why many families are opposed. then. aging together. inflation and high housing costs spur more baby boomers to find roommates. >> i like saving money. i like having another person to talk to, to have a relationship with. it's nice to have some companionship when you're at home. judy: and the uber files.

thousands of leaked documents show how ride-sharing company uber skirted laws and regulations as it expanded worldwide. all that and more on tonight's "pbs newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by. >> it is the little things. the reminders of what is important. it is why fidelity dedicated advisors are here to help you create a plan. a plane with tax sensitive investing strategies, planning fosed on tomorrow while you focus on today. that is the planning effect from fidelity.

>> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions and friends of the newshour, including: patricia ewing. the william and flora hewlett foundation. for more than 50 years advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world. this program was made possible by the corporation for public

broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. stephanie: i'm stephanie sy with newshour west, we'll return to the full program after the latest headlines. a federal judge has denied steve bannon's laywers' request to delay his trial for contempt of congress. it's set to begin july 18th. over the weekend, the former adviser to president trump finally agreed to cooperate with the january 6th investigation, which he had earlier refused. bannon's lawyerswould not say if today's ruling changes his decision to testify. the deepest view of the universe ever captured was revealed today, courtesy of the $10 million james webb space telescope. unveiled at the white house, the so-called "deep field" image shows a cluster of galaxies and stars, and scientists say, light from not too long after the big bang 13.8 billion years ago. the webb telescope is the the world's most powerful and was

launched last december reaching a lookout point one million miles from earth. nasa will reveal more images tomorrow. police in south africa are still searching for five gunmen who killed 15 people in a crowded bar early sunday. the attack in soweto was the worst of three such incidents that killed 21 people in all. gunmen burst into taverns and fired scores of rounds. [ots]investigators suspect regional and ethnic rivalries or fights between crime gangs. in ukraine the death toll rose to 31 in a russian missile strike saturday on an apartment block in the donetsk region. further north, rockets hit ukraine's second-largest city. kharkiv. killing at least six people and wounding dozens. survivors said they had no warning. >> i woke up and i was all covered in dust. i went to the bathroom, and more rubble and dust fell on me.

finally when i saw lights i started screaming, i am alive, please get me out. then the rescuers knocked down the door and took me out. stephanie: the white house warned that russia is asking iran for hundreds of armed drones for use in ukraine. national security adviser jake sullivan said it appears iran is ready to provide the weapons, and training. yet another highly contagious mutation of the covid-19 virus is gaining momentum. scientists say the ba2.75 sub-variant may be able to defeat vaccines and other immunity. the political chaos in sri lanka took a new turn today. officials on the indian ocean island said parliament will vote on a new president next week. that's after mass protests in the capital forced the president and prime minister to offer their resignations. peter smith of independent television news is in colombo, and filed this report. >> in sri lanka the queue for petrol no longer last for hours, the wait is now measured in days.

this is what it looks like when the country runs out of fuel and money. protesters have stormed the gates of the presidential palace and, from what we saw today, they have now taken over. >> we will win, because people are united. >> this president is not coming back here? >> if he comes here, our people will kick out him. >> the writing is now on the wall for the sri lankan regime - the black flag of the protesters now flies here. the new occupants experience the luxury of a presidential bed. and there have been queues to take a dip in the president's pool. >> the fact we along with these people can walk through the palace at our leisure tells us power in sri lanka no longer lies in the hands of the president, but it's not yet in the hands of the people. because the military still surrounds this place and heavily armed guards are still overseeing this delicate revolution.

police have already fired tear gas on protesters. the guns haven't gone away, but people here tell me they are simply no longer scared. with no gas for stoves, people now buy wood to cook in the streets. community kitchens feed those without fuel and food. disala rodrigo has been camped outside this palace since in april. now she's inside the president's old gym. >> we don't have gasoline to cook, even if we had induction electric cookers, we don't have electricity. there's a power cut going on every day. so that's the main reason why i'm here. reporter: sri lanka's president has briefed that he will resign on wednesday. the people say they'll believe it when they see it. until then they stay put and hold on to hope. stephanie: that report from peter smith, of independent television news. monsoon rains in pakistan have now claimed at least 150 lives in less than a month.

