today on our t.v. and a fairy tale world of heroes steal from the rich and give to the poor in the real world taxes on the middle class are up and that cash is steadily flowing in the pockets of those who don't need it sure would force in the concrete jungle of wall street is it time for americans to start taking a page out of robin hood's playbook and in a twenty four hour news cycle it's time for snooze sports and weather and a few minutes left for media bashing all mainstream media outlets attempt to blow holes in our team's credibility will turn the tables and tell you who's paying their bills. plus a new made for t.v. drama shines a spotlight on all of the behind the scenes chaos of a typical newsroom or rather the type of newsroom viewers wish existed we'll tell you why this depiction of american journalism at its finest is

a far cry from reality. one day june twenty seventh five pm in washington d.c. and abby martin and you're watching our t.v. still from the rich give it to the poor hey it worked for robin hood it can work for the people of this country it's not quite the same thing robin hood was doing it's actually a proposed tax on wall street transactions an idea growing in popularity since the inception of the occupy wall street movement. as leaders of the lives of saddam abused george washington some because you know. what we want to do is get ahead of george washington symbolizing robin we've got a man because our government is robbing our people this particular point so how does this tax work into something like this really have the potential to pass with all the bipartisanship squabbling on hill to discuss more i'm joined by richard

wolffe author of occupy the economy challenging capitalism. hey richard so is this movement really about just drawing a little higher dollar bills no i think this is a serious movement it is quite a few years old it was basically invented by a nobel prize american economist professor james told in of yale university who was my teacher when i was getting my ph d. in economics and the idea is simple just like we have a sales tax when you buy a candy bar or a bar of soda or a cigarette tax or a gas tax it's long past due that we have the same kind of tax on the financial transactions made by hedge funds and stock brokerage is and big banks across the world it's gaining traction in europe leaders in europe have already come out in favor of it the united states is behind the curve it would have be oh very good way to tax those who have done best over the last thirty years who had

a lot to do with bringing us with the financial crisis who've escaped this tax for a long time and who now ought to be made to pay what is their fair share anyway richard explain a little bit more in detail about exactly how it would work and the end mounted percentage of you know how much these would be tax it's very small but i think people kind of their eyes glaze over when they hear anything about stocks and bonds and derivatives and trading on wall street and just to explain and shed some light on exactly how it work. it's very simple the percentage is minute point three percent is one popular proposal and the reason it can be so terribly tiny is because there are literally millions and millions of these transactions mostly made by computers on a dozen stock markets around the world every day so all that would happen is a tiny tiny tax on each of those transactions very easy to impose the tax very

easy to keep track very easy to collect and it's a way of making the financial sector the secular that has grown the biggest of the united states' economy over the last forty years begin to pay its fair share for the immense transactions and immense profits it gets simply put it's a convenient easy quick way to make the financing years in this country finally begin to pay at the scale that the rest of us have been paying for decades how we make sure that the government allocate funds that it collects earnings transactions back toward people who need it. that's a whole nother problem that probably exists with every revenue with every tax whether it be a tax on your luxuries or a tax on your income or a tax on your property the one thing though that we know is that the government is using scarcity of revenue to justify cutting social security cutting government

jobs covering cutting government programs just as people need them the most in a crisis so here's a way to go to those who have the most who have done the best and ask them finally to pay the kinds of shares that they were made to pay in the one nine hundred thirty s. and forty's the last time we had this crisis they've gotten away with it to this boy here's a tax that can get it from those most able to pay so they finally do something to help us get out of a crisis they had more than anyone else to do with bringing upon us. richard i think that a lot of people when they hear more taxes they kind of. get startled and they say no that can't be the answer more taxes on the people and i will you know somehow affect the lower tier of the people in this country i mean you'd be hell bent to find a tax that doesn't have loopholes or exemptions of the people at the top i mean will

