The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Kwame Holman and Ray Suarez, with Senators Feingold and Bennett, dissect today's campaign finance vote; Gwen Ifill updates the Pakistan coup story; Terence Smith sorts through a new kind of TV news preemption; and Essayist Richard Rodriguez speaks of noise. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: U.S. stocks regained more ground today. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 88 points at 10,204. Wall Street was watching consumer inflation news, got no surprises, and reacted favorably because as expected, the Consumer Price Index was up in September by 0.4 percent, the Labor Department said. It was the biggest jump in five months, boosted by energy and tobacco costs. Labor official Harry Holzer commented.

HARRY HOLZER: This report in some ways is better than the markets expected and there is some good news. If you understand the numbers and look past the few special cases and the few special categories, overall it seems to suggest fairly stable prices, and they've been stable over the last nine months or one year. So I think that's why the markets are reacting positively. This report does not show evidence of rising inflation.

JIM LEHRER: Higher consumer prices helped nudge up Social Security payments for next year. 44 million recipients will get a 2.4 percent cost-of-living increase. That's the largest raise in three years. Social Security Commissioner Kenneth Apfel said today the average monthly check for retirees will go up by $19. President Clinton and Congressional Republicans met today in an effort to resolve their dispute over the federal budget. Both sides have sworn not to touch the Social Security surplus, but each has accused the other of trying to raid that money to pay for favored programs. The government has been running on a temporary spending bill. Earlier in the day, Mr. Clinton signed a $99 billion appropriation for veterans, housing, and space programs. Campaign finance reform effectively died in the Senate today for the third time in three years. Supporters failed twice to gather enough votes to cut off debate and move the bill to a final vote. It included a ban on so-called "soft money," unlimited donations to national political parties. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. A drug to guard against nerve gas may be to blame for so-called "Gulf War Syndrome." That was the conclusion of a Pentagon-financed survey released today. It said the drug, known as PB, cannot be dismissed as a possibility, contradicting past government research. PB was given to 300,000 soldiers in 1990 and 1991. At the Pentagon, Undersecretary of the Army Bernard Rostker commented on the research.

BERNARD ROSTKER: A great frustration is we haven't found a single cause for Gulf War illnesses. I'm not sure we'll ever find a single cause for Gulf War illnesses. Your question is well taken. We certainly have gotten to the point where we know there are still sick individuals, but our unique contribution in this is probably coming to an end.

JIM LEHRER: More than 100,000 vets later complained of symptoms of the illness. They include chronic pain, fatigue, and memory loss. Indonesia's legislature today endorsed independence for East Timor. It accepted the results of the referendum in August. The assembly also voted against President B.J. Habibie on a motion of confidence in his 16-month rule. That dimmed his chances of being chosen tomorrow to remain in office. The setback gave a strong boost to his popular rival, the daughter of the late ruler Sukarno. In Pakistan today, a military spokesman said deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif remained in protective custody at an undisclosed location. He was said to be in good health. The spokesman said it would be a week before a six-member panel of army officers and civilians is named to run the country. We'll have more on Pakistan later in the program tonight. Also coming, another defeat for campaign finance reform; a media story about a diet pill; and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

UPDATE - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: That Senate vote on campaign finance reform. Kwame Holman begins our coverage.

KWAME HOLMAN: For the third time in as many years, an effort in the Senate to reform the nation's campaign finance laws again was defeated, again on a largely party-line vote.

SPOKESPERSON: Mr. Byrd.

SPOKESPERSON: Aye.

KWAME HOLMAN: Although the bill had the support of a slim majority of Senators, it did not attract the 60 votes needed to end debate and bring the matter to a final vote.

SPOKESMAN: On this vote the yays are 5, the nays are 48.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the setback did not come as a surprise to the bill's chief cosponsors, Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold and Arizona Republican John McCain.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think it's fair to say that neither I nor the Senator from Wisconsin began this debate with the expectation that we were close to achieving 60 votes for campaign finance reform. We did, however, believe that we had a chance to build a super majority in support of some reform.

KWAME HOLMAN: The McCain-Feingold bill would ban the use of so-called "soft money," the unregulated campaign contributions given to political parties. In hopes of attracting additional support, the two Senators this year simplified their bill, dropping a provision to regulate political advertising by interest groups. But their strategy was complicated when Senators from both parties offered their own amendments.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I suspect that the opponents were concerned that were we ever allowed a truly clean vote on a soft money ban, that we might come close to 60 votes. I believe that explains the extraordinary effort from both Democrats and Republicans top prevent that clean vote from occurring.

KWAME HOLMAN: But throughout the debate, a solid group of Republicans, led by Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, remained opposed even to the stripped-down campaign reform bill.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Since my party took over the majority in the Senate, the 52- 48 vote was the highest watermark, actually during that period, and going all the way back over the 20 years that I have been involved in this issue, so I think it is safe to say, Mr. President, there is no momentum whatsoever for this kind of measure that puts the government in charge of what people may say, when they may say it, and attempts to take the two great American political parties out of the process.

