The Emily Rooney Show

From WGBH in Boston this is the Emily Rooney show. It's Wednesday October 27 2010. I'm Emily Rooney. On today's show the newspapers called Bill toxic a poisonous kook. This guy's running for Congress. That's crazy. We've been bombarded with negative TV ads this campaign season. Who comes up with this stuff anyway we'll tell you. Plus the corruption trial of Boston city councilor Chuck Turner. The fireworks have centered around an alleged bribe that Turner took from an FBI informant. But it might be a lesser charge of lying to the FBI that sticks. Attorney and author Harvey Silver joins us. And from IRAs to ETF says no one makes financial acronyms as informative and. Cheney is our everything money the root. Cheryl Marshall she joins us. All that and more today on the Emily Rooney show. But first the news. From NPR News in Washington I'm Lakshmi saying Argentines are stunned after learning today that their former president Nestor Kirchner has

died. KURTZ And her husband of Argentina's current leader Cristina Fernandez had heart trouble. His personal doctor describes her death as sudden Kirschner and his wife were staying in the town of there where they were awaiting their turn to be counted in the nation's census. Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai is giving private security firms more time to leave the country. NPR's Jackie Northam reports the decision to order companies to disband by mid December. Had caused a rift in relations between Karzai and NATO's allies. Karzai's decision to extend the deadline for private security companies to disband comes after days of intense negotiations between Afghan cabinet members and senior officials from the U.S. and other nations operating here in Afghanistan. A statement from the presidential palace says that Karzai will establish a committee which will prepare a time table for each foreign security force to disband. The statement says the extension would be no more than two months or by mid-February. Many international aid and development

agencies in Afghanistan say they cannot operate without private security firms that they don't trust the local police or soldiers to protect the projects or employees. The presidential statement made clear that after mid-February that's who will be protecting the international development agencies. Jackie Northam NPR News Kabul. Families in northern Afghanistan are mourning a tragic turn of events at a wedding celebration in Gelug up the roof of a crowded mud brick house collapsed today. 65 people were killed. Police say nearly all real women and children are in the U.S. Federal aviation investigators are taking on safety at regional airlines during a two day Washington symposium that concludes today. NPR's Paul Brown reports the National Transportation Safety Board wants to know whether smaller regional airlines doing business under the brands of larger carriers are as safe as they should be. One crash prompting the symposium is that of last year's Continental Connection regional flight that went down near Buffalo New York killing 49 passengers and crew members.

The NTSB says the Colgan Air pilots flying under the continental banner made mistakes and there are questions about how well rested they were. The father of one woman killed says Continental is passing the buck on safety. The Federal Aviation Administration says all airlines must meet the same safety standards and airline industry officials tell The Symposium the accident rate is steadily declining. But the head of the Airline Pilots Association tells the group that major carriers put huge cost pressures on smaller regional airlines which he says can affect staffing training and salaries. Paul Brown NPR News Washington. U.S. stocks continue to slide Dow's down 113 points at eleven thousand fifty six. This is NPR. Another bump up in big ticket items the Commerce Department says orders for durable goods rose three point three percent last month. The best showing in months thanks to more demand for commercial aircraft. But disappointing results among businesses which spent

less on computers and other items. Analysts look to companies spending as a good indicator of how much businesses in general are investing in the U.S. economy. Arizona has carried out its first execution in three years. Arizona Public Radio's Gillian Ferris Kohl reports there was a last minute court battle over one of the drugs used in the lethal injection. Fifty year old Jeffrey Landrigan was executed shortly before midnight. His lawyers had staged a last minute argument that one of the drugs used in the lethal injection process had come from Great Britain and did not meet U.S. drug standards. They feared the foreign made drug sodium thiopental could cause Landrigan serious pain and suffering a violation of the US Constitution. However the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the execution Landrigan was sentenced to death in 1990 for the strangulation and stabbing death of Chester Dyer. The execution was the first in Arizona since 2007. For NPR News I'm Gillian Ferris Kohl in Flagstaff.

An Ohio woman convicted in a major corporate fraud case is back in federal custody after spending two years on the run. The FBI says Rebecca parrot was arrested in Mexico yesterday and is being turned over to U.S. authorities in early 2008 Parrott was convicted in the nearly two billion dollar fraud scheme involving a health care financing company after she fled Paris was sentenced in absentia to 25 years in prison. I'm Laxmi saying NPR News in Washington. Support for NPR comes from IBM working to help midsize businesses become the engines of a Smarter Planet. Learn more at IBM dot com slash engines. It's live and it's local. Coming up next two hours of local talk the Emily Rooney show and the callee Crossley Show. Only on WGBH. Good afternoon you're listening to the Emily Rooney show. Have you seen the one

with Deval Patrick's face morphed over the John Hancock Tower. Or how about the Jeff Perry strip search ad talking about a girl's panties. Or how about that ubiquitous keep digging Charlie ad negative political advertising has been around as well political advertising but this year it seems to be particularly chippy out there so why is that. Are the campaigns tapping into voter anger or is that third party political organization set off you know an advertising arms race. Got a few people here to help sort of all that out. Joining me here in the studio is Michael Goldman Democratic political consultant and Dr. Greg Payne a professor of communications at Emerson College and joining us by telephone FRAN KELLY of Arnold Worldwide. Welcome to all of you. Michael is it is it different this year. It is heavily in the stiff in the couple was not in terms of the substance of the ad which will go into in the compare and contrast versus negative etc. but it's different because I think. Advertisers and campaigns that beginning to discover

that the niche of television has made it more and more difficult to break through with the candidate when. When I started 40 years ago you had three channels. You put your advertising on you had a watch. I was surprised at how much money and how much time it took for Charlie Baker to bring his name recognition up to a place where we're literally in a large number of people knew who he was it was millions of dollars which meant that all the early advertising really wasn't touching lots of people and since negative as we'll talk about that it was better than positive. I think it was a natural thing to say. The only way we're going to get their attention is to go negative. Here's a great I mean maybe we're so steeped this I mean it all just washes over me. Do people sit there and see some of these ads you know really oh really you know that you know Deval Patrick has remember some lines raise taxes eight times well I don't know if he did or not but certainly that kind of message over and over and over it's can be Ike lazing But you know. That kind of messaging apparently works well in a way I think it says.

