you may be a liberal, and you like new york city, you think "the new york times" is where it begins and ends, but we'd like fox. they look at the world differently. are we healthier because of them? less healthy? how much do people in new york blame fox for the evils of bad journalism? >> i don't know the answer to the last part. are we healthier because of that? i say this. you and i are roughly the same age and we grew up in a different media world. there were two, maybe three national news magazines. there were three broadcast networks. walter cronkite became the most trusted man in america, who nightly told us what the news was and helped to shape that to a great extent. there were two national newspapers. "the new york times" was not national at that point. "the wall street journal." it was a very different world from today. there was no such thing as cable news. there are now five broadcast networks, depending how you count them. "usa today" did not exist in that mix. "newsweek," "u.s. news" are struggling and one of them may not exist in the long run. "life" magazine, the circ

if the new york times does not come for them, it is subject to attack, and "the new york times" does not comfort anyone. >> who owns it? >> it is a publicly traded company, but it has the sulzberger family, which has controlled it since the late 19th century and remains in control. >> you quoted arthur sulzberger jr. saying, you are dumber than you look. what was that like? >> that was a joke more than anything else, but i laughed about it. on my first day at "the new york times" at west 43rd street, i was taken into his office and ushered into an anteroom of the office to meet him. i met him before, but he said down opposite me, and he slapped his hand down on both of his knees, and he looked at me and said, you must be dumber than you look. his point being the public editor is a person who is going to take it on all sides and is going to take it from inside as well, and there is always a certain gallows humor about why would anybody want to put themselves in that position. >> where is your home town originally? >> i was raised and a military family. i was born in providence, rhode

now it's not me this is the new york times doing it and the new york times is the voice of america so to say they draw pakistan into that and i don't know how they managed to read the ninety one thousand documents and find out this truth in them but explicitly do they talk about leaks the documents there are times writes made available by an organization code and then they start rattling off and that is something which i find very astonishing and it reminds me in fact of the practice of nine eleven where the american knew within seconds that this was a bed. some of bin laden killing american citizens and what we have here somehow is making use of these leaked documents to make a case that pakistan is not playing straight in this war in this so-called war against terror and that's of course wrong when i say it is and i have proof for that and i've written three books on it america itself is playing a double game and it's forcing pakistan to play this double game alongside america that's what's going on right now and all the rest of this is a dirty lie and we should not believe anything

responsibility was in checking it. >> well, i think this has been extraordinarily uncomfortable for "the new york times" where i worked for more than 20 years. because they don't... when classified information walks into "the new york times", or reporters discover it, there was a big internal debate about what to do with it, whether or not it could do real damage to national security. and months, years would be taken sometimes to vet this material. in this case, wikileaks set the terms and said you can have it but you can only have it for a month. and apparently a lot of the -- that was released through "the new york times", for example, was not the authenticity, that is still to some extent in question. >> woodruff: and right now we are hearing from wikileaks they have another 15,000 or so pages they:going to release, more than that. >> apparently they had 15,000 pages related to this particular information dump. but sasage was talking today about having a million documents that he wants to make public. >> woodruff: and the nature of that, we'll see. >> he said it involves every nation on earth with a

he's a former "new york times" reporter. and david leigh, he's investigators editor at the guardian, one of three publications that originally released the wikileaks material. he joins us from london. gentlemen, thank you both for being with us. david, to you first, how did the guardian get this information wikileaks, who went to it? >> went to the founder of wikileaks, julian sand, and we persuaded him to let us have a look at his material. his intention originally had been to put it all to -- to dump the whole data set out on the internet, all 92,000 files without any kind of filtering at all. so we dissuaded him. it was a good idea to let mainstream media as he would call them have a look first. >> what did you know about him going in? did you have any doubts at all about the veracity of the material he was turning over? >> well, i knew a few things about about him, because i had dealings with him in norway when he showed me in conditions of great secrecy this video he had got of an apache helicopter crew who fired shots

