somebody you get down actually get are you going to either way i feel uncomfortable . people were uncomfortable with the notion but the government and the companies who actually created these devices said as soon as the image these images were viewed on the screen they'd be discarded and the t.s.a. claimed the images couldn't even be stored at all so the body scanners were put in place and overall no big problems until now new reports from the u.s. marshals service say images from the x. ray scanners have been saved from machines at a florida courthouse now granted a courthouse is different from t.s.a. officers at an airport we don't know about the situation there but it still raises a very valid question were federal officials wrong all along an old t.s.a. document reveals the scanners need to be able to store images for training purposes unlike what the t.s.a. originally told the public so was all this information trickles out of the woodworks we have to ask again if these machines are

a violation of people's privacy if a court house has the capability to store images with ease what's stopping t.s.a. agents from taking the same liberties and storing images of travelers on a daily basis i say it's time to go back to the drawing board the t.s.a. and federal agencies need to be giving all the information up front when it comes to our privacy to your privacy the public deserves the right to know when their image their naked image that is is being stored for anyone else to see. conflict of interest or business as usual that question is being asked after it was revealed c.n.n. and the chicago tribune has been embedding active military personnel inside the news organization the military or military has allowed active duty service members to service entrance in the companies but should the military and the media be so

cozy joining me to discuss the issue of the relationship between the media and the military is former c.n.n. senior pentagon correspondent jamie mcintyre jamie it's a pleasure to see you thanks for having me. to vince me how is this not a conflict of interest to have active duty military personnel working in a newsroom that is covering the military well you know this was part of a program it was called the time with the industry program and it was designed to allow members of the military particularly those who either deal with the media like public affairs officials or were aspiring military journalists to get a look at you know what actually goes on in the newsroom and by the same token it's the idea is to expose some people in the newsroom to members of the military many people in newsrooms across the united states don't have any direct experience with people in the military it was a very jamie how is this different from having basically p.r. for the military working in the newsroom with the journalists that are covering them well you know the the sinister part about this is the fortunate part is it

creates this impression that there could be something untoward going on there but i got to tell you from from having firsthand experience with these programs and dealing with these military in terms we probably have more influence on them than they have on us and the idea that these military officers who are there to sort of observe how newsrooms work how discussions are made how decisions are made about stories so they have more understanding of how the media works so they think they'll have any direct input in how the stories are crap ok let me ask you this how come back in two thousand when c.n.n. had a similar program and it became public and media reports they canceled it and said it was inappropriate because it's. easier to cancel the program than to try to make the argument that i'm making now it's you know to go out for c.n.n. that at the time this happened this when this program when people began raising questions about it it was right as the war was beginning with iraq the invasion of iraq in two thousand and three two thousand and four and the perception problem was so great the explanation was something that so few people would group would would

except that they just decided to kill the whole program there's another aspect of the c.n.n. which is that the military did something that they're not supposed to do either instead of sending public affairs officials who deal with the media all the time they send a couple of people who are involved in psychological operations who also want to know how the media works so then how do we know that the military isn't embedding these people in these large media organizations to spierer to have some kind of an employee well you know you target spying the media organization because what we do is out there you know everything that c.n.n. covered was was out there and you knew would c.n.n. was doing what about to influence the operations or to influence the story isn't objectivity compromised when you're working side by side with people that have conflicting agendas well nothing more than that it is when you're covering the pentagon then you're dealing with these people all the time one of the people named in the story the guy who was the intern at the chicago tribune is a public affairs officer who i've known for years a guy named ted a colonel rico player

a marine very sharp marine i've been told to tow to him arguing on issues when i was back at the military and he spent some time the chicago tribune learning how the chicago tribune works and you know it's so there's there's no more corruption than it is when you get out on the front lines and you're arguing with public affairs people every day about how you cover a story which brings me to another interesting issue which is the coziness between reporters and the military officials are covering and the opposite situation where journalists and bad but the military which brings me to another topic that we were actually discussing a while back which is michael hastings wrote the journalist who wrote the. article that essentially got general mcchrystal fired right and there was some question over and if you break ground rules did he have more ability to say what he wanted to say and report truthfully because he didn't have to worry about keeping these relationships that have beat reporter would for now he's been denied his embed any surprise there i mean is the pentagon right to do that i'm not surprised because in

