The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, CIA Director designate Robert Gates said he might quit if told to keep secrets from Congress too long. Two more dissident leaders will be released from Soviet prisons. The stock market closed up a record 54 points. And a federal official said tampering with railroad safety equipment is widespread. We will have the details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we have three main focuses on the News Hour tonight, starting with an extended look at what the CIA's Robert Gates had to say at his Senate confirmation hearing today. Next, changing the laws that govern personal injury cases. Two lawyers will argue the pros and cons. And then Amerika, the TV series. We have two reports on how American TV portrays the Soviets and vice versa, and we follow each with a debate between a Soviet official and an American hard liner.News Summary LEHRER: Robert Gates made a big promise to Congress today. The newly appointed Director of Central Intelligence said he would consider resigning if ordered by a President to withhold covert operations secrets from Congress for more than a few days. Gates spoke at his all day confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The CIAcareer official said ten months went by before there was notification about the Iran arms deal, and he acknowledged that was in violation of the understanding between the CIA and the Congress. Gates also admitted mistakes by his agency in the Iran deal, starting with the arms airlift in November of 1985.

ROBERT GATES, acting CIA Director: Our officers violated our own internal regulations in facilitating the flight in November, 1985. We did not communicate well enough internally about what was going on. We should have protested more vigorously our involvement in an operation where there were significant elements unknown to us and where we mistrusted key figures. We tolerated ground rules suggested by others that excluded some of our own experts. And we accepted a highly unusual funding mechanism. The entire undertaking was a unique activity that we are all determined not to repeat. Even so, we have learned important lessons for the future. LEHRER: Gates' appointment is expected to be ratified by the Senate without serious opposition. He was selected by President Reagan to replace William Casey in that post. Casey resigned after undergoing surgery for removal of a cancerous brain tumor. Judy? WOODRUFF: The Soviet Union today announced that two more dissidents will be set free and that a third will probably be released. Government spokesman Gennady Gerasimov said 48 year old Anatoly Koryagin and 36 year old Alexander Ogorod Nikov had been ordered released from prison. Koryagin is a psychiatrist who was sentenced in 1981 after complaining the government was sending dissidents to mental hospitals. Ogorod Nikov, the founder of a Christian movement, was imprisoned in 1980. Gerasimov also said that the case of Jewish activist Iosif Begun, who's also in prison, most likely will be decided in a positive way. Here in the United States, a Soviet diplomat today criticized the television mini series Amerika as, in his words, ''definitely aimed at instigating hatred towards the Soviet Union. '' Oleg Benyukh, a counselor at the Soviet embassy, met with reporters at a news conference.

OLEG BENYUKH, Soviet embassy: It's the worst of TV production possible, one of the most unfortunate products of the spirit of cold war. It's produced with the most malicious intentions: to spoil the atmosphere, to break the relations, to paint the Soviets as the worst enemy. WOODRUFF: In another development the Soviet Union announced today that it is prepared to disclose publicly where it keeps its chemical weapon stockpiles. A Soviet negotiator at a 40 nation disarmament conference in Geneva made what Western diplomats described as a major shift in position on the issue. The Soviets accepted a longstanding American proposal for international on site verification of such stockpiles. Jim? LEHRER: There was more killing in West Beirut today. Twenty five people died in clashes between Shi'ite Moslems and leftist militiamen. Another 125 were reported wounded. The new fighting was apparently triggered by a dispute over the location of a political office. Mike O'Driscol of Visnews reports.

MIKE O'DRISCOL [voice over]: After the latest round of fighting, Beirut seems even closer to complete anarchy. Daily, the split between the armed factions seems to widen. This time, Shi'ite Amal militiamen faced up against leftists of the Lebanese Communist Party. A local territorial dispute escalated to street warfare. Proclaimed cease fires have failed to become realities. In the meantime, the battle lines are being redrawn. A battle force composed of Druse and Moslem militiamen has been withdrawn from the streets of West Beirut. The peace which Syrian commandos brought to the streets months ago now seems to be fading. LEHRER: Also today, Nabih Berri, leader of the Amal Shi'ite faction, ordered his troops to lift the siege around Palestinian refugee camps in the Southern Beirut suburbs. He told a news conference in Damascus, Syria, he hoped the action would cause the Palestinians to end their siege in Southern Lebanon. Residents of the Palestinian camps in Beirut were reported on the verge of starvation. WOODRUFF: Israeli Prime Minister Shamir opened three days of talks in Washington today and tried to keep the spotlight off Israeli U. S. cooperation in the Iran arms deal. His meeting at the State Department with Secretary Shultz was to focus on Reagan administration plans for a Mideast peace conference. Shamir has opposed any talks that would include the Soviet Union -- something the U. S. did want to consider. After the meeting, Secretary Shultz said they still differ on the issue. Shamir meets with President Reagan tomorrow. LEHRER: There was another Wall Street record set today. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 54 points, the highest one day point increase in history. Analysts said it happened because large institutional investors were buying heavily. President Reagan announced a campaign today to make the U. S. competitive again. He said he will send a legislative package to Congress Thuscday that would ease or change antitrust and product liability laws, among other things. And speaking of competition, the Ford Motor Company said it outperformed its Detroit rivals last year. The nation's number two auto maker said its 1986 profits rose 31% to $3. 3 billion. Both GM and Chrysler reported lower earnings for the year. WOODRUFF: The nation's top railway official charged today that tampering with railroad safety equipment is widespread. Federal Railroad Administrator John Riley told a Senate hearing that since the January 4 collision of an Amtrak passenger train and three Conrail freight locomotives near Baltimore, where a signal warning whistle was found to have been taped over, he has learned that the problem of tampering with safety equipment is more serious than he had thought. After alcohol and drug abuse, Riley said, such tampering is one of the most severe problems facing the railway industry.

