The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in New York. After our summary of the news this Thursday, we focus first on family values and the government's role in upholding them, then a report on efforts to handle crime news more responsibly, and a conversation about the Clinton presidency with Urban League President Hugh Price. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: An Air Force F-15 pilot has been charged with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty in the shooting down of two U.S. helicopters over Iraq last April. Five crewmen aboard the AWACS radar plane monitoring the area at the time were also charged with dereliction of duty. Twenty-six people died in the attack, one of the military's deadliest friendly fire incidents ever. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Shalikashivili, said in July that the incident involved a shocking number of instances where individuals failed to do their jobs properly. The F-15 pilot, Lt. Col. Randy May, faces one count of negligent homicide for each of the twenty-six people killed. At the Pentagon today, a spokesman described the possible penalties.

COL. DOUGLAS KENNETT, Defense Department: For an officer convicted of negligent homicide, the maximum punishment is dismissal, forfeiture of all pays and allowances, and confinement for one year for each specification. For dereliction of duty through neglect or culpable inefficiency, the maximum punishment again is dismissal, forfeiture of 2/3 pay per month for three months, and confinement for up to three months for each specification.

MS. WARNER: The original whistleblower in the Tailhook scandal has reached a preliminary settlement with the Tailhook Association according to an attorney for the group. The lawyer gave no details of the agreement. It comes just days before trial was to begin in former Navy Lt. Paula Coughlin's lawsuit against the association of naval aviators. Coughlin sued the group for failing to provide adequate security during its 1991 convention in Las Vegas. More than 80 women claimed they were sexually assaulted by drunken male officers. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Pentagon announced today seven U.S. cargo ships were being activated for possible use in Haiti. They are designed to carry troops, heavy weapons, and other military cargo. Administration officials have said in recent days military action is imminent if Haiti's military leaders do not leave voluntarily. White House Press Sec. Dee Dee Myers had this to say at a briefing this afternoon.

DEE DEE MYERS, White House Spokeswoman: We are moving toward the end game in this policy. As you know, the President yesterday met with his top national security advisers and reviewed the status of planning. That planning is ongoing, and the President, obviously, will be very much involved in this, as he has been throughout. We'll continue to work with Congress. There will be -- congressional consultations will be ongoing. Certainly, when members come back next week it's something that we'll be discussing with them, something that we've discussed with them over the course of this administration. I will continue to work to build continued support for the President's policies.

MR. LEHRER: Cuban rafters continued to cross the Florida straits today. The Coast Guard picked up 436 by midday, 1,029 yesterday. Attorney General Reno again tried to discourage Cubans from making the trip. She said boat people taken to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay will not be allowed in the United States.

MS. WARNER: Delegates at the population conference in Cairo came up with another compromise on the abortion issue today. But the Vatican's delegation continued to express reservations about the wording. Some delegates again complained that the abortion debate was overshadowing the main work of the conference. We have more in this report by Robert Moore of Independent Television News.

ROBERT MOORE, ITN: It was intended to be a vital conference to work out how to control the world population explosion, different cultures and religions reaching a consensus of what some describe as the most pressing issue of our time. Instead, it has become an international wrangle over abortion, the Vatican delegation holding up agreement because it will not tolerate any wording that refers, however cautiously, to a woman's right to an abortion. It has left many people here dismayed.

FRANCES PERROW, Family Planning Activist: Where is the compassion that the Catholic Church proposes? Where is that compassion? All they're doing here is adding to the pile of misery for women who have suffered illegal abortion, for women who want access to contraceptive services, for women who want empowerment.

ROBERT MOORE: Into this controversy came Lady Chalker, head of the British delegation, herself losing patience and calling on the Vatican to put their crusade to one side.

LYNDA CHALKER, Chief British Delegate: This would surely be far better than seeking to undermine the majority view and creating a time wasting deadlock. Time is not only precious but very, very costly.

MS. WARNER: The conference is working on a plan to try to limit the growth of the world's population to about 1 1/2 billion more people in the next 20 years.

MR. LEHRER: Former Vice President Dan Quayle revisited family values in a speech today in San Francisco. He said his speech on the subject two years ago was right about the impact of fatherless children on American society.

DAN QUAYLE: Those youngsters and the children they will have are more, much more likely than their peers to engage in dysfunctional behavior, from crime to drugs, from the personal indulgence that ultimately imposes health care costs on the rest of society, to the personal dependence that imposes a whole range of public assistance costs to the taxpayers. So if we're not moved by compassion, which we should be, we should at least be moved by self-interest.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary.

MS. WARNER: Baseball players and owners met today in a last ditch effort to save the 1994 season. The Acting Baseball Commissioner has threatened to cancel the rest of the season if there is no settlement by tomorrow in the 28-day player walkout. The two sides are deadlocked over a management proposal to cap players' salaries. More than 350 games have been cancelled so far. K-Mart announced today it will close 110 stores by early next year. The country's second largest retailer will cut 6,000 jobs as part of the restructuring. Michigan-based K-Mart currently has more than 2300 stores nationwide.

MR. LEHRER: The people of Berlin said good-bye today to allied troops which have been in their cities since the end of World War II. German Chancellor Kohl welcomed British Prime Minister Major and President Mitterrand of France. The United States was represented by Sec. of State Christopher. There was a full day of ceremonies and then a torch light parade tonight near the Brandenburg gate.

MS. WARNER: That concludes our summary of the news. Now it's on to a discussion of family values, a report on crime coverage, and a conversation about the President. FOCUS - FEDERAL MATTERS?

