreme court defending black students who were arrested during a sit in protest at white lunch counters in alabama. let's take a listen. >> what i didn't get was your reference to affirmative distillation requiring non-segregation. here, alabama has not -- as there is of course that much legislation in the state. >> alabama has not required equal treatment of need gross as this court assumed that the states would -- equal treatment of negroes. they have done in a massive way so that the whole of society is set up on a segregated basis. >> why do you think she was so

successful in arguing these cases? >> she is successful because she knows exactly what she's talking about. she makes a point of saying that the naacp was able to win so many cases because of their experience. they were prepared. she knew the law backwards and forwards. in addition, she was so calm under pressure. which is something thurgood marshall taught her, and she just had a fantastic delivery. and of course, justice was on the side of the civil rights movement and the supreme court during the 50's and 60's became aware of that. >> those skills and that legal prowess made her the civil-rights queen of her time. but we do not hear about her, why don't? we know who she is? >> as i argue in my book, the

absence of her name on the lips of every american, unlike thurgood marshall and martin luther king junior is important because historical significance and leadership are coded into the male. we don't think of women as leaders in the way that they deserv it's not surprising that ultimately, she has been relatively overlooked. >> how do we contextualize her career and no setback she experienced as a black person and as a woman, as we look ahead to bidens forthcoming nomination? >> i do think her experience has something to say to today. first of all, she was highly qualified with vast experiences in the federal court at the trl level, the appellate level, and at the supreme court

she argued and 1 nine of 10 cases. in yet when she was nominated, there were those who said that her experience was too narrow, that she might not be able to handle the financial cases that came before the prestigious trial court in manhattan, so she had to run the gauntlet before she ultimately was seated on the court, and it's going to be the same for whoever is nominated by president biden. >> your book will be a first introduction for many to constance baker motley. what do you hope readers take away from this biography and her incredible life, because many people are unaware of her contribution to the civil rights vement. >> i want to add her to the pantheon of great american leaders. i want readers to see the value of looking at the civil rights movement through the eyes of a

woman because of enduring issues around gender equity today. and finally, i want them to consider the imperfect fit between individual success and group advancement, whether it's constance baker motley or barack obama, or whoever is nominated by president biden. it's a constant struggle, and everyone has to contribute. >> thank you for joining us here on "pbs newshour." judy: it's so important to see these stories being told. and a case brought against the nfl is raising questions about the league's requirement that teams interview minority job candidates. we explore how the so-called rooney rule is used and whether it is effective. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff.

join us online in again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and we will see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> consumer cellular >> the ford foundation. bnsf railway and with the ongoing support of these stitutions.

and friends of the newshour. 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 performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.] >> this is pbs newshour west, from w eta studios in washington and from our bureau at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. ♪ >> you're watching pbs.

female announcer: essential pepin is made possible by: female announcer: kitchenaid: for the way it's made. proudly celebrating ten years of cook for the cure to support the fight against breast cancer. female announcer: and by c. donatiello winery, producing pinot noir and chardonnay from sonoma's russian river valley. c. donatiello winery is a proud supporter of jacques pepin. and by: male announcer: oxo good grips. oxo: tools you hold on to. - i'm here with my dear friend, my best friend, jean-claude. jean-claude szurdak and i have worked together for over half a century, do you know that? and we're going to have fun today cooking together. with a couple of ingredient from the cupboard, we can make crepes in moments. you know, by the time the butter is melted, the batter is ready. it's so simple.