more news today once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to corporations rule the day. it depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear. at all the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all the . president obama speaks about the freedom of speech at the u.n. general assembly but considering the past year in particular the cases against p.f.c. bradley manning and wiki leaks founder julian assange is this a case of do as i say not as i do i get the feeling take a look at this that mitt romney has not been in too many too many while was all

from the roadside in terms of a new. i don't believe everything you see on t.v. it turns out sixty percent of americans don't put much stock in the mainstream media coming up we'll ask why your confidence has fallen and where americans are returning. plus a group of journalists are going head to head with the u.s. government and they're taking the battle all the way to the supreme court had will ask the group's legal defense why the foreign intelligence surveillance act is rupp's freedom of the press. it's tuesday september twenty fifth five pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching our t.v. we begin today with the united nations general assembly that kicked off today in new york city president obama took to the streets and spoke out on several foreign policy issues reiterating his message of freedom throughout the middle east he spoke about the inspiration of the arab spring of the power of the people taking to

the streets to power topple dictators it depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear and all the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people in other words true democracy real freedom is hard work those in power have to resist the temptation to crackdown on dissidents. well president obama went on to say that the regime of syrian president bashar al assad must come to an end and that the u.s. is willing to take action to ensure that the transition happens people everywhere wall for the freedom to determine their destiny the dignity that comes with work the comfort that comes with faith in the justice that exists when governments serve their people and not the other way around the united states of america will always stand up for these aspirations for our own people and for people all across the

world. and while these powerful words echoed throughout the room we question if they seem at odds in the wake of some recent events a diplomatic standoff between the u.s. and britain is leaving wiki leaks whistleblower julian assange and holed up in the ecuadorian embassy in london he's been there since mid june and it looks like he'll be there indefinitely songe is wanted in sweden for alleged sexual assault but he and his supporters say it's all an attempt to ultimately get him extradited to the u.s. and face charges for releasing thousands of secret documents on his whistle blowing web site this as accused whistleblower bradley manning remains behind bars for allegedly turning over top secret documents to wiki wiki leaks he is accused of aiding the enemy and has been locked up for over two years supporters of a songe and manning believe they are simply exercising their free speech and shining a light on government wrongdoing in the foreign ministers of ecuador and the u.k. will meet later this week in hopes of finding some resolution to the diplomatic

impasse between the two countries. but you don't believe everything you see on t.v. you are not alone turns out that americans trust of the u.s. media has hit a record low take a look at the recent gallup poll sixty percent of those polled say they have little or no trust in the u.s. media to report the news fully accurately and fairly the survey was conducted between september sixth to september ninth so why are americans losing the faith well there was this. the individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional justices have just got it was the centerpiece provisions of the obama health care law. that's the final word on the individual mandate that could be a little bit more complicated what is there from asia to reading through this again and we are reading now that the entire law has been held. and other times it seems like the twenty four hour news cycle is producing less than critical headlines i

get the feeling take a look at this mitt romney has not been in too many too many wall was on the right side of the street is a quick look at what president obama has been up to. here is sitting down with the pirates making sure he didn't forget to mark the international talk like a pirate. actually emits a hormone and and when it actually tracks women fans are going crazy over these most observant ears a look at penn state back to eight hundred ninety six the question for you this morning where was god in aurora let's talk more about what is going on in the mainstream media and why americans aren't liking it i'm joined by jeff user the host of the young turks welcome so we're seeing record lows now lekker record low approval ratings for the media why are americans growing unhealthy with the media. well because they're not getting what they want you just want facts they want the

news and that's not what they're getting at all the biggest growth in dissatisfaction with the media and lack of trust with the media is in independence and they're entirely right because they see a media that just calls everything fifty fifty in the old days it was just the conservatives saying all there's a liberal media bias now what people are seeing is there's also a corporate media bias there's also a media bias in paperback says in favor of politicians who they want to come on their shows so they don't aggressively challenge them and people can tell they're not stupid they look at t.v. and they go oh yeah i can i didn't as i'm a tough questions at all when all of america at least eighty three percent say that the politicians are influenced by money how often do you hear in the mainstream press senator x. or senator wyden voted this way or that way because he took money from this interest industry or that industry you almost never hear that because what i would be impolite to the politicians i interesting thing about the findings is that the decline in media trust was driven by republicans and independents are what you make

