The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; December 17, 2007

You Good evening. I'm Gwen Eiffel on the news hour tonight, the news of this Monday, then the second of our political reports from critical early voting Iowa. Tonight religion and the Republicans

plus a new round of endorsements shakes up both races a campaign update. A media unit look at a proposal to allow newspaper companies to own broadcast outlets in the same market and the climate compromise in politics. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by Every day it seems talk of oil, energy, the environment. Where are the answers? Right now we're producing clean, renewable, geothermal energy. Generating enough energy to power seven million homes. Imagine that. An oil company as part of the solution. This is the power of human energy. The new AT&T Pacific life.

The Atlantic philanthropies and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Both the White House and Congress began leading some ground today in an effort to reach compromise on a $500 billion spending bill before the fiscal year ends. The version backed by House Democrats mainly stuck to the President's plan but also shifted more than $10 billion into spending for education, housing, food and veterans programs. In Frederick, Virginia today the President said he is encouraged. We're making some pretty good progress. Toward coming up with a fiscally sound budget.

One that meets priorities, helps on some emergencies and enables us to say that we've been fiscally sound with the people's money. The next couple of days will be interesting to watch. As I say, I'm hopeful and I appreciate those on Capitol Hill or working hard to come up with a good appropriations package. Democrats gave way on much of the extra domestic spending they wanted but Senator Charles Schumer of New York insisted that does not make the President's way better. He rails against $22 billion in the domestic budget but will go ahead and spend $200 billion on the war in Iraq and say we don't have to pay for that. Those may be different priorities than the Congress and we can argue those but the President can have no claim whatsoever on fiscal responsibility. Because a green dollar spent on the war in Iraq and a green dollar spent on health or education equally contribute to the deficit.

The House bill contains about $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan. Senate Republicans are expected to add up to $40 billion more for Iraq later this week. Republican Senator John McCain picked up an unusual cross-party primary endorsement today. It came from a Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democrats 2000 vice presidential nominee. He is now an independent who caucuses with the Senate Democrats. Both Lieberman and McCain support the war in Iraq. Over the weekend, McCain was also endorsed by the Boston Globe, which also backed Democrat Barack Obama and in Iowa by the Des Moines Register, which gave its Democratic endorsement to Senator Hillary Clinton. We'll have more on the presidential race right after this news summary. Russian President Vladimir Putin said today he'll agree to become Prime Minister if his protege is elected President. Dmitry Medvedev is widely expected to win the presidential election next March, based largely on Putin's endorsement.

The arrangement would ensure Putin's future influence over Russian government. South Africa's ruling African National Congress began voting today for a new leader. The winner of the hotly contested race stands to become the country's next president. We have a report narrated by Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News. In public, there are all smiles, but there's bitter discord between President Tabo and Becky and Jacob Zuma, his charismatic challenger. ANC veterans both now fighting their party's first contested leadership election in 50 years. And it's a divided party, many of its 4,000 delegates heckling one another today. Liberation movements rarely sack their leaders, but that is the shame that Mr. and Becky may now face. Jacob Zuma was once imprisoned alongside Nelson Mandela, and he's also blessed with the common touch, but he's still an extraordinary choice. He was charged with rape,

and though he was acquitted, Zuma admitted to unprotected sex with a woman he knew was a chive positive. And he was forced to resign as vice president because of corruption charges which are still pending against him. Yet South Africans have tired of the conservative, Becky, who's often described as an aloof intellectual. Bring me my machine gun, Zuma's supporters sang today, an old anti-apartheid war song to stir the party faithful. And if Jacob Zuma succeeds in that this week, then he's expected to become South Africa's next president in 2009. The two men differed on foreign policy and a variety of other issues. Zuma has called for aids to be treated as a national emergency in South Africa, something and Becky has declined to do. The Iraqi parliament today condemned a Turkish attack in northern Iraq over the weekend. Sunday's bombings were the largest on Kurdish rebels in years.

Turkish media reported as many as 50 fighter jets were involved. Iraqi officials said at least one civilian was killed. But in Washington, the State Department declined to criticize Turkey. Turkish officials said US intelligence was used to plan the attacks. The Midwest and Northeast labored today to recover from a major winter storm over the weekend. It dumped up to 18 inches of snow from the Great Lakes to New England. Hundreds of flights were canceled at airports in Chicago and Boston. The storm was blamed for at least seven deaths. Meanwhile, 126,000 customers were still in the dark in Oklahoma from an earlier ice storm. New Jersey today became the first state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty. Governor John Corazon signed the measure which will replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole. The move spared eight men on the state's death row. New Jersey's last execution occurred in 1963. The Bush administration lost a round today in a fight over secrecy.

