The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, six radio talk show hosts debate President Clinton's charge that their words promote violence, then as Congress reconvenes, how Republicans have found their Contract With America playing back home. Charlayne Hunter-Gault continues her conversations on rethinking affirmative action. Tonight, political scientist Abigail Thernstrom. And we close with a remembrance of dancer Ginger Rogers, who died today at the age of 83. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Two brothers were accused today of conspiring with the Oklahoma City bombing suspect to build explosive devices in the state of Michigan. The charges relate to incidents that occurred between 1992 and this year but have no connection to the bomb which exploded in Oklahoma City last Wednesday. James and Terry Nichols are believed to be friends of suspect Timothy McVeigh and are being held as material witnesses. U.S. Attorney Saul Green spoke about the charges against James Nichols at a news conference in Milan, Michigan.

SAUL GREEN, U.S. Attorney: The charge was based upon the evidence that was found at the Nichols farm which demonstrated that explosive devices had been prepared is based on statements given by Nichols to the FBI because they corroborated that. And it is based on information that we have received from witnesses that would demonstrate what Nichols' intent was with regard to those devices.

MR. MAC NEIL: The crime suspect, Timothy McVeigh, is being held near Oklahoma City. He was arraigned Friday on charges related to the bombing. Reports say he's refused to answer questions about it. Today, the FBI released a revised sketch of McVeigh's alleged accomplice. He's still being referred to as John Doe No. 2. The sketch is based on new interviews with people who claim to have seen him with McVeigh before the bombing. In Oklahoma City today, the official death toll climbed to 88. A fire department official said 137 people are still considered missing. The search is expected to continue through this week. Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Senate today passed a resolution condemning the Oklahoma City bombing. It calls the bombing an abhorrent and cowardly act. It also expresses support for President Clinton and Attorney General's position that federal prosecutors seek the maximum penalty allowed by law, including the death penalty. The resolution passed unanimously 97 to nothing. Before the vote, Senators alluded to President Clinton's remarks yesterday that violent acts like the Oklahoma City bombing may be inspired by angry rhetoric.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: Words and ideas can and do inspire and uplift, but they can also mislead and delude. All of us who speak and act in the public arena have an obligation to bear that in mind, for every time we speak, in effect, we are making a choice about what kind of environment we promote. The privilege of serving our community carries with it the obligation not to damage that community.

SEN. DON NICKLES, [R] Oklahoma: Even before the missing have already been recovered, I see politicians and some pundits contemptibly jockeying for position, trying to blame the other side for the evil actions of a few individual criminals. The bombing in my state was not the work of the left or the right, of conservatives or liberals or Republicans or Democrats or even right wing extremists, as some people would say.

MS. FARNSWORTH: We'll have more about whether words provoke violence right after this News Summary.

MR. MAC NEIL: FBI officials say they have reason to believe the so-called unabomber was responsible for yesterday's death of a timber industry lobbyist. Gilbert Murray was killed when he opened a package delivered to the California Forestry Association office in Sacramento. Murray was the association's president. An FBI agent investigating the case said the forensic evidence strongly suggests the unabomber. The name has been used to describe a person who is believed to have carried out 15 bombings in the past 17 years. The bombs have now killed three people and injured 23.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The same troops that are believed to have committed a massacre at a Rwandan refugee camp over the weekend today cut off food and water to the last remaining people at the site. The move is seen as an effort to drive the refugees out of the camp and back to their homes. About 250,000 other refugees have already been forced out of that and other camps around the country. We have more in this report from Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News.

KEVIN DUNN, ITN: The Kibeio camp where thousands died on Saturday has been all but cleared of Hutu refugees. The ground is strewn with their abandoned belongings. Among them still are injured women and children in need of treatment. The camp is besieged by government soldiers because armed men remain inside, those the government says provoked the stampede.

BENEDICT GIAZER, United Nations: There's a very hard core inside the building with weapons and grenades, and they're trying to persuade the other people not to leave.

KEVIN DUNN: Thousands of refugees are being forcibly removed from camps across Southern Rwanda, and the United Nations is cooperating, a controversial role, but they say the aim is for the Hutus to return to their villages and rebuild communities, though many are too frightened to leave the crowded transit camps.

DOMINIC MacSORLEY, Concern: We now have six to seven thousand people that have been trucked in from Butari, and we have no space.

KEVIN DUNN: Conditions are no better than those they left behind. Displaced yet again within their own country, these refugees fear for their lives. The concern of international relief workers is that many may succumb to malnutrition and disease before they make it home.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The U.N.'s relief agency said today that at least nine of the refugees who returned to their villages had been killed and more than one thousand were imprisoned.

