The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, some analysis of today's talks in Beijing about the downed surveillance plane, Susan Dentzer reports on an herbal approach to the blues, Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to Michael Chabon, the new winner of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Terence Smith chronicles a struggle over public television programming in Idaho, and Robert Pinsky celebrates national poetry month. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. And China today held a second day of talks about the grounded American surveillance plane. There was no agreement, but U.S. Negotiators said the meeting was productive. They had threatened not to attend, saying China refused to discuss the plane's return during their initial meeting Wednesday. The U.S. Aircraft and a Chinese jet fighter collided April 1 over the South China Sea. A U.S. negotiator said the accident was one of several subjects covered today.

PETER VERGA: On the causes of the crash, we presented our views strongly. We clearly disagree on this issue. The facts are that the United States plane was not at fault. It was in international air space, flying straight and level when the PRC aircraft collided with it. As to how to avoid future collisions we propose that future talks under the military consultative agreement -- we provided the Chinese with a concrete proposal on how wecan proceed. Follow-up to be with be in normal diplomatic channels.

JIM LEHRER: A spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry said her government must finish investigating the accident before deciding the fate of the plane. The foreign ministry also released a computer simulation that showed the U.S. plane veering into the Chinese jet, causing the accident. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In South Africa today, 39 drug companies dropped their legal fight against a law providing for cheaper AIDS drugs. They had argued it violated their patent rights, but they came under international pressure to end the case. We have a report from Victoria MacDonald of Independent Television News.

VICTORIA MacDONALD: 25.3 million people are currently infected with HIV And AIDS in South Africa, more than in any other country in the world. And in South Africa and Zimbabwe, AIDS could claim the lives of half of all 15-year- olds. And so celebrations broke out in a Pretoria courtroom as the three-year long legal action was dropped by the world's leading pharmaceutical companies. But the South African Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association say it was a negotiated settlement. Certainly over the weekend, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-general, and Thabo Mbeki, the South African President, agreed with the drug companies that they will be consulted on healthcare issues. The law that was under challenge allows South Africa to produce or import cheap, generic drugs. Yet today it said it has no plans to do this, and even implied that a widespread program to supply AIDS medicines is a long way off. But today's victory does have enormous implications for third- world countries, and it is not isolated to AIDS drugs. Some argue cheap or free medicines could also be supplied for diseases such as malaria.

JIM LEHRER: In recent months, a number of major drug companies have said they'll offer AIDS drugs in developing countries at or below cost. President Bush said today he'll sign an international treaty phasing out 12 highly toxic chemicals. It was negotiated during the Clinton administration. The chemicals are known as the "dirty dozen," and include PCBS, plus DDT and other pesticides. Mr. Bush spoke in the White House Rose Garden, joined by Secretary of State Powell and EPA Administrator Whitman.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: These pollutants are linked to developmental defects -- cancer and other grave problems in humans and animals. The risks are great and the need for action is clear. We must work to eliminate or at least to severely restrict the release of these toxins without delay. This agreement addresses a global environmental problems. These chemicals respect no boundaries and can harm Americans even when released abroad.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. and other industrialized countries have outlawed most of the chemicals, but poor countries still use them to combat diseases like malaria. The treaty would help those nations pay for safer alternatives. It now goes to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It needs approval by 50 countries before taking effect. On Wall Street today, stocks continued a rally that began yesterday, after the Federal Reserve announced a surprise interest rate cut. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 77 points at 10,693. The NASDAQ Index was up 102 points, at 2182, a gain of nearly 5%. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the China talks, a herbal remedy, a Pulitzer winner, a programming struggle, and a poetry celebration.

UPDATE - PLANE TALK

JIM LEHRER: Spencer Michels begins the China story.

SPENCER MICHELS: "Businesslike," "productive," "very frank": U.S. And Chinese diplomats used those words to describe today's meeting in Beijing on the surveillance aircraft incident. It was the second in two days of talks convened in the wake of the crash off South China. The negotiators did discuss the fate of the U.S. surveillance plane, which has sat on the tarmac at China's Hainan Island for 19 days. The 24 members of the crew of the U.S. Navy plane were sent home last week after being held for 11 days. After yesterday's meeting, Washington threatened to shut down the talks, saying Beijing had refused to address seriously the return of the EP-3 aircraft. But China put the issue on the table for today's session. Despite the improved tone, a Chinese spokesperson noted that fundamental differences remain.

ZHANG QIYUE (Translated ): In terms of explanations to the incident, the U.S. side gave their own reasons in the talks, and the Chinese side provided plenty of evidence to prove how it was the American plane that caused the accident.

SPENCER MICHELS: Beijing officials then showed reporters what they called "very convincing proof" that the American plane caused the collision. This Chinese computer simulation shows the EP-3 hitting the fighter with its propeller, wing flaps and nose, as the American plane was banking. Pentagon officials say the U.S. plane was flying level. China also released this video footage, shot last year, which they said shows an American fighter jet very close to a Chinese plane over the South China Sea. The caption the Chinese added says, "taking my picture." Yesterday, the Pentagon released this footage, which it says shows pilot Wang Wei who died in the crash with the EP-3. The pilot flashed his e-mail address at a U.S. surveillance plane. This afternoon at the State Department, a spokesman said negotiators in Beijing discussed all their agenda items today.