with new flooding in the country's largest city. entire neighborhoods in karachi were under water today, after 5 inches of rain three hours. many of the port city's roads were flooded. the rainfall has been almost twice as heavy as it usually is this time of year. president biden held a new law on gun violence today but also said it is time to hold gun owners accountab for weapons used in shootings. the president spoke after siing the new law and one week after the attack on a july 4 parade outside chicago. we will return to this after the news summary. the biden administration told hospitals they must provide abortion services when the mother's life is at risk. the department of health and human services says existing federal law overrides any state ban that provides no exceptions. the announcement is aimed at a handful of states with exceptions that are legally vague.

a french drug companies seeking the first u.s. approval of an over-the-counter birth control pill. hra pharma applied to the fda today. it said the timing is unrelated to new battles over abortion rights. birth control pills can already be purchased without a prescription in much of the world. still to come on the newshour, what is behind president biden's low approval ratings. more baby boomers move in together to offset rising housing costs. new documents show how far uber executives are willing to go to grow their business worldwide. and much more. >> this is the pbs newshour from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: president biden hailed the new bipartisan gun safety law in

a white house ceremony earlier today. it is the first significant legislation on this past in decades. it would expand background checks to younger adults who are trying to buy guns. it would expand red flag laws and close a loophole in efforts to deny firearms to partners convicted of domestic abuse. >> that is what we owe those families in buffalo, where a grocery store became a killing field. it's what we owe those families in uvalde, where an elementary school became a killing field. that is what we owe families in highland park, where on july 4 a parade became a killing field, that is what we owe all those families represented here today and all over this country we will not save every life from the epidemic of gun violen, but if this law had been in place years ago even this last year lives would have been saved. it matters, it matters, but it is not enough and we all know that. judy: president biden said he

wanted to see much more done, including a ban on assault weapons. but as he was delivering his remarks, he was heckled by a father whose son died in the parkland, florida, shooting in 2018. manuel oliver shouted at the president that he wanted to see more done. in response, mr. biden initially told him to sit down to hear what he had to say, then said he should speak. but oliver was soon escorted out. that frustration about the limits of this law has been echoed around the country, by those asking what more can be done. alongside this legislative push is another conversation about what role journalism might play in helping address this crisis. william brangham looks at that. reporter: judy, that discussion centers around whether the media should show graphic images of precisely what gun violence does to its victims, for example, some of the children who were shot in uvalde, texas were so

disfigured that they could only be identified by their sneakers or by dna samples. should images of that kind of violence ever be shown? what purpose would it serve and who gets to decide? there are of course strong opinions on all sides of this debate. we wrestled with it here at the newshour. and so we wanted to hear tonight from two voices. first, someone who believes that on balance, the public does need to see these tragedies explicitly. ed wasserman teaches journalism and was the dean of the graduate school of journalism at uc berkeley. i spoke with him earlier today. ed wasserman, very good to have you on the newshour. i know you didn't come to this position easily, but can you case -- can you make the case why should these images be shown? >> it is true that it is not an easy judgment to make, and it is unquestionably true that there are powerful ethical arguments against the position that i'm

going to put forth, which is i think concerns with the media ought to be doing. certainly showing images of this kind of carnage is tremendously traumatic for the public. these are images that haunt and that stalk people after they've seen them. and it's a tremendous disrespect and indignity to the people who have lost loved ones. so there's no question but that the kinds of images that i'm talking about putting into wider circulation are going to come at a cost. my concern is that we are a powerfully visual culture and we believe things when we see them. and the dominant images that the public takes away from these killings are somber, respectful. images of candlelight vigil and quietly mourning parents. and that is doing a gross injustice to the actual carnage that's being perpetrated.

and i think that until in the same way that black lives matter came to light when the images of people being killed by police became publicly available, i think we are not going to respond to these incidents of massacres with the anger and disgust that they demand and to -- until we have a chance to see just what has been done. reporter: so you think that those memorials, the stories about the victims, the statistics and the data that have been repeated so often about homicides and mass shootings and suicides isn't enough? that it's it's journalistically negligent to not go this one step further? >> i think it borders on concealment. and i think that the question of how much do you have to see before the experience and the reality becomes clear to you is an open question. it varies with individuals.