MR. MAC NEIL: In economic news today, the Conference Board reported consumer confident was at its highest level in nearly five years this month. Low inflation and modest unemployment are being credited with the increase. Actress Ginger Rogers died today at her home in California. The legendary star's 65 year career was highlighted by her numerous films with dance partner Fred Astaire. Ms. Rogers starred in 73 films, winning an Academy Award in 1940 for "Kitty Foil." She was 83 years old.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That concludes our summary of today's news. Now it's on to talk show anger, how the Contract With America is playing, a conversation about affirmative action, and remembering Ginger Rogers. FOCUS - THE CONTRACT BACK HOME

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, how the Contract With America is playing with the folks back home. Members of the House of Representatives will return to Washington next Monday, having spent their spring break sampling opinions in their districts. We begin a two-part look at how it went with this report by Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: For more than a century after the Civil War, Mississippi was known as yellow dog Democrat country. It was said that folks here would vote for a yellow dog before they'd vote for a Republican.

LUTHER MILLSAPS, Mississippi Republican Party: My state has been in a Democratic column for 117 years.

MS. WARNER: For more than half a century, Democrat Jamie Whitten represented Northeast Mississippi's First Congressional District in Washington.

LUTHER MILLSAPS: Jamie Whitten was in the office 1/4 of the life history of this country. The country's a little over 200 years. And he'd been there 53 years.

MS. WARNER: But when Whitten retired last year, voters here rebelled against the Democrats. Roger Wicker, a Republican state senator, won the congressional seat with a stunning 63 percent of the vote. Congressman Wicker's new colleagues in Washington elected him president of the Republican freshman class. He's been a loyal soldier in New Gingrich's revolutionary army, voting for every item in the Republican Contract With America except term limits.

REP. ROGER WICKER, [R] Mississippi: By forcing ourselves to balance the budget, we can begin downsizing the federal government. The choice is clear, and the American people know it.

MAN ON STREET: What brings you here?

REP. ROGER WICKER: Well, I'm just celebrating my 100th day in office.

MS. WARNER: But now the first 100 days are over, and Roger Wicker is back in his district to see how the Contract With America is playing with the folks at home. Rep. Wicker began this particular day of the congressional recess at the post office in the small town of Aberdeen. The congressman's day ended 12 hours later at a town meeting in Tupelo, the largest city in his district.

REP. ROGER WICKER: I want to have a conversation with you about what you think are the great issues facing our nation and get some of your ideas.

MS. WARNER: Wicker typifies the Republican surge sweeping the South today. He's a young articulate former Democrat tapping into the alienation a lot of southerners feel toward their former party. Luther Millsaps is the Republican chairman for Lee County.

LUTHER MILLSAPS: The Democratic Party left me; I didn't leave it. I'm sure you've heard that. But that's the truth. See, I don't believe in killing babies before they're born. I wouldn't have wanted a homosexual in the foxhole with me during World War II.

KENNETH MAYFIELD, Businessman: I attribute it to a mood in the country.

MS. WARNER: Kenneth Mayfield owns a successful furniture business in Tupelo. He's a Democrat, but he understands the Republican trend.

KENNETH MAYFIELD: The Democratic Party has now become associated with the black, the disadvantaged, the poor agenda, and if you are not black, and if you are not on welfare, and if you are not disadvantaged, you should be in the Republican Party.

MS. WARNER: Roger Wicker went to Congress to give those conservative sentiments a voice, but what he found on his return is that a lot of his constituents haven't been paying much attention to what the House Republicans have been doing.

REP. ROGER WICKER: I'm Roger Wicker, your new congressman?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Oh, is you?

REP. ROGER WICKER: Yeah. And I wanted to give this to you. This is a survey about issues that --

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Well, I'm going to read about it and think about it.

MS. WARNER: This town meeting at the Lee County Library, despite extensive advance publicity, was only half full.

REP. ROGER WICKER: You know, I don't think people wake up every morning worrying about the national debt. What most people are thinking about is putting groceries on the table for their children, keeping their job, or getting a better job, and providing a better future for their children and grandchildren. That's what they think about. And government is just a facilitator toward that end.

MS. WARNER: But those who have been paying attention tell him they're generally pleased so far, particularly when it comes to cutting government spending.

FRED ROBINSON: You've been doing well.

REP. ROGER WICKER: Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

FRED ROBINSON: I appreciate the job you're doing up there in Washington.

REP. ROGER WICKER: Thank you.

FRED ROBINSON: Just keep it up.

REP. ROGER WICKER: I'll try. I'll try.

MS. WARNER: Fred Robinson is a retired stockbroker and city alderman, a former Democrat who voted for Wicker. So what do you think they're doing well?

FRED ROBINSON: Oh, I agree with most everything they're doing, I really do, but the thing that they need to put more on instead of a tax cut is cut that deficit. Let's get that deficit down. If we don't, it's going to ruin us. It'll ruin us in the long run. That thing will eat us alive.

MS. WARNER: Sally Randolph works in an auto parts store in Aberdeen. One of the things that the Republicans are doing -- seem to believe in is sending all these programs back to the states like welfare and child nutrition, school lunches, and so on. Do you agree with that?

SALLY RANDOLPH: Yeah. I think it can probably be handled on a state level much better because each state is different. You know, in different areas of the country, like the South, it's probably different for the West, and I feel the state probably can handle it, is capable of handling it better maybe than Washington is.

MS. WARNER: There is some dissent, particularly among African- Americans, who make up about 20 percent of the voters in Wicker's district.