of that. well look we know that the republicans have been on satisfied with the media for a long time and they have their own purposes for doing that their propaganda unit the rush limbaugh's of fox news channels don't want you to go to independent fact finders they want you to listen to propaganda instead that's why they'll attack anything that brings you information whether it's the media whether it's professors whether it's scientists they will attack all those people now that's existed for about thirty years but now the rest of america especially independents are waking up going hey you know what this corporate controlled media isn't really giving me the actual news they're giving me a watered down version that's not critical of either party in a significant way that's why independents are mad and of course django is you know we are in the middle in the thick of things in an election year and another thing americans that this survey found americans are less likely to be paying attention

to the news about national politics this election compared to back in two thousand and eight why do you think that is. well i think there's two factors there number one they've got the memo that unfortunately our boys don't matter nearly as much as the money does in congress the night time the person who wins has more money so whether they're democrat or republican whether they have a certain ideology or principles apparently does amount of the money matters so eventually that gets to the american people they think well what am i bothering to check all this stuff out if it's decided by people like sheldon adelson and the koch brothers for anyway and they're not that wrong about that and then second of all there was a lot of people excited in two thousand and eight for change and hope and then you know some at least saw what president obama did and he had some progressive priories no question but overall did not bring the big change to washington he was talking about so they tuned out saying oh it turns out we're never going to get any

change is going to be the same old system where the lobbyist in the donors went so you think we're kind of seeing the post citizens united effect i think so absolutely now look remember citizens united is not what ruined our politics in the first place it was actually a couple of decisions in the late one nine hundred seventy s. that first said corporations have first amendment rights and can spend money on politics which citizens united did was it took the roof off its put the earlier decisions on steroids and it went from corporations being able to hire our politicians in subtle but overwhelming ways and that's why our system was corrupted in the first place so not simply being a buying them at an all but open auction and everybody is perfectly aware of it it's legalized bribery to the highest extent that's why the average american things well what difference does it make as are going to make the decisions they're the ones that matter not us all right so we're seeing more americans are now becoming

disillusioned with the mainstream media do you think that this provides an opportunity for other outlets to kind of step in in their place. well said you know so there was actually is an article out today about how the young turks is more relevant than a.b.c. news online and that's because that's exactly what the numbers indicate it's not just our size is much larger than a.b.c. c.n.n. a.p. for example on you tube but it's also our engagement and the level of trust the audience has with us and then it's not because i'm a great host we figured out some tricks it's really really simple we're honest with the audience and when they see they go oh god there's somebody who's saying hey look that democratic politician or that republican politician takes money which we all see with our own eyes and then votes based on that money these things are obvious but c.n.n. and the rest of the mainstream media just will not reporters so the less they reported the more viewers we get and by the way that will encourage other outlets

maybe we should also try truthtelling that could be a wild idea because they will always follow what works of course and right now what's working is our model so hopefully we can change the media in that way. keep it out there so i mean i'm it we're seeing figures like this and we see it gradually getting worse and i mean is this going to prom to outlets like c.n.n. or m s n b c r and the big players to change their their game to change the way they approach. getting the news. so that's a really fifty fifty proposition because on the one hand if certain corporate interests don't rock the boat don't make the government mad whatever the pentagon says cetera that you know turns off everybody and it's hard to take out those incentive structures because so many of these huge media companies are intertwined with the government and have to be polite to the government and can challenge going on the other hand they see that their audience is leaving intros so i already see

c.n.n. doing some things differently which i'm actually very encouraged by soledad o'brien actually been field in the mornings are challenging politicians from both much more aggressively c.n.n. used to and i think that's a really positive development i hope that works for them in the ratings and they learn from that c.n.n. is guys are in the audience hungry for sorry to interrupt you there c.n.n. is suffering the most in terms of ratings so does that kind of show that viewers are flocking to to bias news like fox news or m s n b c because we're seeing that. they're not really turning into c.n.n. as much. right now when i talk about soledad o'brien and actually banfield that's the new model they're beginning to try of c.n.n. that is an issue that might be the solution now the real issue for c.n.n. is not that they're not biased it's that they're vanilla they're bland they don't anything they don't have your conservative perspective which fox news does you might agree or disagree but they clearly give you one they don't give you a progressive perspective as current television does m.s.m.

