recorded. he played the epic double album in sequence,which is a large part of the appeal. set against an amazing stage show hearing music played exactly as you once heard it in your bedroom while reading liner notes created a time warp worthy of adventure. for two hours, it didn't matter if it were 1980 or 2010. the tour continues through next summer. see it if you get the chance. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "countdown" with keith olbermann starts now. which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? new tax cut compromise. if the president okays multi-year extension of all bush tax cuts, the republicans will agree. wait a minute, what the hell kind of compromise is that? >> if the president wants to compromise on a two or three-year extension, what's important here, chris, is that businesses know what their tax rates are going to be over the

next few years so they can plan growth and plan to add people. >> because the bush tax cuts got those businesses to add so many jobs in the last ten years. >> what if we moved it up to $1 million? everybody below $1 million will get a tax cut, but the millionaires and billionaires won't. >> why the democrats keep negotiating against themselves with howard fineman. how do we pay for any cuts anyway with ezra klein. the reinvivitalists versus the survivalists. richard wolf inside the split. the martian chronicles. the the solution on how to get there, don't try to get back? >> you might be going to mars, you know! >> fixing the filibuster, ending the earmark. mcconnell caves to the tea party. and the real death of news. ted koppel, false equivalence, and the failure of television news, 2001, 2005. my special comment. all the news and commentary now on "countdown."

good evening from new york, this is monday, november 15th, 722 days until the 2012 presidential elections. with the lame duck session of congress now underway, there is one word that has and will be tossed around repeatedly. a word that must be probed, scoured for authenticity, particularly of the white house and congressional democrats and republicans all coalesce around an understanding of it that may very well represent a collective deception. the word is compromise. the collective deception, that a temporary extension of all the bush tax cuts, maybe for a couple of years constitutes compromise. president obama has once again objected to extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, quoting what i've said is that i believe it is a mistake for us to borrow $700 billion to make tax cuts permanent for millionaires and billionaires. it won't significantly boost the economy and it's hugely

expensive, to we can't afford it. and when david axelrod was asked if the white house would support a temporary extension, he avoided the direct answer. again, pay close attention to the word permanent. >> are you open to compromise? >> there's no bend on the permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. >> and, once again -- >> we cannot afford to go the additional step and permanently raise -- permanently cut taxes, primarily for millionaires and billionaires at a cost of $700 billion for the next ten years alone. >> meantime, you may have seen the words republican and compromise in this formulation. a two or three-year extension of all the bush tax cuts as if that actually represents compromise. republicans apparently successful so far in advancing such a fallacy. senator jim demint. >> i hope we can get a permanent extension, but if the president wants to compromise on a two or

three-year extension. what's important is businesses know to plan growth and plan to add people. if we keep things in a state of flux, i'm afraid we're going to continue to have a jobs problem. >> right. the certainty that businesses got from ten years of those bush tax cuts worked out brilliantly. back to the tax cut compromise. tea party favorite, senator-elect rand paul also signing on to the temporary extension of all the bush tax cuts with caveats. >> if that's all we can get, that's better than nothing. but i think the more permanent, the better. and then what we need to do as republicans, if we're serious about the debt is, keep the tax cuts permanent, but then come in and say here's several hundred billion dollars we'll save by having spending reduction bills immediately introduced in congress. >> and just in case there's any remaining doubt that a grand charade is underway, michelle bauchmann is also willing to support such a compromise. an extension of all the bush tax cuts for a few years.

meantime, one democratic leader is suggesting that a proposal that might be legitimately called a compromise. senator chuck schumer. >> i think there is a compromise in the making. democrats had originally called for tax cuts for people below $250,000. republicans for everybody. what if we moved it up to $1 million. everybody below $1 million will get a tax cut, but the millionaires and billionaires won't. >> let's turn first to washington post staff writer, "newsweek" columnist ezra klein. >> good evening, keith. >> if the bush tax cuts are extended for two or three years, nothing has changed. it is -- >> no. >> it is mere procrastination with deficit-producing, underperforming tax cuts staying exactly as it is, isn't it? is there some magic elixir in this we're not seeing? >> you had a nice segment of folks saying, no, don't throw me back into the briar patch. the thing about extending tax cuts is those tax cuts become