RICHARD BOUCHER: We explained to the Chinese our proposal on repairing and then returning our aircraft. They again promised to get back to us on that proposal as well. We think the airplane ought to be returned. We think it's quite clear that it should be returned. We're looking for our airplane back, and we've proposed to them how to do it.

SPENCER MICHELS: Minutes later at the Pentagon, a spokesman was asked about the future of U.S. surveillance flights.

REAR ADMIRAL CRAIG QUIGLEY: We have made no announcement on scheduling or any of the details of those flights, other than to say that we intend to continue to fly reconnaissance and surveillance flights around the world in international airspace, in accordance with international law.

SPENCER MICHELS: China and the U.S. both said they will continue negotiating, but there was no word on when or where.

JIM LEHRER: Now, some analysis from James Sasser, who was the U.S. Ambassador to China during the Clinton administration; Larry Wortzel, director of the Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center. He served as Army attach in Beijing in the late 1990s. Yu Maochun, a professor of history at the Naval Academy. He was born in China; he's been a U.S. citizen since 1998; and Jonathan Landay, national security correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers. A better tone today, anything more than a better tone do you believe, what you've been told?

JONATHAN LANDAY: It doesn't seem that way although there were two other, there were two significant things that happened I think. One is that the Chinese did discuss the plane and actually took the American proposal for how to bring it back to the United States. The second thing that happened was they accepted an American proposal in which the United States suggested that these discussions continue in what is known as a maritime consultative commission that was set up between the United States military and the Chinese military. That commission was supposed to meet on Monday. The commission meeting has been canceled to give both sides time to look at the issues, prepare their cases, so that if the Chinese do accept that proposal, it can then move forward.

JIM LEHRER: Now the proposal that we have on the table for returning the plane; is that basically a mechanical proposal -- I mean we would come in with mechanics, fix the plane and take off or put it in a box, or that kind of thing?

JONATHAN LANDAY: Essentially yes, the United States would have to send technical experts in to look at the plane, assess whether it can be repaired there on the island and flown off or whether the damage is such that the plane can actually be physically lifted up and put on a barge and towed away or taken apart and packed up in crates.

JIM LEHRER: And is considered significant that the Chinese actually accepted that proposal -- I mean they didn't accept it. They accepted it physically, they didn't accept it - of course -- as something they would do?

JONATHAN LANDAY: Right, and the way it looks is this delegation was not empowered to make decisions. This delegation was strictly to take American proposals and convey them to the higher leadership, which is where all decisions are made in China.

JIM LEHRER: Ambassador Sasser, how do you read this? How do you read the significance of what happened today?

JAMES SASSER: I read it as some progress. The Chinese described the meeting as frank and leading to mutual understanding. We said it was productive. And business-like so I think that is some progress. I was encouraged that the Chinese delegation was led by one of their diplomats and not by one of their generals. Lou Shamin, a man who led the Chinese delegation is a very able diplomat. That is the good news. The bad news is he is not at a high enough level that he can actually negotiate and make decisions. So we've terminated these meetings as of now, but I think on a fairly cordial note given the circumstances, the first time meeting was not cordial at all, very acrimonious but -- now -

JIM LEHRER: The same people, though - the same people on both sides --

JAMES SASSER: -- with the same people -

JIM LEHRER: So what do you think -

JAMES SASSER: The first day was a tough day -- so tough that our ambassador who by the way has done a terrific job, Admiral Preuher went to the Chinese foreign minister the next morning before the afternoon meeting was to resume, and gave them some sort of information, I suspect, telling them that if things didn't improve, we weren't going to go forward with the meeting that afternoon. So now, we've concluded these two meetings and I think it moves back now into normal diplomatic channels with Admiral Preuher doing the negotiating for us and probably a vice minister of foreign affairs empowered to speak with more authority during doing the negotiating for the Chinese.

JIM LEHRER: Let's go back to your first statement - the good news was there was a diplomat rather than a military person, why is that good news?

JAMES SASSER: Well, I think the foreign ministry, the Chinese foreign ministry in my view would like very much to get this episode behind them. They have a lot invested as does President Jiang in building a good relationship with the United States for a lot of reasons. I think the Chinese military, their testosterone level is pretty high at this point because they lost an aircraft; they lost a pilot. We landed on their airfield they claim without getting permission, although we say we were giving a "May day" call; I suspect we were. So if they sent their military people to lead the delegation, it would have been indicative I think they really weren't looking for some sort of resolution.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Wortzel, how do you read what happened today?

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): Well, I think it is as the ambassador said a positive step. I'm heartened that the United States has insisted -- as it should -- on the important principles of free navigation of international air space; and the fact that the Chinese today discussed that and listened to that and set a date to begin to talk about rules of the road so both sides can get out and safely take care of their military duties, I think is very important for the future.