Michael has said I think there's such a need to finally break through that you're dry and in any way to get the attention of the audience especially it's frustrating to me because I'd rather be voting for someone rather than against. But unfortunately what we've seen is everyone just grab your attention with sometimes the most scurrilous innuendos and that's really is what has characterized this particular campaign. Yeah. Let me just play one of those scurrilous when this is. This one is really outrageous I got to give a clue to my people in the booth there. It's the bill who Jack kook spot newspapers called Bill who talks like a poisonous kook. His proposals are kooky Codex yard signs liken the president to a mass murdering terrorist. This guy's running for Congress. That's crazy. Good act wants to eliminate the Department of Education. Are you serious. You get the message there kook. Poisonous not. I mean this is this is rough stuff. FRAN KELLY weigh in on this because your firm has to be in the you're in the creative world. How do you

come up with things to latch on to how do you decide when you're going to do go negative what you're going to do. Well I mean I think what's different in political advertising rather than brand advertising is that most of the time you only have two choices. And so when I'm trying to grow the ocean spray business you know I really need to get positive. What is that about Ocean Spray and cranberry and why people should drink it but in political advertising if you can just get someone to not vote for the other guy in the vote for your guy you're you know you're accomplishing your mission but I must say it's so much money and it's so negative this year I wonder about you know the long term effect. Can you trust any of these leaders after they get done killing one another on the airwaves like this. You know why do you think this year it's been more negative than in past the last gubernatorial race there was some negative stuff there was that infamous Kerry Healey ad with the or the Ben we care the you know rapist in the garage that you know Kerry Healey saying that Deval Patrick supported the release of this guy.

Well but that was one that's the only one who can really remember why this. Well you know I'm afraid this is a trend that's been building up. The electorate is so angry right now and I don't think angry is a misrepresentation of how people feel. So I think it opens the door for marketing that's more negative than ever before and there's far more money at work here you know the numbers out there of over 2 billion dollars will be spent on this election cycle. So an angry electorate and tons of money. You know seeking messages out there it's just got almost 90 percent negative this year. I should point out that Michael Goldman is it works for John Tierney and that was John Tierney ad I watching. I want to point out anyone can go online today the Salem News did a fact check on that ad and found every single thing in that ad is a kook. That's how that characterization. No it was it was from an article that was written by a Scot Lehigh the Boston the Boston Globe the kook line came right from the 7 we've been use. I don't know what you would

call this isn't 14 year get this is talking about the I don't know what you would call somebody who puts a sign up in a sling comparing any president that we're not we're not talking about your client I know that I want to thank you. The fact that independent journalist like yourself on the right of Boston says That's kooky. Well you know if you don't know anything about the guy if you don't do education and information of your opponent they're certainly not going to put it out there in the reality is this is I said before there are lots of people who don't know about any of these candidates. Maybe part of it is that the Tea Party piece there are these people out there patrolling themselves how they want to try to if you don't give the rest of the story then then you're going to lose because you thought he had two good choices if you don't say that the other person is a bad choice. You. Exaggerated Greg is it just so. Well I think those things and I think part of it has to do with the social media complex web out there in terms of anyone can put an ad up with YouTube I think it's as Michael said.

I think where we are is it's not so much voting for someone who's voting against someone and you have to somehow find Tony Schwartz there with the daisy ad and emotional hot button. So I think one reason why tyranny has responded is you of course have had the other side going after this. This is an area with his wife and so it's become a rhetorical tennis match again of negatives and hoping that some something's going to resonate with the public in the same story again which is online they take a look at his ad which hasn't got nearly as much play as Tierney says but they found that four fifths of the ad is wrong. And so ultimately in the end you really do have to depend I think Emily on the on the independent if you will media and the fact checking and people can go to great sites nationally as well as locally making as a loney one of those little boxes in the globe and if you really care with it then you know nobody is fact checking an ad you know. FRAN KELLY We noticed that. It was really hard to find out who who did these ads or where they came from. We're talking about all these sources. People don't want to be

associated with it they just want to get it out there. Why is that. Well Amalie I think it's a huge problem you know the biggest thing that I worry about is how how well are we going to be able to govern this country come November 3rd and you know when it's a steady flood of negative messaging attacking all the candidates half the time you're not sure where the where the money or where the message coming from. I mean how much trust are the voters going to have in this legislature and this Congress and you know this is a serious time we need to work together. I think I think griping will tell you that when we when I teach and he teaches political advertising we always say that the most negative campaign in the history of American politics was Adams vs. Jefferson. The second most negative was John Quincy Adams versus Jackson this afternoon. No they didn't and that he appoints it by the way and that's the point Emily that I agree with you on. I think probably the worst decision that the Supreme Court made in certainly in my lifetime other than probably the 2000 election was the decision that said that money is speech and