permanent. people become used to them. and the justifications get stranger and stranger. we passed them originally to get rid of a surplus, then it went to recession, so now we need them for stimulus. and as jim demint says certainty even though obama would create ten years of certainty by just doing the middle class ones. things have gotten a little wild for them. but the basic idea, if you keep them all together, if you don't de-couple, they'll be easier to keep extending into the future. >> when you move the goal posts like this, the field tends to move with it to some degree. assume for argument's sake that a proposal like the one we heard from senator schumer gained traction. no extension for tax cuts for above $1 million in income, that might have some appeal and would be better than the current compromise, which is a cave-in looks like. is even that good policy? >> i don't understand why they're doing this. i really don't. it is bad policy. we know we have a massive deficit problem, we have the deficit commission talking right now about how to fix it.

we know that tax cuts for folks over $250,000 in income are not particularly popular. we know they're not stimulative. so why move back to $1 million? these tax cuts don't get extended if a president doesn't sign them if the senate doesn't vote for them. and right now, when we're going to do them, the house, senate, and white house are all controlled by democrats. what exactly leverage are democrats getting knocked back on their heels by? i can't figure out where the republican power over this issue is coming from. >> well, and that leads to an even broader conclusion here is the democrats have screwed this up strategically and from a policy standpoint. is there chance, you know, as the line from dr. johnson, that when a man knows he's going to be hanged in the morning, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. when the democrats realize they lose the house in terms of formal control in this lame duck session, is it possible for them to concentrate long enough to correct course? >> there are three things they need. in the next month, we need unemployment insurance extension or people lose benefits.

number two, we're going to need to raise the debt ceiling in the next couple of months. republicans are loving this. jim demint says he wanted to use it to repeal the health care bill, cut spending massively. if republicans want to blow up the deficit by extending tax cuts, they need to stand shoulder to shoulder on the debt ceiling. if i were the democrats, i would not do the tax cuts without doing the debt ceiling at the same time. senator conrad said it should only be possible in the context of tax reform. we can extend these for a couple of years, but if you don't do tax reform, it's an automatic snap to clinton 1999 rates. republicans want it and nobody wants a big tax increase. but the big fear i'm hearing from people on the hill is the democrats are going to give this away for nothing. and it's not clear why they're doing it that way. >> is there any lawmaker to your knowledge who is willing to suggest, hey, you know what? it isn't a good idea to extend any of these? >> actually it's george voinovich, the republican from ohio. >> of course, it is. >> besides him, there's been little on it.

to be fair in the next couple of years for folks not making much money, we need any kind of stimulus you can get and keeping taxes low for people who make less than $250,000 is an ineffective but present type of stimulus. but going forward and for folks above that, it doesn't make sense. >> and comes at the price of bribing the rich. great thanks, ezra. >> thank you. let's turn to the senior editor at the "huffington post" howard fineman. good evening. >> hi, keith. >> temporarily extending the bush tax cuts is not a real compromise, it is as i suggested before a cave on the part of the democrats, just accepting a position that the republicans had advanced for a long time just for a shorter period of time. and they get nothing back. so why does it sound like the white house is very carefully giving itself room to arrive at this point in which it gives away the store for nothing? >> well, keith, i've been listening to you and ezra talk and i've been trying to figure out based on my reporting today

what reasonable answer i can give to the question of why the democrats are doing this. and based on the people i talked to today, it's a couple of things. first of all, they have lost faith if they ever had any in the idea that they could control the narrative and control the debate. and they're afraid that if they get into some kind of real confrontation with the republicans over taxes -- in other words, the president maybe even vetoing some kind of bill or standing in the way of what the republicans want to do, that either the veto will be overridden or it won't be and all the tax cuts will go away. and the white house and the democrats -- some of them -- are afraid to try to deal with the consequences of that. they don't really think they can convince the american people that the reason why all the tax cuts have gone away is not president obama, but republican intransigen