KENNETH MAYFIELD: I agree that there are some problems with some of the programs in our country, and I think they should be changed, but I don't think that poor people and the blacks and the disadvantaged should bear the brunt of that burden.

MS. WARNER: But for the most part, Wicker takes encouragement from his constituents about what he and his fellow Republicans have done so far.

REP. ROGER WICKER: I do think, though, there's a sense of optimism that we're going to be able to downsize the federal government and return more resources to the individual, more power to local government. And I think that optimism in itself is helpful.

MS. WARNER: Though many of Roger Wicker's constituents are glad to see conservatives taking charge in Washington, some also express a certain nervousness about what the Republican agenda may mean in the months ahead. Mississippi voters are conservative, yet their state, one of the poorest in the nation, has relied considerably on federal payments and projects in the past. For Congressman Wicker, that presents a dilemma. The Tennessee Valley Authority, created by President Franklin Roosevelt, still sells power at subsidized prices to Wicker's constituents. The Appalachian Regional Commission, created by President Kennedy, provides capital for many of the infrastructure improvements that have helped make Tupelo a magnet for light manufacturing firms. And federal agricultural subsidies help support the region's cotton and soybean farmers. But all of this spending, as well as most federal entitlement programs, will be jeopardized next month when the Republicans turn their attention to trying to balance the budget by the year 2002. Democratic Congressman Jamie Whitten always protected these programs against budget cutters in Washington. People here expect their new congressman to do the same, and Wicker knows it. He's already tangled with House Majority Leader Dick Armey over agricultural subsidies, and he vows to protect other federal spending as well.

REP. ROGER WICKER: If it's money to create a climate for job creation, that's a proper role for the federal government. And I'm willing to make that case with my Republican colleagues.

MS. WARNER: What if everybody, everybody in Congress has certain things that the federal government has done in their district they can argue helps create jobs, and if you all come in and protect those things, what happens to the plan to try to balance the budget?

REP. ROGER WICKER: I think we -- I think we will all have the same attitude about that, and that is that we're willing to take our cuts, but don't, don't eliminate the program.

MS. WARNER: Wicker is willing to slow the growth of costly entitlements, like Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits.

REP. ROGER WICKER: Mississippi has a great many counties where the number one source of income is an entitlement check, a transfer payment check. And to continue that as a future model for our state is totally unacceptable to me.

MS. WARNER: But some of the middle class beneficiaries of these programs aren't as enthusiastic about cutting them as they were about cutting welfare.

FRED ROBINSON: I wouldn't support cutting the veterans' pensions any. I've got 10 percent since I've been discharged, and after you've drawn it 20 years, they can't cut it. I don't think that you'd accomplish a whole lot in that field.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Ernestine Ware is a cook in the Monroe County Sheriff's Department in Aberdeen.

ERNESTINE WARE: I have a daughter that's on kidney dialysis, and she has been for 17 years, and had it not been for Medicare and just, you know, she would -- she couldn't have made it.

MS. WARNER: Some people are kind of scared about what's coming when it really gets to their lives.

REP. ROGER WICKER: Well, change sometimes is troublesome. Sometimes it'sfrightening, and, and quite frankly, the opposition sometimes plays on those fears, unfairly I think.

MS. WARNER: Those fears are something that no freshman congressman, not even a committed southern conservative like Roger Wicker, can afford to ignore.

MR. MAC NEIL: Tomorrow night, Kwame Holman will report on the reaction to the contract in a Texas district represented by Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee. FOCUS - ANGRY VOICES

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, is talk radio hate radio? In the wake of the tragedy in Oklahoma, President Clinton raised the issue of irresponsible use of the public airwaves yesterday in a speech in Minneapolis. That remark provoked angry responses from talk show hosts across the country today, and we'll hear from some of them in a moment. But first here's part of what the President said.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words that violence is acceptable. You ought to see -- I'm sure you are now seeing reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today. Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences and that freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility on the part of the American people. If we are to have freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, and yes, the freedom to bear arms, we must have responsibility as well.

MR. MAC NEIL: Today the Media Research Center, a conservative group that monitors the media, offered to donate $100,000 to President Clinton's favorite charity if he could name one national radio talk show host advocating terrorism. In Washington, G. Gordon Liddy, convicted Watergate conspirator, now a syndicated call-in radio host, held a press conference during his program today to react to the President's remarks.

G. GORDON LIDDY, Talk Show Host: And I do not stoke the flames of intolerance. If you have ever listened to my program, you will know that there are people who from time to time have been so foolish as to send me a fax or to get on the air and to attack black people because they're black or Jews because they're Jews or something like that, and I will make mincemeat out of them promptly.

REPORTER: Sir, do you think it's a good idea for all sides in this particular debate to tone down the rhetoric under the circumstances?

G. GORDON LIDDY: Rhetoric means persuasive speech. It is perfectly within the purview of President Clinton's job description to use persuasive speech to get people to vote for him or to do anything else that he thinks would be to the advantage of the country. It is perfectly within the job description of a talk show host to use persuasive speech to try to get something corrected.