MR. LEHRER: The family values debate part two is where we begin tonight. Part one was triggered by then Vice President Quayle two years ago during the 1992 presidential campaign. He was back for part two today in a speech before San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. Here's some of what he had to say.

DAN QUAYLE: What I was talking about then, and what I'm reiterating today is the importance of fathers. Fathers are especially important for youngsters who don't come into the world with a stock portfolio or a reserved place at an Ivy League university. Too often, fathers walk away from their children or, worse yet, they don't even know who their children are. Raising a child is not just a mother's responsibility. It is a father's responsibility too. [applause] About 60 percent of children born in the 1990's will not spend their childhoods with their fathers. Illegitimacy seems to be a pathology that feeds upon itself, entrenching and expanding with each generation. And no wonder. If children grow up never knowing their father, they're bound to assume that fathers are irrelevant and that males are not accountable. The implicit message to young girls is that it is acceptable to have children without marriage. The message to boys is that they need not be responsible in their behavior and certainly need not be bothered by the consequences of their behavior. Although there are limits to what government or should do to foster family life, public officials have a duty to address this problem. And so I'd like to turn the tables, if you will, and to say this time Bill Clinton is right to talk about family values. He's the President, not I. He can lead a national discussion from the bully pulpit of the White House. And I would encourage his administration to think long and hard about fatherless children of America. Our poverty of values spares no group. The pop philosophy of the 60's, all truths are relative, has taken root, and it's bearing bitter fruit. The ills we sometimes attribute to welfare queens and deadbeat dads are actually manifestations of an ethical cancer that has metastasized throughout all levels of our society. No wonder, most Americans tell pollsters that this country is headed in the wrong direction. It's time for each profession and discipline to set its own house in order, and it's time for each of us to rethink our assumptions about our own lives, our own families, our own children. We need that kind of serious soul searching if we are ever to recreate the social order based upon the mutual assumption of integrity and good faith. We have to do that if our country is to survive as an open, orderly, and democratic society. Just as a long journey starts with a single step, so must this enormous enterprise of national renewal start with the essential step of restoring fatherhood.

MR. LEHRER: Now, four additional perspectives on this family values issues. William Galston is the deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic affairs. Angela Blackwell is the founder and president of the Urban Strategies Council, a public policy organization in Oakland, California. William Bennett is co- director of Empower America, a conservative grassroots political organization. He held top positions in both the Reagan and Bush administrations. Don Eberly is president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a policy research organization in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He worked in the Reagan administration and for the 1988 presidential campaign of Jack Kemp. Mr. Galston, do you agree with Dan Quayle that there's an ethical cancer spreading through all levels of our society?

MR. GALSTON: There's clearly a great deal of spiritual anxiety in this country. People are confused. Many of the traditional guideposts of our society seem to have been blown away in a storm of economic change and social change. To that extent, I do agree. But I disagree in a couple of respects. First of all, I think that there is at least as much ethical diversity as there is ethical relativism. I think what you have is a number of very strongly held moral points of view that are now contesting in this country. And that's not the same --

MR. LEHRER: You mean, that's not the same thing as not having any?

MR. GALSTON: Exactly. I think that people have very strongly held views, and that leads to a kind of confusion.

MR. LEHRER: So when he used the term "poverty of values" several times through this speech, even more times than we just saw it, you don't think there's a poverty of values, there's a clash of many values?

MR. GALSTON: There is a plethora of values, but let me say one other thing.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. GALSTON: I think that what the former Vice President is pointing to is the need, a need that President Clinton has talked about over and over again in his presidency, to reach for common ground across our differences. That is perhaps the single most important thing that we have to do to restore the strength of our public life today.

MR. LEHRER: Bill Bennett, is that possible? Are there some common ground values that -- on family -- on the particular issues --

MR. BENNETT: Sure.

MR. LEHRER: -- the Quayle issues, that we could all agree on, no matter what our politics, no matter what our religion?

MR. BENNETT: I think so. Not to be parochial here, but I wrote a book called The Book of Virtues.

MR. LEHRER: Which he plugged, by the way.

MR. BENNETT: He did, and very nice. Would he have plugged it if I were still running?

MR. LEHRER: I don't know.

MR. BENNETT: Anyway, one of the reasons I wrote this book is people when I was Secretary of Education said, well, whose values do you teach, and I said, I'm going to put together a book someday showing you what values to teach, illustrating what values to teach, and I think you can teach this to all Americans. And I would submit that book, and certainly not the only one, but that book is a book you can teach in an American public school to children of any background.

MR. LEHRER: To liberal Democrats?

MR. BENNETT: Of course, sure. To their children at least. You know, and unless you are a criminal or a sociopath, I think you will agree and associate with the values in that book. I disagree with Bill Galston. And Bill Galston is someone I often agree with. I think there -- the diversity of values is, I think, less significant than what Dan Quayle called the poverty of values. I mean, we have some real problems in this country when it comes to values. In some parts of America, and in different neighborhoods and in different social classes, we have a situation that is -- used to be remedied by in the 19th century sending missionaries We have become in some places the kind of society that civilized countries used to send missionaries to. If you look at some of the movies that are out, some of the TV shows that are out, the advertisements that are out, the behaviors of young people to each other, the behaviors of adults to young people, it is a very serious situation. And it's become very bad very quickly. The last twenty-five or thirty years have, I think, seen the undoing of part of America.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Blackwell, do you see it in those dire terms, or do you see it more Mr. Galston, that there's a conflict of values rather than a lack of values?