intransigents. in other words, they lost their nerve in feeling the ability to control the debate. that's the best answer i can give to you and ezra on that point. >> don't they take any heart from the fact that democrats have successfully negotiated against democrats? that they beat the democrats into a pulp already? shouldn't they see the ability? if you can hit yourself hard enough in the head to knock yourself out cold, certainly you can direct the punch in a different direction, can't you? >> one would think so. but one of the interesting things to watch here and talking to democrats, is the caucuses are meeting tomorrow, both the house and senate side. and it's not clear what the defeated democrats are going to do. one might think that a lot of defeated democrats and house seats and even senate seats would say the heck with it. i tried to replay the game of mollifying the republicans, now they're out of there, i'm going to vote against tax breaks for the rich and screw it. but that -- we don't know whether that's going to happen. and the people i talked to think it's doubtful because a lot of those same democrats either have

to go back to those districts or they might want to go into business or they might want to be lobbyists or this and that, you never know. and they were impressed if not intimidated by the fact that the democrats won plus 60 and the republicans won plus 60 in the house and seem to have the political momentum. so this would seem to be an opportunity in the lame duck for defeated democrats to be brave. but it's not even clear that's going to happen. we'll wait and see what happens in the caucuses tomorrow. but the betting i hear is they're not going to be that way. >> what about the notion ezra raised about linking the bush tax cuts to republican concessions on extending the 99ers, the unemployment insurance for the americans who get sucked into that black hole in the middle of the month? >> that's a great idea in theory. but the democrats, especially in the senate, aren't convinced they have the votes to defeat attempts to remove such things from being attached to the bill. basically harry reid and his leadership aren't convinced that

they can get anything out of the senate, which is one reason why the house members, including those defeated democrats who might want to vote to not allow the tax cuts to continue for the rich don't want to take the first vote. they want to make the senate vote first. >> this again. >> this again. to see if the senate has the cajones to do anything. >> "huffington post" senior editor howard fineman. thank you, howard. >> thank you. richard wolf's new book revival describing competing groups inside the obama administration, idealists revivalists over survivalists. some lyrics and a couple of numbers and you've got "west side story." richard wolf next on "countdown." you never take an upgrade for granted.

and you rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i deserve this. [ male announcer ] you do, business pro. you do. go national. go like a pro. my professor at berkeley asked me if i wanted to change the world. i said "sure." "well, let's grow some algae." and that's what started it. exxonmobil and synthetic genomics have built a new facility to identify the most productive strains of algae. algae are amazing little critters. they secrete oil, which we could turn into biofuels. they also absorb co2. we're hoping to supplement the fuels that we use in our vehicles, and to do this at a large enough scale to someday help meet the world's energy demands.

if you got the sense the

white house was driven into two crowds, richard wolf's new book indicates you were right. a new cheap way to explore mars. go there and stay over at his house. as some senators discuss neutering the filibuster, he gets neuter by the tea party on earmarks. and nothing like being told you've helped to destroy tv news by one of the men who at the time his nation needed him to be a real journalist utterly failed at it. special comment ahead. [ beeping ] ♪ my country ♪ 'tis of thee ♪ sweet land ♪ of liberty ♪ of thee i sing

[ laughs ] ♪ oh, land ♪ where my fathers died ♪ land of the pilgrims' pride ♪ from every mountainside ♪ let freedom ring ♪ speaking with reporters, following his trip to asia, president obama reflecting on the first half of his presidency while offering a preview of what he thinks comes next. and in our fourth story, while the president hints at obama

2.0, we gain new insight into the struggles and victories of the original flavor. a result of a white house divided revivalists versus survivalists in a team of rivals without very much team. the man reporting from the front lines, richard wolf joins me in a moment. mr. obama, once again shouldering the blame for his administration's perceived failures. this time pointing to his obsessive focus on policy for neglecting things that matter to people. hinting in the next two years he will not be legislatively focus focused. and yes, more calls for bipartisanship. "my expectation when i sit down with mitch mcconnell and john boehner this week there are a set of things that need to get done during the lame duck and they are not just going to want to obstruct. that they're going to want to engage constructively." good times, great oldies. joining me, author of the new book "revival" richard wolf.