banks be exempt from this are there any exemptions as as we see this. well there's no question that the first line of defense of the financial community is to denounce this as a tax precisely to get people who are overtaxed already to turn away from this and not study it enough to realize that it's a tax that initially falls only on the richest institutions and people in the country but you're quite right like with every tax if we get forward in it if we move forward the way the europeans are then their plan b. will be to make loopholes and adjustments and if they can't win that then plan c. would be to shift the burden of the tax on to others but all of those things are things they will try to do and we will even have to see them trying if we are levy the tax in the first place so it's a sequence you'll struggle to get the tax and then struggle to make sure they don't pass it on to everybody else if we don't do that if we don't do that consider the

alternative more deficits for the government more shortages of revenue more cutting of the benefits for people cutting of the social security cutting of the medicare so that we're not talking about having a tax or not we're talking about having a tax on the rich or having the mass of people suffer even more in these future years than these first five years of crisis have already meant for us and in the occupy wall street movement has really helped shine a light on these people at the top and wall street in general do you think that we really have a chance of passing this. yes and let me give you an example not only did occupy wall street put the one percent versus ninety nine percent in the forefront of our national discussion and that's something we told the occupy wall street movement no matter what happens going forward for having contributed to changing the conversation in this country but here's an example the current issue of time

magazine one of the largest circulating magazines in the country is all about their lead story their cover story about the end of the american dream about the conditions which make it impossible for people to work hard and do better and one of the reasons are the unemployment the government cutbacks of services and supports the only way to reverse that is to find revenue for the government that doesn't hit average people that goes after those most able to pay who will not suffer significantly this transactions tax that is being talked about that you are having a good program about is precisely one way to do that richard i think the robin hood tax though also throws people off i mean how can we get the conservatives and the wealthy in this country to back something that's basically telling in theirs and they're stealing i mean that's a bad name for the tax or do you that's going to affect terrible. so i mean how can you give millions imported. well you know in europe it's called the transaction tax

or also it's called the told in tax after professor told and who initiated it to call it robin hood is to suggest the notion that it stealing but it isn't stealing it's taxation and the only mystery is why we haven't taxed transactions all along by the way in american history if you go back we have had transaction taxes this is not a new tax this is a tax that was taken off the financial sector and all that is really being asked is to put it back on now that we need it more than ever richard i'm i'm i have the time magazine that you spoke of right here is the history of the american dream is it still real sad that we have to ask ourselves is that even still capable of achieving in this country but to somehow prichard talk a little bit about how this is already passed how it's already been supported cross the new and it's not really that controversial in the countries that are. in it

over there. even the most stalwart austerity focused government that of angela merkel in germany mrs merkel has had to because of the pressure of the socialist party of the link of party in germany she and the unions she has had to embrace this transactions tax so the old american business communities argument don't do it because then transactions won't be done in new york the way they always have been they'll be sent to europe that's simply not true because the europe the europeans are going to make that tax and if the united states did it they'd make it immediately so that nobody would have any incentive to leave none of those scare stories would be true and i think you would see that this would be a very good first step in organizing that tax structure so it goes after the people who used to have to pay a lot more who got out of it and who we now need because we're in

a crisis to come back and perform the way they should have been all along anyway thank you so much richard for coming on and giving your perspective about this as richard wolffe author of occupy the economy challenging capitalism here are terror motto is question more and what this means more than anything is to critically think about what you're being told by the mainstream r t offers a different perspective than the m.s.n. tends to host more adversarial journalism and dare i say tapping into the roots of what real journalism should be people all over the world are tuning in because they want to see real reporting done about america's domestic and foreign policy according to a recent study our tea leaves all other channels and the level of people watching daily in canada but the channels growing popularity hasn't come without controversy . r t the state run english speaking russian channel it's kind of like