KWAME HOLMAN: In fact, this afternoon, the Senate took two votes to move to a final vote on campaign finance reform, but both fell short of the 60 votes needed. Following that second vote, Majority Leader Trent Lott tried to set aside the legislation and move to a debate on so-called partial birth abortion. But supporters of campaign reform angrily objected, and Senate decorum showed signs of stress.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. President, excuse me.

SPOKESMAN: The Senator from New Orleans is recognized.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: This is a question about whether or not we're going to keep our work -- whether or not we're going to have the opportunity to finish the debate on campaign finance reform, whether or not we're going to have the opportunity to offer amendments. That's what that is about. So no one ought to be misled. Do we finish our business? Do we follow through with commitments? Do we have a good debate or not?

KWAME HOLMAN: Campaign reform supporters were able to continue their debate into this evening. But they did so with the full knowledge the legislation remains stalled unless and until they get 60 Senators to vote together for the issue.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes it from there.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, the perspective of two key players in the Senate debate: Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, is the co-author of the reform bill; and Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is one of its chief opponents.

Senator Bennett, why allow the appearance that the party is smothering this thing in the cradle, why require that -- that cloture motion? Why not just have an up or down vote, see what the sense of the Senate is on this issue?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Well, this is the parliamentary situation we find ourselves in, and frankly, this kind of activity happens an awful lot with respect to very controversial issues. I've had some Democrats who have said we hope you guys win, but we're going to vote against you because it looks better, and it's a little easier for them to have the cloture thing go forward, and frankly, I'm opposed to it on what I think are very solid constitutional grounds. I'll vote against it in whatever forum they present to me, but I don't control the parliamentary situation; that goes to people above my pay grade.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, nonetheless, as a policy maker, as a legislator, as a representative of Utah, you must have some feeling about what the American people make of all of this, this bill rising or falling not on whether or not a majority of Senators support it, but on whether or not you can force votes, cut off debate, these other things?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: I've never had anybody talk to me about those particulars. I have had people who are on Senator Feingold's side say they wish I would change my mind on the vote, but frankly, I've never had anybody come to me and say we don't like the procedure here, either in the press or elsewhere, so you're the first one to raise it to me. I don't think it's an overwhelming desire, as your question would indicate, rising in the American people. We changed the procedures of the Senate just for this particular issue.

RAY SUAREZ: Senator Feingold, three defeats in three years. It would seem that the Senate has sort of made its decision. You may bring it up in the next session, but, for now, this idea is not going to go anywhere.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: No, that's just wrong; that's not what happened today in the U.S. Senate. The story is that a lot of people don't want to report, is that three Republicans who never voted with us before voted for the McCain-Feingold ban on soft money. That is unheard of in the past. We had today 55 Senators in total on two votes reject the McConnell filibuster. So we're making progress. And to suggest that it's a defeat, as you keep getting stronger and stronger, last year the idea was we didn't have a majority. Then we got a majority, we got to 52, and everybody said, well, you don't have 60 yet. Well, I think we've got 55 now. So today was a major step forward. Senator McCain and I are going to do everything we can to make sure this bill doesn't go down tomorrow and be taken off the calendar. If not, he and I pledge today to bring it up again this year. And we're not going to stop until we get the 60 votes we need. But the news is Senator McConnell couldn't hold his forces today. In fact, that's why a lot of this funny business is occurring. Last night, Senator McConnell and a whole bunch of Senators who say they're against banning soft money, voted to ban soft money on a procedural vote just because they didn't want to be -- have the up or down vote. This morning we didn't even work; the Senate wasn't even in session because Senator McConnell was desperate to try to prevent us from discussing this issue today and having amendments. So the fact is they're hiding; they're afraid of the fact that we keep getting stronger; we are getting closer and closer to breaking this filibuster and winning on this issue, and I'm extremely encouraged.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, even Mitch McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky who's been leading the forces on the other side of this question, concedes that 52/48 is the high-water mark for your forces, but it's still a long way short of the 60 you need to be able to control the parliamentary procedure for this bill.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, you're even wrong on the 52/48; we won 53/47 today. He lost three Senators who he thought he had in the past. For a year now people have said, who are you going to get to go beyond the 52, and today we got three of the Republican Senators, so if you combine those who voted with us on Shays-Meehan and those who voted with us on our bill, there are 55 Senators who disagree with McConnell's filibuster and are ready for campaign finance reform. So he's taken a real loss today. I don't think he wants to talk about it, but we are getting stronger and stronger, and we're going to break this law down. It's just a matter of I think relatively little time before this thing gets done.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Senator Bennett, this apparently, like Dracula, you could drive a stake into it, you can use mirrors and garlic and every other thing to ward this away, but this is an issue that's going to keep landing on your plate, and you're going to have to keep dealing with it.