be she's a mixed bag there are conservatives their progress was a cetera but c.n.n. they also don't give you the nudes so what they give you is the pentagon says this democrats say that republicans said that why thank you very much mr saddam your fur but that doesn't really help us with what is the reality i mean the drone strike there's a news out today stanford an enema you did a report together and found out we've killed hundreds of innocent civilians in pakistan the pentagon says no we haven't we haven't killed any and this is civilians and the rest of the present killing c.n.n. beautifully report the pentagon says we have not killed any civilians and we're at a nobody trusts you anymore that's right and we are going to be talking about that in. just a few minutes pleasure to have you on the show as always that was john king there the host of the young turks. all right thank you so much well a group of journalists are fighting to challenge the wiretap law and they're taking that battle to the supreme court the reporters committee for freedom of the press is asking the u.s. supreme court to allow the media and other parties to challenge that's the foreign

intelligence surveillance act the law allows the government to monitor international communications even if the person on one end is in the united states their partners say parts of this law straining their relationship with sources to discuss greg payless legal defense director for the reporters committee for freedom of the press joins me now welcome greg thank you so kind of break it down for us here at what exactly is this new effort what are you trying to accomplish let me first say that this is really the a.c.l.u.'s case and they've got a number of plaintiffs involved including amnesty international and some journalists and then we came in as a friend of the court we just wanted to give the court more information about why journalists need to be able to maintain confidential communications internationally the more you're covering foreign affairs or terrorism related subjects the more likely you are to have to do it by phone over international calls in the face amendments not the original face but the face amendments of two thousand and eight

make it much easier for the government to and intercept those calls and journalists just don't feel comfortable that they can promise confidentiality in that situation and why did you think it was important to you to step in and back the journalists well because it was a general. you know it was an attempt to challenge the law by a number of people who felt they were affected by it and they had journalists involved but we like to weigh in to talk about kind of the broad public policy arguments about how it affects journalism and what journalism needs under the first amendment to thrive and to keep the government accountable frankly let's say. you don't when journalists don't when a and their fellow plaintiffs what is that what effect. and that have on under no less being able to carry out their jobs but i think it's just another step backwards in the ability of journalists to be able to make confidential promises of confidentiality to important sources. anyone

who's involved in international efforts can be suspected of being a terrorist or of aiding terrorism or you know sometimes journalist legitimately need to interview actual terrorists or tears groups just to know what's going on somewhere right and left or right on the other and what have this law would have no guarantee that they're not being wiretapped essentially right interesting so if i saw it was recently renewed by congress for another five years on it enjoyed bipartisan support proponents of it say that it's necessary to fight terror so with that in mind how optimistic are you that this is going to be able to move forward and you're over the second circuit court of appeals has said that the journalists do have standing to go forward with this case the not just the journalist but everybody in the a.c.l.u.'s case has standing and that's the critical threshold you have to be harmed by this statute to show that you have a right to go to court to fight it and so if that's upheld the case just goes

forward and we don't know what comes next but faces a very broad law that covers a lot of things and a lot of those are absolutely necessary to fighting terrorism but when congress just broadly in something like this which you know originally fights a created face of courts where judges approved these kinds of wiretaps and then the amendments took it further than that for certain kind of calls international calls even that involve u.s. citizens you don't even need to go to the face of court so they took it one step further and they didn't kind of account for the first amendment rights so it's very possible that a court could say the congress went too far just in this one little aspect so there were not a. nobody's asking them to turn over the entire place. ok and you know going along with this despite technical technological advances in journalism a big part of it is there are sources i mean developing and nurturing these