>> good evening, keith. >> the reason you did this was to decide what if anything had changed during this first 20 plus months. what was the answer? and was it a surprise to you? >> well, it was a surprise. it surprised me that such a relatively simple question would be out there unresolved for so long. and the fact that it'd begun before the campaign was over. i told the story about john podesta gets into in a heated campai exchange with the campaign people. we've got to get around that. now the campaign people said this wasn't a minor thing. you know, this is what the candidate, the president-elect really believes in. and, of course, they watered it down one way or the other. he says well, he was really just hedging where the president wanted to hedge. but that debate about whether you should stick to the revivalist spirit of the campaign or govern and -- and mold yourself to washington, that has been the fault line running through this white house for the last three years. >> if it's obama loyalists,

revivalists, valerie jarrett, that crowd, the veterans with him from the beginning versus the old-hand clintonists. if the president had repeatedly rejected this clinton model for his presidency, why were there any survivalists? and why were they seemingly in charge? >> well, that's a great question. and there were some obama loyalists on the survivalist side. it's not a clear obama/clinton divide here. but that framework from the primaries does set up what happens after. remember, in the final stretch in iowa, had goes up and gives a speech crystallizing the debate between the two where he says you cannot at once say you're the master of the broken system in washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. my argument is based on my research, my sources, he's got a foot in both camps. he wanted to try to do both. and it was as untenable for him in year one and two as it was for clinton in the primaries. >> is this why we've gotten the bipartisan needle stuck in the

same record for the last two years? even now the president talking about he's going to try to be more bipartisan. is there some connection as he has that it sometimes to eclipse the idea he's also the president of people who voted for him? >> well, there is that self-image there, you're right. this is the guy who said he would unite red and blue america, so he's going to try and do that. there was also a late dawning belief, a realization among these people that, in fact, there were no reasonable republicans out there. that this republican party no longer had a bob dole figure. and at the other side, while they were trying to govern carried on campaigning. and that was a -- a really simple mistake that many of the campaign people said, hey, guys, the other side hasn't stopped the election. took them a long time to realize that. >> and you're right that the scott brown victory in massachusetts in january was the real wake-up call that knocked the president out of his complacency. but what changed? and if something did change, why

ten months later is there still this -- this attitude that we saw during the run-up to the midterms? and even now, this kind? >> scott brown happened, everyone said this president is dead, finished, two months later he gets health care. so there's a repeated pattern here of people writing this guy off saying he's finished. there was new hampshire, texas and ohio, pennsylvania, this guy was supposed to be done a long time ago and he bounces back. that's number one to keep in mind. of course, you don't know, he's always going to bounce back. there's a repeated pattern there. secondly, they have come to understand that you've got to reach out to independents. they're the people who have lost. but, in fact, can you get republicans? they're under no illusions. they come into this a little more realistic and also come into it knowing that how much damage they have suffered by going into this governing, washington mode when really, the country left and right, still wants reform. >> the lead survivalist announced for mayor of chicago

on saturday. formally out of the picture. does that change the picture for the next two years? or does the change in control of the house neuter any effect towards what a lot of people thought this white house was going to look like? >> well, it does change in the sense that there are people close to the president who realize that instead of emanuel adapting to the ways of the campaign, he, in their own words, sort of undermine it. this is exactly the time you want rahm emanuel. someone who can lock horns and be the party's figure and maybe early on was not the time you wanted him. but hindsight is a not a perfect thing, of course. >> richard wolffe, we're grateful you came to talk about "revival" here first. it's a good word. thanks, great to see you. >> thank you, keith. the good news, you're going to mars. the bad news, you're not coming back. ahead on "countdown."

how do you explore other planets at half the price? it's simple, go there and don't come back. that modest proposal ahead. first the sanity break and the tweet of the day and it's from may be. i'd like to remind you all that beck is slang for pot in portuguese. actually the online brazilian slang to english says beck means marijuana cigarette. more importantly, my god, there is an online brazilian slang to english translating dictionary.

let's play "oddball." we begin in the united kingdom. maria holland has broken the record for radio broadcasters under water. radio station that caters to a key demographic, people staying at the hospital. she was on the air under water for 4 hours and 4 1/2 minutes breaking the previous record by nearly one hour. besides playing music, she also had a bowling competition and a spirited game of darts. but many people think it was all a ploy to salvage her sinking ratings, which have clearly gone into the tank. internet where we find the eternal struggle of the wild. a group of alligators versus a cat. here kitty, kitty. the gator returns with reenforcements. kitty holds its ground taking several swipes at the mouths of the gators. that apparently is the trick.