JOHN RILEY, Federal Railroad Administration: Since we began to look nationwide for repetitions of this in late January, we have been finding literally a case a day in which we are apprehending a locomotive with its safety devices tampered and shut off. This is an extremely serious problem. The best safety devices that we can design are going to have very little impact if they're disabled by the very people they're designed to protect. Our ability to deal with this is severely hampered by our lack of authority over individuals. We have literally caught two engineers red handed tampering with locomotives in the last month. We could not do a thing to them, other than to turn them over to the company and hope that normal grievance procedures work. WOODRUFF: Riley asked Congress to give the Federal Railroad Administration the authority to punish rail employees guilty of tampering and said his agency is looking into tamper proof safety devices. LEHRER: And finally in the news today, a U. S. Agriculture Department official told the Associated Press four out of every ten chickens sold are contaminated with salmonella. The official said that contamination causes thousands, maybe millions, of Americans to have a flu like bug every year. He urged stepped up inspection procedures within his own department and more caution by consumers. WOODRUFF: That wraps up our summary of the day's top stories. Ahead on the News Hour, the confirmation hearings for the man nominated to be the new CIA Director, a debate between lawyers over the law of liability, and what U. S. and Soviet audiences learn about each other when they turn on the television. CIA: Tough Questions LEHRER: Robert Gates came permanently in from the cold today. He's the career intelligence officer President Reagan nominated to replace William Casey as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He spent all day publicly answering questions about himself and his agency before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio has an extended report on what was said. Cokie? COKIE ROBERTS: Jim, Deputy CIA Director Robert Gates tried to assure Intelligence Committee members that he would work with them, would operate in an atmosphere of mutual trust. But the committee feels burned by its ignorance of the Iran arms deals and displayed a good deal of skepticism today. Gates arrived on Capitol Hill with some answers to questions already submitted in writing.

Mr. GATES: On 1 October, our national intelligence officer for counter terrorism met with me to express concern about the operational security of the NSC's Iranian arms project. He said he had indications that investors had not been repaid for putting up front money for part of the arms deal and that there were confusing reports relating to claims by Tehran that it was overcharged for spare parts. The NIO also speculated the some of the funds from the Iranian arms sale may have gone to support the contras. He told me he found worrisome the juxtaposition of reports of overcharging on the one hand and his belief that some of the same private citizens were involved in both the Iranian project and contra funding. At the same time, he said he had no evidence of any diversion of funds, no evidence that CIA, NSC, White House or U. S. officials might be involved, nor did he have any evidence that there might have been a violation of law or wrongdoing. I was disturbed by the threat to the security of the operation, as well as the speculation, and directed the NIO to brief the Director of Central Intelligence. The director told him to draft a memorandum outlining his concern. On 9 October, the director and I met with Colonel North to receive a briefing on his recent meetings with Iranians representing a new channel to senior officials in Tehran. The director expressed his concerns about the operational security of the Iran project, and there was, as I recall, considerable discussion about the change of Iranian channels and the unhappiness of private investors associated with the first channel. We then turned to Central America, the downing four days before of a contra supply plane and the capture of Mr. Hasenfus and his appearance in Managua two days before. He told us the CIA is ''completely clean'' of any contact with those organizing and funding the operation. I recall that Colonel North made a cryptic remark about Swiss accounts and contras. Neither the DCI nor I pursued the comment. I was uneasy about the remark, however, and went back into the director's office after the lunch to see if he had understood what Colonel North had been saying and if we should be concerned by it. He either hadn't heard or picked up on the remark at all, seemed unconcerned, and so I did not pursue it further. We received the NIO's memorandum laying out his thoughts on 14 October. I urged the director to get the memorandum to Admiral Poindexter as quickly as possible. We met with Poindexter on the next day, October 15. We gave him the memorandum and had him read it in our presence. He kept it. As I recall, the ensuing conversation focused on the security problem. We repeated our concern that the project was out of control and should be made public, and the director suggested that the admiral consult White House counsel to insure that all the NSC's activities were proper. ROBERTS [voice over]: It was the Iran arms sales that dominated today's hearing -- what role the CIA played in them and what Gates would have done differently. A line of questions put forward by the highest ranking Republican on the committee, William Cohen: Sen. WILLIAM COHEN (R) Maine: What were the kind of questions you would have asked in the preparation of a finding for the President on a covert action? Would you have been concerned, for example, with the quality of the personnel that we would have been relying upon? Mr. GATES: Yes, sir. Sen. COHEN: Would you have been raising questions about Israeli motivations or interests? Mr. GATES: Yes, sir. Sen. COHEN: Would you have sought independent intelligence confirmation, rather than relying upon another country's intelligence service? Mr. GATES: Yes, sir. Sen. COHEN: Would you have weighed the risk of exposure of such a program? Mr. GATES: Yes, sir. Sen. COHEN: And analyzed the consequences flowing from the exposure itself? Mr. GATES: Yes, sir. Sen. COHEN: Would you have kept the United States at least one step removed from such an operation by having another country involved in the transfer? Mr. GATES: I think I would have a problem in trying to carry out that kind of an operation through a third party, given the objectives. Sen. COHEN: Would you, after weighing all of those questions, have recommended support of that finding, considering the personnel, considering the source of the intelligence, considering the other country's interests and motivations, considering the risk of exposure and consequences if it were exposed? Mr. GATES: I would probably have recommended against it. ROBERTS [voice over]: In addition to the policy question, the Intelligence Committee, as the one charged with overseeing the CIA, is concerned with process -- whether this Director of Intelligence could be counted on to inform Congress about covert activities. Lloyd Bentsen is a Democrat from Texas. Sen. LLOYD BENTSEN (D) Texas: How much time do you think is a timely notification when an activity is so sensitive that the committee can not be told about it beforehand? Mr. GATES: I would not recommend to the President withholding prior notification under any except the most extreme circumstances, and then only for a period of several days. And it seems to me, beyond that point, I believe I would strongly urge that the Congress be notified. And the reason for giving the background is simply that that would be my recommendation, but the President could decide otherwise, over whatever recommendation that I made. And the committee needs to know that I would not be disloyal or insubordinate to the President. But I would also add that if I felt the prolongation of the withholding of prior notification reached a point where it threatened a relationship of trust between the intelligence community and the oversight committees of the Congress, that I would contemplate resignation under those circumstances. ROBERTS [voice over]: Aside from the theoretical questions about what Gates would have done differently, had he been in charge of the CIA during the Iran arms sales, Some senators, like New Jersey Democrat Bill Bradley, wanted to know more about what Gates actually did do as deputy director. Sen. BILL BRADLEY (D) New Jersey: Apparently, you did not raise objections to the special mission to Iran by the former National Security Adviser. Is that correct? Mr. GATES: That is correct. Sen. BRADLEY: Nor did you ask for a complete briefing by Colonel North and your subordinates in the CIA who were involved in planning and supporting the highly risky and objectionable covert action that was authorized by a finding you had never seen. Is that correct? Mr. GATES: That is correct. Sen. BRADLEY: Nor did you try to change the finding to notify Congress in May, when Mr. McFarlane's mission to Tehran raised big new risks of public disclosure that could harm relations with Congress if it had not been properly notified beforehand. Is that correct? Mr. GATES: Yes, sir. Sen. BRADLEY: Nor did you take any precautions to insure that the financial arrangements and controls for the sales of U. S. arms to Iran would prevent the diversion of profits to unauthorized projects that Colonel North had reportedly been involved in. Is that correct? Mr. GATES: I was confident, Senator, that the accounting procedures and the auditing practices that were under -- that are used by the agency would have brought to my attention or to others' attention any irregularity or any funds that had not been accounted for or if there were anything that looked out of the ordinary in terms of the funds we were dealing with. And I believe that the ultimate outcome of several investigations demonstrates that that confidence in our own internal procedures was warranted. ROBERTS [voice over]: In answering the senators' questions, Gates had to guard both flanks. Utah Republican Orrin Hatch returned to the issue of advising the President on notifying the Congress. Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R) Utah: I can't blame my colleagues for putting you on the spot and wanting you to notify the Congress, no matter what happens. There is a natural, nosy need to know up here. And we have our noses into everything, if we can, and with good cause. We've seen some things go wrong. On the other hand, I think you have to be careful -- and I think you have been -- allowing yourself to be placed in a position where you agree everything ought to be brought up here, when in fact there are constitutional times when things should not be brought up here. ROBERTS: But most members of the committee were more concerned with what the CIA did not report to Congress.