MS. BLACKWELL: Actually, I think that in the area of values, there's more common ground than there are differences. We all share common ground when it comes to values and our children. What we really need are broad public policies that value families, that value children. We have a lot of common ground when it comes to values, but what's missing is the ability of some people in this country to live consistent with their values, and that's where we need to pay attention.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Outline what you think briefly, what you think are the common value, the common ground values that exist on families that everybody could agree on.

MS. BLACKWELL: Parents want what's best for their children. They value education. They value hard work. They value families being able to stay together. People feel that if they work they ought to be able to support their children, and children shouldn't have to grow up in poverty. People feel that they ought to be able to work, and that if they work, they ought to be able to find safe places for their children where their developmental needs are being cared for. I think you will find that people with children share these values all across this country.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Eberly, do you agree, those are common values that she just outlined?

MR. EBERLY: To a large extent. I think a lot of the anxiety that people feel in the country today has to do with what Bill Galston talked about, which is that there is an enormous amount of disorder and discontinuity out there. We have globalization. We have economic change affecting everybody across society. There are huge structural changes that come with moving from industrial to information age that affects just about everybody today. And then in addition to that, you have a very serious degree of social regression. And it's in that category that we might have some disagreement as to how you would present it, how you would define it. But I am led to believe that if you have people on the right of center, Dan Quayle and Bill Bennett, and on the left of center Marian Wright Edelman and Jesse Jackson, if you listen to them, if you read their speeches, they're saying roughly the same. So that there is an enormous amount of common ground to be found here. Now the problem I think is when a lot of his discussion is immediately converted into the language of public policy. I think a lot of -

MR. LEHRER: Into the language of politics.

MR. EBERLY: Into the language of politics. I think a lot of the anxiety in this country has to do with the declining strength of the institutions of civil society which just -- it isn't just about power and politics and ideology. It's about the strength of the mediating sector of society, our families, our neighborhoods, our churches and charities and synagogues, and all the things that create the social web that reinforce morality, that reinforce character. These are not just distractions, and they're not just ideas that you can promote through a law in Washington. They have to be imbedded in the life of our community in America.

MR. LEHRER: Now that's what you were saying, is it not, Ms. Blackwell, that the institutions have to be there. If people get in trouble, whatever it is, they have to have some place to go, whether it's a family or a church or a school or whatever, is that correct?

MS. BLACKWELL: That's correct. And let me be very specific. Family values are important but families have to be able to provide for their children. So we need things like family leave. We need to preserve families by having resources for families to take care of their children. We need Head Start programs so that children are prepared when they start school but also the Head Start program involves parents in education at a very early age. We need to expand but also celebrate the expansion of the earned income tax credit that acknowledges that families that work ought not be poor. But there are areas where we have not acted as we should in order to value family. Those are in the areas of expanding child care, making sure that we are creating jobs, but also building community. Yes, children need mothers, need fathers, but they also need community. And we haven't really developed broad public policies about building that community connection that is so important for the healthy development of children.

MR. LEHRER: Bill Bennett, is it an either or situation?

MR. BENNETT: No, it's not an either or situation, but I think depending upon where you put your effort, you're going to see more or less results. I think Ms. Blackwell saying at first that she didn't think the emphasis was public policy, then proceeded to go into public policy. Look, some of these things may be helpful, some of these may not be, but we've got to face the fact that people were a whole lot poorer, a whole lot more people were a whole lot poorer thirty, forty, fifty sixty years ago, and we did not see the social disintegration that we see now. We did not see the family break-up we see now. We did not see the violence wesee now. The economic argument, the family leave, the job argument I think just doesn't go very, very far. There are some things we can do, things about which we might agree, but I think the phenomenon here is something different. And it would be a mistake, I think, to take this debate and make this add to the religion of our time, governmentalism, the belief that government is sufficient to the solution of these problems. Dan Quayle mentioned no fault divorce laws. Let's look at no fault divorce laws, he said. Now, I think that maybe is probably something we should look at, especially if children are involved. But what does that do to the disposition to divorce? You know, I mean, if people want to get divorced or think that marriage is not an institution to which you remain committed, then I'm not sure what changing those laws is going to do. I think --

MR. LEHRER: It could undermine a value while you're making things more convenient. Is that what you're saying?

MR. BENNETT: The law's a teacher, as the government is a teacher, but I think the springs of action are much more subtle and complex than simply passing laws. If people get into marriage situations and believe after six months, well, things aren't working out, we're not real happy so we'll get divorced, which affects all levels of society --

MR. LEHRER: Including the children, if there are any.

MR. BENNETT: Absolutely. But I mean, that's something we find at all socioeconomic levels. I'm not sure the government can do a whole lot about that. This is internal. I think the real, the real difference here is the spiritual axis of life, to use Solzhenytsin's phrase. If we believe we are moral and spiritual beings and believe we are suffering from a moral and spiritual deficit, we want to be very careful about going to Washington for a moral and spiritual infusion.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Galston, Mr. Quayle said today that -- he said essentially the same thing that Bill Bennett said, but he also said there is a role -- we just showed the clip -- there is a role for the President of the United States to use his bully pulpit and to speak, I guess, to some of the spiritual things that Bill Bennett is talking about. Does the President intend to do that, and why hasn't he done it more up till now?

MR. GALSTON: Not only does he intend to do it -- he's speaking before a major Baptist group tomorrow in New Orleans -- but he has done it consistently throughout his presidency. I would refer to two occasions in particular: First of all, his tremendous speech in Memphis last year where he, I think, outlined the spiritual crisis of our time and the need for a spiritual as well as governmental response as clearly as has any President or public leader in recent memory; and then a somewhat less well known occasion where he went to a junior high school in Washington, D.C. Kramer Junior High School, and engaged in an extraordinary public dialogue with young people about such things as avoiding premature sexual behavior, avoiding --

MR. LEHRER: We ran a clip of that on our program that night.