so upset about the beating they received, they decided to walk away. this time there won't be any tears. time marches on. filibuster reform, one-way space exploration, and a special comment on the real death of news ahead. it's true. you never forget your first subaru. took some foolish risks as a teenager. but i was still taking a foolish risk with my cholesterol. anyone with high cholesterol may be at increased risk of heart attack. diet and exercise weren't enough for me. i stopped kidding myself. i've been eating healthier, exercising more... and now i'm also taking lipitor.

if you've been kidding yourself about high cholesterol...stop. along with diet, lipitor has been shown to lower bad cholesterol 39% to 60%. lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who have heart disease or risk factors for heart disease. [ female announcer ] lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. let's go, boy, go! whoo-whee! if you have high cholesterol, you may be at increased risk of heart attack and stroke. don't kid yourself. talk to your doctor about your risk and about lipitor. it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition. we'll call it the nationwide family plan.

here you go, and there you go. unfreeze ! keys ! savings ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ road trip !

two scientists think they've solved the twin problems of getting a man on mars, cost and time. in our third story, it's very simple, really. don't bother bringing him back. you heard me, a ticket to mars, a one-way ticket to mars. this is the rather stark proposal offered by two scientists writing in the mars special edition of the journal of cosmology. it wasn't that much more harsh than the first settlers who left for america. except for the fact they knew there was air here. the main point is getting exploration moving. go right to colonizing, two men

at a time, each ship bringing more supplies. they think older astronauts would make sense. see, radiation would damage the reproductive system, which is why you shouldn't send up any young adults or women. it's going to be a hell of a colony, isn't it? the scientists suggest if this is too one-way for nasa, what we need is an eccentric billionaire. don't tell republicans this could be their solution to long-term unemployment. we will discuss this idea tomorrow. chris hayes next on reforming earmarks and the filibuster, then the special comment. you need website development, 1-on-1 marketing advice, search-engine marketing, and direct mail. yellowbook's got all of that. yellowbook360's got a whole spectrum of tools. tools that are going to spark some real connections. visit yellowbook360.com and go beyond yellow.

[ male announcer ] an everyday moment can turn romantic anytime. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

good news, democrats. him caving in on earmarks can mean only one thing, the tea party now runs the gop. and imagine my surprise to discover that he thinks i've helped to destroy tv news, not the people who are facing the most important journalistic decisions of their lives. [ j. weissman ] it was 1975.

my professor at berkeley asked me if i wanted to change the world. i said "sure." "well, let's grow some algae." and that's what started it.

exxonmobil and synthetic genomics have built a new facility to identify the most productive strains of algae. algae are amazing little critters. they secrete oil, which we could turn into biofuels. they also absorb co2. we're hoping to supplement the fuels that we use in our vehicles, and to do this at a large enough scale to someday help meet the world's energy demands. you wouldn't know it by the way he's down played the earmark issue, but senator mitch mcconnell is responsible for more pork than a jimmy dean's sausage factory. in the past three years the kentucky senator has request requested -- mcconnell caved in

to his new tea party overlords. >> i know the good that has come from the projects that i've helped support throughout my state. i don't apologize for them, but there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as symbol of waste of out of control spending that every republican in washington is determined to fight. >> meanwhile, democrats are leading a movement to reform the filibuster process. according to the hill, senator tom udall says he will force a motion to have biden adopt new rules for the session and he will seek consensus among both parties to lower the 60-vote threshold for procedural motions. the goal to end the ability of the party in the minority to

obstruct the agenda from reaching the floor, cloture votes have skyrocketed. you can see the trend, it is gridlock in graphic form. udall admits he currently does not have the votes, but across the aisle. let's turn to chris, an msnbc contributor. >> good evening, keith. >> should the republicans take over in two years, is there going to be a larger democratic ground swell to try to reform the filibuster process? >> well, a ground swell i haven't seen yet. you have seen some movement, you definitely saw it during health care. one of the things i think that's problematic is that there was a real ground swell around health care because people got a very colorful illustration of the problems of the filibuster and sort of everybody dealing from the 60th vote. and that created a real mass