Sen. SAM NUNN (D) Georgia: If you've got no compunction whatever to put what is wiithout any doubt an intelligence activity from a congressional point of view, wherever it is carried out in the executive branch, but you don't feel you have any obligation under the law, then we've got a serious problem in the law. Wouldn't you say? Mr. GATES: I think that the question -- Sen. NUNN: I mean, the obvious thing to do is just to shift everything questionable over to the NSC, and let her roll. And you were basically supporting the National Security Council. Your folks were supporting it. I'm astounded that you don't believe that the National Security Council, when they're carrying out what is obviously an intellligence activity, comes under the purview of the law. Mr. GATES: Senator, it seemed to me that the activity that they were undertaking was primarily a diplomatic initiative for which we were providing operational support. Sen. NUNN: Sending guns to Iran and ammunition and TOW missiles is a diplomatic activity? The State Department's going to have to get a different kind of uniform if that's the case. ROBERTS: What the Intelligence Committee is really concerned about here is oversight -- the ability of elected officials to know what kinds of policies the intelligence agencies are pursuing. These questions of process and policy will continue tomorrow, when Robert Gates returns to Capitol Hill. Judy? WOODRUFF: Thanks, Cokie. Still ahead on the News Hour, a debate over changing personal injury liability laws, and how Americans and Soviets view each other on TV. Damage Control LEHRER: The lawyers of America had another argument today in New Orleans. The American Bar Association's house of delegates debated changing the way the liability law or tort system works. The issue rose from the recent crisis over high rates and impossible to get liability insurance. Some critics blame the crisis on lawyers going after exorbitant damage claims in order to get exorbitant fees. Among the recommended changes argued about today in New Orleans were limits on both damages and attorneys' fees. Among those involved in that argument were Robert McKay, chairman of the ABA's commission that drew up the proposals. He is a professor and former dean of the New York University Law School. And Leonard Decof, a trial lawyer in Providence, Rhode Island, who specialized in personal injury cases. They join us from public station WLAE in New Orleans. First, Mr. McKay, what were the results of the votes today? There were 21 proposals altogether from your commission. What were the results? ROBERT McKAY, law professor: All 21 were finally accepted, with a number of amendments that had been made before -- had been agreed to by the commission, by the section of torts and insurance practice, by the litigation section, and by the Corporation of Banking and Business Law section. So that we consider it a very successful day in having gotten through the entire package that we were interested in. LEHRER: All right, let's talk about the two central ones -- the ones that have caused the most commotion, at least. And that's the one putting a cap on punitive damages. How did that come out today? Mr. McKAY: We had extensively revised recommendations on that, and that -- in five parts, actually. And that was approved. We had recommended that there be no ceiling on punitive damages as such, in a formal way, but that the scope of the awards be controlled more particularly by the courts and that there should be a higher standard of conduct and of proof before there could be any kind of an award on punitive damages. LEHRER: Now, explain to the layman the difference between punitive damages and economic or what are called actual damages. Mr. McKAY: Yes. There's no real dispute about economic damages -- that is, the compensation for the injury, the wrong, that anyone has suffered. The dispute centers really on two kinds of noneconomic damages: punitive, which you just mentioned; and pain and suffering -- both of which are compensable under existing law in most jurisdictions. And the commission took the position and the American Bar Association has now affirmed the position that there should be no limits as such on them, but that there are various ways to narrow them in appropriate ways. In other words, in some instances, there have been excessive damage awards -- punitive or pain and suffering -- and they have been rising at the outer limits. There have been some very large ones indeed. We believe that there is some need to offer ways of controlling them, and that was what the debate was all about. LEHRER: And Mr. Decof, you don't favor those kinds of narrowing on punitive and pain and suffering damages. Is that correct? LEONARD DECOF, attorney: I feel that caps on pain and suffering damages should not be imposed. And as a matter of fact, the commission recommended this. I was a member of the commission. I went along with certain of their proposals. I did not go along with certain others. I wrote a formal dissent. I feel that there was no data -- no empirical data whatsoever -- presented to the commission which showed that there was any need for control of punitive damage cases. To the contrary, the most important study and most meticulous study done, which was done by the ABA Bar Foundation, shows that punitive damage awards were given in only 1. 6 of the cases and that the stories about huge awards were largely rhetoric. And most large punitive damages awards, where they were given, were cut down by courts. Also and more important, there is no evidence whatsoever that this kind of regulation of punitive damages will do anything to cut down the insurance rates. As a matter of fact, the evidence is to the contrary. In Florida, where there were caps put in and there were other controls put in, the insurance companies in their filings stated that there would be no reduction whatsoever in the insurance rates as a result of these controls. So my position throughout was, if we're going to put some controls of some kind in, we should have some evidence that they would effectively reduce insurance rates. LEHRER: Mr. McKay, how do you feel about that, first on the question of the largely rhetoric charge that Mr. Decof makes about these big, exorbitant damages and punitive damage awards -- that it really isn't real. Mr. McKAY: There are certainly exaggerated claims about the difficulty of punitive damages. But at the same time, everybody concedes there are substantial increases at the top range. One of the speakers from Texas pointed out that in his state there have been within the last two years many punitive damage awards in the millions of dollars, some in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and some in the $2 billion range. So that the question -- and maybe those were appropriate; that's not the issue -- the question is whether there should be some way of judicial supervision over those as to the standard of proof that's required, the kind of conduct that is found reprehensible, sufficient to justify that extra money. You know, for the plaintiff, it's in the nature of a windfall. Because