relationships with your sources and your sources need to trust you otherwise they're not going to give you any information so i mean something like feist and crackdown similar to this is this kind of cracking down on leakers do you think that that's what it's trying to achieve or is it a constant unintended effect of it congress is also trying to crack down on leakers but that's a separate action so yes that's also going on they all feel do fit together this is part of the congressional plan for fighting terrorism they just don't buy nature want to balance first amendment rights as much as they should they're doing important work but they're not considering the first amendment rights officially ok i want to bring up also because we've been following another story very closely it involves journalists as as plaintiffs taking the government to court we're talking about the n.b.a. the national defense authorization act chris hedges and other journalists and activists suing the government to take out a provision because they feel that it's blocking journalist from being able to do

their jobs because they have to interact with terrorists and they fear that they can be indefinitely detained if they're if they're found to be you know communicating with terrorists they did enjoy some success but they did also face a lot of opposition from the white house do you fear that you could face the same opposition and if so i mean how far are you willing to go in this fight well there's always going to be opposition and the opponents are always going to say if you're saying this law goes too far that means you don't really want to fight terrorism and so we always say it's always a matter of balancing of course there are legitimate interests in fighting terrorism but you've just got to balance you've got to carefully develop laws so they count for competing. interests and you know again we are a friend of the court in this brief so we don't choose how far the litigation goes but i'm confident the a.c.l.u. will take it as far as they can all right very interesting and thank you so much for coming into the studio that was greg leslie legal defense director of the

reporters committee for freedom of the press only reports shines a light on the magnitude of president obama's drone campaign in pakistan and its impact on civilians there the report is from and why you went stanford law school it's based on over one hundred thirty in-depth interviews with victims of drones and pakistani government officials its findings raise eyebrows to say the least the report shows that drone strikes have killed more civilians than american officials have admitted it also reveals the pervasive anxiety instilled in those who live where drone strikes occur residents describe the constant buzzing above and the fear of knowing that a strike can happen any time yet not know when a filmmaker robert greenwald details some of the trauma in his documentary entitled living under drones. one of the things is that there are entire communities who live in areas where drones are flying overhead twenty four hours

a day seven days a week at times. these people don't know when those drones will strike they don't know where they will strike. well to discuss this more i'm joined now by john amec the campaign director for brave new foundations war costs john welcome so this report says more civilians were killed by drone strikes than u.s. officials have admitted what do you think about these findings. this poor report is amazing a brave new foundation produced this video to amplify its findings it was groundbreaking in a sense they did get access to. the torricelli difficult place to accept access thoughts a region of pakistan in particular north waziristan and to talk to people on the ground about what it's like was tremendous the about civilian counts the government said it's exceedingly rare that civilians have been killed as a result of these drone strikes they even say that they do they put the number in single digits as a matter of fact which is absurd based on

a host of different organizations that follow these things. the probably the most reliable information comes from the movie the bureau investigative journalism which this report shows probably has the best the to sticks they take into account local news outlets news outlets of all kinds not just the military or not just the government u.s. government spin on things it's the report shows that it's incredibly difficult to ascertain what the u.s. government and for that for that matter the pakistani government does after a strike to figure out how many people have died who they were oftentimes bodies are mutilated beyond recognition so even if they did have efforts of these efforts to find who was there and what happened there's no guarantee that they would know who anyone is based on the devastation and destruction ok so we're seeing that the numbers don't add up do you think that the numbers were intentionally skewed to

sway a public purse apps in the drone campaign in pakistan. i can't say that it was a coordinated campaign and i'm sure that the fact that they can control the us government can control so much information in this aspect one because this is a remote area of the world and too because much too much reporting on this issue takes into account what the government tells reporters reporters are scrutinizing what the government is telling them they often cite anonymous officials and i think that it's a prime example i think of the media just regurgitating whatever the government tells them for a variety of issues understandably with the same time there has not been the kind of critical reporting that should happen on something of such a magnitude another problem is how the government classifies people in this region any mailable the age of eighteen is considered