you really do have a huge problem with this outside money flowing in. We don't know where it's coming from with the news that or not you know who's putting it up as John Tierney. It's Friends of the Earth and suddenly the saying that Emily Rooney is destroying the environment. You don't know who the friends of the Earth is and that's part of the problem with these these third party. Is there such thing as too negative that it just turns people off. I think Kerry Healey might that been the Gare ad. But the guy in the garage might have backfired on her four years ago. But are there other examples of you know ads just totally blow over you know my two colleagues probably no examples is too negative. The answer is you certainly can go too far. But I'm you know I'm afraid that voters are so busy and you know they don't spend as much time thinking about this as some folks you know would like and you know that's why the negative stuff can work but there certainly is a line if you go across if you're going to turn people off. I was going to say I think what Michael has said is you know when you think about money is the mother's milk of

politics two billion dollars spent on this and the one issue that you have the DNC came out yesterday with this whole notion of Perry being a liar some people say was that too far. You're trying to grab the attention and it's like Jell-O on the wall whatever sticks is out there negative seem to get people's attention. So as long as we played the John Tierney ad to the negative ad on the back I think we're going to turn the tide here and do play the one that has done on John Tierney. Here we go. John Tierney is family engaged in racketeering and tax fraud. Seven million dollars in laundered gambling money. Tierney defended their actions and that's not all. He only voted against a ban on offshore Internet gambling. It's sad. Tierney raises taxes on our families but thinks it's OK for his own not to pay theirs. We need to change. Bill who Jack is fighting for more jobs a stronger economy and then lower taxes. And what's funny is the right he was what those facts Michael. Well if you really again don't

go to the sale news and they say that nothing in that ad is actually factually correct. The he she pled guilty to it but that I think hearing attacks John. John Tierney his wife's brother. Now you could say that is that she's in family family family and other in-laws are family. Bottom line is he didn't defend him at all. And the Salem News points out that you know because he was in there he said he never pointed out is that too ugly is it does it. You know what he's trying to win. I mean I mean ultimately in the end Greg said it and I think you'll agree. You know you you try to find something that's going to say to someone that that a candidate is much more so nasty then the one calling the poison is this one of these picks on things that well they're not sure who they are. Well yes and the Salem News got it wrong Emily symbols is lying when they say there's nothing and that's truthful. What I. I think they did OK. You know it seems to me though that there is this almost causal link that because of his quote family

which almost suggests a mafia type scenario that he was against it even mention the Sopranos and what I think you want to hear what you have is you have a negative ad and then all of a sudden we turn positive at the end with this positive music about what has he done he's going to do it again. When you think about this it is unfortunate that we are electing not we're not voting for someone but against someone. It's a trend it's what we've always thought I mean I mean I get I don't want to be the son of the Cassandra here but the truth is this is negative advertising works. Every study shows that it teaches at Emerson College every study shows that people are three times more likely to remember a negative spot than they are a positive one. And think of all the positive thoughts that Charlie Baker put up there that clearly just got washed. Scott Washington ran one of the in time Fran Kelly from Arnold Worldwide. What is the rule on when the candidate has to say I'm Charlie Baker and I approve this message because somebody was saying that the one where devolves face is morphed over the Hancock Tower he's kind of looming over the city and he's going to raise taxes that it doesn't say that

it's a five I'm saying you know the rule is if if if the ad is being funded by your you know individual political organization then you have to identify yourself. If the money is coming from someone else Governors Association or. One of these political action committees and then Charlie's name would not have to be there so that whoever is paying for the ads has to identify him her itself or her. And if they do but the problem with disclosure is some of these groups are so exactly what you are see I think that's where Michael is so right. This is the real trend here and suddenly you know an individual or a corporation is an individual we don't know the credibility of who's making the attack and I think we should have to know that. And unfortunately we just got this cascading amount of money that is really making it much much worse. And that's why this decision that President Obama as you mentioned of the state of the Union and one of the Supreme Court justices shook his head no but the answer is yes it really is and we're looking at a grain of sand about what you say about

the money flow we can tell you hands. I mean you look at some of the races across the country. They are either. I mean we do we have all this not find it compared to some of these races where you what they did to Harry Reid and some of these other can Republicans the Democrats alike have been extraordinary and the cycle has been equal on both sides it's been very disturbing from my perspective because as Michael said negative ads work but is this the way we should be electing people. You know there's a radio station at. Go ahead Frank. Well I mean if I could just come back you know and if you think you have a problem you've always got to try to figure out what's the problem and how might you fix it in the future and the problem is it. I think there's two things that elections are trying to accomplish one is to get the right person elected. And as my fellow guests are saying there is a lot of proof that negative advertising can work to get you elected. The question that I have is the ultimate goal is to build a government that works and to run the country better and I think the verdict is really out whether getting elected really really negative advertising tons of it

leads to government that work. But this is from I think the figure I know this is it. Anyone who thinks if the Republicans take over the House and the Senate one of the other that anything is going to change. I had the experience years ago working for Speaker O'Neill as you well know and and and and that you can't even begin to recognize the place today compared to what it was than we thought it was tough then. But but. Right now we're in a cycle I think that both sides really have to accept the fact that someone's going to have to give in a little bit because right now you're not going to get anything out of this new Congress. The Democrats are going to do to the Republicans what the Republicans did to the Democrats and we're going to have this. This is the sense of frustration among real voters which is because you know really at the end of the day when they reach each of Emerson is communication and you have in order to communicate you have to have some type of trust and I think what Fran and Michael and we're all talking about is the fact that the attacks have gotten so vociferously negative that it's going to be very hard to do that. But at the end of the day someone's going to have to say for the good of the country to gain the credibility and to get rid of the Sangar we've got to start communicating.