consensus around the fact this had to be changed. i think as we've gotten further away from that, there's been an ebbing in the amount of pressure there is on the issue. and i think that's problematic. but i do think you see senator udall, harkin, there are other people if you go through the record, there's probably about 15, 20, 25 senators who have said something on the record about their openness to filibuster reform. so i really hope that the senator does push the issue because it's important even if it doesn't work at the opening of this new congress to get everybody on the record. >> is this one of those political party offense/defense questions? the democrats want to play defense, they'll let reform on this die so the republicans have no chance of being free from the filibuster if they gain the majority in 2012, but if the democrats went by offense, they should push this by what they could get done over the next two years would make holding on to the senate easier? >> i think there's a cultural distinction between the republican and democratic caucus. republicans tend to be m

maximalists and democrats tend to be minimalists. we've seen this since 1994 and going through and the way the different senators conduct themselves, particularly on the senate side. so i think that's one issue. i think the point you made and the first question is really important to hammer home. for all the democrats that are uneasy about filibuster reform that are thinking to themselves, well, we don't want to be in the situation where we can't block things where we're in the minori minority. you should think long and hard about whether you think the republicans are going to preserve the filibuster if they're in the majority. because remember, they thought it was such a threat to the republic that judges were getting filibustered, they were ready to blow the thing up a few years ago. and now, judges are getting filibuster routinely and everybody sort of shrugs and it's business as usual. >> it is about the senate as an institution operating more fairly, effectively, and democratically. and yet all the talk of doing this is from incumbent democrats. where are some of those tea party don't tread on me fair is fair voice of the people guys?

>> well, i think it's important to -- to remember, the filibuster is even though it's sort of viewpoint neutral, right? i mean it can be evoked by minorities of either party. it fundamentally has played a reactionary role in american politics. if you look at the history of it in the 20th century, it's been invoked against labor law, civil rights, and now it's become so casually sort of invoked by the sort of republican obstructionists. there is a nature to the filibuster which is fundamentally, i think, conservative. so i'm not surprised you're not seeing tea party candidates clamber to get a change. >> and back to earmarks. mcconnell changing, flipping here. is that the tea party eating the establishment? or is it some sort of shrewd move from mcconnell to coopt the tea party platform? >> here's what is what i would say, this is a beginning of a

long relationship. there's a lot of things the newt gingrich congress did and they petered out. so let's check back in a few years and see if rand paul isn't sneaking some appropriations into the bills. to the degree you think the current economy of influence in congress and the status quo is fundamentally corrupt, which i do think. and i don't think earmarkers are at all the center of that corruption, but you could make an argument that they're sort of a symptom of it. i do think it's encouraging to see that status quo disrupted. even if it's for a distraction, even if earmarks aren't the problem. i'm heartened by the fact that harkin buckled. it's hard to be on the side of mitch mcconnell. and to the extent that things actually changed because of an election, i guess i'm so desperate to see the political -- this political system react to voter input that i'm actually encouraged by it. >> chris hayes of the nation and

msnbc, thank you, chris. >> putting it on my business card. thank you, keith. >> thank you, sir. pardon me, mr. koppel, but who killed tv news? special comment next. [ freezing ] i can't feel my feet. we switched to the venture card from capital one -- so no more games. let's go see those grandkids. [ male announcer ] don't pay miles upcharges. don't play games. get the flight you want with the venture card at capitalone.com. [ loving it ] help! what's in your wallet? with the venture card at capitalone.com. navigating today's real estate market is complicated. you've seen the signs. that's why having the right real estate agent is more important than ever. at remax.com, you can find experts in short sales or bank-owned properties or commercial real estate, agents who can help speed up the process, no matter how intricate. and that's good news, whether you're trying to sell or hoping to buy. because the only sign you really want to see is "sold." nobody sells more real estate than re/max. visit remax.com today.

it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition. we'll call it the nationwide family plan. here you go, and there you go. unfreeze ! keys ! savings ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ road trip !