and i'm not talking about i'm not counseling editors to begin to begin a cascade, a horrendous and gruesome images of of of dead children. that's not the point. the point is that we see nothing of the dead in the images that the media provide us with which they are offscreen. they are simple set ups for the morning and for the prayer sessions and all the rest of it. we don't see what's going on, and i think that what has happened is sufficiently horrendous that it would change attitudes. it would it would awaken people toust what it is that goes on. and the media, by not showing us the aftermath of that, are pandering to that and they're enabling that to be perpetuated. and i fear that it's almost a dare. it almost goads the more pathologically twisted of us to have a go themselves. reporter: one question is the is access. i mean, a lot of these photographs are not readily available.

these are crime scenes. do you think the journalistic organizations should press for more access to forensic images, for police photographs just to get this out? >> i do. i question how unavailable these images are, certainly at the point at which people come to trial. and let me just make a different -- somewhat related -- the reason why they don't is a good question to kind of raise. and i think that it's important for the public to understand the extreme reluctance that editors have presenting these images to them and the idea that they that that news organizations will look for a cheap and tawdry and obscene and gruesome images because the public they believe the public likes that and it'll sell newspapers or enhance audience size is totally false. audiences hate this stuff, and news editors present it to audiences with only the greatest reluctance. so this represents from the part

of the media, an act in my view of courage. they've got to show these images, not because it's it's tasteful, not because it's something that will advance their own interests as media organizations, but because the public needs to see these things to fully understand the horror that's being routinely perpetrated on us. reporter: what about the argument that is made that about who gets to decide this? because i know that there are certainly lots of families of victims who believe that this is a terrible idea, that no matter what benefit that this might yield, that those families will be forever traumatized if those images are out there, that the darker culture that exists on the internet and in this world will be constantly bombarding those people with those images of their loved ones in the worst possible moment of their lives, and that they will never be able to get past that. >> i don't have a good answer for that. that is true.

this is not being done to benefit the families who've lost family members to these kinds of things. this is not in their interest. it may be in the interest of the other families who perhaps are spared this because of the greater public anger and disgusted with these images rtray. but this is not in these families' interests. it's a tremendous indignity and it deepens their loss. and so i have nothing but comssion for them. but i am saying that it is a it is a clsic dilemma. it's a wrong versus a wrong. and my my belief is that the wrong that's done by concealment outweighs the wrong that's done by exposure. reporter: ed wasserman, former dean of the graduate school of journalism at uc berkeley, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, william. reporter: ok so that is one argument in favor of this okay, so for a different take i am joined by a parent who lost her own daughter in the mass shooting at a movie theater 10 years ago in aurora, colorado. sandy phillips is a proponent of

stronger gun safety measures. she was at the white house ceremony with president biden today. sandy phillips, great to have you back on the news hour. you heard what ed wasserman was saying here that the way in which we show our culture these tragedies is too sanitized and that we need to do differently. what do you think about that idea? >> i think it's a horrible idea as a parent of a child that was murdered. my daughter was shot six times with two two threes from an ar 15. and when i speak, i speak very clearly about what happened to her in the theater and the wounds that she sustained. when we went to trial, the the medical examiner when he was discussing her wounds wept on the stand. he just started crying. and we were at the courtroom but

we were not in the courtroom when that happened and after he finished his descriptions of what had happened to my daughter, when the press walked out and the rest of the people that were in the courtroom that day walked o, they were all either crying or ashen or shocked. so i understand what he's saying. you almost have to see it to believe it. the problem is our society doesn't believe what they see anymore anyway. reporter: you mean that the images would be challenged as fake? >> exactly. sandy hook is challenged as not ever happening. highland park already has in -- and this happens after every mass shooting. there's immediate conspiracy theories that this never happened. so would that make it stop? no, and they just challenged the pictures. a few years ago, there were some doctors that went on capitol hill to lobby and they took the pictures of bodies who had been shot by ar fifteens and other weapons.