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: I think that's probably true, because it is an issue that the media really loved, and the media keeps it alive. It does not come up spontaneously when I'm out on the hustings. When it does come up, and people say, well, what about it, I found that five minutes' worth of explanation in a town meeting and so on, and I don't have anybody opposing my position. My quick media sound bite -- I've learned you have to put these things into sound bites --

RAY SUAREZ: Not here, Senator.

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Well, not here. I say, look, I concede absolutely that the present system is broken; I do not concede that it is corrupt, but I concede that it is broken. So they say, well, why aren't you for reform, and I say, but I'm not for this reform, because I believe the way this bill is written, No. 1, it is clearly unconstitutional, and No. 2, it is clearly unworkable. And if we could get away from the press, get away from frankly people who like the standard line which says you fight about it, we'll write about it, and so they like to keep it going on very partisan, very contentious lines, I think we could sit down behind closed doors and work something out. But the press wouldn't be happy with that. A lot of the people who are driving this issue from so-called public interest groups downtown wouldn't want to get that kind of resolution. The realistic politicians, the people who understand what happens in the real world, understand this is not going to work. Senator Torricelli, even though he voted with Senator Feingold, gave a speech that frankly, I could have given and have given in the past, when he pointed out the tremendous difficulties with this -- this approach. And frankly, it was the difficulties with the so-called McCain-Feingold light approach that caused two Republicans that had been with McCain-Feingold to abandon them. So Russ talks about the three he picked up; he lost two in the process, and it's -- you know -- you pull the sheet this way to cover this person in the bed and you leave somebody else cold, no, there -- we are not making progress on this until we abandon the idea that the way to deal with this is to have the federal government control speech, to have the federal government control who can talk and how much they can talk, and instead start going in the direction of more intelligent disclosure of what's going on and use the power of the press to regulate it, instead of the power of the government.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Senator Feingold, let's talk about McCain-Feingold light. The parts of the bill that had to do with issue advocacy were stripped out because it was said by many to be an easier pill to swallow, and instead you concentrated on the control of soft money and basically banning its use. But every time you move towards something that might create some consensus, most will start to lose some people who were with you from the very beginning who wanted a really tough campaign finance reform bill. So if you move further toward your opponent, might you also risk losing more than you can handle on the other side of the question?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: The votes today show what's happening. We have moved forward. Even under Senator Bennett's interpretation we went from 52 to 53 votes. And all we have to do is keep moving in a nice, gradual progression toward 60, and we win. That is exactly what we've been doing. And the notion that somehow the concern about this issue that Senator Bennett expressed is a fiction of the media is just wrong. The American people I think no better than the best of us when and the politicians when they know that having the Lincoln Bedroom being sold for $200,000 is wrong. Having people pay $100,000 to be in a special club for the Republican Party that gives them special access is wrong and has a corrupting influence in our political system. It is almost a laugh when you tell anyone in America that the notion that you can have unlimited considerations by corporations and unions isn't corrupting, because I think it does have a terrible corrupting influence on our system. And I think that's what the American people believe. And even Justice Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court in a recent argument said that he assumes -- and I think he said that like most Americans assume - that when you have contributions of that amount, they are inherently - they're by their nature a corrupting of our process. So, this isn't about getting the government in charge of speech. This is about continuing what has been the law throughout our century basically. Corporations can't give this money directly. Unions can't give this money directly, and that it amounts to a system of legalized bribery. That's what we're trying to get rid of.

RAY SUAREZ: Before we wrap it up, if you do reach your goal of 60 votes and are able to control the debate, one of the things that my happen then is the thing will be smothered in post-it notes stuck on - endless, endless amendments. And you still won't carry the vote.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I disagree, that's not what happened in the House where they had the discipline and I give them tremendous credit. There are a number of amendments a lot of people wanted to vote for but the real defenders and advocates for reform stuck together and defeated those amendments. If we can get cloture, we will do the same. We will kill any amendments that frustrates our ability to ban soft money and we will get a consensus we can send on to the House and up to the President.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thanks for being -

SEN. ROBERT BENNTT: And on to the Supreme Court. Remember, you are going to have a serious constitutional challenge here because frankly soft money is simply money that is spent to express an opinion and if you say we're going to ban soft money and prevent Americans from speaking, the Supreme Court is going to have something to say about that under the First Amendment.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: The Supreme Court said it was just fine to ban soft money in Buckley V. Vallejo. They say that large contributions are inherently a problem, and the Supreme Court will reaffirm our right to stop unlimited contributions directly to the political parties. That is the least of our problems.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Gentlemen, that's where we're going to have to leave it tonight. Thank you both for being with us.

FOCUS- NEW RULER

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a Pakistan update; a TV preemption; and a Richard Rodriguez essay. Gwen Ifill has the Pakistan story.

GWEN IFILL: For the third time in Pakistan's 52-year history, the nation's military has taken control of its civilian government. Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf announced the military takeover-- in effect, a coup-- a week ago. The elected Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, was placed under house arrest.