MR. GALSTON: -- avoiding out of wedlock teen births. This President has put his finger, I believe, on the heart of many of the most important family problems of our time. But having said that, let us beware of false choices. The issue is not the realm of culture and spirit versus government. Neither is fully the problem. Neither is fully the solution. They must work together. Let me give you just one -- I was going to say example but it's a little bit more philosophical than that. Law just doesn't coerce. Law sends a moral message as to what society thinks is right and wrong. And so when government enacts a law, it helps not only to shape society but also to form character. And I think that is terribly important as we think about public policies.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Eberly, in that regard specifically, one of the major themes of Mr. Quayle's speech today was the fatherless children. Fathers need to be held accountable. They're not only spiritually and not only from the bully pulpit but also with changes in laws and procedures exactly what Bill Galston is saying. Do you agree with that as a basic approach?

MR. EBERLY: I do. And I think fatherhood is not only the central concern of our time but the possibility of restoring a commitment to fatherhood as a cultural movement in this country is one of the most promising social movements.

MR. LEHRER: It's already underway?

MR. EBERLY: It's very well underway. In fact, Bill Galston is as good a friend of the fatherhood movement in America as Dan Quayle, I would hasten to point out, and actually one of the things I feel very strongly about is when it comes to those things which are really beyond government -- and I think fatherhood is a good illustration of that -- you can pass any law you want, any improved tax program you might have in mind, any concept to strengthen the family, reform the divorce laws, and I would maintain -- and even stronger today than I might have said three or four years ago -- that at the end of the day it is the cultural devaluation of fatherhood and the cultural devaluation of marriage. It is the cultural forces increasingly that are shaping the attitudes and, in turn, behaviors.

MR. LEHRER: Give me an example of how our culture devalues fatherhood.

MR. EBERLY: Well, for one, there's little emphasis coming from any institution of America, certainly not the cultural, the value shaping institutions, the entertainment and the media. We look at popular culture. There's very little encouragement for healthy, strong images of fatherhood. If you look at the municipal sector, if you look at the educational sector, if you look at the civic arena, even for that matter, the denominational arena, there is no script, if you will --

MR. LEHRER: I'm not sure what you mean, the denominational arena.

MR. EBERLY: It's really the honest to goodness, the case that churches have really, not really decided what they think about fatherhood. The general cultural message has been that fathers are somewhat superfluous. What is their role? There may be a source of a paycheck or child support enforcement. But there has been no concerted effort made to organize a message around the unique and irreplaceable role that fathers play in the nurturance of children. And particularly when it comes to issues -- and here again is the policy versus culture kind of argument coming back -- if you look at the debates that we have routinely now in Washington, on leading public policy problems like crime, a crime package can come and go with intense debate, extravagant claims and promises made, costly remedies offered, and of course, there's some merits in all those things. What community wouldn't want more cops or more caseworkers to deal with an overwhelmed system? But these debates now routinely come and go without our stopping and saying that you can get all the criminal statutes right, you can reform bureaucracy, you can improve enforcement, you can heavy up the justice system, and over the long haul crime is the price a culture pays for abandoning character. I think James Q. Wilson of UCLA has made it very clear as he's looked at the history of crime.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Blackwell, what do you think of that argument, and particularly as it relates to fathers? You heard what the Vice President said and what Bill Galston and now Mr. Eberly have said.

MS. BLACKWELL: Fathers are important, and we need for fathers to be responsible and take care of their children, but we also have to acknowledge that many fathers are doing that, and that many fathers would like to be able to do that but don't have the wherewithal. We also have to acknowledge that fathers who may not be paying child support are often visiting their children, bringing by groceries, and doing a host of things to show that they care about their children and want to be supportive. I want to come back to the very roles --

MR. LEHRER: Can I ask you one --

MS. BLACKWELL: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: -- question about it.

MS. BLACKWELL: Sure.

MR. LEHRER: In other words, you do not believe that there's a cultural problem about fatherhood? You think that there are programs and that there are outside things that can help solve the problem without dealing with a cultural -- in other words, the culture is not discouraging responsibility on the part of fathers?

MS. BLACKWELL: I want to agree with the colleagues on this panel who are fighting being placed in one box or another.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MS. BLACKWELL: All of these things are operating. We have issues that relate to values. We have issues that relate to personal responsibility, and then there are the issues that relate to what the broader society can do. I acknowledge that fathers need to take responsibility. There is no question that we would not have the poverty with children that we have now if more fathers were taking responsibility. But I also acknowledge that many fathers are not in a position to take responsibility

MR. LEHRER: Got you. Okay.

MS. BLACKWELL: That we can do something about through broad public policy, and we ought to be doing something about it.

MR. LEHRER: Can we do something about the other part of the equation, in your opinion?

MS. BLACKWELL: Yes. And I want to comment on the President of the United States talking about these issues of values and spirit and meaning. I think it is very appropriate for the country's leader to engage in this kind of dialogue. Not only is he the leader of the government, but he is the leader of the people and look to, both to set a model and to set a tone. And we need to set a tone in this country that talks about everybody's role, the individual role, the government role, the private sector role, and also the community's role. As we are doing that, we shouldn't act as if government doesn't have a very strong role to play because the President is most of all the leader of the government. And so I have been trying to lay out the kinds of things government can do.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MS. BLACKWELL: I've done that. I won't go through it again. But I don't suggest that individuals don't have responsibility. If we would all do our part, we would get where it is we seek to go.