and it didn't make a difference at all. so why should we as parents be asked to carry that burden for society? it's too much to ask of us. it truly is one of those things that how much more trauma do we have to endure? and just by him talking about how that might make a difference might make a difference is traumatizing for a lot of survivors out here. reporter: well we certainly -- that's the last thing we want to do to you all and we appreciate you being open to talking about this with us. but i want to circle back to this point that you're making about the experience that people had in the courtroom when they did see the horror that was visited on your your daughter who is here with us on your shirt today. you don't think that there's any possible

benefit for the rest of the country. the good hearted people in this country to see what high powereweapons actually do to children. reporter: you know, they can go online and see what ar 15 is due -- what an ar-15 does to a watermelon. they can go online and see that damage that it does to a mannequin. they can see the damage that it does to a deer. they are not privileged to see what it did to my daughter. does to a deer they don't need and they aren't privileged to see what that did to my daughter. and i don't want that age ever to be out there for anyone else to see. i certainly don't want it there for my son to have to see. and then i think of my cousins, my nephews, right. it goes on and on. the ripple effect. and they will live forever on the internet. is that something that we as a society will really want to do to the families that have already lost so much, had so much taken from them? i hope not.

reporter: if the images were anonymized, how would you feel about that? >> that is perfectly ok and i'm perfectly okay with a family member saying i'm okay with doing this. because they understand what that's going to mean to them. and if they're okay, if it's a very personal choice and if they're okay with that i say more power to them, much like emmett till's and being able to change society. the mother in sandy hook one of the mothers there, had the governor come in to see the damage that was done to her son. i think all of those things are important, but i don't think we should make it a blind, every time there is a mass shooting, we show the carnage. because those those pictures last forever and the people that are affected by it have to witness that over and over again. we have a dear friend whose daughter was killed on camera and he has been trying to get

that taken down from youtube for over six years now. because he's out there and he never knows when he's going to open up an email and it might be there. he never knows when his wife might open an email, and it's there. so this is really an unfair burden to ask of any of us. it's an okay burden to ask of our elected leaders. and we should be asking them to witness what actually happens. they should be made to go down and go into those classrooms, where children have been literally decapitated by bullets. and can only be identified through dna. they should be the ones that go down there and witness it. we shouldn't have to . reporter: sandy phillips, always great to see you. thank you so much for talking with us. >> thank you, william.

>> the congressional committee investigating the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow focused on the role extremist groups played that day. this as the senate gears up for a busy high-stakes july. our political correspondent lisa desjardins has more. tell us, where are we in terms of these hearings? what are they going to be focusing on? where are we overall in terms of subject matter. when does it look as if they are going to finish? >> these are the good questions we are all asking. tomorrow is the seventh hearing for the january 6 select committee and we did at one point expect this week to be the final week for a while. wever that is changing even as

we speak. the focus so far has been on trump and his direct actions. tomorrow we are going to hear more about white nationalist groups and their ties to those around former president trump when he was in the white house. in particular a meeting in december that preceded former president trump tweeting out that invitation to come to the rally on january 6. we are going to hear probably about advisors like roger stone and their ties that the committee will try to make to white nationalist groups like the proud boys who we know were at the capitol have been arrested for their role in the riot. we are waiting to see what happens with pat cipollone, the former attorney for president trump while he was in the white house. he testified behind closed doors for eight hours on friday. my reporting is that he does not want to participate in a public hearing. we do not expect to see him this week. we may hear some of the hearing

tomorrow but i think the committee is going to wait to have more of that hearing further ahead and that is why we are going to have more hearings next week. there will be one hearing tomorrow. the committee says it is getting more information. my sources say that is why the committee is going to have a hearing next week. we do not know when these hearings will end. judy: what is known about president trump's close ally steve bannon? do we think he's going to be testifying? >> as you reported, we now know steve bannon is set for trial on contempt of congress in one week. those in congress and on the committee say it is no coincidence all of a sudden he wants to cooperate. they think it is a last-ditch effort for him to save himself from trial and they believe this is a sign the committee is doing its work and president trump and his allies want to respond. we do not know yet because the

committee has not decided. here's what one of the committee members said on television sunday about the idea of questioning steve bannon. >> we got the letter around midnight from his lawyer saying he would testify. we have wanted him to testify, so the committee of course has not yet had a chance to discuss it, but i expect we will be hearing from him and there are many questions we have for him. >> one last thing to keep in mind, whether he talked to the committee or not does not affect the charges necessarily. he already rejected the original subpoena, something the committee might bring up. >> as all this is going on, meantime in the senate, they are looking i guess you would say at a couple do or die weeks for their agenda. what does it look like there? >> roll up your sleeves.