after the new york times and these big media organizations but are there just as afraid to go after the government they're just as afraid well that a majority of the time to question anything so you know in some sense i feel like maybe things are lost now because you have these ninety thousand pages right so much information i had does the media even know how to handle that although maybe they didn't they didn't really know how to use the pentagon papers which is a kind of an example in the past i mean there was all of this rigamarole about the pentagon papers we got to jail daniel ellsberg he's on these enemies list but when they came out they really didn't change things i mean it was almost like this julian knows that it doesn't really change the policy because when the stuff comes out. so you know the president's not going to say oh my god the information comes out i'm going to have to change policy it's almost like a drop in the bucket the war is over the leak itself not what's being leaked we kind of all do what are you said pakistan's kind of. in this and that the other thing this

writes pakistan aids insurgency in afghanistan reports a surge that is what on page a one the new york times carries this morning and they use the whole week you leaks information to accuse pakistan of a double game and the dreadful and on and on for ten pages with new york times with axes ations of double game against pakistan and what i accuse the new york times and what i think use the american institutions of lying all the time in the in that they draw pakistan into that and i don't know how they managed to read the ninety one thousand documents and find out this truth in them but explicitly do they talk about it we can meet and that is something which i find very astonishing and it reminds me in fact of the practice of nine eleven when an american knew within seconds that this was a bed. some of bin laden killing american citizens and what we have here somehow is making use of these leaked documents to make a case that pakistan is not playing straight in this war in this so-called war against terror and that's of course wrong what i see is and i have proof for that and i've written thre

we will start by looking at "the new york times" lead story. the afghan struggle, a secret archives. website wikileaks released secret classified military documents on the afghanistan war. three news organizations initially got the information from wikileaks, including "the new york times." we would like your reaction to this this morning. you can also find as online, journal@c-span.org and r twitter handle this twitter.com/c-span- wj. we are also on facebook. let us look at the shtick -- piece. "the new york times" reports the documents attached a war hamstrung by that afghan government, police force and army of questionable loyalty and confidence. jumping down in this story, "the new york times" talk about some of the details and what is information has yielded. they say the taliban used portable heat seeking missiles against out -- allied aircraft. we will move on into the story. we want to check in with journalist mike allen from politico. politico has been following this as most media organizations. good morning, mike. thanks so much for jo

" a copy of a pentagon secret study. >> pow, like a thunder clap, you get "the new york times" blishing the pentagon paper, and the country is panicking. >> larry: and we are joined by daniel elsberg. he started that firestorm by leaking to the new york times and other newspapers, a top secret study of u.s. decision-making in vietnam. his story is the focus of the oscar-nominated documentary you just saw a clip "the most dangerous man in america." it's now out on dvd. all right, daniel, what do you make of julian assange. he said the nearest analog of what wikileaks has done is your release of the pentagon papers. do you agree? >> i see what he sees. there hasn't been an unauthorized disclosure of this magnitude since the pentagon papers 39 years ago. i've been waiting for it for a long time. there should have been the pentagon papers of iraq and a lot of other places. and i wish there had been pentagon papers of afghanistan earlier than this. but better late than never. the war is still on. congress is being challenged to vote $33 billion in a war where the opponent we're fight

and notably, the "new york times" chose to publish it on its front page, above the fold, on the very day that prime minister benjamin netanyahu visited the white house. the "times" article is a textbook case of the media's ideologically motivated aggression against the middle east reality. any way you look at it, it is a premeditated affront to the very notion that the role of a newspaper is to report facts rather than manufacture news aimed at shaping perceptions and skewing debate. the article goes to great lengths to discredit the american citizens who make charitable tax deductible donations to organizations that provide lawful support to jewish communities in judiea and sue hera and jewish neighborhoods in southern, northern, and eastern jerusalem. it paints a sinister picture of such contributions and contributors and accuses them of actively undermining u.s. foreign policy. the contributors, we are told in the opening lines of the report, are the left's bookymen, evangelical christians and religious jews. they are unacceptable actors in the middle east because they believe the