MR. MAC NEIL: We join the debate now with our own panel of talk show -- radio talk show hosts. Gene Burns has a program in San Francisco. He is also president of the National Association of Talk Radio Show Hosts. David Gold hosts a program in Dallas. We're hoping to be joined in a moment by Roger Hedgecock, who has a program in San Diego. Diane Rehm hosts a National Public Radio program in Washington, D.C. Larry Bensky has a program on the Pacific Radio Network. Christopher Lydon has a program in Boston. Gene Burns in San Francisco, do you think the President's right in his attack or wrong?

GENE BURNS, Talk Radio Host: [San Francisco] Well, I think he's wrong. I wish the President would be specific. If he would be specific about who the hate mongers are and what they said and when they said it, we'd be happy to respond to that and to discuss it with the President and, indeed, would be very concerned about someone who is peddling hate. I don't know anyone in the talk radio business doing that. The President has done this before. If he would give us the specifics, we'd be happy to discuss them. Until then, he is indulging in gross generalizations, and that does not serve the interests of either free speech or this debate.

MR. MAC NEIL: Larry Bensky, who's there beside you, of Pacifica, do you think there are people who, as the President says, are promoting hate -- promoting paranoia and hate?

LARRY BENSKY, Pacifica Radio: [San Francisco] Oh, there's no question about it, Robin. All you have to do is look at some of the things -- for example, that G. Gordon Liddy has said. I think that $100,00 check could be cut right now and sent out. G. Gordon Liddy last week, according to a transcript interview in the "Dallas Morning News" said that, for example, if the Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms people have come after you, and if they shoot and try to kill you, shoot back, save your life, that's obvious; call the members of the militia on your cellular phone to come and protect you. The Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms people are officials of the federal government who have a job to do. Mr. Liddy also described for his listeners how to construct a bomb. This is after the Oklahoma City tragedy. He described for his listeners how to construct a bomb using ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, and dynamite, and then he said, that would do enormous work, the work would be to either take out a wall of a quarry or take out a building. Now, come on, what are we talking about here? That is not persuasive speech. That's an invitation to chaos.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gene Burns.

MR. BURNS: Well, I think Liddy, who happens to be a bit of an expert, given his own rather checkered past in this matter of demolition and those kinds of activities, may well be talking about how you build a bomb, it's interesting to some people, that's how a bomb gets built. I don't recall from this coverage that he told anyone to build a specific bomb and go put it in a specific place and kill somebody specifically. See, we're -- what we need to discuss here is: What are the limitations on free speech? The Supreme Court says you can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless there's a fire. Are we at a point in our society where if someone yells fire in a crowded theater in which there's a fire and a panic ensues, we'll hold them responsible for whatever happens as a result of the panic? What exactly are the parameters of reasonable speech? That we need to be discussing, but we have to talk about specifics, and the President has not provided us with specifics.

MR. MAC NEIL: David Gold in Dallas, how do you view the President's charge to radio talk show hosts?

DAVID GOLD, Talk Radio Host: [Dallas] Well, he's got a long history of this. This is not the first time he's used talk radio as -- to beat that drum that's providing hate. He's used the term and so has his wife, incidentally, of comparing talk show hosts with hateful speech and constantly getting into this business that we are dividing America, and the key factor here is that 70 percent of talk show listeners are conservatives. Now, I find it interesting that the gentleman from Pacifica Radio would condemn the kind of thing that G. Gordon Liddy did, because I've been doing this 20 years now, and I can tell you when the left controlled this during the anti-war days, they were coming up on talk radio with the same kind of rhetoric and preaching the same kind of hate for the government and extolling the virtues of violence against the government that led to bombings of ROTC buildings, that led to Kent State, that led to bombings of a building at the University of Wisconsin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So these folks really have a long history of this. And if somehow right wing talk show radio hosts today -- and I reject that term -- are responsible for Oklahoma City, were these people responsible for the violence on campuses during the anti-war days?

MR. MAC NEIL: Larry Bensky?

MR. BENSKY: Do you recall a time when the so-called left wing people in the United States controlled 70 percent of the talk shows in the United States or even 7 percent in the 1960's? I've been around 25 years. I remember none of that. I remember some inflammatory statements from people who were involved in those meetings. I don't remember anybody on national radio or even local radio who could be called even a mild progressive in those years who was identified with the anti-war movement.

MR. BURNS: Well, they did it right here. Oh, come on, Larry.

MR. BENSKY: Who was it?

MR. BURNS: Were you paying attention? I don't remember the guy's name, but he was on the metromedia station, KNEW, right here in Oakland. He repeatedly militated against the war, constantly militated against the war, which was absolutely his right, and we heard in those days the dominant voice on radio, and we also heard from people like Lyndon Johnson that they had to be silenced because they were hate mongers. The dominant voice was saying Vietnam was wrong, get us out of Vietnam. Now, surely you remember that that dominated our discussions, and most of the hosts I'm aware of were taking the position that America was wrong.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gentlemen, let's bring this back to the present day, and Diane Rehm, do you think that the President has a point in suggesting, however obliquely, that the mood created by current talk radio is, is in any way connected with the Oklahoma bombing?