finally tonight as promised, a special comment about ted koppel's op ed piece yesterday entitled olbermann, o'reilly, and the death of tv news. i hope you will agree this is important. when walter cronkite died 16 months ago, he was lionized by the impact he effected on television news. he was praised for his utter objectivity and impartiality and implicitly and explicitly. there was wailing this had died with him. and invariably the few clips were shown with each obituary. it was the night he dedicated 14 minutes to a remarkable report on watergate which devastated

the nixon administration. one so strong that the administration pressured cbs merely to shorten the next night's follow-up to just eight minutes. it was the extraordinary broadcast from vietnam from 4 1/2 years earlier in which he insisted that nothing better than stalemate was possible and that america should negotiate its way out, not as victors, but as an honorable people that lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could. all that newscast did was convince the 36th president of the united states to not seek reelection. the deserved and heart-felt sadness at the loss of the journalist and man turned into a metaphor to the loss of a style of utterly uninvolved neutral "objective" reporting. most of the highlights of the man's career had been those moments when he correctly and fearlessly threw off those shackles and said what was true and not merely what was factual. it has been the same with edward

r. mur rel. the creator is offered as a parag paragon. never mentioned that cbs was pressured to stop those sering explosions of truth from london. because our political leaders at the time believed they would unfairly influence americans to side with the british when the nation was still officially neutral and the republican party was still completely convinced that there was a deal to be made with the nazis. president roosevelt did not invite him to the white house to congratulate him on his london reports because they were fair and balanced. similarly, the journalism students of now seven different decades have studied the broadcast about senator joe mccarthy from 1954. lotted as some of the greatest moments in the history of america. the story is told that a cowering profit-hungry press stood idly by or rode mccarthy's

paranoia while the blacklist and the fear grew. and then murrow slayed the dragon. always left out that the truth hours within speaking truths based on fact, he was attacked as a partisan. the republicans and conservative newspapers and broadcasters described in what they would have insisted was neutral, objective, unbiassed factual that he was a democrat, a liberal, socialist, marxist, communist, a traitor. always left out that the fact these attacks worked. within 12 months, his see-it-now program has been reduced from once a week to once a month. it'd been shifted every tuesday night at 10:30 to once in a while on sunday afternoons at 5:00, becoming as one cbs producer put it "see it now and then." mr. koppel does not mention, nobody ever does, that the year in which he helped save this democracy by including his own editorial judgment in the news

was the last year of his life, throughout which he appeared on a regular prime-time newscast. he would be eased out of cbs entirely in seven years and dead in 11. > the great change about what mr. koppel wrings his hands is not analysis, the great change was the creation of the sanitized image of what men like cronkite and davis and daly and smith and rather and jennings, polk, and koppel did. these were not glorified st stenograp stenographers. using only the facts as they can be best discerned plus their own honesty and conscience. and if the result this story over here is the presidential chief of staff taking some pretty low-octane bribes, you

judge all the facts and say so. and if the other story over there is not just a third-rate burglary, but the tip of an iceberg meant to sink the two-party system, you judge all the facts and scream so. insists that long enough the driving principle behind the television era was neutrality and objectivity and not subjective choices and often dangerous evaluations and even commentary, and you will eventually leave the door open to pointless worship at the temple of a false god. and once you've got a false god, you're going to get false priests. and sooner rather than later in a world where subjective analysis is labeled evil and dangerous, some political mount bank is going to ease is catechism of that false god. words like objective and neutral and two-sided and fair and balanced. and he will pervert them into a catch phrase, a brand name. and he can create something that is no more journalism than two men screaming at each other as a

musical duet. but as long as there are two men, as long as they are fair and balanced, is not the news consumer entranced by the screaming and the fact that his man eventually and always outscreams the other? is not he convinced he's seen true balance, true objectivity? i have read and heard much of late including from mr. koppel in the washington post yesterday about those who succeeded his grand era of false objectivity are only in it for the money or the fame or the chance to push a political party. mr. koppel also implied as others have that the men behind this network saw in the success of fox news a business opportunity to duplicate that style but change the content. mr. koppel implied that yesterday. in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. and the very kind of fact-driven journalism mr. koppel seems to be claiming he represents and i fail would not stand for his sloppy assumptions and false equivalence of both sides do it. we do not make up facts here. and when we make mistakes, we correct them. friday night i found, as we