You know it's amazing to me is how quickly people forget all this stuff the day somebody is elected. I mean it's like it all just evaporates. The universe is just gone and you forget about it. And then it goes back to business as usual for what. Who's ever in office and you see that when people stand together you know the the the most embarrassing moment for poor Mitt Romney is when he would stand with John McCain who clearly detested and said you know he's my guy and then the daughter wrote the book and that's more the norm than it is the the. The word I'm looking for is I can find it somehow. But you know it's a it's much more the norm that the candidates swallow hard they say now let's go play ball but. But the truth is this is the cycle the Republicans genuinely decided they were going to take this president out in mid term and they've done it. Now the Democrats going to come back and say you know what you may get Nancy Pelosi but we'll get on you next time. And that's really a very scary thing. Seriously like the Democratic consultant Michael Goldman great pain from Emerson College is

in on the phone Fran Kelly from Arnold world wide. Go ahead Greg you're about to say. Well I think what I find problematic is as Michael and Fran have said I think the politicians know that all this is part of this rhetorical game that they have to somehow get the attraction get the voters. What I worry about is just the the hatred that you see among some of these groups out there where you whether it's Republicans or Democrats people are getting physical at these rallies and I think what we have to do is again remember that OK we have elections. Someone has won. What's the common ground and that's what I see missing so much in the rhetoric as the common ground the day after these things are over. You know there's an interesting case out on the Cape Fear where this Fran Kelly. They were carrying these negative ads. Jeff Perry recounting the incident with a strip search incident and using phrases like reached into a little 14 year old's panties actually change that word to underwear. After a few days but these this radio station group took the ad off the air claiming that they were

getting a lot of negative response but in truth it's a conservative talk station you know it runs 14 different programs all by different hosts that are with a conservative bent. I mean I thought that the rule was here that you had to carry a political ad I did that you could edit one off off off the air. My right on that. Geez I don't I don't know the answer to that. You know one of the things that the people don't quite realize is that this isn't just an election it's a business you know behind. You have all of our media outlets. You know there are you know. This is a godsend the amount of money that is coming to them and you know there's a political advertising industry that is very well funded this year and and you know those business of course is drive driving off a lot of this you know I think it's interesting that that a station would actually draw the line I wish more could although I don't know what the legalities are I was limited as a paid for by a candidate and I can't drop it if it's an

advocacy ad it's optional. I did not know that I actually that's interesting you know it's a great show on Channel 2 called Greater Boston did a segment on this and I saw it but you know I got to tell you something. I think it's a terrible thing for a liberal station to decide because their listeners don't like the message that they go take off a conservative advice versus one of the things that you do is when you pay for advertising you pay for your message. This is not supposed to be a debate and I thought it was horrific what they did and I think it's a terrible trend and hopefully someone will go to the FEC and they'll find out that it is in fact illegal to do that. If an ad is incorrect or libel right. Right that's one thing but you know and I have no I've never met Jeff Perry in my life and the story is a terrible story for anyone who has daughter. But but but you know as long as that's an accurate and accurate you can come on and say that's a terrible ad I think it's terrible and whack it every time it comes on if you know you know I think political ads they have. Carrie now other ads you know you know you know Procter and Gamble ad are some what they find

offensive I think I think you can take things off you find those kinds of things. You know ily and my colleagues it's interesting though when you look at Nevada Univision decided that they were taking off the ad in which there was a special group that was advocating that Hispanics should not go to the polls it was as though they were suggesting that Obama and the Democrats had not delivered so the best lesson for you as a spandex is don't vote this time while in the lesson. It's called trust the vote. Yes I saw that and you know there's an ad was paid for that this was a Republican backed group from Virginia telling people in Nevada that shouldn't vote that's why Univision basically said part of our mission is to engage people so we're going to take it out. So freighted to be able to have that come to you and said hey we got a couple of things here we want we want the ugliest the meanest the nastiest you do you have a team of people who work on that kind of stuff you know to be honest we won't do that kind of work because. As I mentioned before we're really in the business of working with good companies and good brands and telling a positive story and helping them to build their business and you know this is a very special

niche in the industry and you know there are people who like it and make money on it and believe they're doing the right thing and it doesn't work for our folks so we will not engage in this kind of work to be honest. You know it's interesting Fran you asked that question I one of the as it sticks in my mind is the famous Coke and Pepsi ad the compare and contrast ad that they did and the tests that they used to do and and I thought that was interesting that is about as aggressive as they get against a competitor is to do a taste test. You know I would say what you could never get away with that in a political ad is you almost you know most clients you know they will not engage in highly negative attacks against their against their competition I mean once in a while you win a taste test story. You know General Motors will think it should be pointed out but you know the safety record isn't as good as it used to be but that's you know that's probably less than 5 percent. Surprised there isn't more of it to be you know personal branding. And in the old days I felt that you know negative advertising in politics was maybe 10 percent or