we look at it as a deterrent, and it therefore has a quasi criminal quality to it. It becomes -- LEHRER: What do you mean by that? Mr. McKAY: There are a lot of kinds of injuries to individuals that the criminal law probably doesn't touch, although technically it might have that action. And so here we're talking about the civil justice system. And there has been recognized over the years, over the centuries, the notion that there should be some deterrence function for those who deliberately, outrageously, intentionally injure others. And it goes beyond the mere compensation for the injury. This may be not very substantial in economic terms, but the harm that is done to the system to allow the person to get away without paying for that is something that our system has always allowed. The question is whether it should be allowed in very large sums or whether it should be subjected to some control, in accordance with what we call community expectations. LEHRER: All right, Mr. Decof, the second part of this argument has dealt with attorneys' fees. And the suggestion has been that you and other lawyers who represent -- who specialize in personal injury cases -- that what you're really trying to do is protect your own bread and butter; that the higher the damages, obviously, the higher your cut and the higher your fee. Is that a correct charge? Mr. DECOF: No. As far as I'm concerned, it's a totally incorrect charge. We have a contingent fee system in this country. The contingent fee system means that the lawyer who represents the plaintiff will -- only if he wins -- will get a percentage of the plaintiff's recovery: one third, ordinarily, and often it's graduated to something lower than that. The contingent fee system is something that provides access to the courts to the injured victims. Most of these people don't have money to hire a lawyer and pay him 100, 150, 200, $250 an hour. And every client that comes to me, I offer him the opportunity to pay by the hour. And the clients 100% of the time want to go on a contingency basis. As a matter of fact, they say to me, ''Will you take this on a contingent fee basis?'' And I think when the insurance interests rail against the contingent fees, they're not really aiming at the lawyers. They don't care if lawyers make a living or drive a Mercedes or a Rolls Royce. What they're trying to do is dry up litigation. And the fastest way to reach the victim and prevent him from getting into court is to say he is not allowed to engage a lawyer on a contingent fee basis. The contingent fee system allows the victim to get the very best lawyer and compete on an even footing with United States Steel or the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. And that's a great thing. LEHRER: Mr. McKay, your commission felt differently. And what was the outcome today on attorneys' fees? Mr. McKAY: The recommendations we've made, modified somewhat, were all approved. Let me just say that there was no limitation on contingent fees. We believe in that for the reasons that Leonard has suggested. All we recommended were three really quite simple things: one, that there be some kind of a written statement that any client who is going to a lawyer for any purpose be made aware of the various ways in which the fee arrangements can be concluded. Mr. DECOF: I agree with that fully. Mr. McKAY: And that is simple information, so that there be no -- most of the disputes that arise between clients and their attorneys arise over the fees. And if that can be worked out so that there's no confusion in advance in a written agreement, that helps. Second, we suggested and the ABA has now approved that in normal cases a contingent fee should be taken out of the net of the award, rather than gross. That is, the expenses of the litigation should be deducted before the contingent fee is figured on its percentage basis. And finally, we recommended that in cases where the client complains about the fee, believing it excessive, it can be taken to a court for a determination after hearing, and the court would have the authority to reduce the fee or provide that the trial be had again. Those seem to me the most modest and sensible things that could be recommended, and they're really client protective -- consumer protective. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Decof? Do you support those changes? Mr. DECOF: Yes, I do. I feel that in this area, there's not much dispute. There is a small element of lawyers who bring disrepute on the entire bar, the vast majority of which are hard working, honest, ethical people. I believe that this small element of unethical lawyers should certainly be brought to heel, identified and disciplined. And what the Bar Association did today is reaffirmed the fact that the contingent fee is a proper method, a proper vehicle, and just put in provisions which I and many other lawyers have used -- written fee agreements and so forth -- to insure that it is applied in a proper way. LEHRER: Mr. Decof, you're not suggesting that the modest proposals that Mr. McKay just outlined are going to bring any lawyers to heel, are you? Mr. DECOF: I want more. I was pushing for more. I wanted to have certain elements of lawyers identified. It was thought to be beyond the scope. I think this will be done later on. But I wanted to have attention directed to the lawyers who have brought disrepute, who are considered by the media to be scavengers -- the people who chase mass disasters, the people who are misrepresentative in their advertising. I feel that these people should be singled out, identified and disciplined, because it will be a great benefit to the public and a great benefit to the rest of the bar. They should be separated out from the ethical bar. Mr. McKAY: We did, in fact, speak to the discipline question. We had two recommendations on that: one, that there be more resources made available to the discipline authorities in the various states, and it be done under the supervision of the high court of the state; and second, that where there are findings of malpractice or abuses on the part of any professional leading to negligence, that there should be reported -- that fact should be reported to the disciplinary authorities. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you both for being with us tonight from New Orleans. Mr. McKAY: Thank you. Mr. DECOF: Thank you. Images in Conflict WOODRUFF: Our final focus tonight is a close up look at how the Soviet Union and the United States portray each other in their entertainment and news media. This week's airing of the ABC Television mini series Amerika has triggered an avalanche of criticism over the fictionalized portrayal of a Soviet takeover of the U. S. But long before this drama appeared, neither country liked the way the other country portrayed it. We'll talk about that in a moment with Vitaly Churkin, an official with the Soviet embassy in Washington, and Richard Pipes of Harvard University. But first, an excerpt from a report we aired recently on the Amerika mini series. Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET was the correspondent.