DIANE REHM, Talk Radio Host: [Charlottesville] Robin, I have to say that I really do. I think the President is on point, and I think there are probably a lot of Americans who agree with him and are relieved that the President has spoken out. I have the feeling that many of your viewers don't know, for example, that in addition to talking about targeting BATF agents and shooting above the jackets because many of these agents are wearing flak jackets to protect themselves, Gordon Liddy was talking about aiming for the head. In addition to that, he talked about using figures of President and Mrs. Clinton for target practice. Now, words have power. Words are not innocent. Words do not not carry a message. And in this case the message, I'm afraid, tends to be one of action and power and go out there and take that action now. Talk show hosts on all sides can claim that there is no connection. I think that that really begs the question, because I think that the rhetoric of hate has risen extensively in the 20 years that I've been doing talk radio. And I must say I find it pretty appalling.

MR. MAC NEIL: David Gold, do you want to react to that?

MR. GOLD: Oh, I think that's ridiculous. I've been doing this 20 years also. I was there. Was the media and their beating of Ronald Reagan responsible for John Hinckley? Should Jody Foster stop acting because John Hinckley did what he did? Was the shooting up of the Congress by Puerto Rican nationalists the responsibility of talk radio? No. Look, this is political discourse. This is like the Redskins and the Cowboys. The liberals, of course, are the Washington Redskins. The Cowboys are the conservatives, and we play on the same playing field. These people that blow up buildings want to bomb the stadium. They're anarchists They don't -- they're not part of the discourse. Liddy's in the stadium. He plays between the lines. These people in Oklahoma City that committed this heinous act to be tarred and feathered with a broad brush of being part of this movement of conservative talk show hosts in this country is an insult and intellectually dishonest, and it's also not only an insult to me and to other of my talk show brethren but to the people who listen, who people like Diane Rehm act like are robots who listen to us and then go act it out. That's absurd.

MR. MAC NEIL: Christopher Lydon in Boston, you're listening to this. Do you think what they're talking about is simply political discourse, or goes beyond that?

CHRISTOPHER LYDON, Talk Radio Host: [Boston] I don't -- it's not in the American tradition, Robin, to make these long leaps between words and somebody else's action. There's no -- there's nothing like incitement for this bombing here on the radio or anywhere else. What I see the President doing, I'm sorry to say, is sort of applying for the Spiro T. Agnew school of political media criticism. It's a very unbecoming thing. He has taken his lumps from talk radio -- no question about it -- but a lot of the venom on talk radio is a response to the enormously kind treatment he had coming up in '92 from the print press, especially the news magazines, daily press, the big newspapers. This is all I find very opportunistic on his part. The White House is no place for media criticism. He should just get out of the game entirely. There's nothing remotely like incitement to this bombing on the talk radio or anyplace else. Maybe we're doing something wrong in our program, but we don't get hate talk. We have a wide open, very robust, enormously enjoyable, very popular two-hour conversation every day. We just don't get it. And if he thinks talk radio is bad, if he can't take that, he should see short wave. He should listen -- check into the Internet. We just -- I don't like this playing around with the idea that we should sit on speech. It's, it's -- it's a very bad mood he's in. I hope it passes.

MR. MAC NEIL: We've been joined now by Roger Hedgecock from San Diego. I don't know whether you've heard the program up to now. Have you, Roger?

ROGER HEDGECOCK, Talk Radio Host: [San Diego] Yes, I have, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, where do you come down on where the President -- whether it's appropriate what the President said yesterday and the day before about talk radio fomenting hate and, in his words, promoting paranoia?

MR. HEDGECOCK: Well, out here in San Diego, we think this is just an outrageous attempt by the President to silence critics, to tar with this broad brush, as one of the others said. We're not out here fomenting hate. We're out here empowering our listeners to get involved, to share opinions, to make a difference, to do all the things I thought this President was in favor of. We are, in effect, the grassroots medium, driven by popular demand. And, sure, there are some angry people out there. They're angry because they have a right to be angry at some of the things this government does, but does that mean that they're out there bombing? No, of course not. And I agree with this notion that bombers are in a completely separate category of human endeavor from those that I see every day and talk with every day in the community forum I do.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, let me ask you this. You mentioned anger at the government. There are obviously thousands of Americans who believe that the federal government today is an enemy. I mean, we read that repeatedly from those who are members or not members of militia groups or paramilitary groups. Can you attack government generally? Can you attack the federal government without -- to use the President's words -- promoting paranoia among certain people?

MR. HEDGECOCK: Well, certainly, and that's what the Constitution is all about. That's what the last election was all about, a peaceful revolution, a change of priorities, the change, in fact, that President Clinton, himself, promised us back in 1992. The voters were able to do in November of '94. In other words, we're playing within the Democratic rules here, the Democratic rules of participation, sharing opinion, and making change. That's what this talk radio phenomena is really all about -- the first part of the media where the average person can be empowered and can make change.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's go back to Larry Bensky in San Francisco. Is it playing within the rules, the Democratic rules, this constant attack on government and the idea that the federal government is the enemy?