we have a less talk about that a lot to talk about. joe manchin and chuck schumer are now negotiating fully for a final or a narrow version of the president's agenda. it used to be called build back better. joe manchin blocked it. they are talking about what could be left and there is a potential outline starting to emerge from what is called reconciliation or a biden agenda deal. there are problems in terms of tactics. important negotiating stance as i want to talk about. let's look at the next three weeks, what we should be watching. three high-stakes bills are moving. they have bipartisan support. one on china competitiveness. they need the u.s. to work on microchips and work on venue factoring processors. also an insulin drug pricing bill that would reduce the price of insulin and a bill, there is a bipartisan agreement on reforming the electoral count act. the problems with that act were a factor in january 6.

all those bills have some kind of bipartisan momentum right now. the problem is at the same time now we have demoats talking about this combination reconciliation bill. the mansion-schumer idea -- joe manchin-schumer idea. that is a partisan bill. so where are we? senator mcconnell, republican leader, has said if that partisan reconciliion bill moves forward, those other bills , the bipartisan efforts, especially the china bill, he would block them. so we are in this kind of standoff where all of these bills are connected to one another and it's going to be very important because each one of them has very critical implications for our country. judy: we will see how the coming weeks play out. thank you, lisa.

we will have live coverage of the january 6 committee hearing lisa was telling us about. that begins tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on pbs and streaming online at pbs.org/ newshour. just months before the midterm elections, a handful of domestic issues are driving the political agenda. rising inflation, a series of high-profile shootings, and the overturning of r v. wade. it's all dragging down president biden's approval ratings. in a new york times siena college poll, 60% of americans disapprove of the job the president is doing. that includes a quarter of his own party. and the concerning number for democrats running this year,

more than two-thirds of independent voters disapprove of the president's job performance. to discuss the political stakes of the moment, i am joined now by amy walter of the cook political report with amy walter and tamara keith of npr. welcome to you both on this monday. politics monday. amy, what everyone wants to know is why is this happening? why is president biden doing so poorly in polls a year and a half in? >> i want to put this in context this is one poll, but if you look at an average, his overall approval rating is the lowest we have seen for a president at this point in his term going all the way back to eisenhower. for democrats, this is not a very good milestone, for the president, not a great milestone. you have listed all the reasons in your opener. the economy, mass shootings,

covid, we have a resurgence of a new variant. it feels as if things are out of control and the president -- people are not feeling like he has his hand firmly on the steering wheel. he was elected in part by saying i'm going to help us get away from or at least navigate us through the chaos. now it feels like the chaos is still controlling us. as a country. and the president feels to many people like he is a step behind. for democrats the frustration is about a president they don't feel is taking it to republicans hard enough. a lot of democrats say we want to see the president fight harder against republicans like mitch mcconnell, not let him drive the agenda. for independent voters i do think it comes to the sense of they just feel overwhelmed by the economy and how much these day-to-day increases, everything from groceries to rent to gas has impacted their lives. judy: you have been watching

this white house very closely. what else do you see? >> the public is in a sour mood and we have talked about this before but inflation is probably the one thing may be across the political spectrum people can agree is a real concern. every timeou go fill your tank, the price of gas is high. though it has been coming down in recent days. in addition to that, there are reasons that people on the left feel like the country is going the wrong direction and they are incredible frustrated whether it be the mass shootings and feeling like the president held a celebration today for gun safety legislation that a lot of people felt was not worthy of celebration. it was an incremental step at a time when people want to radical change. on abortion rights the same thing. there is this level of frustration that the esident cannot do more. people on the left, democrats,