JIM LEHRER: What about the return of the airplane? Is that -- is there any reason to believe that China is never going to allow the return of that plane?

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): I think it's going to be like a slow oozing wound. I have never seen the Chinese return the equipment of detained military personnel or attaches. We -- the United States in '89 had a few of their F-8 fighters that were here to be rebuilt under a defense cooperation program. After the Tiananmen massacre, when military contacts were stopped, they stayed here for as long as five years.

JIM LEHRER: We kept their planes here.

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): We kept their planes here for five years in storage, charged them the storage fees so I think there is some bookkeeper somewhere in Beijing that is not in a hurry.

JIM LEHRER: I got you. How do you read -- how do you read China's position on this? What do they want to come out of these negotiations, do you think, in exchange for the airplane or in exchange for something?

YU MAOCHUN: I think China is decided on this issue; I think from the diplomatic circle, I think they really want to return the plane as quickly as possible because this is a very unpleasant reminder of the ferocity with which this whole scenario has been carried out. Therefore from the American sides Americans want to feel the mood of China, because China has been very moody over this whole incident. And we don't know exactly who's calling the shot -- I assume the military is holding the upper hand, but so --.

JIM LEHRER: You don't read it the way the ambassador does -- that the fact that somebody from the foreign ministry representing Chinese in these negotiations is a good sign?

YU MAOCHUN: It's a good sign on the diplomatic front. I don't think China's diplomats carry that way in the ultimate decision making process. The military has reached its goals so far I think. The Americans -- you know -- I think we have successfully destroyed the sensitive equipment and materials so for the Americans it's a matter of prestige, I assume - so it's American property; and it ought to be returned. From the Chinese point of view, if it's destroyed, maybe there is less value for them. So this matter has more political implications than pure military utility.

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe from China's points of view there is a symbolic thing, a pride thing involved here in keeping that airplane and not returning it to the United States?

YU MAOCHUN: Absolutely. But in addition to think I think this is a golden opportunity for the military to claim greater relevance in Chinese politics. One of the most visible person in the whole episode is the Chinese defense minister who made all sorts of speeches. One of the speeches he made was we have to turn the enthusiasm, the emotions stirred up by this incident into building a stronger Chinese military. That is potentially very dangerous I think if the Chinese national agenda, which has so far been focused on economic development in taking over by the military agenda, and --.

JIM LEHRER: So the plane would become something used in parades and put on display somewhere to kind of rally the folks?

YU MAOCHUN: I think that is the nature of all the behaviors so far.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read the importance ever that, Mr. Ambassador, the importance of the airplane, from our point of view, why do we need it back? What are we -- what should we be willing to risk to get it back?

JAMES SASSER: Well, initially we said we wanted the airplane back because it was the principle of the thing. Now it has been my experience that when nations are individuals, start negotiating by saying it's the principle of the thing, that you are getting into some real trouble. I tend to agree with Larry Wortzel, it's probably going to be slow coming back. I disagree with our distinguished professor here; I know the general as does Colonel Wortzel; my experience was him was he was not that hard edged. Rather than being what you would call a fighting general he was a more of a political general. He was a commissar initially in the Chinese Army. My impression was that he was pretty subservient to the Chinese political leadership. I don't -- I think there maybe some pressure here to try to get the Chinese defense budget up or try to recapture some status and prestige for the Chinese military. They suffered a blow when one of their trusted senior colonels defected -- or at least they think he defected -- to the United States just a few months ago. And they've had some egg on their face for a while. We keep flying these flights up and down their coast, and they just have to sort of sit and watch it and they haven't liked that at all.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): We've been actually in very serious discussions with the Chinese military about these flights, and about --.

JIM LEHRER: Is that going on --

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): I can go back to 1988 talking to their navy staff and they understand what is going on here. I think that the general in this instance is not really being completely subservient to his political masters. I think there is real jockeying for power going on, and that the military -- that Jiang Zemin can't be sure he is going to get the complete support of his military when they think they can drive the agenda.

YU MAOCHUN: It's true the Chinese military is in the complete control by the party. There was a speech made on April 4th. He stressed that point. However, the fragility of the Chinese American relationship is caused by the contingencies, on the operational level granting a visa to certain politicians from Taiwan or some accident happened over the international water. It is the military that has the operational control over these matters. If they want to make the situation very unpleasant to a civilian leadership, if they want to push its own agenda, they have plenty of opportunity to do things like that. They can create these contingencies to make this whole relationship very tense.

JIM LEHRER: Do you read the situation as if they are going to do this?

YU MAOCHUN: I don't think there is any clear sense that they have the policy spelled out on this but I think it is based upon the consequences of the incident and the fallout -- I think the military is the biggest winner of all.

JIM LEHRER: Now from the U.S. point of view, is -- these meetings are to continue and as Ambassador Sasser said and also the spokesman said through diplomatic - I mean, does that mean that the Pentagon and our military is now out of this?

JONATHAN LANDAY: I don't think so at all. I mean they -- we have made the military the lead on these negotiations, at least up till now because we -- the United States sees this as being a military matter. And in fact if you listened to the State Department briefing today, they were stressing how they thought it was a good idea that these discussions resume in the military maritime -- in the maritime military consultative commission. Whether or not the Chinese accept that we have to wait and see but I suspect they will.