JEFFREY KAYE [voice over]: The mini series is set in the 1990s, ten years after a fictional Soviet occupation of the United States. As seen in this excerpt, the film is vague about how the Soviets accomplished the takeover. [scene from Amerika] ACTOR: They did it without firing a shot. We just woke up one morning, and they were here.

KAYE [voice over]: Under the stewardship of Donald Wrye, here directing a scene at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Amerika grew from a three hour program to its present length of 14 1/2 hours, the longest mini series ever produced. It paints a bleak picture of Soviet occupied America. Wrye depicts a land of scarcity where people line up for basic necessities. DONALD WRYE, producer, Amerika: It's a little like the Depression, it's a little like Eastern European countries -- East Bloc countries. The point of what life is like is a sense of what life without purpose is. [scene from Amerika] ACTRESS: You want something to eat? ROBERT URICH: Yeah. Some Aunt Jemima pancakes, real maple syrup and tiny pork link sausages. ACTRESS: Yeah, me too, but I've got soybean cakes, and I've got molasses, and that's better for you anyway.

KAYE [voice over]: The film stars Robert Urich, who portrays a government official, a Soviet collaborator. Urich's boyhood friend is a dissident, an enemy of the people, played by Kris Kristofferson. Kristofferson has been released from a prison camp only to find Urich standing between him and his children. [scene from Amerika] KRIS KRISTOFFERSON: They're my children, Peter. I got a right to -- Mr. URICH: You got no rights. Don't you understand that? You're a political dissenter. You're in exile. You don't have any rights.