25% of democrats do not approve of the president's performance. that takes a hit into your numbers when your own party is not fully behind you and the reason they have that reticence is as amy says, they want more. also i think the white house would argue the challenge he faces right now is there is no alternative. it is not joe biden versus someone else. it is, how do you feel about the president? how do you feel about the country? well, not great. judy: when democrats are asked in this poll whether joe biden should run again, only 26% -- this is democrats -- say he should. 69% say somebody else. when they are asked why, democrats answer and i'm reading here, 33% cite his age. 32% cite his job performance. 12% say they just would prefer somebody else, and 10% say he is

not progressive enough. >> if you are in the biden white house you would say it is very early. people are understandably frustrated about where things stand. we have a long way to go before 2024. that is fair. but the fact we have not even had a midterm election yet, we do not have the results, and a quarter of democrats say they would support the president is a bleak number. we have been seeing this number for quite some time. maybe not this high, but since the beginning of the year about 50% of democrats have been saying they would like somebody ne when you break it down for who would they want to see, that is where we get into the next question. if it is not biden, then who? that is where even -- you know, even people who follow politics for a living or art in politics for a living are saying they don't know. how would that be?

how would that happen? judy: i want to show the matchup. head-to-head against president trump. these are tough numbers from his own party. >> when i saw these numbers i went and looked up this quote from march of 2020 that sticks with me, and i think potentially might explain some of this. he said in march of 2020, this is president biden, look, i see myself as a bridge, not anything else. there is a generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. they are the future of this country. he pitched himself as a transitional leader. now he is saying i am running for reelection in 2024. well, all these voters are saying wait, i thought you said you were a transitional leader and we were moving onto the next thing. because he presented himself that way, that is why these numbers were this way so early. >> when these voters are asked about a matchup, this is all

voters, a matchup between biden and trump, it is 44-41. biden has a bit of an edge within the margin of error. among independents, who everyone watches closely, former president trump has a slight edge. it is a warning. >> there are two ways to look at this. if you are in the biden white house you say, see, what we told you was actually true. we are the only candidate that can beat donald trump. but you also say yes, but three points, if we assume that is where things sit, that's basically where we were in 2020 and even though he won the popular vote by that margin, he only won the electoral college by 40,000 votes. so we don't have yet a matchup between any other democrat. what it feels like as those numbers are locked in amber.

people who voted for biden are still going to vote for biden. people who voted for trump are still going to vote for trump with a section of people saying i don't even want to have to make the choice right now. my guess is we are not going to see either one of those candidates in 2024. what voters have been telling us from the very beginning of this year as they would like to see some new faces. judy: it is a warning sign for the white house. >> and not one they want to be asked about. also it is a long way. repeatedly they are saying it. they want to make it clear he is running. if he were to say right now he is not running, the oxygen would go out of th room. any effort to get his agenda through would hit ice. you would end up with all the attention focused on the intrigue and drama.

judy: which they do not want. all right, thank you both. amid high inflation and rising housing costs, it's not just young people looking for roommates. some americans in their 60's and 70's are turning to homesharing. our economics correspondent paul solman has the story about a growing number of baby boomers who are considering becoming boommates. >> going to get some sunflower seeds. reporter: for years, becky miller a 72 had only one companion. maxine, a green cheeked come your. but maxie does not pay rent and

miller was having trouble making ends meet. >> i wasingle so i was not able to put a lot into my ira. so i depleted it. my mortgage and my hoa fees were over half of my income. i decided for financial reasons to get a roommate. -- moved into her home a year and a half ago. >> i like saving money, i like having another person to talk to, to have a relationship with. it is nice to have some companionship when you are at home. reporter: miller and mears found each other on an internet platform that matches older homeowners with housemates. >> there is a significant amounts the population going into their mid 60's with $30,000 in their 401(k)s or nothing saved. reporter: so seniors miller and

mears feel the need to homesharing. -- to homeshare. >> with inflation rising, people under so much more financial pressure, the first half of this year we have seen by far more activity, probably two to three times what we have seen previous years. >> it is part of a longer-term trend. >> we often hear about the golden girls, the television show. >> i know it is awf, i have this incredible sweet tooth. >> this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. reporter: turns out dorothy, rose, blanche, and sophia were harbingers. >> 20 years ago it was 1% of older adults house sharing with a nonrelative. today it is over one million, more than double the number. reporter: small wonder given the rise and housing costs. >> over a third of older adult households have the cost burden