maybe 30 percent but I don't know if you guys have run the numbers but it sure does feel this year like it's up to 90. Oh yeah it's gonna be 90 percent negative. Plus I think as Michael I think talked about earlier there is a difference between attack ads that are personal and comparative and contrast ads I think comparative In contrast ads are a very essential part of the debate process. But unfortunately we seem to have gotten away from those and we just throw out these innuendoes and hot button issues that people might resonate to and I'm not a cherry picker fan. Believe me I'm with Deval Patrick but I thought early on he tried to run some softer ads you know who am I the basketball ad with this kid so much additional to do that died died but he also ran them over the summer. Yeah. But still you really are looking to do at that point you just raised in name recognition. So there's someone who finds you. And the truth is when you took a look at the numbers it was a pretty big waste. And I didn't think they were that bad that that people would have found it but you know this is the thing we call uses and gratifications which basically says people only take in that information which is useful to them

and which gratifies them. And the truth is politics is useful for a ton of people and it doesn't gratify anyone anymore. And the ads become a symbol of that kind of thing and the anger that's out there. Well you know I also think there's a creative problem in in the political advertising world I think it's easier to do a negative ad that people remember then to do a positive ad where people can really walk away remembering one thing. You know I thought did a good job in his campaign as Scott Brown had for one liners which are you know almost like a tagline in the in the commercial branding world that seem to really resonate with people and you know he was I mean he was pointing out the difference between him in the competition but you know he did I think managed to build a positive image for himself and build a strong following but you don't see much of that happening with most of the candidates these days. Good point. All right thank you so much Fran Kelly from Arnold Worldwide Thanks for joining us. And here in the studio Gregg Payne from Emerson College and Michael Goldman Democratic

political consultant. Thanks for coming in today. Hey thank you. Right. Thanks. All right we're going to take a short break when we continue. Tourney and author Harvey silver plate joins us with some insight into the one charge that just might stick in the corruption trial. A Boston city councilor Chuck Turner. You're listening to the show. Stay with us. Support for WGBH comes from you and from Boston Private Bank and Trust Company committed to helping successful individuals and businesses accumulate. Preserve and grow their wealth. You can learn more at Boston. Private Bank. Dot com. And from Skinner auctioneers hosting an auction of fine wines featuring wines from the WGBH wine seller on Tuesday November 2nd at 4pm at Skinner 63 Park Plaza Boston. Bidding online at Skinner Inc. Dot com. And

from Concord lamp and shade. Concord lamp in shade has been home to contemporary and traditional lamps and shades for over 30 years. You can visit them at Concord lamp and shade dot com or call 9 7 8 3 6 9 3000 on fresh air you'll hear the questions you wish you could have asked to people like Tom Kenny the voice of Sponge Bob Square Pants. Did it help to hear what your voice sounded like and hear him. You learn something about your voice you didn't know before. Yeah I learned that I don't really need the helium either. The most interesting people in show business to an eighty nine point seven. Public radio was pretty good all by itself. But throw in a cup of incredible coffee and the companionship of your special someone. And well it's a whole different experience which is why eighty nine point seven is inviting us to spend this valentines with the WGBH learning tours trip to.

Sample some of the world's finest coffee while the rest of New England learn more a learning tour. I'm Cali Crossley next time on the Cali Crossley Show. Haunted houses and Hollywood's take on Heaven that more today and one after the Emily Rooney show. You're listening to the Emily Rooney show the corruption trial of Boston city councilor Chuck Turner we've been covering that the last few days actually the defense rested its case today at the center of it is an alleged $1000 bribe that FBI informant Ron Wilson says he paid Turner in exchange for a liquor license. Well despite video evidence that seems to suggest otherwise Turner took the stand and said he doesn't remember any such

incident. But none of that may matter because the feds may get him on a lesser charge lying to the FBI. Harvey silver of late has written about this and in this case and other cases including the Rod Blagojevich case in Illinois. And he joins me now from Tel by telephone. Harvey how are you. Good i think I'm not in jail so that's good. You're not in jail. Well I mean. It looked at let's just start about the case for a little bit here because originally this guy Ron Wilburn said he was going to testify because the FBI had annoyed him. He claims that they didn't protect his identity and that he was told that they were going to go further up the food chain and get some other people other than two black politicians as he puts it. So he and he you know they would have been paying him they paid him thirty thousand dollars they said He added It cost him his livelihood so he was something

of a reluctant witness. And frankly I thought the that that the defense poked some pretty good holes in his story. You know he didn't know how much money he had in his hand. If they had just let it go there without Chuck Turner testifying would chuck be in a better position today. Well probably but I think the reason that's so is because juries really don't understand how the FBI operates and it's a little hard to believe. Even I who have been doing this work for 42 years I am amazed at how the FBI operates and how they set people up. And I think that is for Chuck turn to to testify I think he would have had to really go into some depth about how this really opened up and operated simply to say don't. Remember him by the way I believe he doesn't remember. Do you know if he sees 30 or 40 people on Friday. I can see him not remembering who he saw who handed him something. When I give a lecture I'll

be going out to San Francisco next week to give three lectures. I'll come back and I will not remember the face of any of these student or rather audience member who came up to see me to hand the article that he wrote. This is what it is when you see large numbers of people so I don't think that is inherently unbelievable at all. Well it's unbelievable. If he handed him some money because otherwise it's just that whole place all the time. Let's get into that. I think it does happen all the time but in a very different kind. First of all it's very interesting that the FBI agent didn't count the money before giving it to Wilbur. So we don't by the way I think that's probably intentional I don't think that's an accidental omission. And let. Says Suppose then that Wilbourn decided he was going to give $250 and keep 950 off the top. Certainly not an improbable scenario since it hadn't been counted and that $50 was probably something that Turner got several times the amount of his

contributions to his running the district office in the neighborhood. And while technically of course $50 here $50 there even to run the office is illegal because it's a reporting violation. It's certainly not an extortion. It's not a right and had he told the story fully I think it would have been much more credit yeah if he had said just what you said this happens all the time. People walk in and and oh by the way my wife handles the books and I give her the cash and she accounts for it and this is how we run this. This office. But he didn't do that. Right he was not prepared to testify he should have given a full picture. That is a very I'm telling you that people I know who speak to large audiences or spend an entire day seeing people one after the other after the other shaking hands so forth they don't remember the faces they don't remember the names. This is especially at 70.