MR. BENSKY: Look, Robin, talk radio is an entertainment medium. It is set up to be commercially successful on AM radio by getting the maximum number of listeners. It plays to the lowest common denominators, in many cases a fear of anxiety and anger. It doesn't spread information. It spreads paranoia -- in many cases, not all cases -- but these are generalizations that I think will apply along -- a lot of the people who have been stirring up and encouraging people in Colorado, for example, to join militias and having one-sided guests, screen telephone calls so that people who disagree are not allowed on the air. All of these devices, a complete reliance upon rumor, an ugly mess, and I think President Clinton has been way late in responding to this. He should have been outraged in responding to this before -- the kind of nonsense about his wife, rumors about Vincent Foster's death -- all this garbage brought out about so-called scandals, of Whitewater, which were about a tenth or a hundredth as interesting as the campaign finance scandal, for example, of Newt Gingrich, all this type of stuff has been allowed to slide by, but President Clinton is finally responding, and I think it's a positive thing and may well bode good for him and his party.

MR. MAC NEIL: Excuse me to interrupt. I just want to be clear. Are you saying that in order to get a maximum audience some talk show hosts are actively and consciously promoting you said paranoia and anger and hatred?

MR. BENSKY: No question about it.

MR. BURNS: Well, I have a serious question, I have a very serious question about it. First of all, I'd like to see Larry's credentials to make such an assumption. Second --

MR. GOLD: Yeah. Let him name names.

MR. BURNS: I'd like to see the research which he's done to poll the audience to find out if, in fact, there are any data behind this. Listen, we've heard one offender's name on this discussion tonight, G. Gordon Liddy. I've heard not another name of another talk show host in or out of our association anywhere in the country who has transgressed according to the President's generalizations, backed up now by Larry's generalizations. Let's talk about whether people have a right to be angry. That's reasonable discussion. Let's talk about what Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence.

MS. REHM: Certainly.

MR. BURNS: Let's do all of that.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Diane Rehm.

MS. REHM: People do, in fact, have a right to be angry and a responsibility to be angry, but at the same time, I think talk show hosts have a responsibility not to foment the kind of hostility and anger toward government that seems to be -- you asked for another perpetrator -- I think Rush Limbaugh is the perfect example of someone who talks about how awful government is. And --

MR. BURNS: What's wrong with that?

MR. GOLD: What's wrong with that?

MR. BURNS: What's wrong with that?

MR. HEDGECOCK: What in the world is wrong with that?

MS. REHM: Look, I think that it's one thing to talk about policies which need changing and to talk about them in a reasonable, rational fashion. I think on some of the talk radio programs it's gone far beyond that, and the goal is the bottom line and more listeners.

MR. MAC NEIL: David Gold.

MS. REHM: And that's what people are after.

MR. MAC NEIL: David Gold.

MR. GOLD: What's happening here is that we are seeing this debate line up with rumor and innuendo and a broad brush again by our liberals here, Bensky and Rehm, because they're getting beaten like a drum out there in terms of the ratings and in terms of the popularity. Pacifica Radio is a speck on -- in terms of the ratings because people don't want to hear it. The fact remains --

MS. REHM: I assure you public radio is not a speck.

MR. GOLD: -- that I really -- I really --

MR. BENSKY: Are you saying you'd like to found a Pacifica station in your community, sir?

MR. GOLD: Hold on a second, it's my turn, and I really resent this business about us fomenting things we don't believe in and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

MS. REHM: Oh, I didn't say you didn't believe in them at all.

MR. GOLD: I do not think my listeners appreciate that kind of thing either, and let me ask -- let me tell you one thing that could solve a lot of this. If a lot more Democrats and liberals would be able to -- when we offer them the opportunity -- come on our show, we do a show with the Democratic National Committee every Friday, we call Democrats in Congress who constantly refuse to come on the show, we offer them every opportunity. Instead of seeing us as the enemy, instead of Hillary Clinton looking for an antidote to Rush Limbaugh and engage us in conversation, Robin, --

MS. REHM: Why should she give you --

MR. GOLD: -- they would do far better than they can currently do. And let me tell you something else.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Hold on a minute everybody. Excuse me a moment. Back to Diane Rehm, then Christopher Lydon, then Roger Hedgecock. Diane.

MS. REHM: Well, it seems to me that you're saying why don't all these Democrats simply come on to our programs and say what they have to say? I think that that is the worst format possible because what you're clearly trying to do is entangle with them, rather than truly give them an opportunity, a forum to say what they have to say. I think that the --

MR. MAC NEIL: Christopher Lydon.

MS. REHM: -- best way to conduct a talk show is to bring a lot of different perspectives to the table --

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay.

MS. REHM: -- and let listeners make up their own minds.

MR. MAC NEIL: Christopher Lydon.