A federal judge in Washington ruled White House visitor logs are public documents. The administration had barred access to those logs and to similar documents from the vice president's residence. It is unclear if the ruling will be appealed. On Wall Street today, stocks tanked on fears of stagflation, rising inflation and slower growth. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 172 points to close at 13,167. The NASDAQ fell 61 points to close at 2574. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now Republicans talk religion in Iowa. Our presidential candidate round up, new rules for media ownership, and the climate change deal. Now, the second of our reports on furious pre-holiday campaigning in Iowa. Judy Woodruff reported on the Democrats on Friday, today, Ray Suarez has the Republicans.

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee blew into Iowa last week, he faced a complicated task as money, volunteers, and suddenly a tension all came his way. He had to hold on to a newly solidifying lead in Iowa and run in the cascade of primary states that follow. Just days after Iowa. About the same time last week, an article from yesterday's New York Times magazine hit the website. Reporter Zayev Kefetz recounted a recent conversation with Huckabee, an ordained Baptist preacher, in which he asked of Mormonism, don't Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers? Controversy followed. Was it an attempt to remind Iowa voters of Romney's Mormon religion? A shot at the Latter-day Saints Church. Huckabee's explanation was more benign. He was asking me, but the whole issue of my faith, and then it drifted into what I think about Mormonism.

I don't want to talk about somebody else's faith. He was saying, but there are some different things about Mormonism. He obviously knew more about it than I did. In the course of that conversation, honestly, I raised the question. I asked, is this part of their beliefs? The next thing I know, I mean, it was in the story. It was even quoted as a story as an innocent question, but no one believed it was an innocent question. They thought I was trying to throw something out there. I was horrified when I read that. Former governors shared the stage at the first Republican debate in Iowa since summer. And Huckabee says he sought out the Massachusetts governor right after. And I apologize to Mitt Romney, because first of all, I don't think his being a Mormon or not being a Mormon has a thing to do with his being President. And I would never say that a person should vote for or against anybody because they're of any faith. I don't think people ought to vote for or against me because I'm a Baptist. For his part, Governor Romney acknowledged the Huckabee apology and moved on. He said that he wanted to apologize for the statements that have been made. And I said, apology accepted.

Pretty much that. That's it. Oh, come from behind you well. With a heavy concentration of conservative religious caucus-goers, denominational identity is popped up again and again as the race between the former evangelical pastor and the Mormon businessman, Titan. And Huckabee pulled ahead in several recent polls. 45% of Republican caucus-goers in Iowa say they are evangelicals and polls indicate they're the source of Huckabee's surging support. While campaigning in Iowa, many of the Republican candidates have had to make a kind of straddle, a firm, the value of religious faith in their own lives and in the history of the country, while carefully separating out the role of President and the work of government from the work of religious institutions. It's been a special challenge for my Huckabee given his career as a Baptist pastor. But for many of the Iowa voters and campaign volunteers, those subtle distinctions aren't really necessary. AJ Robertson put his small business on hold back in Indiana to come work for the Huckabee campaign.

His support is rooted in the governor's religion and his own. It sounds like, for you at least, that candidates' personal faith, the acts as a qualification? It definitely does. Because if you take God out of America, what are you going to have? You're going to have a country that has no hope. Voters like Kyle Vandergig, a Republican who hasn't made up his mind, is intrigued by Governor Huckabee. I like his Christian values. I guess that's kind of why I'm meeting that way with him. Former New York Mayor Giuliani leads the national polls, but is considered socially liberal in Iowa and is all but given up campaigning here. Polls show Giuliani receiving half the support of Huckabee or Romney. Other Republican candidates, including Senator John McCain, remain low in recent polls. McCain may benefit from yesterday's endorsement from Iowa's leading newspaper, the Des Moines Register. And after losing the lead in Iowa, Mitt Romney delivered a carefully crafted speech about faith in American political tradition that many believe was a response to Huckabee's games.

Freedom requires religion. Just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone. And as Huckabee tries to keep it light. I can barely keep up with being a Baptist, and I sure don't know that much about being a Mormon. He's also called upon repeatedly to explain what a politician's religion has to do with a voter's choice. I mean, you're not saying vote for me because I'm the same thing as you or vote for me because I agree with you theologically or you agree with me. I think it's a vote for me even if you disagree with me because at least you know that the things that I believe I really do believe they're not just political positions. They're their convictions and the difference between a conviction and a preference is that you'll change your preferences if one is not available. Your convictions are pretty well sold on.