MR. LEHRER: Did she say anything that President Clinton would disagree with, Mr. Galston?

MR. GALSTON: I don't think so. And let me pick up on one very important point that she did make, namely what government can do to create an environment within which parents and families can carry out the job that only they can do, because, after all, government doesn't raise children. Parents and families do. But I would say this. I would say this, that economic growth is a pro- family program. Creating jobs is good for fathers and mothers and families, and that's what this President has tried to do and has succeeded in doing.

MR. LEHRER: Now, you put the emphasis elsewhere, Mr. Bennett. You're not suggesting the government should wash its hands of all of these problems, are you?

MR. BENNETT: No. No. As Angela said, there are things for the individual to do. Let me give my piece now for what government should do. I'm delighted the President gave a speech to young boys saying sex is not a sport, and he came out against sexual profligacy. That's very good. He should do that often and as eloquently as he can. Second, I think they ought to mount a campaign against teenage pregnancy with the same kind of moral ardor that they've mounted a campaign against smoking and littering. If we saw that kind of campaign take place, we might be impressed with seriousness. Second, family friend policies, such as real reform in welfare; second, stop the marriage penalty. It makes economic sense for two singles to live together and not get married. And there's a host of other things to do that'll make a difference. The question is, I think, that public policy can do its part. The American people have to understand that it's finally their hearts and minds which will drive not only their own lives but the laws and policies in Washington.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Ms. Blackwell, gentlemen, thank you very much.

MS. WARNER: Still to come on the NewsHour, responsible journalism, and a conversation about the presidency. FOCUS - GOOD NEWS

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, crime and the media. Public outcry over the constant barrage of crime coverage in television newscasts has had an impact in several American cities. A number of local television stations are creating what they call family sensitive newscasts, trying to bring more perspective and less blood and gore to the reporting of violent crime. Tony Burden of public station KUHT in Houston reports.

CORRESPONDENT: Here in Houston, a Spring Branch man accused of killing his family tells his side of the story in court.

MR. BURDEN: Most Americans view the world through a window provided by the media. Today, that view is of a world that is increasingly beset by crime and violence.

CORRESPONDENT: That gunman was armed with an AK-47.

ANOTHER CORRESPONDENT: His ex-girlfriend accused him of hiring hitmen to kill her.

GERALDO RIVERA: A real life murder mystery unravels.

UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT: But is linked to a fringe group of racists known as "Hitler's Revenge."

MR. BURDEN: In the highly competitive daily scramble for ratings, the media, television news in particular, appear to have become obsessed with crime, violence, and the darker side of life in the city.

COPS ANNOUNCER: COPS is filmed on location with the men and women of law enforcement.

MR. BURDEN: The media's lurid preoccupation with crime is not confined to the news. There's been a dramatic rise in the number of reality television shows, as well as a proliferation of movies, books, and magazine articles based on actual crimes.

POLICEMAN: The dog's going to keep biting you until you get down.

ALAN HAMBURGER: Hello again, everyone. I'm Alan Hamburger live in the eyewitness newsroom. Here is what we're working on today for Live at Five. First of all --

MR. BURDEN: For decades, Houston's ABC station, KTRK, dominated the news ratings. The station's eyewitness news format had traditionally emphasized highly visual crime stories. News director Richard Longoria admits that there was a time when the guideline was "If it bleeds, it leads."

RICHARD LONGORIA, News Director, KTRK-TV: The last decade I think we did a lot of crime for the sake of crime and its sensational value. People have reacted against that.

MR. BURDEN: Like many news directors around the country, Longoria is beginning to tone down his station's crime reporting. He says audience research indicates viewers have had enough.

RICHARD LONGORIA: And I'm sure the research in other parts of the country may be paralleling what we're finding here in that people are saying, don't give us crime for the sake of crime; don't scare us for the sake of scaring us. We are more sensitive to body shots and grieving people and that it is an intrusion and that some people complain about that. They complain about the graphicness of some of the video that's shown. Consequently, we've cut back in how graphic the video actually can be.

MR. BURDEN: Similar sentiments are beginning to be voiced around the country. In Miami, several hotel chains have blocked the local Fox affiliate from their cable. The hotel said the station's fixation on crime and violence had tourists afraid to leave their rooms.

MAYOR BOB LANIER, Houston: Every night on the TV and on every day on the radio, it's awful, and here's another horrible crime, and they put that out.

MR. BURDEN: Houston Mayor Bob Lanier kept his campaign promise to make combating crime his top priority. In the past three years, the city's crime rate has dropped more than 30 percent, positive news that he feels is largely overlooked by the media preoccupied with titillating crime stories.

MAYOR BOB LANIER: We had 185,000 major crimes a year at the peak. Well, we're down at a rate under 140,000 now. And you say that's a lot, and it is, but that's still 400 a day? Well, any media outlet of 400 major crimes can pick out one that's particularly grizzly.

MR. BURDEN: The result has been steadily increasing public concern over crime and personal safety.

STEVEN KLINEBERG, Sociologist: It's been a really quite interesting and extraordinary phenomenon of the nationwide hysteria almost about crime.

MR. BURDEN: Steven Klineberg is a sociologist specializing in public opinion. For the past 13 years, he's been tracking shifts in sentiment among Houstonians.

STEVEN KLINEBERG: The early years of the early 80's it was traffic transportation ability. In the middle years, during the depths of the Houston recession, it was the economy, and in the 1990's, it's been crime, and a jump from last year to this year of 51 percent to 76 percent saying crime is the biggest problem. What is striking is a jump of about 20 percentage points from last year to this in the number saying that crime is the biggest problem, while all of the evidence we have indicates that crime is down this year from last year and down last year from the year before.