JIM LEHRER: How did you speed read, Mr. Wortzel the statement from the Pentagon spokesman that the surveillance flights, he wouldn't say when but he confirmed again that they will continue. They may even be happening now.

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): I hope they are.

JIM LEHRER: You do hope they are?

COL. LARRY WORTZEL (Ret.): Oh, absolutely. I think this is a very, very important principles not only to the United States, but to Japan, the Republic of Korea, just to go down the South China Sea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines where China's expansive maritime claims that they hope to have the United States tacitly accept by stopping flights really eat into the claims of all these other countries.

JIM LEHRER: Ambassador Sasser, though, if we did start -- start say if we did a flight tomorrow and Chinese airplanes went up again, would that be seen as an act of provocation on our part?

JAMES SASSER: I think it could be. I think we would be ice to suspend these flights until this whole issue has sort of come back down to earth and been resolved. If we began the flights I think immediately, and it appears that we may be doing that, the Department of Defense I read yesterday either indicated that they might start the flights, not fly them in the South China Sea but fly them up in the North where the Chinese fighters are less aggressive, but if we were to begin these flights, I think right now, I think it could be seen as a provocation. We also have to realize now the Chinese embassy here in Washington was saying today that we fly 200 of these flights a year. And they are indicating -- not saying it, but implying that, look, just don't fly so many of them.

JIM LEHRER: You don't have to stop them. Just don't fly so many?

JAMES SASSER: They are not saying that and I don't want to put words in their mouth, but there is some implication if there weren't so many it won't be quite so objectionable.

JIM LEHRER: We have to leave it there. Thank you all four very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the flower called St. John's Wort, the Pulitzer winner for fiction, program troubles in Idaho, and a poem for poetry month.

FOCUS - BEATING THE BLUES

JIM LEHRER: Susan Dentzer reports on an herb used to fight depression. Our health unit is a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

SUSAN DENTZER: An estimated 18 million Americans suffer each year from depression. And as many as two million are believed to be treating themselves with this. St. John's Wort is a simple yellow wildflower, so named because it blooms in Europe around June 24, or St. John's Day. Extracts of it have been used for centuries to treat depression, including, reportedly, by the roman emperor Nero. It's long been widely used in Europe and caught on in 1990s in the United States. Sold most frequently as an over- the-counter herbal supplement, St. John's Wort has found its way not only onto pharmacy shelves, but also into breakfast cereals, herbal teas and fruit juices. Dr. Norman Rosenthal is a psychiatrist affiliated with Georgetown Medical Center, and the author of a book on St. John's Wort. He says that the herb contains Hyperforin, one of several substances in the plant that could be active ingredients in battling depression. One or more of these ingredients is believed to function much like conventional antidepressants, such as Prozac and Zoloft, by affecting brain chemicals called neurotransmitters that in turn influence mood.

DR. NORMAN ROSENTHAL: I think "nature's Prozac" is a fun way of referring to St. John's Wort, and not that out of line.

SUSAN DENTZER: Rosenthal says several dozen of the mildly depressed patients he's treated have used St. John's Wort with good results.

DR. NORMAN ROSENTHAL: For example, someone who had job difficulties, felt irritable and angry with the people at work, it bothered her sleep a little bit, she didn't feel like going to work in the morning, she developed a negative attitude around work. She decided to take St. John's Wort, and within two or three weeks her whole attitude had improved. She wasn't seriously disturbed in any way, but it turned her around.

SUSAN DENTZER: But a study published this week in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" could have a depressing effect on enthusiasm for St. John's Wort.

DR. RICHARD SHELTON: So someone would come in and say, "I've taken the herb and it really didn't help me at all."

SUSAN DENTZER: Dr. Richard Shelton is a psychiatrist at Vanderbilt University and lead author of the new study.

DR. RICHARD SHELTON: I saw enough people, it started giving me some concern that perhaps something was wrong here and that St. John's Wort was not going to be effective for the treatment of depression.

SUSAN DENTZER: So Shelton devised the new study, funded by a $2 million grant from Pfizer Corp., Which produces both Zoloft as well as St. John's Wort supplements. The study examined 200 patients with mild to severe depression who sought treatment at 11 academic medical centers around the country. Half were treated with St. John's Wort, and half were given a dummy pill, or placebo.

DR. RICHARD SHELTON: What we found was that if you looked at the change in the depression ratings over the eight-week period of treatment, there were no differences between active St. John's Wort and placebo.

SUSAN DENTZER: The finding on St. John's Wort was somewhat surprising. It seemed to contradict earlier studies of the herb -- most of them done in Europe. But Shelton says most of those studies were seriously flawed. Some examined too few patients to be statistically valid, or failed to use standard rating tools to judge the how depressed patients were. Although Shelton and his colleagues sought to correct those flaws in their study, they admit that it has one key shortcoming: It only compared St. John's Wort with a placebo, and not with a prescription antidepressant like Prozac. Rosenthal says that research loophole could be plugged later this year. That's when results are scheduled to be published from a major study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health that will compare St. John's Wort to both Zoloft and a placebo. >>

DR. NORMAN ROSENTHAL: What we will know is whether St. John's Wort is better than placebo, but also how it stacks up against a popular modern antidepressant.