That's a little hard to remember. I'm 67 I don't think I do too much better than Chuck. So your basic point here is that regardless of what happens with the testimony and whether the press the defense poked holes in Ron Will Burns testimony that the FBI is default position here is Chuck Turner lied and lied. The proof on that video you can see some money in the hand there. Right. And I think that's exactly why they brought the ancillary charges for lying to FBI agents. This is done in an enormous number of federal a so-called extortion prosecutions. They have a shaky case. This was a shaky case especially since nobody had counted the money that Wilbourn supposedly had over. So it was a shaky case what they did was they went to Turner and they interviewed him. And if there's a policy this may shock you and your listeners but there's a policy the FBI policy it's him writing that the FBI

is not allowed to record these interviews with witnesses or with targets. And the official version of what Turner said is what the FBI agent writes down and puts in the file as a so-called form 3 0 2 report. And that is the easy way for the government to convict people even if they don't get them on the main yard. Right I mean the FBI has the right to wiretap people as they did in the Chuck Turner case and the Diane Wilkerson tape. They're wiretapping there. Even if that two party state they're breaking a law there by you know recording conversations they did it with the and Julio's how why would they do it in a de-brief. Well because they want a version of the interview to be not the one that was actually given but the one that helps their case. No I know this sounds cynical but I have to tell you if the 42 years of dealing with the FBI I have to tell you that J Edgar Hoover is too long dead as far as that agency is concerned. Why in the

world would they have a formal policy prohibiting prohibiting the recording of an interview so that you have. A accurate version. Why do they insist on their written version being the official version of the interview. There is only one explanation they want to use this interview as a wait just yeah ok it's a back pocket all right but got it. But but Harvey I'm having a really hard time talking to Harvey silver plate. I'm having a really hard time figuring out what they were after in the first place this is so small potatoes so Penny I mean this is not even this barely worth trial material much less jail. There is an easy answer in this case it's quite clear they were after Turner to help to get his help against Wilkerson. And when he refused what they were then doing was they were going to get him indicted for something and then had some pressure to use against him. And

contrary to the expectations instead of then turning around and cooperating against Wilkerson he said he was going to go to trial. And I mean is does he have any at this point you know. Well I think that his best hope right now is that the jury will will will deadlock on the extortion case because even though his defense was really not adequate because he didn't let the whole story come out I think that a jury may not think that this is really extortion remember an extortion is a blackmailing. And I don't think that they'll believe even if it turned it took the money. I don't think they'll believe that he was blackmailing the guy who gave him. Well maz they get term extortion used extortion is the charge. Really. Yes. Now the. But in my view the most serious thing that Turner might have done is break a state law about reporting campaign contributions in cash. That's the most serious but on that federal

law they're making it look like he was exploring will burn that if Wilburn would give him money he would help Wilburn get the license that Wilbourn wanted. And I don't think a jury is going to buy that. So I think there's a good chance they'll be a hung jury on that but then the question is will the jury buy the FBI version of the interview at which Turner supposedly lied to them. Dr. Harvey Silverlake is also author of three felonies a day how the feds target the innocent for what reason do they target the innocent. Why. It's a matter of power. They have the federal government of Justice has enormous power over the members of the executive branch over members of the Congress. They can indict just about anybody that's the thesis of my book. That you go through a typical day and there are a couple of things that you've done that a federal prosecutor can make a case of. And that's because the federal statutes are both Broyard and vague and it's really a kind of

tyranny that it's under appreciated. Well you appreciate it. And you're suggesting this is certainly in the former governor of Illinois Rod going to that case and others. Yes you'll you'll notice that the jury hung on live accounts except lying to the FBI agent. There were two interviews in which is case the first one which was not reported. There was a second one in which special authorization was gotten by Bill go if it's his lawyers to have us do not go for take it down this is mind you outside of normal FBI policy. There was a spin that stenographic. Due to the second interview he was indicted and convicted on the first interview. Naturally because the record of that was not what he said but what the FBI claimed he did and this is the way it goes all the time he would not have been convicted of anything if he hadn't given that recorded interview.

All right let's just say there's a hung jury or Chuck Turner's actually been found innocent on the extortion charges. What's the worst case scenario for him if he's convicted of lying to the FBI is does that carry a jail term. Oh yes you can get five years for that and I'm sure the department will be asking for something close to the maximum because he's a public official and say he lied you know I think it's likely he'll get some jail time. Hopefully not too much because my own view is that he's probably innocent he's innocent but jail seems pretty safe. I think case I think the only likely innocent of the extortion extortion for sure. Yeah. Haris Everglade always fascinating to talk to you. Thanks for calling in. Righto. All right we're going take a short break when we continue our resident financial guru Cheryl Marshall with some investing tips for tough economic times you're listening to the Emily Rooney show Stay with us. Support for WGBH comes from new and from Citizens Bank. We