MR. BURDEN: Nationwide, the story is much the same. While FBI statistics show a drop in almost all categories of crime, public opinion polls indicate that Americans see crime as today's No. 1 problem. Sociologists say one explanation is that the nature of crime has changed. Today crime is more random, more violent, and more young people are involved. The public's fear of crime, regardless of whether the threat is real or only perceived, has a very definite economic and demographic effect on a city. Robert Stein conducts public opinion research for the 911 emergency services system.

ROBERT STEIN, Political Scientist: This particular city of Houston, it's mayor I think has defined the crime problem as important not solely becauseit deals with human tragedy and a loss of property but because it means the life and death of a city. If people perceive their community as unsafe, they will leave their city. And this is not white flight of the type we've seen in Northern and Midwestern cities. This is a flight of productive capital out of the city because they no longer feel that it's safe. And that's black, brown, and white.

MR. BURDEN: Mayor Lanier agrees that the media needs to be more mindful of the effect their coverage has on the coverage on the community and never misses an opportunity to take his message to publishers, editors, or news directors.

MAYOR BOB LANIER: First of all, I don't pretend to have an answer, for one thing. I would raise just some questions perhaps; one, just to think about it, and to think about what their impact is, and think about whether that impact is what they would like it to be, and think of it in the context of what they would like their city to be.

MR. BURDEN: The mayor has found one Houston television station on the same wavelength. Dave Goldberg, news director of KHOU, the CBS affiliate, has taken a new approach to covering crime.

DAVE GOLDBERG, News Director, KHOU-TV: Again, it's easier to report all the crime stories. I mean, it's -- you just don't see people reporting the other side. But the city is safer now than it's been in many years, and we don't balance it, and I think that's the real issue and the real problem in terms of reporting, at least in this city, there's not a lot of balance in terms of what's a reality of the crime that takes place versus the reality of what really is going on.

SPOKESPERSON: Burglar shot, a suspected burglar killed by a man who was sleeping in his business.

MR. BURDEN: In order to try and find that balance, Goldberg holds a meeting each morning with producers and editors. This discussion will decide what stories get what amount of time on the newscast, which, after commercials, sports, and weather, amounts to less than 16 minutes.

DAVE GOLDBERG: Anytime there's a crime story, we talk about it. We talk about the ramifications; we talk about the impact on the community; we talk about is this a pattern, just get deeper, I mean, go down deeper and deeper into the story so we can make more sense out of it, other than just reporting the shallow aspects, I've got good video and I've got the witness, and I've got the police officer telling me what went on. We try to make sense out of it, and make sense out of it for the viewer, so we can give the viewer some comfort somewhere.

REPORTER: Houston's auto theft rate is the fourth worst in the country, and this year, it could set a record.

SECOND REPORTER: But if you own a car, you can keep it from being stolen.

MR. BURDEN: Not only has this station tempered its crime coverage, but KHOU has taken a proactive position toward crime, launching its own anti-crime campaign.

REPORTER: Once a thief has access to your car, he may also have access to you. In the glove box, Williams found an insurance card giving the owner's home address. His advice: Keep papers such as this with you, not with the car.

DAVE GOLDBERG: I live in this community. Everybody in my newsroom lives in this community, and I think we have a responsibility to report it accurately, not what we think is going to get ratings, but report accurately and with some balance and fairness about what actually is going on. And if it means we lose ratings, I have to get up every morning and look in the mirror, and I have to be comfortable with it.

MR. BURDEN: But far from losing ratings, viewers have responded enthusiastically to KHOU's new approach. Ratings for the station's evening news have come from a distant third three years ago to No. 1 in the market today. But according to the latest ratings sweeps, stations that have adopted similar philosophies are enjoying similar success. In Minneapolis, Miami, and Portland, local stations that have adopted a more balanced approach in reporting crime have scored dramatic increases in their ratings. This trend toward what's being called family sensitive news is beginning to attract a growing audience, an audience that appears to be ready for a new and more positive agenda. CONVERSATION - THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY

MS. WARNER: Now, the fourth in our series of conversations on the presidency of Bill Clinton. Tonight, we hear from Hugh Price, the recently elected head of the National Urban League. A lawyer, he was formerly director of the Rockefeller Foundation's programs to increase minority opportunities. Before that, he was a member of the editorial board of the New York Times and was senior vice president here at public station WNET. I talked with him earlier this week.

MS. WARNER: Hugh Price, good evening. Thanks for being with us. How do you think Bill Clinton is doing as President?

HUGH PRICE: I think substantively he's doing quite well. A number of the initiatives that he brought to Washington and presented to Congress have been implemented. Politically, he's obviously having a rather tough time of it, but I think the substantive agenda is largely on track.

MS. WARNER: So if the substantive agenda is on track, why are his approval ratings as, as shaky and as low as they are?

HUGH PRICE: Well, I suspect there are a number of explanations for that. I think that he brought some baggage from Arkansas which has been very difficult to live down. I think the American people were wanting a sort of Simon Pure President, haven't quite gotten that, in their estimation. I think also a number of the issues that he's presented have been hot button issues for this country. The extension of health care has created some anxiety. The notion of gays in the military created a lot of trouble. The fight over gun control is a very difficult issue politically, and I think also there's some general insecurity in the country, and though the economy seems to be working its way back, I don't think people feel as though they've found the bottom and that the ground is secure underneath them. And I think also there's a lot of apprehension about crime and violence in this country and not a sense that Washington has yet done anything about it. I suspect that's part of the phenomenon.

MS. WARNER: What do you think the American people really expected him to be able to do when they sent him to Washington?