paying over 30% of their income in housing. half are paying more than 50%. what people start doing is cutting back on other necessities like food and out-of-pocket medical care, insurance, which affects more than your financial well-being. it affects your overall well-being. reporter: brenda atchison's house has been in her family since 1946. >> this is where i sleep. this is my bedroom. it has a lot of just artifacts. reporter: but after a career in i.t. and education ended, she struggled to maintain the place. >> i kind of retired prematurely and realized i had a big old house that needed to be heated, needed repairs, etc., and i was older so i knew i was moving into an area where i was going to have fixed income and beginning to say, how are we going to work this out? reporter: she worked it out by renting out a room to a young grad student. >> this was a major move in terms of my lifestyle because i

was not used to sharing space. this is christian's room. reporter: the student living upstairs now is roommate number six. >> i spent most of my time sitting here. reporter: a rwandan doctor is studying public health at boston university. >> she is very organized. she likes the place to be clean. that was not new to me. my mom was like that. reporter: does she remind you of your mom? >> yes, so when i forget to take the trash out -- reporter: she will remind you? i see. [laughter] reporter: she keeps an eye on him, him on her. >> i feel like if i stay in my room and did not hear that movement for the whole day i would be worried. reporter: and atchison who is single likes having someone around.

>> to be able to be connecting with people more outside of my sphere -- christian is not my p. -- my peer. none of the students have been my peers. but have they taught me? i just want to continue to learn. reporter: connection is key since social isolation for the elderly is linked to higher risk of depression, dementia, premature death. at first becky miller was not so sure she wanted someone sharing her colorado space either. >> i thought oh my gosh, someone is going to come use my kitchen. and she did. reporter: that turned into the proverbial blessing of the skies. >> i don't have to cook supper every night. we will take turns cooking. and this chicken recipe she is making tonight, what is the name of that? >> mediterranean chicken thighs with lemon and garlic. >> that is so good.

we are having a friend over. we are just going to pick out on that -- pig out on that. reporter: taking in an unknown roommate is not for everyone. >> i don't want strangers in my house. reporter: that is my cousin. every week i zoom with her and my other relatives, all retired single women. >> i don't care how nice they are, i don't want them messing with my stuff. i just love being able to eat if i want to, not eat if i don't want to, not having to put clothes on if i don't want to. and just -- feeling, i think the word is free. reporter: does this resonate for you rosemary? >> yes. i would rather cut down on other things than have a paying roommate. >> by contrast, my sister, a widow, started renting out her spare room.

how much of the motivation was financial? >> i would say most of it was financial. but i found it was rewarding to have another human on the property also. a sense of company. reporter: -- >> for me it was mostly financial. reporter: my cousin, 73, hoped for more connection from her housemates. but. >> i had a few people who were not social. i had to let go of my ideas about companionship. reporter: as more boomers retire and as the cost of living keeps climbing, homesharing may become commonplace, says silver nest riley gibson. >> we are going to have to get creative, find new ways of living, new ways to think about the single-family home, because we have to. reporter: brenda atchison is glad she did. >> being housing insecure, that is not comfortable. i can tell you that, it is not a comfortable feeling. i lived on that edge for quite some time.

i don't ever want to go back to that. reporter: but she says. >> it is the social piece that means more to me than the financial peace ever could. reporter: becky miller agrees. >> i have always been my myself -- always been by myself and i have discovered i have room in my heart for another person. reporter: relationships born of necessity that have grown into something a lot less transactional. for the pbs newshour, paul solman. judy: uber is under scrutiny after a whistleblower leaked more than 100,000 documents detailing the companies aggressive tactics as it expanded abroad, including efforts to curtail laws and regulations. stephanie sy has our report.