GEN. PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, Military Ruler, Pakistan: Dear brothers and sisters, I request you all to remain calm and support your armed forces in the reestablishment of order to pave the way for a prosperous future for Pakistan.

GWEN IFILL: Musharraf took his case to the Pakistani people, defining what he described as the problems created by previous corrupt governments: A crumbling economy, sectarian strife, and weakened state institutions, including the military, which he called Pakistan's "last institution of stability." Significantly, Musharraf offered conciliatory words to neighboring India. The two rival nations engaged in dueling nuclear weapons testing last year, and have also been fighting over the disputed region of Kashmir. Musharraf has now promised to withdraw troops from the border, a move greeted with skepticism in New Delhi. But as he consolidateshis power, Musharraf has made no promises about exactly when civilian rule will be restored.

GEN. PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: This is not martial law, only another path towards democracy. The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan.

GWEN IFILL: Instead, the new Pakistani leader has created a six-member National Security Council to govern the country. In the week since the military coup, there has been little domestic opposition. In fact, many Pakistanis seemed to welcome it.

CITIZEN: (speaking through interpreter) It was important for the military to take over, because there is corruption at all levels in the government. The policies were bad for the country, the economy's at its worst, and what General Musharraf did was good.

CITIZEN: (speaking through interpreter) We've had elections before. It's the same thing over and over again. We have to have the military take over.

GWEN IFILL: International reaction has been mixed. Along with the cool response from India's Hindu nationalist government, the British commonwealth has threatened to suspend Pakistan's membership. But the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan has signaled that the United States will give the new military government time to prove its Democratic intentions. "We are confident General Musharraf is a moderate man who was acting out of patriotic motivation and was provoked into doing what he is doing." At the State Department today, a more cautious statement:

JAMES FOLEY, U.S. State Department Spokesman: The jury is still out in terms of the ultimate intentions of the military authorities in Pakistan. They've indicated, again, that they don't intend to stay in charge for longer than is necessary, and that they want to see a return to democratic government.

GWEN IFILL: For more, we get two views: Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker and nuclear physicist. His father was a founder of the Pakistani nuclear program. And Michael Krepon, president of the Stimson Center, a nonprofit organization that works on military security issues.

Mr. Ijaz, American is not exactly weeping over the overthrow of Prime Minister Sharif. It is obvious that they are waiting to see what will happen next. They're also pressing for the return of civilian government. Is that likely to happen?

MANSOOR IJAZ, Investment Banker: Well, I think the return of civilian government will take place but it will depend on three things for the general and his new national security council to keep on top of. The first one of these in my judgment is nor them to figure out a way to persuade the international community to help them revive the economy. That means that the international aid will have to continue to flow, and they will have to recoup some of the lost wealth that has gone out of the country for almost a decade. The second thing that he will have to do is keep his Islamic radicals both inside the army and outside on the streets at bay. And that's a much more difficult problem to deal with. I think I was just actually up on Capitol Hill. The sense that you get from people when you talk to them up there is that, a deep, deep sense of concern about Islamic fundamentalism having creeped long for so many years, and now all of a sudden we're starting to see the virus exploit itself. The third thing is whether or not he can figure out a constructive way to deal with the Indians. Now, if there were ever anyone in Pakistan who could deal with the Indians in a way that would be meaningful it is an army chief. It isnot a politician. No politician in Pakistan could give us in on the issue of Kashmir. No politician in Pakistan could make peace with India in a soft way unless he was willing to give up his own office. And that's what this army chief can do in my judgment in terms of bring India and Pakistan back on the right back.

GWEN IFILL: But in his speech he seems to suggest whatever the end is that he has in mind is justified by his means by is, I think the way he put it, he was saving the body by cutting off a limb -- the body being the country, the limb is being the constitution. Is that acceptable?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Well, let's be very clear about one thing: Pakistan has never been and is not today a democracy. Democracy makes the assumption that is representation by the people. If you look at Pakistan's electoral history, a very small percentage of the people have voted historically. Number two, if you look at the way the feudal system is set up, each of these blocks, large blocks of land, 50,000 hectares, or whatever it might be, that are owned by these feudal landlords, they have their own voters' blocks effectively encamped under their control. That is not a representative democracy. And that is what I think this group of people that are coming in -- and there are some very serious people being considered for this national security council - sedate, thoughtful people and a think tank underneath it which I hope Michael will help us with at some point -- but these people are going to make a very serious effort now to reconstruct democracy in real terms, representation by the people divesting the feudal landlords of their holdings in a way that is acceptable both to them and to the future of the country.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Krepon, you've met General Musharraf. What is he like, what kind of a leader is he? It sounds like there's a lot that he has got to bite off in order to make what Mr. Ijaz is talking about work.