HUGH PRICE: I think some of the things that he has managed to do, and I think there are some other things that haven't yet been done. I think the American people were looking for the President to address the problems of the federal budget, and he has done that quite successfully. I think they were looking for an extension of health care, and that has not yet happened, but I think that it's on course to some extent. I think they wanted the federal government to begin to address crime, and I think there's been some headway there. But I think a number of the issues that touch people very closely, like violence, like the economic security, is that the administration hasn't quite gotten to those issues yet and in a way that I think people feel touched by. Those who are back and working are feeling more secure, but there are obviously millions of Americans still out of work and millions of Americans who are feeling very insecure still economically.

MS. WARNER: I mean, do you think the American public thought that their new President would turn all that around in 18 months?

HUGH PRICE: I think we've become very absolutist in our expectations in this country, and I think there's a great deal of hype in campaigns and a great deal of hype in the media about what is possible and what should be expected. And I think our expectations were a bit unrealistic. And the problems aren't going away, and it seems that no one in the public sector is addressing them to the satisfaction of the American people. I think the American people want to be talked to very straight about what is going on and what needs to be done. I think the President has been rather successful at that, but the problems are still there and are waiting a response from the public sector.

MS. WARNER: So when Republicans say that they think the problem is that people are hearing Bill Clinton but they just don't agree with what he wants or what he believes in, you would dispute that, you don't agree with that?

HUGH PRICE: Well, I think that people are hearing to some extent, but the pain is still being felt, and so it takes a while for actions in Washington to filter out to the local level. What I think perhaps has happened is that the President hasn't been able to invest as much time in talking directly to the American people in their own communities through the media that they read and watch on a regular basis. And if anything, I think that's been where one of the problems in the transmission of this message has occurred, too much reliance I think frankly on national media and the filtration through national media and not enough time spent out in communities, and I would hope that he would begin to get out and be able to do more of that.

MS. WARNER: Well, you've talked a couple of times now about the media. There have been a number -- a couple of reports or one report came out recently saying that the coverage of President Clinton in the national press is almost unbelievably negative. Do you think he's getting an unfair rap in the national press? Has he been treated unfairly?

HUGH PRICE: I think it's harsher than it should be. If you look at much of the coverage the day after the crime bill was passed, there was a good deal of yes this, but he still hasn't won health care. And many, many articles carried that kind of tone, and I do think that that's unfair. There's no question that some of these difficulties the White House and he have brought upon themselves. I mean, the handling of some of the legislative efforts and the anti-crime bill and the Racial Justice Act was not as artful as it could have been. There's obviously a good deal of partisanship going on, and we're approach midterm elections and the '96 elections, so, you know, there's going to be a lot of racket in the political system in the next couple of years.

MS. WARNER: Well, and, of course, another group he's having a very hard time from is the deep-seated opposition to him which has a lot of venom to it, I mean, on these talk shows and so on. Why do you think that is?

HUGH PRICE: It's a fascinating phenomena. I think a lot of it is competition with the proliferation of talk shows and the proliferation of media. Each has to talk -- outdo the other. There's less and less filtration of what actually goes on the airwaves. There's always venom in the country. The President has touched a number of hot button issues which have really upset people profoundly. I think also there a number of -- our dialogue is very absolutist these days. I like to listen to sports talk radio, and if you listen to sports talk radio, as I do here in New York City, the New York Yankees are not supposed to lose one game. And if they lose one game, we go into deep psychoanalysis of why that happens instead of just saying, we got beat, you know. We don't win them all. We got beat.

MS. WARNER: And how do we get to that point in this country?

HUGH PRICE: Well, I think we've got a lot of air to fill, frankly. And there's less -- because there's a lot of air to fill, there's less need to filter out stuff. And there's more competition to be outrageous and to define a different niche, and so I think that has allowed a lot of, you know, a lot of views and a lot of this venom to find its way to the air.

MS. WARNER: So are you saying that you think that venom is always out there in the country, I mean, if you have a strong political figure, but usually didn't get expression in the general airwaves but that now that's what's changed, rather than people feeling more antagonistic towards the President?

HUGH PRICE: Well, I can tell you as an African-American knows that venom is always out there. And I think that what we're seeing is that, you know, this is a huge country, lots of people, and controversial views, and the President has brought forward a number of issues that, as I mentioned, are hot button issues in this country. And he's also not one to engage in sugar coating or denial. And so when you bring forth tough issues and you try to engage the American people in that conversation, whether it's abortion or gay rights or whatever, that's going to get all those folks who feel vehemently about that riled up, and now because of the proliferation in the media, they have plenty of outlets for their anger.

MS. WARNER: Now, of course, Ronald Reagan also aroused strong feelings in people, but against his opponents he always had this core that passionately believed in him. Do you think Bill Clinton has that kind of a core, that kind of a counter weight?

HUGH PRICE: Well, you know, it's often said that liberals eat their young. I'm not sure that people who are, you know, sort of left of center or Democrats stand by their leadership to the extent that Republicans do. And I mean, Jimmy Carter had a very difficult time, and Bill Clinton is having a very difficult time in trying to find a stable, you know, consensus, a nucleus within the party to work with. And Democrats have a little bit of a history of that kind of a problem, Republicans less so.

MS. WARNER: And why do you think that is?

HUGH PRICE: I think that the spectrum of opinion and viewpoints is much broader, arguably on the Democratic side, from center, barely distinguishable, from right of center all the way out to very, very liberal. And I think there's more range there, arguably, and more discomfort with that range within the Democratic side of the equation and among Republicans.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you a minute about the sort of moral dimension or moral leadership dimension of the presidency, because most people will tell pollsters they think that's an important part of the President's job, to provide moral leadership. How do you think he's doing on that score?