order to allow reporters to come in and see your operation from the inside out there has to be a level of trust and i have to say that michael hastings. does not enjoy that same level of trust and part of this is you know whether was a misunderstanding whether it was it made clear i think clearly some people in military thought the some of the things he observed were to be off the record and he says nothing was ever off the record don't you think michael hastings kind of has some gall to expect to be able to embed i mean that's the trade of are you my material by writing that article and breaking any ground rules he wasn't going to be able to be cozy with these guys again that was the trade off and he underwent to write this story right once and you know i think the implication there also is that other reporters are more cozy and therefore they get the access and the military doesn't expect reporters covering them to do puff pieces about them they didn't expect this kind of piece well they did feel that there was a violation of the ground rules there now it's again it's not clear whether somebody failed to make the ground rules clear or whether there were some assumptions made but set that aside you know these ground rules that we use for

keeping things off the record and sometimes on deep background they're not designed to cover up the news they're designed for us to figure out what's actually going on and if commanders can't talk to reporters in some other settings they can't one thing we learned from this episode is that u.s. military officers cannot say what they really think in public on the record because they could be fired and so if they have severe misgivings about an operation you're not going to find out about it if you keep everything on the record that's so the point i would make i mean you could argue that it's not as big of an issue for a michael hastings to embed it anymore. because everyone's going to be super tight lipped anyway if i was a commander i would have michael hastings and first of all i thought he did a really nice job on the article aside from the things that that brought mcchrystal and the debate about that but the other thing to remember is michael hastings didn't get stanley mcchrystal fired stan mcchrystal got in and fought hard because of the things that he did and whether or not they were supposed to be off the record or on background or were free for reporting it was those actions that ended

his career not michael hastings really quickly let me just ask you this which do you think has a bigger maybe the opportunity for objectivity to be compromised having military active military duty officers in a newsroom or having journalists embedded with military officers where do you think journalists would lose their objectivity or have a propensity for as i said we bring military officers into the newsroom they tend to under get a much better understanding of what we do as journalists and and it fosters a better relationship between the military in the media and i think the same thing happens when you send you know reporters of the criticism of reporters who are embedded that their stories are sharp enough is because a lot of times they understand a little more what's going on it's the sort of perverse argument compromise none objectivity no not if you're a good reporter i mean that's the whole job of reporter is to understand all the different sides of the story to understand what your own feelings are to be able to separate those and and that your reporting stands the test of time that it's

accurate that it provides context that helps people understand the plane too much faith in people no i think there are some really good reporters and there are some reporters who are not very good and that's the difference it's not the embedded ational not they teamed up with the military officers who are interning and their own can change don't you ever get there thank you for your perspective and your optimism we have one more segment ahead on the show there's a new video game is designed to help young girls fight off unwanted sexual advances from guys while producer jane churchill test out how not to score. and another banking exec says the u.s. is not on the road to economic recovery instead we're headed toward deflation we're going to discuss with reasons at the neighbor and also in just a moment. one

of the key elements of democracy. which is so uncomfortable for me or for. who pays for. how dependent use this independent media. and who is behind the t.v. story. charge of media fiction and reality t.v. . live

. of this nature and discover its beauty. communicate with. test yourself and become free. see what nature can give you. i know you've been waiting it is time for tonight's tool time winner and it goes to new york state senator hedgerow a spot a junior he's the majority leader in new york and when he arrives for a vote on the state's budget in albania on wednesday he was greeted by protesters

they were so upset over housing cuts in the budget the group was chanting hey hey ho ho s. bada has to go well he was not too pleased with them and decided to do something about it take a look. yes . yes. he threw money at them talk about throwing money at a problem but that's probably not the image of voters in new york wanted to see a politician throwing money around when lawmakers were voting to raise taxes by one billion dollars but there was spotted jr is no stranger to controversy last month the c.b.s. station in new york was trying to get an interview with him when he turned the

sprinklers on on them and he's under investigation for skimming millions from a health care clinic he owns and he's under scrutiny for how he runs a state office to which includes more than forty staffers which average spending nearly thirty six thousand dollars a week on expenses you know what i don't have the money to throw around anyway so that's why we've decided new york state senator had a spot a junior it's tonight's top time where congratulations. well there's a new video game in the works where the objective is to score as little as possible the university of central florida just got a contract from the government for a four hundred thousand dollars grant or for four hundred thousand dollars. to create a video game designed to help teenage girls turn down sexual advances now according to their creators the gamer would step into a body suit carrying censors to take over control of a female avatar who finds herself in. a compromised situation with

a boy now every time the player turns down a sexual advance from a kiss all the way to sex she earns more points we imagine it would work something like this. level one. oh i do use my. mobile to. go behind the bleachers you know where nobody could see or i can't imagine anything i would want to do that.