MICHAEL KREPON, Stimson Center: I haven't spent a lot of time with General Musharraf, but I have met him twice, including last March. He strikes me as being a low-key man but also a very decisive man. He has both elements in his character. He is somebody who is a patriotic, dedicated, and a very brave soldier. He is a guy who has been given some pretty tough assignments in the Pakistan army, and he has gone right to the top of the system so that speaks well to his military skills. But she now in a different arena, and a new skills set is going to be required of him and there are questions about that.

GWEN IFILL: Well, that's one of my questions. He is described by the U.S. Ambassador - perhaps optimistically -- as a moderate. Is he a moderate in the way we would define that in this country?

MICHAEL KREPON: Well, that comment I took as a reflection of perhaps some officers who were behind him as much as General Musharraf himself. General Musharraf is a decisive man. He knows what the first step is, and he is capable of taking very bold first steps. The question that he has to answer to his fellow citizens and to the international community is whether he has a good sense of the second, third, fourth and fifth steps. It's one thing to take a bold step, it's another thing to know that you have an exit strategy. He has -- we don't know if he has an exit strategy for running the country.

GWEN IFILL: Do you agree with that, Mr. Ijaz?

MANSOOR IJAZ: I think it's absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, what you can say about the next steps, though, is that these steps have been talked about for a very long time in Pakistan: How to address the fact that the entire systemic corruption problem has overtaken the country; how to bring back the people's confidence in their open country. You know, Pakistan is a country in a sense that was created out of the collapse of an empire. These are people who maybe didn't believe in their own destiny to survive. And that may be part of the reason that this turnstile of civilian leaders has taken place. Benazir Bhutto came into power and then she said, I better get everything I can out of the national treasury because I may to have to run the government from abroad somewhere. And then it was Nawaz Sharif's turn. And by the time he was done it was Benazir Bhutto's turn. This behind of behavior in civilian leaders is what has to change. And the only people, the only institution in Pakistan that could do that is the army.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Krepon, Mr. Sharif was obviously-- nobody is apparently missing him. And he is still in house arrest somewhere; and no one's asking the question. But what exactly can Mr. Musharraf accomplish? It is a lot he has to accomplish. He is military man. You say he is a man with his eye on the next goal but his biggest goal, his biggest challenge right now seems to be his relationship with India. Is there any way that he can begin to do something about that?

MICHAEL KREPON: Well, the speech that he gave to the country which was a very superb really talked about a domestic agenda. He had six or seven agenda items, and most of them had to do with fixing the country. The country has the most severe problems: Economic problems, corruption problems, sectarian, domestic violence, the federation that is Pakistan is at risk. There are centrifugal forces at work in the country. That is his stated agenda. He has also said in passing that he wants to improve relations with India.

GWEN IFILL: Now, troops are actually be withdrawn from the border at Kashmir. Is that taking a step toward that new warmth that you were talking about?

MICHAEL KREPON: There is an international border between India and Pakistan, and then there is a line of control which is not an international border. It's a line that divides Kashmir. And fighting, the violence, the infiltration is going on at the line of control. General Musharraf has done something very important. He has taken a step which is substantive and verifiable to take troops that were on a heightened state of alert and put them back in the barracks, I suspect India will do the same but most of the problem --

GWEN IFILL: Is not where he decided to step in.

MICHAEL KREPON: Is elsewhere.

GWEN IFILL: What do you think is going to happen as far as the line of control issue?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Well, I think that p the interesting thing about the line of control problem at this date and time is the snows have started falling in the Himalayas. And, in fact, one of the proposals that was under consideration when the Kargil crisis was at its peak was to keep India quiet long enough to allow the guys on the hill to slip out under the cover of Mother Nature's skirt when the snows started falling. I don't think -- I think what Musharraf wants with India is simply just enough stability to allow him to execute that domestic agenda. I think that's really what he is looking for because the problems internally are so significant, and India does not need Islamic radicalism on its border either. And I think that's really why they're going to give him breathing space in the end, statements not withstanding.

GWEN IFILL: Is it fair to say that Pakistanis in general -- welcomed this change of government?

MICHAEL KREPON: The answer is question. The democratic experiment over the last 11 years has really failed Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have both shortchanged the country in a serious way. Let me answer - let me talk about the line of control because I was there two weeks ago at lower elevation. And it's still very noisy there. There is still a lot of fighting and I expect that to continue. Generally Musharraf is committed to the Kashmiri cause, and he is very committed to giving the Indian army and the Indian security forces a hard time in Kashmir. I don't expect much change with respect to the friction along the line of control. I do expect General Musharraf not to repeat the extremely risky and bold move that he engineered with the prime minister's consent to seize and hold territory on the Indian side of the line of control. That was dangerous. It was a decisive first step but there was no exit strategy. For the country, General Musharraf has again shown us a decisive first step. Let's see if he has an exit strategy.

GWEN IFILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Krepon and Mr. Ijaz.

FOCUS - PREEMPTED

JIM LEHRER: A diet pill company preempts a television investigation of its product. Media Correspondent Terence Smith reports.