believe that good citizenship is good business. It's a simple philosophy with a profound impact. You can learn more at Citizens Bank dot com slash good banking good banking is good citizenship. And from the Peabody Essex Museum presenting treasures from the Forbidden City featuring exquisite objects of luxury and beauty hidden away for centuries. You can be among the first in the world to see these extraordinary works of Chinese art and culture through January 9th. Poland is considering a law to make in-vitro fertilization more available but there is strong opposition. The Poland's Catholic bishops condemn IVF and threaten lawmakers who supported with excommunication. Well many Poles are tuning out the debate. Some young people are protesting church involvement. Poland's IVF controversy next time on the ball. Coming up at three o'clock here at eighty nine point seven WGBH whether you prefer Bordeaux Cabernet or a vintage port AWG. H why not. She's

bringing the best of the worlds vineyards to the Skinner auction house in Boston on Tuesday November 2nd. Read I'm the perfect. Girl To add to your collection to give us a gift this holiday season or just to share for the sake of sharing. Proceeds benefit WGBH stations and programs details at WGBH dot org slash wind. A partnership of Skinner auctioneer's and appraisers and WGBH. I'm pally Crossley. Next time on the Cali Crossley Show haunted houses and Hollywood's take on Heaven that more today and one after the Emily Rooney show eighty nine point seven. WGBH. Welcome back you're listening to the Emily Rooney show. It's easy to get overwhelmed when it come. Still investing and it's easy to get lost in all those acronyms. Start getting thrown around like CDs IRAs. Yes they're not our trusty financial guru Cheryl Marshall is here with another edition of everything

money and we're going to walk us through some of these things like what is an ETF. OK. All right well ETF is stands for an exchange traded fund. And we're going to get into in a few seconds what the differences are between ETF some mutual funds. But first I just want to tell our listeners I have two very important tips for you and I'm only going to give you one now and one at the end so you'll know you to listen to the segment. OK. Like a political ad. Right exactly. Just like you were talking about. So the first tip is that because of the meltdown in the financial markets in 2009 Congress gave retirees a reprieve. So retirees who are making their withdrawals to live on from their IRAs 401 k plans you know retirement accounts were allowed not to make a withdrawal in 2009 in hope that the markets would recover which they have somewhat. However if some of our listeners are in that category I just want to tell you that you have until December 30 first to take your withdrawal for for 2010. Don't

forget to do it because there are tax penalties and these are only for people who took the one year. OK. Very important. OK now we're going to get into your question. So today I'm going to talk about an area of investing that can potentially as you said be confusing for our listeners and that ETF search is ETF Exchange traded funds versus mutual funds. And which ones are appropriate for you are investors. So hopefully at the end of the segment will have lifted all the veils off of this. OK. And also not just the differences but when you should buy which one which vehicle OK ETF cer exchange traded funds or similar mutual funds because both instruments bundle securities together to offer investors diversified portfolios they could be anywhere from a hundred to a thousands of different securities in a fund. But there are a small but marked differences ETF trades like stocks they trade all day long therefore you can buy and sell you an example of a name of one S&P 500 are going to get into

mutual funds trade only at the end of the day at their net asset value price and instead of selling them you redeem them back to the company that owns them. Net asset value most ETF Stracke to a particular index like we just talked about the S&P 500 the Dow Jones a bond index this all different kinds of indexes and therefore most of them have much lower operating expenses then their brothers brothers and sisters in mutual funds and for sure lower costs than actively managed mutual funds. The US ETF can improve your rate of return on investments because you're paying lower fees. In addition ETF have no investment minimums or sales loads unlike traditional mutual funds many of them say well you have to put in a minimum of a thousand or three thousand ETF so you could buy one share if you want to of the S&P 500. But they do have management fees and we'll talk more about that later ETF create and redeem shares with in-kind transactions that are not considered sales therefore taxable events are

not triggered. Big difference redemptions create tax events and mutual funds but they do not create tax events and ETF So all together this difference can greatly affect the overall rate of return even if an ETF and mutual fund both track the same index. So the two major differences that investors need to be aware of in these two pull to try to live in that investments are cost and taxes so let's compare the S&P 500. I'm so glad you asked me. I'm going to compare the S&P 500 ETF commonly known as the spider. If you hear people talk about a spider that's what they're talking about not the bug on the ground and the spider is issued by our local institution State Street Bank. And the comparison I'm going to use is the vanguard version of the S&P 500 and the symbol on that is A B F I N X because they have among the lowest expenses of any of these kinds of funds the Vanguard fund has no sales load but does charge a management fee of point one eight percent. It's important for investors

to eye Waffen that's a yearly that's a generally don't want to be but the investor it just comes off the top investors don't actually see that. It's important for investors to understand that just because a mutual fund is no load it means that they're not paying an upfront sales load it doesn't mean that they're not paying for operating expenses. I mean these people have to pay for trading stocks and the managers have to get paid. Somebody has to get paid along the way. There is no cost to buy and sell the shares. The spider has an average expense ratio higher of Point 3 6 percent and you have to pay a commission to buy and sell it. In this case over a long period away we got to stop you. What is the advantage then. That's what I'm going into right now. Over the long period of time the spider is a more expensive fun to hold. So for example if you had $10000 to invest and you want to buy the S&P 500 and you knew you were going to hold it come hell or high water for 20 years you would probably buy the Vanguard mutual fund because the expenses is so much lower as of today. But that's why investors have to look at it. If