just help the city. i mean i do know is wrong with oh. come on you know you want to go well it is good. to realize we are going i can't. i am closing my. legislation. wow if you prevail you can't blame him for the drink either because that poll we talked about earlier this week fifty eight percent of teens drink so i guess that's really how it might go down not sure getting points in a video game is going to translate into rebuffing boy's advances in real life we know how compelling they can be and things like things like it would be a lot cheaper to just maybe i don't know spend the money and handing out condoms

now this game is still being developed but it and its government funding are already getting plenty of criticism social workers argue for the same amount of money counselors could talk one on one with teens who are feeling pressured. to engage in sexual acts and maybe help counsel them and there's also another big problem this game promote abstinence which has proven to be ineffective in sex education the obama administration actually committed to eliminating funds for abstinence based education so we have to ask why is this game being federally funded in the first place then perhaps we should listen to the professionals aka the social workers on this one let's ditch the video game and go back to say listening to social workers talking to teens and maybe handing out condoms instead . now yet another banking big wig is coming out warning that the united states is not on the road to recovery but may be headed for deflation on the road to

deflation which is what the united states is on today that according to the chief executive of pimco one of the world's largest bond funds now the chilling prediction signaling more investor concern that the u.s. growth will be depressed by the impending d. word deflation on the heels of these concerns coming from more and more government and central bank officials this after other economists have been warning about it for months oh wait though remember the u.s. is on the road to growth and recovery everyone would know that if they read treasury secretary timothy geithner's new york times op ed earlier this week and it was of course all thanks to the course of action taken by the government according to him here to talk about where the optimistic stewards of the treasury and fed like geitner are leading us amidst the doom and gloom that seems otherwise and pending according to other economists is anthony randolph director of economic research for the reason foundation hi anthony thanks for being here and seven so

first of all why should anybody listen to timothy geithner talk about optimism as opposed to listening to all of these economists even economists at the fed that are concerned over deflation over a double dip recession over bad news what's treasury secretary geithner's track record on this well secretary geithner has. came to the treasury from the new york fed he has been in government positions based with the federal reserve the treasury department to some some sort of system like that for his entire career so he's had plenty of opportunities to be involved in policy making and he was actually a key player in watching over banks watching over regulatory policy from two thousand and two when the whole housing bubble started until two thousand and seven when it began to. apart and he was a key player in all the build decisions of the bush administration in two thousand and eight so we have this person who just like chairman bernanke he has been

a part of the regulatory system for the last decade has been a part of the absolute a regulatory failure is now saying actually everything is good we're on the road to recovery he doesn't exactly have this tracker that i necessarily trust and here's my question i want to get back to bernanke you but i want to ask why do we trust these guys if they have been in regulatory positions all of this time and they didn't predict the financial crisis that we saw they didn't stop it why do we still believe them why are they still in charge of policy it's really stunning particularly have president obama during his campaign said i'm not going to put the people who caused the mess in charge of cleaning it up that's literally what he said and then he comes in office and he brings a guy who is like the number two person in this whole in the whole bailout build up process he brings him into the treasury and keeps and keeps breaking i think the reason we do this is because we have this mistaken idea that if you have experience if you've done it before if you've seen it before then you're not going to make the

same mistakes but you know what i describe and i can make the same mistakes you made before he's going to make new mistake ok that's that's an interesting point but but just to be fair and to play devil's advocate one of the arguments that makes in his op ed is that it would have been much worse that the stimulus works that the government intervention and the bailouts worked to stave off a depression right now we have that's not the case i mean what you know we can't know that's necessarily the case but we can look at a lot of data a lot of figures and there's a big debate on how much the stimulus really did help the economy from from my perspective there's not there wasn't enough money necessary even spent to produce the growth that we did see and stimulus money it all depends on how you determine how you estimates this this ratio of one dollar spent by the government is equal to dollars spent in the economy is equal three does it equal point five per se. and you have to put a number there when you do all these estimates of what's created and that the administration which wants a recovery just puts a high number in there and if you just put

a high estimate in there then of course the that is what caused you know the recovery we have today but there's no real proof that all that stimulus money is what boosted g.d.p. furthermore g.d.p. isn't really a boost and it's coming down and it's going to keep continuing to fall right which which brings me to i do want to get back to to ben bernanke because you have written about him and he has an equally interesting track record what can you cite that would lead us to believe that maybe we shouldn't be listening to what he's saying or advising about the economy now ok so you have ben bernanke if you look at almost any speech that he gave from two thousand and two to two thousand and seven you see a guy who has no concerns about the economy he has no concerns about a housing bubble he was an architect with greenspan of the fed's policy saying you know what we really don't see any housing bubble at all he was right there right there with greenspan in two thousand and seven in july of two thousand and seven