SUSAN DENTZER: In the meantime, there's some evidence that Americans are already beginning to sour on St. John's Wort. Jerome Danoff is a pharmacist in McLean, Virginia.

JEROME DANOFF: I'd say we probably sell three or four a month at the most at this point. We were selling quite a bit a few years ago.

SUSAN DENTZER: In fact, according to the trade magazine "Nutrition Business Journal," U.S. retail sales of the supplements peaked at roughly $300 million in 1998; they fell by almost $70 million the following year. All signs point to an ongoing decline ever since. Some mental health providers, like Rosenthal, say they're still keeping an open mind about St. John's Wort, especially for treating the mildest cases of the blues. But even he says the new study reinforces the view that people with serious depression should absolutely not use the supplement.

DR. NORMAN ROSENTHAL: If you've been depressed for a month or more, if you're not sleeping properly, you're not eating, you're losing weight, you can't get out of bed in the morning, your job is suffering, your relationships are suffering, that is the cluster of symptoms you see in depression. Sometimes people feel hopeless and despairing, see no future or actually consider suicide. If you have those features, don't mess around. Get to a doctor. Get the best treatment by a professional for that condition. Don't self-medicate.

SUSAN DENTZER: And that's likely to be the best advice that mental health professionals can offer for now, at least until it's known for certain how the so-called nature's Prozac really stacks up against the man-made kind.

SERIES - WINNER

JIM LEHRER: Now, another conversation with the winner of the 2001 Pulitzer Prize in the arts, and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The fiction prize went to Michael Chabon for his novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay." It's a big novel-- 656 pages long-- with a big story about escape, illusion and art in the shadow of the Holocaust. Chabon is the author of two other novels, including "Wonder Boys," which was made into a Hollywood film starring Michael Douglas last year. Chabon grew up in Columbia, Maryland and now lives in Berkeley, California. Congratulations.

MICHAEL CHABON: Thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Were you surprised?

MICHAEL CHABON: I was very surprised. I was just going about my morning routine out in my office behind our house, and I heard this screaming in the house. And I ran out to see what was going on, and it turned out to be my wife. She was on the phone with a reporter from the AP, and she was jumping up and down, and she hurled and-a-half months pregnant was something I would have liked to have had a little preparation for. And I'm still kind of surprised to admit it, to tell the truth, I wasn't really expecting it, and I had kind of convinced myself, in fact, this it probably wasn't going to be the case.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's a very big award for a very big novel with big themes. Tell us the story briefly.

MICHAEL CHABON: Well, it's a story of two cousins, Sam Clay who is a Brooklyn boy about 18 years old when the story starts, and Josef Kavalier who is a refugee from Nazi occupied Prague and has fled this country leaving his whole family behind, and coming to New York. Very quickly, Sam, his cousin convinces him to go into the comic book business with him. They create this character inspired in part by Joe's having left Prague behind, and in part by Joe's training as an called the escapist, which he did as a teenager in Prague, a character called the "escapist," who is super powered escape artist, a kind of a Houdini figure. It becomes very successful. They never really quite see the fruits of that success. We trace the course of their lives over... Through the war years and then into the post-war period in suburban New York on Long Island. Joe has left his whole family behind. He is wracked with lots of feelings of guilt over that, and he kind of channels his guilt and rage into his work first as a comic book artist, and they create these incredibly, horrifically violent scenes of carnage in which the escapist is destroying entire Luftwafa squadrons and ripping tanks apart with his bare hands.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What was amazing was how you managed not to have tragedy and comedy, but they are all mixed up much. It's about comic books but it's also about the Holocaust. How did you manage to do that?

MICHAEL CHABON: Well, I just try to be true to the character of Joe Kavalier. He came together very quickly for me, more quickly than some other characters have in things I've written previously. I made a decision very early on to have him be a refugee and to be from Prague. And that decision which I made without really thinking about it-- and to be honest, I'm not really sure why I made the decision-- proved to be the determining factor for this book in that it made everything else possible. I knew I was going to write about comic books and the early history of this fascinating, wild and woolly comic book business in New York, but the other things that began to work their ways into the story, the escape artistry. The figure of this golem, this legendary automaton of clay created by a Prague rabbi during the Middle Ages.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Actually read about that. Tell us more about the golem and read that part of the book.