identity politics, political choices, and very liberal that you have this left publication, "the new york times", saying it will be the most conservative the supreme court. i find that ironic. host: elena kagan a subject of another story in "the new york times" about the court. with a vote expected soon, her confirmation to the supreme court is all but assured but it does not mean your presence will be fully felt when the court returns in october. she has identified 11 cases she would step aside in because she worked on them as attorney general. that amounts to more than 1/4 of .he coucases if anything, her hearings highlighted how vague the standards are. we are returning to the thoughts that the front page analysis piece had on the supreme court, calling it the most conservative court in decades. here is the picture. austin, texas is next. steeg on our democrat line. on our democrat linebac. caller: the problem is what is conservative. to conserve the best, that is not what these right-wingers have been doing. the left, which i am found to be liberal, we are not socialist- leaning. we are try

the new york talk -- "the new york times" did not publish this. the website said. had only "the new york times" has this story, would we have that made a case in an effort as we have with them and other news organizations? yes. understand that the times was one of three organizations that had access. we got questions on friday. i met with "the new york times" on thursday. >> can you talk about any white house concerns about support for the war? have you done an assessment? what is your thinking? >> they go back to the point that i made to the others. if you took out a piece of paper, the monthly review will have been on thursday down in the situation room. i am on where the list of concerns that would be different today than they were one -- of based on what we have seen. -- that were based on what we have seen. >> i will switch the topic to bp. as the president informed of corporate changes? what can you say? >> i would have you talked to bp about personnel changes they will make. if they make them. i will say this. the ceo of bp, tony hayward, if he makes the deci

while the paper back came out on january 30th of this year and since out it's been on the new york times best seller selling over 700,000 copies now. and it's one man's mission to promote peace. and they're still baffleed manhattan because they're scratching their heads the first month because there's only - well no big city book editor did it so to be a best seller you need new york times or the chronicle or boston globes to give you good book reviews. no national t.v. or, m pr so paul said what's going on out there. i said, you know this is what i think it's about book clubs and women's groups, synagogues, mosques and churches and an incredible amount of book clubs here in the bay view area and about people yearning for piece and looking for the answers of peace. any ways it's been really incredible and aspire together see people from all walks of life i really think can re late to promoting peace one child at a time. we got some news last month that the pentagon purchased 5,000 copies. let me finish it. and it's for counter intelligence training, 101 and mandatory reading for they're

we conclude with "new york times" and mort zuckerman, of "u.s. news and world report." when we come back. funding for "charlie rose" was provided by the following. ♪ captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: goldman sachs, the giant wall street firm has agreed to pay $550 million in a settlement with the sec, the penalty to the firm worth only 1% of its net revenues of $45.2 billion last year. news of the settlement came on the same day the senate approved a major financial regulatory reform package which president obama is expected to quickly sign into law. goldman shares up 0.66% as trading closed today. joining me to talk about these developments andrew ross sorkin of "the new york times," roben farzad of bs week and william cohan contributing editor of "fortune" magazine. what does this settlement mean? >> this is what some people call a win-win in that the s.e.c. has to tell main street they've won, they have $550 million which sounds like a lot of money but on wall street there is a complete dis

and i think that fact, which got picked up by the new york times, you know-- "young american playwright has to go to germany to have his first work done, and not even in english"-- i think that instantly made the play producible in new york city, because six months later, it was done off-broadway in english on the same double bill and ran for four years. so i quit my job delivering telegrams for western union-- [laughter] and settled in to be a playwright. now, do you speak or write german? no. no. it's a very strange language. do you speak it? no. no. you know, the verbs are at the ends of the sentences, so you can go along, you know, for a page and a half, not knowing what anybody is talking about, and then, all of a sudden, bang, at the end, there's a verb. but you had this-- this added advantage of sitting there the first time you watched it and not being able to say-- or disadvantage-- not being able to say, "you're butchering my dialogue." you didn't have a clue, did you? well, i'd had somebody who speaks german read the translation to me, and it was good, and i knew what they wer