al-jazeera but the kremlin already controls domestic television now it's going after the international audience to repair a national event tarnished by war corruption and assaults on democracy and if not to make putin freedom of the press to stifle it as tremont approved. media outlets one after another and none of these china we see. is about to bite the hand that feeds them now a lot of people will say yeah our two does have spin because it's government sponsored but let's examine the premise at work here glenn greenwald wrote an article that sums it up pretty nicely shining a light on the people and money behind the scenes he asks is there a rule that says it's perfectly ok for a journalist to work for a media outlet onan controlled by a weapons manufacture like n.b.c. or m s n b c are owned by the us and british governments like the b.b.c. stars and stripes as well as the voice of america how about owned by rupert murdoch and

a saudi prince aka the benefactors of the wall street journal and the so-called fair and balanced journalistic stylings of fox news or what about the banking corporation with longstanding ties to right wing governments that fund politico how about for profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the us government or what about loyalist to one of the two major political parties in the us. but it's apparently a violation of journalistic integrity to run a russian media outlet where did that rule come from remember r t didn't sit on the bush wire tapping story for a year or disseminate government propaganda aid in this country into an illegal and immoral war that was the new york times and i work at the station because i care about the future of this country and where we're headed as a people i don't think that we can make the best decisions or govern ourselves if we're not an informed citizenry and a vote with our best interests i've seen the corporate media model fail time and

time again when they cater to the establishment and i'm honored to be given a platform with zero censorship or any sort of person from the top telling me what i can and can't say here it's all coming from my heart and i live by the motto of this network and i hope that you do too to always always question and question more apparently some in the entertainment industry see what journalism used to be and how drastically it's changed h.b.o.'s new show newsroom cuts through the world of manufactured journalism dream character reports that have the desire to tell it like it really is archie's on a stasia churkin it has the scoop. a moment of oil this is newsnight slap in the face of mainstream american journalism i'm a leader in an industry that by terror scares and failed to report on tectonic shifts in our country speaking truth to power when you ask what makes the greatest country in the world i don't know what you're talking about the fourth branch of

power is finally back hitting america's screens in a t.v. show called the newsroom not in reality a lot of countries do things better than the united states but we can't even have that discussion because you're shouted down and unpatriotic brutal truths on what journalism should really be about in the old days we did as well you know. we just decided the passion to question the status quo and the fear mongering of real broadcasts not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslim we were attacked by muslims we were attacked by sociopaths examples of absurdity taken to an extreme on t.v. news but it is what tell me is in danger of falling under sharia law as viewership on real mainstream media plummets the show adds insult to injury by portraying common news show behavior threatening the fabric of society coming out in a major garrett. amid critical reviews a t.v. show about the news more honest than real news show business is doing

a better job than the news this and presenting news it's a complete flip around a lot of reporters and producers news anchors who look at this show should be blushing and should be thinking they got us here are they if you try and do it in the purest sense what your character does in this show it doesn't right when a fictional anchor fights for substance on the news to him or not her story obviously breast cancer over women having babies was saying that he's resisted by the system. in real american mainstream newsrooms this street forwardness is a myth nobody really likes to bite the hand that. feeds that i feel like i mean us right here on the nominees instead infotainment is king there's a deliberate effort here you know basically to say truth be damned we have to do all we have to do to get audience it seems to take years before a truth catches up with news until then there's no room for real news in us

newsrooms you've got way too much crap focused on just as valid stuff like reality television what happened on jersey shore one taking away from good news in the mainstream media today focuses on pitch and space and not angering corporate owners or challenging the system uncomfortable issues opinions deemed politically incorrect or the questioning of long held beliefs about america it seems are best left to to do drama and face it you're going to. new york. as the corporate consolidated corporate media model fails in its coverage alternative media and citizen journalism are on the rise as more voices perspectives and biases enter the global reporting spectrum online it becomes harder and harder to find the facts so where does this leave the fourth estate and what's to be for the future of journalism in our last hour christopher chambers journalism professor at georgetown