a militant so therefore they don't they don't take into account who the person was that they were actually innocent civilian but are all sorts of problems and with the accounting issues and beyond the death toll john what this report also reveals is the effect that this is taking on living residence over in pakistan this constant state of dread and fear and anxiety that is braided by having these drones constantly coming up above what about that part of their report. again if there's anything groundbreaking breaking about this report is that it is the fact that they were able to access so many people in this very very tough region to get to the sheer horror and terror that they the interviewee's the people to live on the ground relayed to the researchers is unbelievable the fact that their communities are completely fractured people are so afraid to take their children to school for fear of drone strikes the community bond is broken down where there is widespread

mistrust between people in north waziristan worried about you know whether local scores might be settled via drone strikes if someone has a beef with someone they might hand them a c.i. a. this is again this is what the fear on the ground is that people are working with the cia and so basically everyone is very wary of one another the p.t.s.d. symptoms are tremendous. again if anything this report shows what has not been reported before and it's the effect the voice of the people on the ground there comes through unlike anything else that's the and it will unlike any other study reporting that's been done and what this voice coming through what we're also hearing is that the people of pakistan are are their public opinion of the u.s. is dwindling of course when we're seeing the things i do that's being bred on the ground as a result of this drone program alternately than does this show that the program is

counterproductive. well the report also goes into. how these strikes have radicalized so many people talking with the folks on the ground in the interviewees they say that so many of their relatives friends people they know are increasingly angry about these things and with and rightfully so i think in pakistan drone strikes are actually at least the united states of america has something like a seventy five percent disapproval rating. and it's not completely you know one hundred percent disapproval because there are some factions that do believe that the strikes are valid but the vast majority find it an affront to their national sovereignty. and that brings in a host of other legal issues but the fact of the matter is that they're widely unpopular it's incredibly disruptive to the local society many innocent civilians

are dying and there's not enough honest debate much less action in the united states to counter this program ok and i do want to bring up what advocates of drones say proponents of drone say they allow the u.s. to precisely had its targets while limiting severe civilian casualties does this report disprove that argument. it certainly does certainly challenge that to a to a high degree i mean i think that again that's classic government spin and i think that what we're fed in the united states and really throughout the western world is that this is a pinpoint there are there is pinpoint accuracy to drone strikes that is very targeted but even by the own by the government's own. two faced accusations about who is who is targeted how they are targeted who is a militant what the militant actually means the government. there are too many contradictions for this to be true so. it's definitely worse i'm ok and we don't have too much time left but i do want to ask you well this report could it put

pressure on the administration to change the way it's conducting the drone campaign . that's hard to say i mean they've ignored a lot of other there is some solid reporting on this going on in the ignore that to a certain extent and they still hide behind secrecy saying that they don't have to give legal justification for all this but the hope is that there is dialogue i would urge people to go to or cost to watch the video to spread it around on facebook at war costs facebook dot com slash war costs and at war costs on twitter we're having a debate about this with under drones if you like to talk about it on twitter and again the hope is that even if the government doesn't take enough to give enough attention to this report the citizens of the united states and all over the world can press them to start a dialogue all right john really appreciate you coming on the show and that was john and the campaign director for breaking q. foundation's war costs. well coming up after the news is breaking the sat with abby

maher and it's coming up in just thirty minutes let's check in with abby to see what is on today's agenda abbi hey i was going to work it out over there so we got a lot of stuff we're going to pack show for you today we're talking about palestinian statehood we're talking about the red line that netanyahu and obama and romney are all trying to make about iran we're going to talk about the lesser of two evils you know we're going to talk about all the similarities between these two presidential candidates that were given you know we're also just going to talk about what is going on with the u.n. general assembly what are they talking about and what actually comes out of these meetings that happen year after year how does it really affect the people so a lot of that and more check it out breaking the set coming up things that's coming up in a half hour but that's going to do it now for the news but for more on the stories we covered check out our you tube channel you tube dot com slash r t america you can also head on over to our web site at our t.v. dot com slash usa or you can follow me on twitter.