HUGH PRICE: I think he's doing quite well. We came out of a period in the 80's of deep denial about what was going on in this country. We were in denial about the changes in the economy that affected people who had low skills. We were in denial about conditions in the cities. We were in denial about all sorts of issues in this country that we simply had to face. And I think President Clinton has brought those issues to the fore, has talked about them. I think he's a terrific educator in that regard, so I would give him very high marks on that point.

MS. WARNER: But you're still more talking about economic issues, rather than what one might call value issues.

HUGH PRICE: But I think the issues around crime and family and self-sufficiency, they're all of the piece. And I think he's been quite forthright. He gave a brilliant sermon at a church in Memphis about crime and family values, so I think he's been quite strong there.

MS. WARNER: There was a recent poll cited by Garry Wills, who was on this show earlier this week talking about this same subject in which 50 percent of Americans said they didn't really think that the President reflected their values. Why do you think half of Americans say that?

HUGH PRICE: It may be partially due to the fact that he received only 40 percent or so support. They don't see him as their President. They've never identified with him in the first place. I think, as I indicated earlier, there are some issues coming from Arkansas that don't seem to go away and that are deeply troubling to some Americans, and I think some of these issues, as I mentioned before, are simply hot button issues. And there are very deep splits in this country about some of these questions, and you're going to end up with some not insignificant portion of the population not with you on some of those, those questions. So --

MS. WARNER: We're talking about sort of both cultural and religious-based issues, such as abortion.

HUGH PRICE: Gun control questions and abortion questions and all of that, all of that, and those are issues around which there are deep passions. These are not issues for policy wonks. These are issues that drive deep into one's sense of, of who you are and what your values are. I think also there's a great deal of anxiety in the country, and he has by addressing that anxiety and getting us to begin to face it has unleashed it in many respects, so that I think, as I indicated before, many people are very insecure economically even though the economy is coming back. They don't know whether they'll have a better standard of living tomorrow than they had yesterday. They really don't know that and don't have confidence that they will. There's a great deal of crime not just in the inner cities but creeping into the suburbs. People are mystified by that. They don't know what to do. They're afraid. They know that we're not doing right by our children and that that's not just in the inner city, it's in suburbs as well. So there's a lot -- there's a profound sense that things are still not on an uptick, we're not taking care of our infrastructure, and I think there's a concern that things are slipping a bit.

MS. WARNER: Now a couple of times you've mentioned baggage you brought from Arkansas, and I assume you're talking about some of his personal problems. Talk to me a little bit about that, and what impact do you really think that has on the way Americans see him?

HUGH PRICE: Well, I think Americans would like to concentrate on the issues, and where we're headed as a nation, and I think the coverage of those kinds of issues detract. They create a sense that, you know, they don't like to see these kinds of issues swirling around in the White House. And I think it just creates a queasiness and level of distraction which is, is unfortunate from the perspective of voters and obviously, the media has covered those issues relentlessly, which is its right.

MS. WARNER: And do you think it affects the degree to which voters trust the President?

HUGH PRICE: Yes, I think so.

MS. WARNER: You do?

HUGH PRICE: Yes.

MS. WARNER: And so it spills over, you think, into this public - -

HUGH PRICE: I think it affects their comfort level with him. I think he can get over that. I think he's got to get out to the people and talk even more to them in their communities about what they really care about and how to deal with those concerns but it certainly has got to have an effect, and I think it does have an effect.

MS. WARNER: Now, other than -- you've a couple of times also said that he's got to get out and talk to people --

HUGH PRICE: Yeah.

MS. WARNER: -- but other than communicating better with them, what else, one, can he turn this around, or can he go back on an up swing here in the second half of his first term and legislatively and substantively, and what would it take for him to do that?

HUGH PRICE: Well, I think he can do the analogy or what's analogous to Muhammad Ali's strategies in the ring, which used to be the rope-a-dope. He took the best shots, then he came back out swinging in the late rounds. I don't know how much more it's going to be possible to do legislatively in the last two years of the term, but I certainly think that he can get out and talk to people, not just communicate, you know, I talk to you, but listen and engage. I think people really want to talk to their leadership about what's going on in their lives. They want interaction. They want a sense of understanding and listening. And so I think it's a serious investment in that, and I think that in those forums, he can also talk to them about what he's actually accomplished that's affecting them directly. It'll be very difficult, for example, for people to trace the prevention components in the crime bill down to the community school, expansion of community school programs in their communities. That's a long journey from Washington down to the local level. I think he has to help people understand that there's a direct connection between what he's been able to do in Washington and what's happening in their lives.

MS. WARNER: Do you think, though, that the American public will ever really believe in a President again?

HUGH PRICE: Yes, sure. Sure. I think they can believe in Bill Clinton again. I do think they believe in Bill Clinton to quite a degree. I think we would want them to believe much more but I think the American people are forgiving and also very focused on what their concerns are. And any public officials who address that I think people will believe in.

MS. WARNER: Well, on that optimistic notes, thanks, Hugh Price, for being with us.

HUGH PRICE: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin will be with us tomorrow night. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the main stories of this Thursday, an Air Force pilot has been charged with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty in the shootdown of two U.S. helicopters over Iraq last April. Five officers aboard an AWACS radar plane were also charged with dereliction of duty for their role in the incident. And White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers said the administration has reached the end game in its strategy to oust Haiti's military leaders. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Margaret. We'll see you tomorrow night with Doris Goodwin, Shields & Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.