BARBARA WALTERS: Tonight we have the report that is causing all kinds of talk: Arnold Diaz's four-month investigation into the diet herbal supplement called Metabolife.

TERENCE SMITH: Last Friday ABC 20/20 presented an investigation of one of the nation's

fastest-selling diet pills, Metabolife 356. The report was the result of four months of research by ABC, but in some ways it wasn't new news. Ten days earlier the company, Metabolife International, attempted to preempt ABC by taking the unprecedented step of posting the

network's interview with its top officials on the Internet. 20/20 correspondent Arnold Diaz had

interviewed Metabolife CEO Michael Ellis in front of Metabolife employees on September 9 . Diaz allowed the company to make their own videotape. But Ellis says the interview still felt

to him like a deposition. He decided to release the whole 70-minute session on the web in advance of the 20/20 piece. In a 1.5 million dollar ad campaign, Metabolife invited the public to "see

the complete, unedited footage" at newsinterview.com, a web site the company specifically created for this purpose. The company also cautioned that "the 20/20 story may not report

the facts accurately" on the safety of Metabolife 356.

AD: Tonight 20/20 is airing a segment on Metabolife...

TERENCE SMITH: The manufacturer ratcheted up the battle for public opinion by buying a two hundred thousand dollar advertising spot on 20/20 shortly before the Diaz piece appeared.

AD: Cast your vote on whether you think the 20/20 report was fair.

TERENCE SMITH: ABC did raise questions about the safety of the Metabolife pill, citing

medical sources and at least one instance in which a woman suffered adverse consequences that she attributed to her use of Metabolife 356.

AD: Can I help you?

MAN IN AD: Oh, no, no -

AD SPOKESMAN: For most of us it's hard to admit we're not a size 32-waist anymore.

TERENCE SMITH: The product is one of a multitude of diet supplements and energy boosters on which Americans spend some $33 billion a year. Four-year-old Metabolife is

expected to gross over $900 million this year with its flagship product, which sells for at least $45-a-bottle. That success has attracted extra scrutiny from the press. CEO Michael

Ellis has not been shy about defending the pill... or himself. Ellis was convicted nine years ago on a drug-related charge but managed to have his criminal file sealed. Earlier this year those documents were unsealed at the request of journalists, including the San Diego Union-Tribune and ABC. Separately, Metabolife sued an ABC-affiliated television station in Boston for defamation in its Metabolife investigation. On 20/20, Ellis was asked about his conviction.

MICHAEL ELLIS: That's something I'm not proud of. I think that happening to me is a nightmare of my life.

TERENCE SMITH: Altogether, 20/20 used just over a minute of direct quotations from

Ellis and his medical director in the fourteen-minute report. In one exchange Diaz displayed printouts of Metabolife's website and asserted that the company was misleading consumers about safety tests.

ARNOLD DIAZ: It's also on the Metabolife main web site.

MICHAEL ELLIS: It is not on the Metabolife web page.

ARNOLD DIAZ: It is not?

MICHAEL ELLIS: No it is not, sir.

ARNOLD DIAZ: Oh, yes it is. We showed him the page.

ARNOLD DIAZ: This is directly from your web site.

TERENCE SMITH: The whole exchange between the company and the network is the most dramatic example to date of in-your-face corporate public relations wars with broadcasters. It also demonstrates the increasing use of the Internet as a weapon in those battles. Nor is it likely to be the last such instance. Mr. Ellis told the NewsHour that many industry groups have already

contacted him about using the Newsinterview.com site to disseminate information on-line.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us to discuss the ramifications of this media exchange are two of the principal participants, David Westin, the president of ABC News, and Michael Ellis, the founder and CEO of Metabolife International. David Westin, we have just seen in the setup what Metabolife did in anticipation of ABC's piece. Do you have any problems with it?

DAVID WESTIN, President, ABC News: No. I don't fundamentally. Frankly I viewed it as bit as a publicity stunt and I hope it works for the money that they paid for it. What we do is quite different from what appeared on the web site. The only possible grounds for concern out in the future is if people start confusing the raw ingredients of a piece that we do for one of our news problems with the finished product. There are a lot of ingredients that go into it. One of them is an interview such as we did with Mr. Diaz and Mr. Ellis. But there are other things that go into produce a fair and accurate piece, which is what we aired last Friday night. So fundamentally it's not a threat to us.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, an ABC spokeswoman described it as an invasion of our editorial process and Dick Wall, a longtime ABC executive said it was a subtle attempt at intimidation.

DAVID WESTIN: I think attempt is the important word there, Terry. I think all of us would be concerned if these sorts of corporate PR tactics somehow did affect adversely the editorial process. I can tell you that as a matter of fact that ABC News, with respect to this piece, it didn't have any effect on us at all. And so it wasn't a problem in this case. It's something we can all look at in the future to make sure that companies such as this aren't able to affect the editorial process in a way that is to all of our detriment.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael Ellis, why was that preemptive strike necessary in your view?