in march "the new york times" gave us the news that for the first time, this year, the government expects to pay out more in benefits than it took in through payroll taxes, partly due to the economy and other reasons. a threshold that had not been expected to cross for several years. this is what the chart looks like. it was expected to be 2017. what is the correct status? guest: what you are looking at is one year. and we have had a recession. and because of the recession, we have people will lose their jobs and have to go and apply for social security and 62. situation that at the moment with this recession, the one-year fullback is there. but you are looking at social security for 75 years, it has always been looked at for 75 years, and we have a huge surplus. and one year -- we wish we did not have the recession, we all wish we did not -- but we have to live with it. host: i've got a chart from the social security policy options from congressional budget office. a look at the u.s. population ages 65 and over as a percentage. look as it goes up as the baby boomers retire over the next

after that, we will have jane perlez from "the new york times" join us. she will talk about -- i'm sorry, and about five minutes we will talk with sir to talk about the paper's decision to print these documents. -- we will talk with her and about five minutes. hello, on the republican line. caller: yes, we should give all our treasure to afghanistan and make the afghan people richer, stronger than us, and then we will become envious of what we did over there. we are going that way anyway. i think $37 billion -- give it to them, make them better than us. let's sacrifice ourselves for them. it is a great idea, great strategy. host: the house is expected to bring out that $37 billion in emergency war money. on the senate side, and looks like there will go forward with a slimmed down energy bill. in other news, bp will name a new ceo -- robert dudley, the american chief executive. there is a picture of him. georgia, albert, on the democratic line. you are the last phone call on this before we go to our guest from "the new york times." caller: i'm calling in r

host: from "the new york times, this story is getting a lot of attention this morning. the initial cap has been removed in place of a new containment cap. from "the new york times," beginning what they are calling an ambitious engineering effort, making some matters worse temporarily." there's also a web site featured in the latest edition of "the national journal," it features a map of the gulf of mexico oil slick. he writes in the national journal -- "if you type in your address it will place the oil spill where you live. how might encompass parts of washington, northern virginia, even in ohio. some public policy issues, especially those from technological failures, there have been social and political consequences beyond who is up into is down and how it will play out in november. the deep water rise and will change the country as a whole, although it is impossible to predict what and how profound the changes might be. check out the web site, type in your zip code, transforming the gulf spill over your area of the country to give you a sense of how wide and far it is.

my workplace, there are more eyeballs every time "the new york times" and "the wall street journal" combine over a 24 hour time period. you are biased as well. do not say that times are bad. i hear that around the world. russia, bangladesh. do you? >> radical web sites supporting puppets. >> let's address diversity. a thank-you. he mentioned, i guess, paraphrasing, there's not much diversity in the local media. sandy, what would you like to say about -- maybe i should ask one of the professors. our people caller coming into journalism as frequently as you would like to see? >> we do a census every year, the association of news editors , and pretty much what they have found is that the numbers of minorities is still flat. even with a large exodus of people out of the business, there has not been much growth, about 12%. by no means is that there and i think even in my own experiences in this room, it can be very difficult to change the culture of thinking about stories that involve minorities. >> jeanne? did you want to add anything? >> there is a study put out every year by ball state univer

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: i continue to reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would like to ask how much time remains on each side because i'm going to reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 3 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes and the gentlewoman from florida has one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: the relationship with pakistan is one of the most complex and critically important in the world. while significant challenges remain, the u.s. and pakistan have deep and mutual cooperation against insurgent groups. counterterrorism cooperation has led to significant losses to al qaeda's relationship and leadership within pakistan, with more than half of al qaeda senior leaders being killed or captured. the pa

the front page of "the new york times" has this story about israel, 80 settlements in west bank. it says -- that is the front page of "the new york times" on that. republican, good morning. caller: i think i would vote for an independent if they have a pretty good stand on some of the issues. right now i am having voting remorse with the republicans and democrats. my family has been lifelong democrat voters and ever since i turned 18 and joined the navy and then became a disabled veteran from the persian gulf, we have never voted democrat since jimmy carter -- before jimmy carter. since then we have voted republican. right now my congressman, he does not even have time for me or my vfw group or disabled american veterans groups, and i am having big-time voter's remorse on all incumbents. my two governor campaigners blocked our democrat and republican, jerry brown, he was governor moonbeam when i was a little boy and he drove our state to the ground and this woman now, magnet -- meg whitman, whenever voted in 28 years and got a big bailout from her ebay company, has not even vote f