MICHAEL CHABON: I would be happy to. There are a lot of stories about golems in Jewish folk lower. The one I was concerned about was the Prague golem. There are various versions of the story. Some people say he was created merely to be a servant in the main synagogue in Prague, but there are other stories - persistent stories -- that he was created to be kind of a champion of the ghetto, to defend the Jews of the Prague ghetto against pogroms and blood rivals and so on. And it's that figure that I began to see, because I made this arbitrary choice to have Joe come from Prague, I started to see that the golem was in many way as kind of precursor of the superman figure - the character like Superman. So I should also mention many people have pointed out that the Frankenstein myth is probably drawn in part at least from the golem story. "In literature and folklore, the significance and fascination of golems, from Rabbi Lowes to Victor Von Frankensteins lay in their soulessness, in their tireless inhuman strength -- in their metaphorical association with overweening human ambition, and in the frightening ease with which they pass beyond the control of their horrified and admiring creators. But it seemed to Joe that none of these Faustian hubris least of all were among the true reasons that impelled men time after time to hazard the making of golem. The shaping of a golem to him was a gesture of hope offered against hope in a time of desperation. It was the expression of a yearning that a few magic words and an artful hand might produce something, one poor, dumb powerful thing exempt from the crushing strictures, from the ills, cruelties and inevitable failures of the greater creation. It was the voicing of a vane wish, when you got down to it, to escape."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Critics have really pointed out your ability to have such style with a great story. When did you know you wanted to be a writer?

MICHAEL CHABON: Well, I think I was pretty young. I started getting interested in writing and writers when I learned how to read. I became very curious about the authors of the books that I was reading and I realized it was possibly an interesting job to have. But it was when I was ten years old that I first wrote something long. It was a 12-page story that I wrote for an English class, that was about Sherlock Holmes meeting Captain Nemo from "20,000 Leagues under the sea." I loved writing it. I loved writing about these characters. I didn't have... Take the trouble of inviting my own. I could use others but, more importantly, I tried to write in Doyle's voice. And that was the first time in my voice in my life that I had ever paid attention to language and style. There is a very distinctive voice-- the voice of dr. John H. Watson-- in imitating the voice, I was forced to pay attention to diction and word choice. I started to understand what a style really was, how you made one, that you made it up out of word choices and then my teacher gave me an "A" on the story, and my parents said it was terrific. And I thought, wow, that was so wonderful, and I enjoyed it so much, and I got praise for it. So this is it, this is what I'm going to be. I was lucky. My parents, when I announced to them that I wanted to be a writer, said, "okay." They never... It seemed to be a fine ambition to them. They never attempted to discourage me or steer me towards a more sensible course. I mean, I think privately, they may have had their reservations or their doubts, but they didn't ever burden me with their doubts. And they just always encouraged me to go ahead and try.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You are turning this novel into a screenplay now. And you're actually writing the screenplay this time.

MICHAEL CHABON: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How is it going?

MICHAEL CHABON: It's going pretty well. I just finished the first draft.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is it really different?

MICHAEL CHABON: Yeah, it is really different. I think it is incumbent on me to make it really different. I have an obligation to do that because I think it's too tempting for the writer of the original work to do that, boil down or extract all the dialogue, that is not really fair. I think I have a job to do which is to create a screenplay that tells a story that is told in this novel. And to do that I'm unfortunately forced to leave a lot behind, and to leave out a lot. On the other hand, I have been able to find new things, new scenes that aren't in the book, new approaches to telling the story that aren't possible in a novel.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, Michael Chabon, congratulations again, and thanks for being with us.

MICHAEL CHABON: Oh, thank you, Elizabeth.

FOCUS - PUSHING THE ENVELOPE?

JIM LEHRER: A battle over PBS programming in Idaho: Media correspondent Terence Smith has our report.

ANCHOR: Presentation of "Dialogue" on Idaho Public Television is made...

TERENCE SMITH: For years, the single biggest contributor to Idaho's statewide public broadcasting system has been its legislature. This year, some of the legislators decided that the old saying "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" should apply to the station's programming.

ROBERT LEE: My wife and I were watching public television not long ago. We enjoy it. Most of the programming is very good. We were watching a program entitled "The American Experience," and subtitled "The American." It was well done. We got partway through that, and there was a very graphic display of sexual relations between unmarried adults on television, during primetime. I objected to that.

TERENCE SMITH: Here's what Senator Robert Lee didn't like, a "Masterpiece Theatre" production of Henry James' Novel "The American." Senator Lee was debating the station's programming choices with its general manager, Peter Morrill.

ROBERT LEE: We have a responsibility here to exercise what we believe are community standards of morality. I believe in this state, we are a highly moral community, and so the question is, do you intend to help... or to follow high moral standards in the programming that you're presenting, and following the moral standard of our communities?

PETER MORRILL: The program that you spoke of, with all due respect, is from the "Masterpiece Theatre" series. It was broadcast at the hour of 9:00 at night. It met all industry standards.

ROBERT LEE: I don't give a damn about industry standards. I care about community standards, and that's what we ought to be following.

TERENCE SMITH: And those community standards, Senator Lee says, are more conservative in Idaho than in the rest of the country.

ROBERT LEE: The point is, we are putting money, public funds, hard-earned tax dollars, into public television. We have an obligation to make sure that it has good oversight, and that public television reflects the morals and standards of people in Idaho.

WOMAN: Hello?

MAN: How are you doing, Marsha?