and right before the credit markets froze up within weeks he said i don't see any of the some prime build up spilling over into the markets literally as what he said weeks later it spills over into the markets even in two thousand and eight when we already had this friday markets freezing up and they went through this whole process of billing out bear stearns he and geithner were saying really we don't see that these things are going to extend much further sure the economy's nor it going well so trying to manage confidence i would argue that that's their job too well that's what they say their job is to me is confidence but it's one thing to manage confidence another thing to just straight up be wrong and you know if they knew it was if they knew that the economy was not going to be growing if they knew that the subprime crisis is going to be spilling over anything within a couple weeks if they actually knew that and they just tried to boost confidence anyway well i don't know that we want. or people that are academically disinterested in truth we need people that need to manage the need to manage

confidence for sure but they also need to be know exactly what they're talking about and they clearly have shown that they haven't been able to predict much at all so what is the solution if all of these guys have predicted what was going wrong haven't been right what should be happening now i think a critical important thing here is that we put too much trust american people in the even wall street puts too much trust in regulators and trying to watch over things so you have the dot frank bill which is just passed fix wall street this massive wall street reform bill and what does it do is it creates a financial oversight stability council this council is literally tasked by congress with preventing another crisis and what's wrong with that well who does it put you put in charge of this council you put geithner in charge of this council he's the treasury secretary is going to be heading up this council and then it's using the power of the fed to determine whatever this council figure out they want to do is powers of the fed to pass down these regulatory decisions so you're taking the people who screwed up and you're to put them in charge of stopping another crisis now to take on i mean i remember when i was under scrutiny by congress and

people were calling for his resignation and work calling for him to be out but they didn't do anything about it so i mean if they were so bad isn't it the role of congress or the role of the people to get angry and to do something about it i think it's definitely the role of congress to do something about it but i've just agree with a lot of things that congress has done this is just one of a whole series of mistakes of the past congresses as me we've got them there congress is going to be coming in starting in november when they get elected maybe they'll do a better job and send out real quickly do you really think that anybody can predict these financial crises and be able to navigate them because you could argue that you know the economy is and economics is this issue is your own adventure you never really know we only have a little about five seconds reading out that there were some people that got it right there were a handful of people who got it right but even those people you put in charge of policy they can't know everything. and you cannot put your faith in some demagogues and regulators thinking that they can control the entire economy they just don't have enough knowledge so if you think more people need to be brought into the

conversation i think it would be better to listen to a wide range of you sure all right well thank you for joining us on that one that's it for tonight's show thank you so much for tuning in and make sure to come back tomorrow and then time don't forget to become a fan of the alone our show on facebook and follow us on twitter and follow me on twitter at lauren lyster you can see any of tonight shows or any other night shows all on our you tube page at youtube dot com slash the alone a show we're now posting the interviews as well as the entire show on the site coming up next though is the news with all the latest headlines and us from the u.s. and from around the world. wealthy british scientists i'm told some.

markets. can. find out what's really happening to the global economy. for a no holds barred the global financial headlines kaiser report. first create. second explosive blast to a deeper than the. third to remain. legal on offer to. india. in the. president. will be true. taj mahal hotel. hotel.

collection. may. close a. ship. russia's wall is getting more calls for concern heading for the region contaminated by

ground radiation poisoning fears it could spread into the air. i'm stacy bivins in the moscow region where wildfires have a smallish part of a small village the details coming out. to welcome its new leader to monks and mourning president kaczynski died in a girl's plane tragedy. police local model street is due to be inaugurated poland's new president but the ceremony is more droughts and so full force will join us from the polish capital. and sixty five years on hiroshima is remembering a rock hundred forty thousand people who were killed by the first atomic bomb with the u.s. attending the ceremony for the first time. a

very warm welcome to you this is live from the russian capital with me it's. a ministry is warning of radiation risks. closer to the area affected by the chernobyl nuclear disaster the fear is thousand kids the contamination in the ground spread it why do all firefighters already battling hundreds of blazes across central russia which have already claimed some fifty lives let's get an update now from. in the mosque a region for us one of the worst affected. territories stacy is a warning concerned isn't it so what's being said about how the fires could have faced groaned radiation. good morning to you alice well part of the concern coming out of the ministry is contamination now the fires are heading further south of the

ma.