MICHAEL ELLIS, CEO, Metabolife International, Inc.: Well, I believe that ABC and so did our staff were intending to actually do a hit piece.

TERENCE SMITH: What do you mean by a hitpiece?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Well, I think that what they were intending to do is basically broadcast a preconceived notion of what Metabolife is. There was a lot of exchange of information. There were many, many signs all the way down the line up until we actually decided to actually broadcast this on newsinterview.com.

TERENCE SMITH: On your web site?

MICHAEL ELLIS: That's correct.

TERENCE SMITH: That's right. What, now that you've done it, do you feel you had your say or changed the mix in any way?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Yes, I believe we did. I think it was very effective in many ways. One, it made ABC become a little more accountable. The story we believe had changed quite a bit from what it was being led down the path -- such as disclosing a physician was affiliated possibly with a competitor and other issues -- and from the response from the community that viewed both our website and the "20/20" broadcasts.

TERENCE SMITH: David Westin, did this change anything about the report or the way you put it on the air, did you hurry it on to the air since your competitors of course could now see part of your editorial process?

MICHAEL ELLIS: No, we didn't hurry it on at all. In fact, it's one of the first reactions when I heard about it. I said, we'll treat this just like any other piece in terms of timing exactly what we do. It's important for me to say, ABC News does not do so-called hit pieces at all. We don't put pre-conceived notions on the air but the important point here is we stand by what we put on the air, and the attempts of companies like this are basically to distract the American people from what we actually put on the air and to focus on various red herrings in the process that leads up to it. In fact, the physician to which Mr. Ellis referred was one of the named physicians in one of the studies that his own company referred to repeatedly, justifying the safety of his product. So we were simply pursuing what his own company indicated, but the important point is we stand by what we put on the air and the accuracy and fairness of that, and we're proud of it.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael Ellis, what do you think of the accuracy and fairness that was put on the air? Was the piece fair?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Well, I think there were many cases it was not -- ABC neglected to put conflicting statements by those same physicians that they had on the air where under even public testimony that they indicated that they even prescribe or recommend the product to their own patients, and that also the study is going on for a year, and these people are unmonitored - they're just given Metabolife and allowed to go out into the normal course of life and take the product. Those are some of the examples that I think that probably should have been laid out to the public at the time of the broadcast.

TERENCE SMITH: Was it a hit piece by your definition?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Well, I think what it was is that it was a wash-down hit piece. I think it would have been a whole lot worse if Metabolife would not have drawn attention to ABC and the practices and what they do -- journalism.

TERENCE SMITH: David Westin would it "have been a whole lot worse" or in any way different?

DAVID WESTIN: No, as I said, and I think it's very important for all of us - certainly in news organizations - but I think for the American people as well, it's very important for all of us to set our standards high, to pursue accuracy and fairness in every piece we do, and then not to be altered in that course by whatever winds buffet us one way or the other. It becomes accepted practice that if someone take out a $1.5 million campaign or whatever that will affect the piece, then I think we should be very concerned about journalism. I'm not as concerned in this instance because I know from ABC News' point of view that didn't in this instance.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael Ellis, you did spend probably close to $2 million on this whole effort in advertising. Was it worth it?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Yes. I think it was worth it. I think just in the comments of Mr. Westin, it says he places us against them. I think true journalism is lay out all the facts of the issue and let the consumer or the viewer actually draw a conclusion. I think that's what balanced journalism is and I think across the board in the United States to a great extent that's how journalism is performed and conducted here in the United States. I believe that lot of consumers may look at "20/20" as actually being a news piece, when I think maybe it might be a little bit more an entertainment piece to get ratings and such so that people watch, and unfortunately, it's usually at the expense of either corporations, politicians, or individuals.

TERENCE SMITH: On your web site, Mr. Ellis, you invited people to vote your word as to whether or not the ABC piece was fair. How did they vote?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Well, it's been popping back and forth across the 50 percent mark. So one hour it is somewhere close around 51 percent in favor of ABC and then 49 at Metabolife, and then vice versa, it starts changing. It changes as the time goes on where people are able to get into the system because it's been overwhelmed by millions of hits.

TERENCE SMITH: David Westin, what does the future hold in this department, the next time ABC is asked or perhaps a condition is set for an interview that the interviewee make a tape, a videotape?

DAVID WESTIN: Well, this is the first time that people have asked to record interviews that we do. And there is nothing that we do or should be doing in the interview that we would be ashamed of in any way, shape, or form. The fact we don't end of broadcasting it doesn't mean that we're ashamed of asking the question; it may be a line of inquiry that we didn't think was merited in the end, and it didn't deserve publication. But we're not ashamed of it. And we won't restrict that in the future. There are some areas for concern. I can imagine situations which did not happen in this instance where people could take our anchors or our correspondents and put them in a web site that would be really a false light for them or detracting to them and we would have to think about that issue. But I'm happy to say I really do agree with Mr. Ellis and what we should be doing in journalism in producing fair and accurate pieces that present all the relevant and material points of view. And I would say that's exactly what we did in this piece.