university and i asked him his opinion about the biggest obstacles journalism may be facing today take a listen as opinion well they boil it down an allegorical form in the newsroom i mean it's corporate control five companies owning about ninety six percent let's just say of the mainstream media in this country but there's also. there was a problem before that and that was not being able to really focus on what their role was in society yes explain truth and justice but everybody's got a different definition of what that is us fifty different people who get fifteen different answers so you have that moving as technology starts to move in the twentieth century early twentieth century and the corporate model gets a hold in the eighty's and that blows everything to hell i mean i've just given it to you in a nutshell right there like will mcavoy. is a good net show how do you see in journalism change from when you were younger till

now well there is a fragmentation because of the knowledge and you know they don't really deal with that as much on the show it's really about cable news but it but let me just focus on that you have the rise with ted turner of the twenty four hour news cycle you have to fill it with something and when you mix it with the corporate culture of dumbing things down to get you know a lowest marginal cost the biggest bang for the buck and that big bang usually is through candy you know brain candy of some sort anything that's going to make people crazy either through. affecting their reptilian brain in their medulla or given them something sweet to crave for and that's what news especially twenty four hour cable news has boiled into but then you have this other universe out there alternative news sources many different platforms but even there you have a problem where things are fragmented you could be in your own tribe you can wall yourself off and the craziness starts to echo you know t.v.

news down here and in the ditch and then you have this other universe that's about fifty percent crap and lunacy oh i think that's where people get really and they shut themselves off from news entirely bright either have this old dinosaur media model that totally is detached from what they were about or they have they're inundated with information just everywhere and i don't know where to find the facts i mean where do you suggest that people get their news or really search for things online and well i mean it would have to be various sources and you have to be you know it starts really starts young it starts before i get kids at georgetown i mean empathy critical thinking things like that starts start when you're a kid and you have to carry that through because by the time you're an adult with the fragmentation the corporate ownership the agendas either government or corporate it's going to pull you in about a dozen different different directions and that's what they have on the show they don't really go into multimedia stuff too much but i mean it's hard for the media

itself to look at itself even even in a fictionalized account t.v. cable news looks at itself way too seriously given its importance in society and then you have these other platforms online multimedia where you see a lot of self-importance and snark you know like well these are dinosaurs well you know but that doesn't necessarily mean you are more and of evolved in your views and how you approach things than they are you just have better technology relation as the citizen as i mean at this growing scales and we have the new alternative media the rise of citizen journalism live streaming. right on the ground reporting when you have you know what some people call the dinosaur meetings all the corporate top down and but do you say that they're going to integrate at all or get in there we're going to see a growing divide you think that this corporate media model will start adapting the technologies of citizen journalism into their will they already are i mean. curation crowdsourcing are now taglines of these big media companies are trying to really push everything into

a single commercial model you're always going to have the cable giants out there which you know and that's the magnifying glass to that the newsroom has. but you know maybe we need you know aaron sorkin wrote the newsroom i also wrote the social network about facebook maybe we need a t.v. show about this multimedia new alternative platforms because that when you see these magazines online magazines like politico or the daily caller they're really not quote digging for truth either they're really curating rehashing maybe making people comfortable with the prejudices and passions that they might already have so that's we have to address that before we address the business model but the business model is starting to mesh but again it's for commercials for it to make money to make bucks not to enlighten people very true but a bottom line of action as a nation and not to necessarily where you know that they can make

a living and why. but when you're teaching your class to students are you worried that the model i mean a chance changing so rapidly and things are advancing very quickly are you worried that it's kind of an outdated model or that or that things are going to change that with no i mean. people are going to need reporters people who who find a story develop story sources dig for the truth people are always going to need that people want that really and that's what they want in cable giant news they really do want that most people at least maybe most people at least they want to hear. they also wanted on other platforms like you know multimedia journalism it's just that the outlets are going to change how we're going to get the news how we're going to get our information is going is changing you know for the from a gutenberg bible or a stone tablet or a wall painting to an i phone now i mean that's what starts what doesn't change is change technological change people always want the information the problem is is