MR. LYDON: Robin, President Clinton should lighten up a little, back off. He should remember also that he was rescued in his 1992 campaign on the Don Imus show in New York. He got roughed up, teased, but he got adopted by Don Imus, and everybody said that was what made him, got him back on the track in the New York primary. He'll take some lumps. There will be ups and downs. He should not be in the press criticism business. This is not his affair. There's nothing extreme.

MS. REHM: If he doesn't do it, who will?

MR. LYDON: I think of myself as a liberal, but I, I think he has no business whatever in this discussion.

MR. MAC NEIL: Roger Hedgecock.

MR. HEDGECOCK: Well, Robin, I don't think that the President ought to kill the messenger here. If you look nationwide, the people who are listening and participating in talk radio are the rock rib people who are voting, some Democrat, mostly Republican, some Perot people. But look, they're getting involved in the democratic process, which is what I thought liberals wanted in the first place. You know, some of these people probably didn't blame rappers for the LA rioters and so forth. Let's not kill the messenger here. These people who are talk show hosts like me are simply opening up the microphones to a whole bunch of opinions that have never been heard before.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me ask you this, because this was a specific charge of the President's yesterday, that talk radio may leave the impression that violence is acceptable. Do you hear that on your own program?

MR. HEDGECOCK: Sure don't.

MR. MAC NEIL: What is your response to that?

MR. HEDGECOCK: No, sure don't hear any of that on the program. In fact, since the bombing last Wednesday, there's been uniform denouncing of the people who did this, outpouring. We raised $20,000 one afternoon to help with the American Red Cross relief, mostly from conservative people here in San Diego. We have done everything we can in an outpouring of prayer and aid to help those people. There isn't a single voice I've heard either justifying or supporting this thing in any way at all, and that's what I resent the most about the President's attack. It's so personal and so outrageous.

MR. MAC NEIL: Larry Bensky, what about the President's charge that leaves the impression that violence is acceptable, the mood it's created on many talk radio shows?

MR. BENSKY: You can't blame talk radio for violence in the United States. Violence in the words of good old H. Rap Brown is as American as cherry pie. It goes back a long time, so does gun ownership, so does divisiveness, and so does bitter speech. I think it's disingenuous to blame talk radio for the rise of this in the United States. Can talk radio exacerbate things rather than shedding light and trying to bring some sort of community together? Of course, it can, and it does, and it's being used for that.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gene Burns.

MR. BURNS: Well, let's not be so coy, shall we? There are times when violence is acceptable. If someone wants to kill me, I want to kill that person first because I want to live. That's violent. I hope it never happens to me, but if it does, I hope to be ready. What is this nonsense that violence is never acceptable? Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence tells people they have a right to overthrow the government if they think it no longer serves their interest. Have we closed that chapter entirely? Let's not be coy. Let's be honest. Let's not talk about Red Cross drives. Let's talk about the issues, as we do every day. Of course, there are times when violence is acceptable, not forlight and transient reasons, as Jefferson says, but let's not be coy about that.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gentlemen and Diane Rehm, I thank you all very much for joining us. Thank you. SERIES - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, Charlayne Hunter-Gault continues her series of conversations on rethinking affirmative action. President Clinton has called for a complete review of the government's affirmative action policies, amid a growing, often contentious public debate. Tonight, Charlayne talks with Abigail Thernstrom, a fellow -- a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and adjunct professor at Boston University's School of Education.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Abigail Thernstrom, thank you for joining us.

ABIGAIL THERNSTROM, Political Scientist: Thank you for having me, Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you believe affirmative action should be continued?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, I think it -- I think race-based remedies are appropriate when you are trying to bust open the system. And that was the initial -- the initial purpose of affirmative action. And I think that it did do some good in busting open the system. I think we're way beyond that now, and race-based remedies, I think, at this point are widening the racial divide. They're not bringing us closer together.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So that you weren't opposed to affirmative action in the first instance, just that you feel it's an idea whose time has come and gone?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: I was always opposed to racial sorting. I was always opposed to double standards. I was always opposed to -- at the point to which, for instance, admission to let's say a law school becomes a two-track process, with really very different standards for blacks and whites or blacks and Hispanics on the one hand and whites and Asians on the other. I'm opposed to that. I am not -- I was never opposed to affirmative action, again, in the sense of aggressive recruitment. I was -- and I was never opposed to it again in the sense of remedies for specific proven wrongs in a court of law.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But the proponents of affirmative action would say that the vast majority of the programs don't apply a double standard. I mean, where is your evidence that this is an egregious case?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, we've gotten some data, for instance, with respect to admission in the University of Texas Law School. We do have University of California at Berkeley data. Where we can get the data, it looks as if the use of double standards is very, very widespread. And then we've got an awful lot of anecdotal information, and I don't much like anecdotal information either, but one of the -- one of the whole problems with the affirmative action debate is that proponents haven't been willing to say, yeah, these are the standards we use, and they do differ, and they differ and this is the degree to which they differ, so that when the question, for instance, was raised with Georgetown Law School a few years ago, and the dean basically denied that that was going on, well, you know, what she should have done was say, here are the facts, folks, and I believe in what we're doing, but let us put the facts on the table, and let's discuss them. And there's much too little of that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When I've talked to college administrators and college presidents who have used affirmative action and are in favor of it, they say that they're not applying a double standard, that they are expanding the criteria and that there's always been some kind of preference used and that was what resulted in the large pool of white men for many generations.