for example Emily you thought the market was low and it was going to go higher and you wanted to trade the Standard Poor's 500 Index you would put $10000 into the S&P index the spider when it was low hopefully and sell it when it was high. So that is the major difference and you will see that a lot of funds actively managed funds hedge funds private equity funds lots of different private funds will invest in these indexes to kind of replicate performance. But in this case that I just talked about over the long period of time you're actually better off if the expenses stay the same and you have to keep an eye on them investing in the mutual fund. One reason a small investor would invest in the spider is because most mutual funds have a minimum that a lot of small investors can't meet particularly in a minimum investment. Yeah like $1000 is in many that a lot of investors who are in Roth IRAs for one k plans IRAs whatever they can't meet them or even people who are just trying to save up. Using this comparison it's obvious what you should do. But

obviously in the world of funds it's not always the case that it's that obvious it's critical that everyone has to pick up the hood of their friends and see what's underneath them. Many of the no load funds can have very high expense ratios and management fees which will eat into your return so you can say oh gee well I'm buying a fund it doesn't have an upfront sales charge. And then again you pick up the hood and you find out that they're charging a fortune. Also you have to be careful when looking at returns to make certain that the return is listed as net of fees Coble net net of fees because what will happen. You look at a fund and it'll say gee it's up 30 percent and then there's a little star and you go down it says Gross. And then after you know they've taken their fee out the return is much lower. So is it ever worth paying a load for a fund or high expense ratios an upfront fee I don't think it's ever worth paying a fee for a fund. But some funds are worth paying high management fees. I personally only invest in funds with high fees where I feel that the added expertise is worth the price here's an example. I did a scan of the top performing funds over the past five years and guess which

guess what category they were in gold. They're all gold funds the top performing funds for the past five years have been gold. What the operating on expenses on some of these funds were as high as three point six percent. That's high but it's worth it. So just a quick recap ETF trade during the day. Mutual funds trade at closing ETF generally have a low operating expenses. Mutual funds operating expenses very ETF there's no investment minimums. Mutual funds most have minimums ETF so tax efficient mutual funds aren't ETF have no sales load some mutual funds have a sales low. You need a broker to buy an ETF. Now you can buy if you know you could open an account you know you have to. Yeah exactly I mean you need fidelity or Schwab or you know any of these accounts you have to buy you can't just go and do it. Some of the fund companies will let you do business directly with them. You know you could buy a fund directly from Vanguard I'm just saying ok but no you do need into marriage intermediary that you can do it online. You know so you don't if you don't talk to a person you don't have to do it. And that's probably the best way to do it. But most people have brokers

and a lot of people I think U.S.A. I feel very unsophisticated listening to you. I just I just you know honestly I don't even know you're talking about real Yeah. Well that distresses me because that means our investors don't know what a word I know what we're taught I mean I have accounts and I look and people manage them and I look at the thing at the end of the month and I throw it away and you know wait for the next thing to come in. I know it but I think a lot of people are like me. Well I suspect that they are because people can just learn. Let's say one thing that is interesting I never saw anything a month like this what is the difference because people I think well I know I'll be able to ask that question of the people who help me with these fund write off and see if they give you the I have an answer to yes right. Yes and I really firmly believe that for what we call and I won't get too complicated the beta portion of your portfolio which is the corporate portion people should only be you know these ETF of S&P 500 or global you know stock funds that just don't cost a lot to operate very very important.

So and I started thinking the fees on some of those Schwab accounts and all that were outrageous anyway. I mean it. What I think do I haven't looked at that recently but I'd be more than have a look at when why don't we talk about that next time what the fees are in a lot of these accounts realize that I had account for my daughter on account is it right doing here I got to the day normally today really could eat into your returns particularly you know you don't pay attention to summer right when the market's going up but when the market's going down you know 1 percentage point two percentage points three percentage points that can make a huge difference between positive and negative return. Now I have my last tip here just OK and this is really an important one and part of why we only have a minute humor in Finance OK. Anybody that was planning on DIYing next year should dye the CIA now OK because the estate tax is coming back so I just want people to know if they had any plans. Do your children and everybody else a favor financially and do it this year. I mean how has awful isn't it was that guy the richest guy in the world the kooky John Clukey. He died this year. He wasn't the richest guy isn't he at that you know he's not

number one on the Forbes list. Well one of the richest men in the world and when he did his family a favor. Well that was nice of him because I think he was divorced but that's another story. Well you probably had you know. Well never mind. All right fascinating as always thank you Cheryl. Everything money Cheryl Marshall coming in. All right. That's going to do it for us this afternoon will be back tomorrow at noon WGBH contributor Carol Miller joins us for a look at some key national races as we whittle down to next Tuesday Election Day. In the meantime tune into Greater Boston night at 7:00 Jared bone is at home with Governor Deval Patrick that's part of our at home with this candidate Sirius the Emily Rooney show is a production of eighty nine point seven WGBH Boston NPR station. The news and culture on the web at WGBH dot org slash Emily Rooney the Kelly Crossley shows coming up next I'm Emily Rooney. Have a great. Support for WGBH comes from you and from Boston private banking Trust

Company Boston private bank provides private and commercial banking and investment management and trust services to individuals and businesses. You can learn more by visiting Boston private bank dot com. And from Bruce Irving renovation consulting. Helping set homeowners up for success. Home Renovation guidance based on years of producing this old house. More information at Bruce Irving dot biz. Cali Crossley to bring the rewind button on the week's news with a look at the stories that barely reached our radar. Coming up at 1:00 on point seven. WGBH Boston. NPR news and culture public radio from Boston for New England. I'm Steve Inskeep I'm Bobsy and this is eighty nine point seven WGBH Boston online at WGBH dot org. Boston's NPR station for news and culture.