TERENCE SMITH: Because the PBS station gets 28% of its money from the state government-- that's $1.5 million a year-- Senator Lee says the legislature should have some say over what is broadcast. For PBS, it's an important, potentially far-reaching argument. Most PBS statewide systems are even more reliant on state tax dollars than Idaho. For Idaho Public Television, criticism of "the American" came at a time when the station already was being attacked by lawmakers for two shows that dealt with homosexuality. The first, called "It's Elementary," aired in September, 1999. It showed how some schools addressed gay issues.

TEACHER: If someone says that they're gay, or they say, you know, someone else is gay or someone is homosexual, what does that mean?

STUDENT: Oh, oh!

TEACHER: Mickey, what does that mean?

STUDENT: It means, like, that they're in love with a boy, that a boy is in love with a boy or a girl is in love with a girl, or also they could be just teasing or something.

TERENCE SMITH: Then in June, 2000, the station broadcast a program called "Our House" that profiled children with gay parents. Like "It's Elementary," "Our House" aired on more than 100 PBS stations across America, including all the major media markets. Peter Morrill defended his decision to broadcast the shows in Idaho.

PETER MORRILL: In our country we have a tradition where the government does not try to impose a point of view on its media outlets, and I think the viewer at home feels very uncomfortable about the concept of a politician or politicians deciding what programs they're going to be watching.

STAN HAWKINS: Why would you continue to do those things that you know are going to be controversial; you know that legislators are going to take heat, and we're going to continually have this question to deal with repeatedly, year after year after year?

TERENCE SMITH: Senator Stan Hawkins attacked Morrill for his programming choices.

STAN HAWKINS: In the state of Idaho, homosexual conduct is against the law, and on that principle, I don't think that any tax- supported broadcast system, whether it be television or radio, ought to be using taxpayer dollars to try to normalize a conduct or an activity that's illegal.

TERENCE SMITH: So upset were the lawmakers here at the capitol that they required Idaho Public Television to clear its programming in advance with the state board of education. The lawmakers also compelled the stations to air a daily "viewer beware" disclaimer.

ANNOUNCER: Events and depictions appearing on Idaho Public Television that are broadcast...

TERENCE SMITH: The disclaimer, written by the state board of education, which control's the station's license, is designed to remind viewers that sodomy is illegal in Idaho.

ANNOUNCER: Idaho Public Television and the Idaho State Board of Education expressly offer such

programs as part of their highest priority of our programming and not for the purpose of promoting, supporting or encouraging the violation of any criminal statutes.

TERENCE SMITH: Taken together, these legislatively mandated restrictions on Idaho Public Television are the only ones of their kind in the country. They have alarmed defenders of free speech. Robert Corn Revere is an attorney for the Association of American Public Television Stations.

ROBERT CORN REVERE: We are dealing with an area where the government is a licensee, but we're also dealing with a blanket restriction by a legislature designed for no purpose other than to stifle speech.

TERENCE SMITH: And therefore in violation of the First Amendment?

ROBERT CORN REVERE: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: What you call oversight, some people call censorship. Is it?

ROBERT LEE: In a manner of speaking, I suppose it is. But I call it discretion. Every station manager, every board editor, even in your program, you have people who make decisions about the type of programming, so they make choices. And all we're saying is make the right choices.

SPOKESMAN: So we'll roll through the things that we're going to highlight for the board.

TERENCE SMITH: Making the right choices has forced general manager Peter Morrill and director of programming Ron Pisaneschi to walk a fine line with the board of education when scheduling national programs.

SPOKESMAN: There's another program that's going to have some issues. It's the "Jesus Christ Superstar" on "Great Performances." Now, this is not the sort of sanitized version. This is... Most people have the sort of vision in their mind of what this show is, but if you actually watch it it's, you know... There's a certain sacrilegious nature to some of it. And then comes the program that has a lot of potential for people to be concerned with, and that's the "American High" series.

TERENCE SMITH: At this monthly programming meeting, Morrill and Pisaneschi discussed an upcoming show that they know will strike sparks. It's a highly promoted PBS national series about high school students, and one of the profiled students is gay.

STUDENT: There's a lot of baggage that comes with being gay.

PETER MORRILL: What's Salt Lake doing with it? What's Utah or Oregon and Spokane doing with it?

RON PISANESCHI: Salt Lake is running it at 9:00.

PETER MORRILL: Okay.

RON PISANESCHI: KSPS and Oregon are both running it at 10:00, so my sense is it really should be at 10:00, as opposed to 9:00. We're just certainly not going to pull the show.

TERENCE SMITH: Since the restrictions were put in place last June, the state board of education has yet to stop IPTV from airing any shows. And Peter Morrill says the station has not and will not pull programming.

PETER MORRILL: Do I expect public television, Idaho Public Television to broadcast programs in the future that are going to rile some folks up? Well, you bet. That's... That's part of our mission of looking at difficult issues our society is dealing with. If we don't have programs that don't deal with difficult issues, I would really question whether or not public television is needed or not. Public television is one of the last things on the media landscape that has the guts to deal with some of our vexing issues in our society. And if public television goes down, there's not a whole lot in back of it to take its place.