stephanie: judy uber files consist of records tactics uber -- records that purportedly show among many questionable tactics that uber used technology to cut access to its internal systems from regulators and law enforcement, using a kill switch , and that the company used violence against his drivers as a pr tool to win public sympathy. doug mcmillon is a corporate accountability reporter for the washington post who has been covering this story and joins us now from washington, d.c.. thank you for joining the newshour. i want to dive right into these findings. one of the main ones being about how then ceo travis callan nick allegedly -- travis kalanick exploited anger against uber drivers in paris. can you explain what was discovered about what he did and why it was so egregious? reporter: everywhere uber

expanded, there was a tension with the local taxi industry, where you know these taxi drivers who, some had invested their whole their whole lives and their whole careers having these taxi jobs saw uber as a threat to their livelihood, and in some places, they reacted with physical violence against uber drivers. we saw this across europe and in particular france. we saw a moment in time where there were a lotf attacks against uber drivers, and were -- where the executives of the company were starting to look at these attacks, and look at the possibility of not focusing on how do we protect our drivers and how do we keep them safe, but potentially using these incidents of violence for ubers own political gain. and so the text conversation we saw, which kind of is the the most striking document in all 124,000 documents in this trove of the uber files was that travis kalanick was looking at this possible possible demonstration where his drivers

who he had put at physical risk and said, i think it's worth it. violence guarantees success. so this reframing violence against his own drivers and people who kind of built his service on is kind of shocking to a lot of people who expected more interest in promoting and protecting the safety of people. stephanie: for his part, his spokesperson issued a statement and this is what it said. mr. kalanick never suggested uber should take advantage of violence at the expense of safety. any accusations that he directed, engaged in or was part of these activities are completely false. or any of the actions in the uber files including this supposedly split tatian of the violence that was already occurring -- this supposedly exploitation of the violence that was already occurring

reporter: reporter: illegal? reporter: there's no indication that uber has broken any laws here. i'm sure people will we will be looking at that and studying that, you know, as there's, you know, as we look at these uber files and these documents, but kind of the main takeaway for me was that the story of uber, uber and ubers growth as an aggressive kind of hardball tactics company that took kind of very aggressive measures to get a foothold in markets around the world, it is surprising the disregard sometimes that the managers of this company show for sometimes their own drivers and their own employees. the disregard they show for law enforcement. there is one episode that struck out -- that stuck out in which uber is using a software they developed called the kill switch. this is in the lead up to potential law-enforcement raid on huber uber's amsterdam headquarters. the ceo at the time says to his managers, hit the kill switch. by that he meant cut off access to all data on our computers.

particularly to prevent law enforcement investigation o that data. here we have a company that is developing software for the express purse of trying to evade law enforcement efforts to hold them accountable. >> uber has said that was to protect intellectual property. why did the whistleblower want to share these details? reporter: mark mcgann says that he was worried that uber had sold a lie that the people that uber had recruited to its service, a lot, a lot of low income people that have recruited to be drivers of the service, were told this vision that if you drive for uber were going to build a better life for yourself and we are going to empower you to be an entrepreneur. mark mcgann is saying, you know, this message didn't sit well with him in the years since he left the company because what ended up happening to all these people is they didn't improve

their lives. a lot of these people ended up in debt to rental car companies that they owed money to. and some of the people in our reporting the washington post showed ended up with, you know, threats to their physical safety. uber implemented cash payments in its app in south africa, for example, that generated a lot of criminal activity of uber drivers being targeted for crime on their app. a lot of times these drivers were sold this vision of, uber is going to help you improve your life and they actually did the opposite. the source of these leaks has been been kind of worried about that. that was part of his motivation for coming forward with these documents. stephanie: we should say uber today says this is all in the past, they have had new leadership the past five years. we will have to leave it there. thanks for joining the newshour. >> thank you for having me. judy: online, see the first image produced by the webb space

telescope. the image unveiled late today is filled with stars and galaxies and it is the farthest humanity has ever seen into the universe. that is the "newshour" for night. i'm judy woodruff. don't forget to join us tomorrow at 1:00 for p.m. live coverage of the january 6th committee hearing. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by. >> for 25 years consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer no contract plans and our u.s.-based customer service team can find one that fits you. to learn more visit consumer cellular.tv. the kendeda fund committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas. more at kendeda fund.org.

supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. 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. this is the pbs newshour from wec a studios -- weta studios and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. ♪

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ -today on "america's test kitchen," julia makes bridget broiled chicken with gravy, adam reviews toaster ovens, lisa shares some favorite toaster-oven gadgets, and dan makes julia skillet-roasted broccoli.