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, obviously, test scores aren't -- shouldn't be alone predicting success in college. When you get to professional schools, it becomes a little more complicated, but, look, we get hints of, of the problems when with -- admission to colleges when, for instance, the new president of Stanford University announces that the grade inflation has really been unacceptable and he really wants to kind of tighten up and return to, you know, so that every Stanford student doesn't get, you know, at worst a B+ in a course. And you have a protest from the black students. Now, that to me is a cry of pain, because they're saying, we're not sure we can make it, and they are saying, we, we have to be admitted under different standards, we are feeling very academically insecure, and you know, I think that stuff is very poisonous. But we do know that there's a huge racial gap in levels of educational attainment, and so inevitably you are going to be taking black and Hispanic kids into college who just aren't as prepared as the white and Asian kids, and I think there's only one solution to that, and that is to do something about the K through 12 education which is not beyond us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said several times that you thought that the discussion -- that the point at which we are now in affirmative action is a very -- is leading to very poisonous relations.

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Yeah.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is that?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, because I think the only way to have real equality in this society is to treat people as individuals, and, you know, for everybody to be categorizing people and to be drawing conclusions about who they are on the basis of skin color, I mean, I'm a very old-fashioned, you know, it should be the content of your character. I just -- I haven't moved off that position.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Those who would disagree with you, including some we will have in this series, argue that black people were discriminated against not as individuals but as a race of people, that the discrimination was racial --

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Of course.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: -- and that the courts have affirmed taking race into account in fashioning remedies for 200 years of legal discrimination. Are you saying that's just wrong?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, I'm saying two things: One, I don't think it's ever possible to make up for the past. I think, you know -- I mean, nobody should be arguing about what that past was like, and there should be consensus on the wrongs of the past. But I don't think it's possible to make up for them. I think the only thing that we can do is to go on. Then the other thing is, it is different to have a case in which you're into court with a lawsuit in which you have -- I mean, Denny's for instance, you know, the record of Denny's --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The fast food chain.

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: The fast food chain, they -- you know, they would see a group of blacks heading towards the front door, they'd put up a closed sign. They were seating people in a discriminatory way, et cetera. I do not have any problem with aggressive action when there have been proven wrongs against individuals. I have a lot of problem with simply looking at numbers and, and bringing cases on the basis of disparate impact.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that without affirmative action, even though the numbers are still low in some areas, they've improved in some areas -- as you say, the black middle class has gotten stronger, more women are employed than ever before.

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that would have happened without affirmative action backed up by legal sanctions?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, that's a question nobody can answer. I mean, there's just no way of answering it. What I do think is that we were seeing an enormous change in the status of blacks and in white racial attitudes before affirmative action kicked in in 1970, and that that process would have continued, and that is really the firm foundation on which future progress has to rest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But there's such a difference in terms of white perceptions and black perceptions. I mean, what do you think this debate is going to do on that kind of polarized thinking?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, I was just looking, in fact, at some polling data this morning which indicated that a majority of whites actually don't want to completely get rid of affirmative action. They want it changed. If you inject the word "preferences" into the debate, they're very opposed, but there's an awful lot of goodwill, I think, in white America.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think the impact of this debate about affirmative action is going to have on the issue and on race relations generally?

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, I think it's very hard to tell. I think it is important to talk about it, because it has been talked about behind closed doors for too long, and that's the worst of all possible words, is to have this stuff talked about behind closed doors.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why? Do you think the public doesn't understand it, people not confronting --

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Because you don't have conversations like we're having, you know, right now, and then there's a lot of festering resentment, and, you know, there are wrongs that are on both sides, so I -- I mean, I don't think it could go undebated forever. We need to get the facts out there, and we decide, you know, what do we believe in and then go with it. You know, we believe in doing this for the following reasons, and we think it's going to get the following results, and, you know, that would make -- it would be an honest day.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Abigail Thernstrom, thank you.

DR. ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Thank you so much for having me. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major story of this Tuesday, two brothers were charged with conspiring to make explosives in Michigan with the suspect arrested in the Oklahoma bombing. The death toll from that bombing rose to 88 as the search continued for survivors. FINALLY - MAGICAL MOVES

MR. MAC NEIL: And now a last look at the magical moves of Ginger Rogers, who died today at the age of 83. She acted in numerous roles during her long career but was most famous for her dancing partnership with Fred Astaire in 10 films. Former President Ronald Reagan often cited her as an example of someone who didn't get enough credit, saying, "She had to do everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in high heels." One of Rogers' and Astaire's most famous numbers was "Dancing Cheek to Cheek" in the 1935 movie "Top Hat."

[GINGER ROGERS AND FRED ASTAIRE DANCING]

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good night, Robin. That's the NewsHour for this evening. We'll be back tomorrow. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Good night.