WOMAN: Do you want cucumber?

CHILD: Yeah.

WOMAN: Do you want cucumber?

CHILD: No.

TERENCE SMITH: Idaho parents Dennis and Susan Mansfield question why public television needs to push the envelope. A deeply religious family, the Mansfields told their legislator that they were offended when "it's elementary" aired.

DENNIS MANSFIELD: I've long since believed that the joy of PBS is creativity and a challenge. It doesn't have to be controversy. See, there are enough people on the network... Networks that are trying to achieve the optimum of controversy. When I set my eight-year-old down and he's watching "Sesame Street" or he's watching some incredible outdoor Africa adventure, and then I have to worry... Or not worry, but have to be concerned that some creative, you know, leader at PBS is going to stretch my little eight-year-old -- he has no business stretching my little eight-year-old. He has every business being responsible to Senator Lee and the others that advance him the cash to do the job that he does.

DEMONSTRATORS: Two, four, six, eight Idaho can't stand for hate!

TERENCE SMITH: But the more vocal viewers have been those in support of IPTV. Shortly after the restrictions became law, public television supporters marched to the state board of education.

DEMONSTRATOR: We want to promote diversity and acceptance of people who are different.

TERENCE SMITH: Viewers like Jack Brown, a high school music teacher, who attended the march, say it's up to parents, not government, to screen what their children watch on PBS. Brown's six-year-old son, Kevin, watches PBS shows nearly every day.

JACK BROWN: That's what the channel changer or the remote is for. If it's something you'd rather not watch, then... And you'd rather not have your children watch, then of course that's parental supervision. I don't need the government telling me what I can and can't watch. I'm quite capable of doing that myself.

TERENCE SMITH: So just click it off?

JACK BROWN: Click it off.

SPOKESPERSON: Is there anyone there that you'd like to testify?

TERENCE SMITH: Brown's views reflected the overwhelming majority at a public hearing this February, when the state board of education considered a legislative proposal to eliminate all public funding for IPTV.

SPOKESPERSON: Now come some members of the Idaho legislature who want to privatize-- translate: dismantle-- the system, not because of financial concerns, as other states have experienced, but because they don't like some of the programs.

TERENCE SMITH: In a teleconference from seven towns across the state, more than 900 residents submitted testimony on the fate of IPTV. Only 33 favored an end to government subsidies to the station.

GIRL: And I would just like to say, please do not send Idaho Public Television to the butcher.

TERENCE SMITH: Responding to the public backlash, the senators ultimately gave PBS the funding it sought, including money to help the station make an $11 million conversion to digital broadcasting. They also allowed the station to dispense with the broadcast disclaimer after this summer. But even as the budget was approved, lawmakers pressed their points about programming.

STAN HAWKINS: I'd like to have a page come forward, if I could, and give Mr. Morrill a couple of tapes that I'd like to have him consider for possible inclusion in your programming. These are tapes that offer an alternative view to the evolution theory, and so I'm expecting that we'll hear right back from you on that. And Mr. Morrill, thank you very much.

TERENCE SMITH: Despite the PBS station's political victory this year, Senator Hawkins made it clear that the debate over programming is not over.

STAN HAWKINS: We sent a fairly strong message, and if Mr. Morrill hasn't got the feeling yet that he needs to be careful with his program decision making, you know, I think this is still a consideration.

TERENCE SMITH: And at the public television headquarters in Boise, the managers say they know they must tread carefully in the narrow path between offending the legislature and defending what they consider to be creative programming.

FINALLY - POETRY MONTH

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a celebration of April as poetry month. Here is NewsHour contributor and former poet laureate Robert Pinsky.

ROBERT PINSKY: In this little room at Boston University, Robert Lowell taught a remarkable poetry class. The students included Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, and George Starbuck. I wonder, has there ever been a more impressive group of poets gathered as teacher and students? The room itself is not so impressive. I work here, and I know that the chairs creak, the radiator is erratic, and the noise from outside can be annoying. But poetry is an art for the voice and the soul. The physical tools don't need to be splendid. Here is my poem, "Jar of Pens."

"Jar of pens, upright lodge of the toil worthy, gathered at attention, although they know that all the ink in the world couldn't cover the first syllable of a heart's confusion. This fat fountain pen wishes in its elastic heart that I were the farm boy whose illiterate fathers rescued it from the privy after it fell from the boy's pants -- the man digging in boots by lantern light down in the pit. Another pen is straining to call back the characters of the 5,000 world languages dead since 1900. Curlicues, fiddleheads, brush stroke splashes and arabesques, footprints of extinct species. The father hosed down his boots, and leaving them in the barn with his pants and shirt, came into the kitchen holding the little retrieved symbol of symbol making. Oh, brood of line scratchers, plastic scabbards of the soul, you have outlived the sword, talons and wing feathers for the hand."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday. The U.S. and China held a second day of talks about the grounded American surveillance plane. There was no agreement, but U.S. negotiators said the meeting was productive. And 39 drug companies dropped their fight against a South African law providing for cheaper AIDS drugs. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.