rehearsed its presentation, that a segment implying former president bush had lifted his parts of autobiography was largely based on excerpts that mostly required heavy editing and produced weak evidence. we killed the segment. would fox have? would cnn have? ten days ago anderson cooper 360 presented a political story in the most cataclysmic of tones. there were three guests, a magazine editor and a staunch liberal and conservative, and they were in agreement. the story just wasn't that big of a deal. the segment ran anyway. moreover, while fox may be such, we are not doctrinaiairdoctrina. i criticize president obama more in the last week than fox's prime time hosts criticized president bush in eight years. to equate this network with fox as mr. koppel did, to accuse us of having our own facts is another manifestation of a

dangerously simplified understanding of modern news. this man says the moon is a fragment orbiting the earth, have them both on and let them debate. it's fair and balanced. and to the charge, i have been here for every moment of this network's evolution. it began in 2003 when slowly one fact at a time we began to challenge the government's rationalization for the war in iraq. a year later i was told by the former president of this network he did not want me or us to be a liberal answer to fox news. the man whose hour followed mine then was that conservative ex-congressman. the year after that, i offered evidence that there seemed to be a disturbing juxtaposition with political bumps in the road for the republican party. the woman whose hour followed mine then had been hired by us away from fox. the year after that, i did the first of these special comments and i fully expected i might be fired after it. the year after that, i had to spend urging my employers to give my guest host her own show.

now there are three shows in prime time in which the content usually lines up with the small "l" liberal point of view even as it needles and prods and sometimes pole axes the democrats. and that conservative ex-congressman is on the air here every day and he has as much time as the three of us at night do put together. if this was a business plan, it was not one as good as the kids at the lemonade stand. and therein lies the final irony to what mr. koppel wrote yesterday. we got here organically, in large part because of mr. koppel. his prominence, you will recall came on abc news and sports president who never permitted business or show business to interfere in his pledge of allegiance. he made the subjective and correct decision that the hostile crisis in tehran merited half an hour or more each night of the network's time in 1979. this was not the no-brainer that

retrospect may suggest. cbs and nbc and pbs certainly did not do it. even when cnn signed on in the middle of the next year, it did not do it. he made his decision just four days after the hostages were seized and stuck with the story until it ended, defying the conventional wisdom of television and constantly pressing the government and questioning the official line. even after those hostages were freed more than a year later, the half an hour of news, now renamed "nightline" continued. and each night for 26 years mr. koppel and his producers and employers selectively suggested which out of a million stories would get the attention of his slice of american television for as much as half an hour at a time. which story would be elevated and amplified. and which piles upon piles of stories would be postponed or tabled or discarded or ignored. just as the story of his career emphasizes mccarthy but not the

fact that the aftermath of the mccarthy broadcast buried his career. the stories of mr. koppel's career will emphasize the light he so admirably shown on the iran hostages. those stories, though will probably not emphasize that in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005. mr. koppel did not shine that same light on the decreasingly coherent excuses presented by the government of this nation for the war in iraq. 14 consecutive months of nightly half hours on the travesty and tragedy of 52 hostages in iran. but the utter falsehood and dishonesty of the process by which this country was committed to the wrong war, by which this country was committed to dishonesty, by which this country was committed to torture, about that, mr. koppel and everybody else in the dead, objective television news business that he letmenaments a

that. where were they? worshipping the false god of utter objectivity. the bitter irony that must occur to koppel and others of his time was their choice not to look too deeply into iraq before or after the war began was itself just as subjective as anything i say or do here each night. i may be judged to have been wrong in what i'm doing. mr. koppel does not have to wait. the kind of television journalism he eulogizes, failed this country because when truth was needed, all we got were facts. most of which were lies anyway. the journalism failed and those who practiced it failed, and mr. koppel failed. i don't know that i'm doing it exactly right here. i'm trying. i have to. because whatever that television news was before, we now have to fix it. good night. and good luck.