that the other thing people want is to hear stuff that makes them feel good or to feed their passions and fears to go cuckoo that doesn't change either so it's going to be an eternal battle between delivery systems and technology and our passions and stupidity so you know what are we going to what master are we going to serve now unfortunately we have a situation where the worst of both worlds is put together it doesn't matter whether it's online or on you know will mcavoy fictional network or on fox or the daily caller a politico and b c we've got the worst of both worlds now what we try to do is get people to pull that apart and pick you know really report things with authority and dignity and ethics and empathy among all things it does seem like it's driven on a lot of fear and it's important to get your perspective from a lot of different sources and pick out their cash and sex or markable motives thank you so much to us christopher chambers journalism professor at georgetown

university well today is national i.v. testing in america that's pretty rare that you find people openly discussing estes or freely talking about their hiv diagnosis that people that tell others are on a need to know basis what if someone doesn't feel like there is a need to know basis if someone has hiv should they be forced to tell their partner and if they don't should it be a crime on many states is forty five states have laws against hiv positive people not disclosing their status during sex prostitution needle exchanges or when making donations of fluid. someone break the law are sentenced to twenty five years in prison so is it up to the state to decide or should this issue stay among the morality of the citizenry to discuss more catherine hansen's executive director and founder of the center for hiv law and policy joined me earlier to discuss. i'm not the first person to say this but lots of people like to have sex but don't seem to like to talk about it and singling out big

a as the only condition which must be reported to a partner assuming you even know and face criminal penalties if you don't really does it make any sense from a public health perspective which is why all of these laws come from politicians they really don't come from public health departments. sure i mean look at something like h.p.v. which causes cervical cancer even things that are on curable that you have for life herpes genital warts things like this i mean when you look at something like age i mean it's not a death sentence anymore so why should that be criminalized when these other elements are not elements of it as t.d.'s aren't well that is that's the key question not be i think one of the reasons these laws are still on the books and it's important for folks to know that they were primarily adopted back in the one nine hundred eighty s. when hiv was viewed as

a terminal disease something that hasn't been the case since drug therapies evolved more than fifteen years ago but you know most of these laws have been on the books since before nine hundred ninety and unfortunately a lot of our attitudes about each they remain back in the one nine hundred eighty s. thinking about it as a fatal disease and also. also understanding about how it should be is transmitted and how easily it is transmitted or not transmitted it also unfortunately states back in one thousand nine hundred six well so there are pretty antiquated laws considering the progress of technology and to help people diagnose with age i.v. talk a little bit about how this is actually regulated i know that i read a case about prosecutions. happening when condoms were used an i.v. wasn't transmitted i mean how did that happen yeah absolutely and were involved in

an appeal of a case of a man and iowa who after a one night sexual encounter that was consensual in which he used a condom. in same for sex which hopefully i can say this on t.v. oral sex which poses very little risk of transmission at least of a tribe a but used protection was on defective therapy so the transmission mission rest was pretty much as close to zero as you can have i mean scientists will never say zero about practically anything and after his partner discovered that our our client might be a child be positive he went to the police the iowa man was arrested he was sentenced to twenty five years in prison and although the sentence was reconsidering reconsidered excuse me and he's currently on. on extended

court supervision he also is required to register as a sex offender which needless to say has permanent lifelong consequences on your social interactions and your employment opportunities and this is a case in which transmission didn't occur but even in cases where there is transmission people are being punished with sentences that in in many instances if not post instances far outstrip the kind of penalty shame faced if you get in your car and run somebody over and kill them so their reaction from beginning to end is far from rational and it really is not rational or or sensible from a personal health perspective to rely on what somebody tells you or what you think you can tell or know about the reach of the status when making decisions about your sexual health that. that was catherine hansen's executive director.