Mr. WRYE: As one watches the picture, one does not constantly sit there and say the, you know, the Soviets did this or the U. N. did this or anybody else did this. It is a human story about people who are trying to find meaning in their lives and a sense of purpose. KAYE [voice over]: But there is also a political message that Wrye's characters seem to hammer home at every opportunity. [scene from Amerika] MARIEL HEMINGWAY: I never thought of myself as American -- you know, patriotic or anything. I always just thought of myself as me. America was where I lived. Mr. URICH: The last time there was any real American spirit was World War II, 50 years ago, half a damn century. Damn it, I'm so tired of this ''I'm an American'' bull. Where was all that patriotism when it counted? Where was that willingness to sacrifice? KRIS KRISTOFFERSON: America's not a flag or a piece of territory. It's each one of us here and all around the country. That's what America is. WOODRUFF: To discuss how the U. S. portrays the Soviets, we have with us Vitaly Churkin, first secretary of the Soviet embassy in Washington. He's been watching American TV during his five year assignment in this country. And Richard Pipes, a professor of history at Harvard and a member of President Reagan's National Security Council staff during 1981 and '82. Mr. Churkin, what has you so upset about the way this series portrays your country and your people? VITALY CHURKIN, Soviet embassy: Well, we object about the purpose of the entire production, which is clearly to try to perpetuate the enemy image of the Soviet people and to instill in the minds of Americans hatred towards the Soviet Union, which is very dangerous if we talk about the future of Soviet American relations. If you ask me whether it works, well, we have a lot of respect towards the intelligence of American people, so maybe many of them would shrug it off as a crude propaganda thing. But at the same time, it does. I can tell you, for example -- it's a trivial thing, but it did happen -- that yesterday 12 tires were cut on Soviet embassy cars. This is a kind of first, instantaneous reaction, we think, after the beginning of the airing of that film. We're especially concerned about -- WOODRUFF: But you don't know for a fact that that's -- Mr. CHURKIN: We don't. But we can not think of anything else which could have triggered that. We are concerned especially about how this kind of cultural inflow affects children in the United States. Let me quote from an authentic conversation I had with an American mother who said she had been startled by a statement her six year old son made to her on his way to school. He said, ''I wish I could kill all the Russians. '' You know, one wonders what this country's preparing its young for -- for pulling the trigger? WOODRUFF: What do you think the film is saying to the American people, and do you think it's having the effect that Mr. Churkin says it has? RICHARD PIPES, Harvard University: I can't tell about the effect, but what it's saying is this -- I watched both installments. It tells Americans this is what you stand to lose. It depicts to Americans in terms comprehensible to Americans what has happened to peoples in other democracies, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland and Hungary. This is what you stand to lose. I think my feeling was, after watching two installments, was not hate Russia, but how lucky we are not to have lost these things. WOODRUFF: But you think it's -- you're saying it's a truthful portrayal. Mr. PIPES: Well, it's a truthful portrayal not of what would happen in the Soviet occupation of America, which I think is most unlikely, but to depict in American terms what has happened, in fact, in Eastern Europe. Mr. CHURKIN: Well, you know, I think that if you want to recreate a truthful story and it has no resemblance whatsoever to the Soviet Union or other socialist countries, you can do a miniseries about the homeless in the United States or the hungry in the United States. That would be very truthful indeed. But what -- well, I haven't seen any during my five year stay in the United States. What it is doing is taking the mind of people -- trying to take the mind of people -- from the real problems. Some of them we have in common -- the danger of nuclear war, ecological problems, and some social and political ills you have in this country. It is taking it away to some imaginary occupation by the Russians which has never happened and can not happen, as far as -- WOODRUFF: But as you know, the producers of the series say that it's just fiction. It's just a story, and people aren't going to associate what they see with the real motives of the Soviet Union. Mr. CHURKIN: Well, what they are saying is their own business. We are interested and concerned about what they made of it. What they made of it is a product of hatred, and it certainly has that effect. Mr. PIPES: I don't feel this. You know, I feel much more disturbed by movies like Rocky II, which really spreads hatred, because Russians are depicted as monsters. Mr. CHURKIN: And incidentally -- Mr. PIPES: This is a hideous movie. But I would say this movie really is about Americans. It is about Americans in a set of circumstances, and it is really American collaborators and American victims of their own weakness that are here depicted. The Russians, of course, are there. I think it is fatuous to say this is fiction. It isn't fiction. Clearly, there's a political motive in all this. But I repeat that, to my mind, the political motive is to tell Americans, ''You've got something to defend. Other people have lost it. This is how they've lost it. This is what life is like when you've lost it. Don't lose it. '' WOODRUFF: So you'd like to see more American -- Mr. PIPES: I was moved by it. I was very deeply moved by it, and my feeling was not one of hatred of Russians. Mr. CHURKIN: You know, I think that if your nation and your people need a shot in the arm like this in order to enhance your awareness of your own problems, then you're in deep trouble, because it doesn't help anything. It simply aggravates the problems -- might aggravate the problems we have between our two countries. People are talking constantly in the United States at all levels -- official and unofficial -- about the need to build trust, enhance confidence, to make the people of our two countries know each other better. How does it serve this purpose, do you think? WOODRUFF: But after all, it is just a series -- a dramatic series -- on television. It isn't entering into the diplomatic negotiations -- Mr. CHURKIN: What if your neighbor staged a dramatic amateur play where he would depict you as a murderer who has murdered his entire family? Would you think that the guy is simply making a good joke, or would you probably think that he has some sinister intentions as far as your family is concerned, and he is going nuts? I think the latter. So we inevitably have that impression watching this kind of production on American television. And let me say, we have seen nations turned into monsters within years, and we have suffered from that. So when we watch cultural developments in the United States, it is not out of cultural interest; it is out of trying to figure out where the United States is moving politically to. WOODRUFF: Okay, we'll come back to you both in just a moment. Now to the other side: how the United States is portrayed on Soviet television, especially on its newscasts, which are a vehicle of government and Communist Party thinking. Public station KTCA in Minneapolis St. Paul monitors the Soviet evening newscast Vremya. Reporter Judith Simms filed this report on what Soviet news watchers see and hear about the U. S.