this tweet -- "the new york times" lead editorial this morning, this is on surveillance and the internet. breaking the promise on surveillance. how of the "new york times" finishes up in the editorial. new jersey, you're on the air. independent line. caller: i also a congressional candidate in the fifth district. my big issue is illegal immigration. i think we need to return to the tariff system to restore jobs in new jersey. a fair return on the tax dollar. host: you got to turn down the volume on the tv. who is the current congressmen or congresswoman in the fifth district? caller: is sitting congressman is stopped garretts. i am just sick and tired of liars' -- lacking illegal alien response in congress while people working for a living starved to death. host: albany, new york. joe, democrats. caller: hello. i just called -- i think the republican party is making a sad mistake if they think they are going to be book to take back a senate or house by voting no on everything -- going to be able to take back a senate or house by voting no on everything. they've got another think coming.

host: i am " york times -- in "the new york times," this morning, "obama to outline a plan for cut to hiv infections. president obama will unveil a new national strategy this week to curb the aids epidemic by slashing the number of infections in increasing the number of people would get care and treatment." you can read more about that in "the new york times," in hard copy or online. joan, texas, republican line. good morning. caller: i am voting republican. host: you think that the republicans have a chance to regain control of the house of representatives? caller: i do believe that. i believe that the things going on in the house of representatives and how they are representing themselves right now, i believe that the republicans have a chance. i spoke to many people from the other party. they are switching their votes. host: down there in fort worth, what is the biggest concern of the people that you talk to? what is the issue that is going to help the republicans regained control of the house? caller: i was told that i could not bring up immigration by your person. that is one of

i would not -- i respect the people who are "new york times" reporters in china but i am glad i am not one of them. they are viewed as a branch of diplomacy. and the chinese government gives them a harder time, that is the people with the bgest fdibigges megaphone have the hardest time. it is a case of one that the "new york times" is not true fort press in general. is it bias of editors back in the home offices here? i say yes, but not in & tan anti-chinese way. the news is boiled down, and there is a pressure to have things be somewhat more blunt. is it a shift in the structure of the news business? yes, i think this is a profound f factor. there has been less range of information that comes across. the pieceures in the news business are important ones. for another time, i think that is chinese government is good in many ways and bad in telling its own story worldwide. and i could say more, but i'm building up to what i think is the real reason for the barriers in perceptions to the press which is that the nature of reality in china now is so huge cont contradiction that by definitio

"the new york times" editorial.ey criticized harry reid as well as president obama and a dozen senate democrats mainly from the south, at a later, in the midwest, who share the blame for not putting forth a comprehensive bill -- the south, appalachia and the midwest. jim, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you very much. i am naturally calling because i don't believe the moratorium has gone far enough or will go far enough. a very important point to bring up, it was lower from bp brought forward high level e-mails from email executives about a platform called bp atlanta that drill deeper than horizon and pumps more oil. we know there are systemic problems going on with the oil industry right now this -- right now. this is another disaster waiting cabin. this moratorium is not going to shut down this platform, which is a tremendous problem waiting to happen and we need to get these platforms shutdown so we know that they are safe and we know they will move forward. and workers who lose their jobs during th

time to three newspapers one here in london the guardian one in germany biegel and also to the new york times they then looked at that information and assessed what they wanted to write about and whether the information was genuine and he then held a media conference. and talked about it and one of the things that he said was he was pressed by journalists on war crimes whether he thought there was evidence of war crimes here and eventually he said that he felt that it was for a cool it's of course to decide what constitutes a war crime and whether this did but he said looking at the documents that he has seen felt that there was evidence of war crimes having been committed during this war some of these documents are about civilian deaths going on reported. to pick out one that he. is difficult to do that he said it's the. secrecy of war that we don't necessarily know about when you read about some of these places that only going deaths of children the deaths of civilians the deaths of servicemen which add up he said to the every day squaller war another thing that he says is shared by the don