TERENCE SMITH: What Ellis, what about you in the future? Would you follow the same course?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Well, this is very unusual for our company. I've been on hundreds and hundreds of interviews. And the majority of journalists are very fair and accurate. And if they're not, they're very susceptible and amenable to changing that inaccuracy. But Metabolife is a dietary supplement company. We're not professionals in the media...and, you know, and this is very unusual for us. I don't know what we would do in the future.

TERENCE SMITH: And your motive, you say, was to make the record available to all?

MICHAEL ELLIS: Yes, absolutely.

TERENCE SMITH: David Westin, did you believe that was the motive?

DAVID WESTIN:Oh,, I don't impugn motives; I really don't. I have a full-time job. It keeps me busy, and Mr. Ellis has a company; he has to pursue his interest and the interest of his shareholders, and I respect that. My job is to make sure that we are doing our job.

And I think that ABC News did in this instance, and I'm proud of what we did.

TERENCE SMITH: David Westin, you are a lawyer. Is there anything illegal in any of this?

DAVID WESTIN: Oh, no, not that I'm aware of. I mean, I used to practice law and maybe others would know things that I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything illegal, no, not at all.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Michael Ellis, David Westin, thank you both very much.

ESSAY - BUSY SIGNAL

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, Essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service considers the noise in our lives.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Everywhere you hear or see them: Americans on the phone, relentlessly tied to the phone, walking down the street, or driving a car. The popularity of cell phones is just the latest indication that an epic sensory shift is occurring in America. We are becoming people of the ear, desperate for sound, the reassuring noise of human voices. Go to a restaurant where young professionals gather, and what you will remember is not the taste of the food, but the din, people happily having to shout at one another. Those of us who grew up in the 50's, when television was young, remember our mothers' warning: "Don't watch so much TV," our mothers used to say, "or you'll go blind." But that was before Elvis Presley and long playing records, and before the music got louder and louder. Much of our newest technology is aimed at the eye: The computer screen, of course, and digital TV, and video games. But the hunger for sound in America is such, today's mothers worry their children will go deaf. In any large American city, you can find clubs where the young dance all night, drugged by noise. Sound systems have become so highly developed that the music sweeps across the room like a wind. Twenty years ago, when the Sony Corporation began selling the Walkman, there was a question as to whether people would be willing to walk down the street looking like outer-space travelers. Today the old -- as well as the young - happily resemble astronauts. Communications experts like Marshall McLuhan date the birth of our modern age with the shift of learning from the ear to the eye. Johannes Gutenberg's invention of moveable type in 14th-century Germany was the beginning of European modernity, because it gave the printed word mass circulation. After Gutenberg, Protestantism, democracy, and most important, individualism flourished. We assume today when we come to a library, we will find silence. We assume that people learn in silence, each alone. But this is a modern idea. In postmodern America, we seem headed on the freeway back to the 14th century, before Gutenberg, to the time when monks read aloud to each other. Americans are listening to novels on tapes they drive home from work. A friend says she was so captivated, listening to a Thackeray novel the other day, she sat in her driveway until the chapter ended.

NARRATOR: "I trust you have made a copy of this account," said Miss Pinkerton herself.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: If the printed word gave us individualism, the price we paid for our individualism was loneliness, which is why, I think, we are so intoxicated by the sound of another voice: We want to be assured that we are not alone. So, we pay to eat at a noisy restaurant or to attend a rock concert, the most flamboyant communalgathering in our society, where no lyric is decipherable in the scream. (Singing) We are facing a paradox, however: As modern people, tired of isolation, we grow desperate for the sound of another voice. But as modern people caught in isolation, we use sound to shelter ourselves from the crowd. What troubles police officers, after all, about the person in the car talking on a cell phone is that he seems not to be paying attention to the traffic around him. A teenager boards the bus wearing earphones, and sitting next to him, you are forced listen to the annoying tish- tish-tish from his earphones; the teenager sits oblivious. The other day on a crowded elevator, a woman on a cell phone told someone at the other end that she had decided to have an abortion. The rest of us stood there, silently, pretending not to listen. Postmodern sound becomes insulation from society, as much as it reassures us that we are not alone. Instead of returning us to an ancient circle of the tribal fire, where we learned and spoke as a group, we may end up a nation of people talking in the crowd to another voice, far away. I'm Richard Rodriguez.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday: New retail inflation numbers helped U.S. stocks recover more of last week's losses; 44 million Social Security recipients will get a 2.4 percent raise next year. The Senate again rejected a campaign finance reform bill, and Indonesia's legislature endorsed freedom for East Timor, and rejected President Habibie's arguments for remaining in office. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.