JUDITH SIMMS [voice over]: The Soviet evening news broadcast Vremya devotes far more attention to international news than do the U. S. networks. There's almost daily coverage of the U. S. , often drawing on the networks for footage. One topic that is featured frequently is U. S. military activity. In the last year, for example, Soviet TV has characterized the testing of this laser weapon as one more dangerous step towards realizing President Reagan's so called Star Wars program. There are news dispatches on American military pursuits from Central America and South Korea. This footage shows joint maneuvers between American and South Korean soldiers. Soviet analysts say these broadcasts reflect a stereotypical Soviet fear of the abuse of American military power. Ronald Reagan, pictured here in Soviet TV coverage, is painted as the architect of a so called risky game -- a game played for the benefit of the few, the rich, the powerful. The defense build up mentality is shown to have spilled over into American society, as in this report from last May describing Americans' obsession with security. [clip from Soviet TV] REPORTER [through translator]: Every year, one in four U. S. homes is burglarized. To avoid being victimized, this couple spent more than $3,000 for an alarm system. HOMEOWNER [through translator]: When I leave the house, I turn the system on. When I return, I'm sure the house is secure.

SIMMS [voice over]: The Soviets suggest the rich need these security devices to protect themselves against the other America, an America of the poor. It's the existence of two Americas that forms a dominant theme in Soviet TV coverage. At the same time that President Reagan was giving his State of the Union Address, a Soviet crew was covering another address given by anti poverty advocates which attacked federal budget cuts and social programs and publicized the lack of aid for the poor. Along with stories about the poor, another Soviet TV stock in trade is to interview minorities about their problems. REPORTER [through translator]: What would you do if you were President for one day? AMERICAN [through translator]: The first thing I would do would be to build affordable housing for everyone. This is the first priority. REPORTER [through translator]: Would you stop police brutality? AMERICAN [through translator]: It's impossible. It will always happen.

SIMMS [voice over]: And it's an American Indian who appears to be the Soviet media counterpart to human rights activists like Andrei Sakharov who figure prominently in the West. American Indian movement leader Leonard Peltier was convicted in the controversial shooting deaths of two FBI agents in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, ten years ago. One of several reports on Peltier says that his only crime is that he is a fighter for native American rights. Racism is often the theme of Soviet evening news dispatches from the U. S. , whether the story is about Leonard Peltier, impoverished minorities, or about a demonstration outside the South African embassy. REPORTER [through translator]: U. S. protestors held a controversial march in front of the South African consulate in Chicago. The Ku Klux Klan was involved, carrying racist slogans and demanding stricter enforcement of apartheid in South Africa. This protest was held with the blessing and protection of the police, who didn't allow anyone to interfere with the protestors.

SIMMS [voice over]: But observers say they have detected a new Gorbachev era trend on Soviet TV -- one that, for the first time, includes departures from the stereotypes, showing a black professor at Harvard talking frankly about American views of Soviets, or even an American student criticizing the Soviet constitution. STUDENT: I think it's stated in Article 29 -- [through translator] It says the internal politics of the Soviet Union are aimed at a movement for international liberation. The difficulty from an American point of view is that what the Soviet Union considers to be a national liberation movement we see as an attempt to replace a government which supports the United States with one that supports the Soviet Union. PROFESSOR [through translator]: We live with the conception that life in the Soviet Union is basically monotone, that people work there without any particular motivation, that it is boring there, and that people have no sense of humor, and life is basically a drag.