paul greenberg is a contributor to "new york times" magazine and the author of a new book on the subject called "for fish." and former advisor to general petraeus, david kilcullen. on wednesday alone eight more american soldiers lost their lives in combat. we're glad you joined us. paul greenberg and david kilcullen coming up right now. >> all i know is his name is james. he needs extra help with his reading. >> i'm james. >> yes. >> to everyone making a difference. >> thank you. >> you help us all live better. >> nationwide insurance proudly supports tavis smiley. with every question and every answer, nationwide insurance is proud to join dallas mavericks in removing financial literacy and the economic empowerment that comes with it. nationwide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] tavis: paul greenberg is a contributor to "new york times" magazine, his latest book was excerpted in the magazine. it is called "for fish:the future of the last wild food." paul greenberg, good to ha

we have an exclusive interview with a hacker who turned in the leaker, plus "the new york times" who published the report this morning. >> the scope. >> 92,000 documents. >>> other news, departure of tony hayward. he's leaving today and will likely announce his departure after that meeting. hayward is reported to get millions of dollars sure to anger millions of people on the gulf coast. >> you knew this day had to come. >>> we're getting to the severe weather striking. and the dam break in iowa causing all kinds of misery in the midwest. in the east, massive power outages as temperatures soar to triple digits once again. washington had a rough weekend. >> it was crazy out there. >>> we'll begin with the leaked documents causing a firestorm. senior foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz has the latest in washington. good morning, martha. >> reporter: good morning, robin. these 92,000 reports reveal six years of classified information offering blunt words about a war that looks even worse than many thought. >> reporter: the reports give startling detail about everything from civi

"the new york times" editorial.ey criticized harry reid as well as president obama and a dozen senate democrats mainly from the south, at a later, in the midwest, who share the blame for not putting forth a comprehensive bill -- the south, appalachia and the midwest. jim, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you very much. i am naturally calling because i don't believe the moratorium has gone far enough or will go far enough. a very important point to bring up, it was lower from bp brought forward high level e-mails from email executives about a platform called bp atlanta that drill deeper than horizon and pumps more oil. we know there are systemic problems going on with the oil industry right now this -- right now. this is another disaster waiting cabin. this moratorium is not going to shut down this platform, which is a tremendous problem waiting to happen and we need to get these platforms shutdown so we know that they are safe and we know they will move forward. and workers who lose their jobs during th

they say they would have if it had only been the "new york times" with the information. but the fact that it was all over the web with the wikileaks web site and also two european papers had it all, there was just nothing they could do to stop it, katie. >> couric: what about the timing of all this, chip? >> it really comes at a critical juncture, katie. there's a bill on capitol hill to fund the afghan war. it was already a heavy lift. they want to get it passed before they go home for august recess in two weeks. this is going to make it even more difficult. >> couric: chip reid at the white house. thanks very much. freedom of the press versus national security. it's an age-old debate that is now being played out in an age of new media. jeff greenfield is here with more on that. jeff? >> reporter: katie, it is indeed a very old conflict. the press versus the government. this time it is coming with a twist. the massive release of documents came not from a news organization but from wikileaks, the three-and-a-half-year-old on- line site with no headquarters, no physical p

so when the court said and "new york times" v. sullivan that a public figure could not sue "the new york times" and claim damages for libel without meeting a very high bar, without meeting the so-called actual malice standard, i think that was something that the framers would not have understood. now -- >> why would you think they wouldn't have understood that? >> i think -- >> they had print back then. we didn't start that early in terms of formation of our country. >> i'm sorry for interrupting. i think the evidence is very clear that framers didn't think the first amendment add all interfered wit libel suits. now over time, as courts have applied the first amendment to different contexts and different circumstances have seen different factual problems, have had to consider different cases, i think that court sensibly thought that the principles that are embodied in the first amendment could not be protected unless -- unless the decision in "new york times" v. sullivan was issued. >> so let me go forward with that. who can change