SIMMS [voice over]: A final suggestion comes from a young woman in San Francisco. AMERICAN [through translator]: They have to see that everything is terrible here, and we have to see that everything is terrible there. In order to rid ourselves of these feelings, you have to be able to see everything with your own eyes. WOODRUFF: Now back to Vitaly Churkin and Dr. Richard Pipes. Dr. Pipes, was what you just saw a pretty fair representation of what the United States is -- Mr. PIPES: No, because it doesn't show the real poisonous anti American propaganda. Let me give you an example. On February 1, Soviet television aired a program called [Soviet phrase], which means ''Conspiracy Against the Country of Soviets. '' Well, they depicted our First Secretary of Defense Forrestal as a Nazi collaborator, where they described President Reagan's views on behalf of Lithuanians as being Nazi like, and where they depicted President Hoover's efforts to save hundreds of thousands of Russian lives as an attempt to, in fact, poison them and experiment with poisons on Russian lives. This sort of thing is infinitely worse than what we have seen here. What we have seen here you can see on American television almost any day. Similarly, the caricatures, the descriptions in Soviet media which describe Americans almost exclusively as militarists. Here we are, a country that doesn't even have a draft -- military draft. And we're described as absolutely mad militarists. WOODRUFF: Is Dr. Pipes right? I mean, is much of the Soviet media occupied with an even more negative portrayal of the U. S. than -- Mr. CHURKIN: No, I don't think he's accurate in his assessments, and I don't think he necessarily interprets that film he cited correctly. But anyway, I think if you take on balance what is being said in the Soviet Union about the United States and the Soviet Union and vice versa, you'll see that in the United States there are many more extreme cases. Whole publications, newspapers, specializing exclusively on very harshly anti Soviet things. And frankly, I do not see why necessarily we should be much more restrained than the Americans in trying to wage that kind of a cultural war. Sometimes, I feel we have to retaliate, so we go -- WOODRUFF: What news organizations are you referring to? You mean -- Mr. CHURKIN: Well, I don't want to cite, but even in Washington you can find some newspapers who almost exclusively specialize -- WOODRUFF: You mean the conservative, pro right wing -- Mr. CHURKIN: Right wing things exclusively dedicated to bitter, harsh, anti Soviet, angry, anti Soviet propaganda. WOODRUFF: He's right, isn't he? Mr. PIPES: Well, he's right, except you also find here very pro communist publications. We are a free country. Whatever appears on Soviet media is government sponsored. It is censored by government censors and approved. We don't have a government press. Therefore, you can find anything in here. You can find pro Soviet things, anti Soviet things, crazy things from left and right. And this is simply not fair to compare the two. WOODRUFF: Why is there in the Soviet media such an emphasis on the militaristic aspect of the United States, the crime, the poverty. Mr. CHURKIN: It is because -- first, the military aspects of it -- they cover a lot what we are concerned about. And we are concerned by militaristic expressions in the U. S. foreign policy. Then, of course, there is the critical aspect. You criticize us a lot, we criticize you a lot. And we find a lot of objectionable things in the United States. WOODRUFF: Well, do you think there's a fair portrayal of our country? Mr. CHURKIN: I think that there is a considerable balance. And your piece does show that balance. And it is becoming more and more balanced. Sometimes, quite often, there are positive things shown about the United States. Then there is, I think, a very important other element. There is that cultural aspect. The Soviet people are much more familiar with the American culture first hand than Americans with the Soviet culture. We read American books, we watch American movies. Many American actors are known to the Soviet people. This is not the case about the American population. So if you talk only about propaganda, it is not a fair picture in the SovietUnion. But propaganda is almost the entire picture, as far as the United States is concerned. WOODRUFF: Dr. Pipes? Mr. PIPES: Let me say the real problem is that the United States is very popular among the Soviet people. And this does not suit many of the Soviet leaders. They probably have to whip up continuously anti American sentiment. I don't think it works. In the United States, the Soviet Union is not popular, and for good reason, I think. We criticize ourselves a great deal. We don't need, in a sense, any criticism from abroad, because we are so self critical. And the value of this kind of program which we're discussing here is that it does make you aware that not everything is bad in this country, that there are a lot of good things in this country. WOODRUFF: I was just going to say, but what about, as we saw at the end of that last report there, that there is beginning to be in the Soviet media bits and pieces of a more positive portrayal of the United States? Mr. PIPES: Well, that's something to be welcomed. If that in fact happens, it will be very welcome. Indeed, I was myself published in Moscow News last month, which indicates a kind of opening. And Kenneth -- Mr. Adelman was published in Pravda and so on, so there is an opening. They're hearing our voices. And it's increasingly done now in the Soviet Union that they present our point of view and then their point of view. That's fine. WOODRUFF: How far is that opening going to go, Mr. Churkin? Mr. CHURKIN: Very far. It's -- generally speaking, all the reforms, the transformations which are now underway in our society, are only at their initial stage. So it's going to go very far, and it will take some time in all the aspects -- economic, political, democratization of our society, which we find very important. WOODRUFF: But I mean, to what extent do you think the media in your country may tend toward an actually freer free press? Mr. CHURKIN: Well, we think it is a free press. It works differently. I think I disagree completely with Mr. Pipes when he says that, since it is sort of a government owned press to a certain extent, it means that it's not free. We don't think it's fair to say that, and we don't think that it gives -- WOODRUFF: But it is controlled by the government and by the party. Mr. CHURKIN: In some cases, it's owned by the government. In some, it's not. And we don't think that necessarily you work 100% for who pays for your work. It does not mean that you're not free to criticize. And I would like to point out that Mr. Pipes mentioned criticism in the United States. The Soviet Union is an extremely critical country, as far as its domestic situation. Mr. PIPES: I would feel better if I or somebody like myself could appear on Soviet TV in Mr. Churkin's place and watch a program like the one I mentioned -- the conspiracy -- and criticize and say, ''This is wrong. This does not depict historical accuracy. '' When and if this happens, I would say things are opening up. But you see, Mr. Churkin is here. He is criticizing our program, and there's no American on Soviet TV criticizing theirs. Mr. CHURKIN: Well -- WOODRUFF: Why couldn't there be an American on a Soviet television program doing the same thing? Mr. CHURKIN: This argument is at least two or three years outdated. Mr. PIPES: It's 20 years -- Mr. CHURKIN: Americans -- exactly. Maybe that. Americans have been appearing on Soviet television more and more frequently. Due to the difference in our television, each time, dozens of millions of people watch them. And I'd love to discuss that kind of a program with Mr. Pipes on Soviet television. And we are interested, actually, in showing Amerika on Soviet television, because it will be interesting for the Soviet people to see how they are being depicted by the United States. WOODRUFF: Well, maybe you can invite Dr. Pipes over -- Mr. CHURKIN: Well, I do not run the Soviet television, but it's not something extraordinary. If you follow the Soviet television, it has been happening more and more often. Very extreme views have been expressed on Soviet television on all sorts of subjects, including by Americans. WOODRUFF: We'll be watching. That's for sure. Thank you, Dr. Richard Pipes, Vitaly Churkin. Thank you both for being with us. LEHRER: Once again, the main stories of this Tuesday. CIA Director designate Robert Gates told the Senate Intelligence Committee the CIA made some mistakes in the Iran arms transactions. He promised to keep Congress informed of covert operations and said he would consider resigning if given a Presidential order to withhold such notification more than several days. Another Wall Street record was set, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing up 54 points. The Soviets said they will release two more dissident leaders. And the head of the Federal Railroad Administration said tampering with safety equipment on U. S. trains is widespread. Good night, Judy. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our News Hour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.