Salvation grace is about fixing our broken lives so that we can serve. The Reverend Mike Rose is pastor of the Federated Community Church in Des Moines. He was undecided about where to go in this race until the last few weeks. Well, at this point, I plan to support Mike Huckabee. The pastor says he won't be urging his thousand strong non-denominational congregation to head to the caucuses for Huckabee. He thinks too many churches have gone overboard in their involvement in political campaigns. But he senses he has a lot in common with this pastor-turned-politician. I would like to think that if Mike Huckabee were elected president that his values and his faith would affect the way he would govern. And while the Reverend Rose calls Romney his second choice and would support him if Romney was the Republican nominee, his attitude toward the LDS Church reflects that of many Christian conservatives in Iowa. Theological perspective, if you take the tenets of the Mormon faith and you match them up against biblical Christianity, the two do not mesh together.

Any more than Christianity meshes with Islam or even Judaism. So from that perspective, I would have to say that Mormonism is not Christian. It's Mormon. Thank you, sir. Very generous. But that is not to say that everyone who calls themselves a values voter is swinging to Huckabee. Peggy Adasme sees Governor Romney as her caucus choice. I like Governor Romney's commercial that marriage must come first. Children need a mother and a father. And I think that's crucial to if you take apart the family, which is our core value of society, then you destroy a lot of the fabric of society. Romney's supporter Joanne Thrap says religion shouldn't carry so much weight. I don't look at him as a Mormon running for president. I look at him as an American running for president. And I don't look at Hillary Clinton as a woman running for president.

I consider her a candidate also, just like I would consider Obama too. I think that to put them into such narrow categories and say, I'm going to only vote for a woman or I'm going to look for a back. Or I'm going to vote for a Mormon is way too narrow of a category. I think you have to look at the individual and vote for what they stand for. There's no special pathway to permanent residents here citizenship just because you come here illegally. Collecting Iowans concerns with illegal immigration, he hits Huckabee hard on policies like foreign-born children of illegal immigrants, paying in-state tuition in-state schools. If a state wants to give out tuition breaks to illegal aliens and scholarships to illegal aliens, taxpayer funded, I'm going to say, you can do that as you want state. But if you do that, we're not going to send you as much federal money. If you make that choice, we're not going to give you the federal dollars you used to get if you want to start giving money to illegal aliens.

But he too is looking ahead. It's typically been said that you've got to get one of three tickets coming out of Iowa. I want to win if I don't want to win. I want to get one of those three tickets and then go on to New Hampshire and Wyoming. But I'm pleased with the response I've gotten so far and intend to do very well. Huckabee's ease in front of a crowd and use of humor may have played a hand in his rise in Iowa. A state where voters often get to visit presidential candidates in person. If you think that Medicare is expensive now, wait until 10,000 aging hippies a day find out they can get free drugs. Then it's really going to get expensive in a hurry. But the calendar is both men's enemy. My name is Daniel Mabong here with the Huckabee for President Campaign. And the purpose for my calls to see if you're planning to attend the caucus on January 3rd. Huckabee's bare bones campaign had raised $2 million by the end of October for the entire campaign season. Then in November alone, 2 million more poured in.

Now he's got to ramp up, not just in Iowa, but in a lot of places all at once. So do you feel like you can even take the risk of leaving this state? Well, we want to build on it. We were very grateful for the great support we have in Iowa, but it's also being mirrored by support across the country. We're showing up number one in places where we don't even understand it. Michigan, Delaware, as well as places like Georgia, South and North Carolina. So we're very pleased with not just what's happening in Iowa, but what's really happening across America. Thank you very much. Good to see you. Romney, who outspent his principal opponent, 10 to 1, and outraised him 30 to 1, is banking on the fact that an unusually large percentage of Iowa Republicans say they could still change their minds. Joyce Marshman always makes a point to caucus, but this year she says she's really stumped about who to vote for. I still don't know. The few weeks to side, still don't know. It took a lot of great game, but I want to really see, you know,

and I'll look at both Romney's voting records, see what he gives governor and Huckabee as well. See what they actually did, rather than what they said. It's likely the Republican candidates will also be spending a great deal of time and money talking about their opponent's records, with less than three weeks until caucus day. As Ray showed us, it's political crunch time in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, one sure indication of the wide open race in both states, local newspapers, and influential politicians are beginning to take sides. Roger Simon, chief political columnist for a political, is spending his life these days on the trail, and he joins us now from Iowa. Hello, Roger. Hello, Gwen. Let's start by talking about these endorsements, especially this Des Moines Register endorsement. We listen and we hear about endorsements, but doesn't really mean anything.

It probably means more in Iowa, especially on the Democratic side, they endorse Hillary Clinton, that it means in other states for one unique reason. The voting in the Iowa Democratic caucus is not secret. It's open, it's something you have to do in front of your friends and neighbors and spouse and children and employer or employees, and people don't want to be embarrassed by the choice they make. They have to do it in public. An awful lot of Howard Dean voters, four years ago, got embarrassed with some of the things that Governor Dean had said just before the caucus, and they simply didn't want to stand up in public and vote for him. Hillary Clinton has been having a rough couple of weeks these last few weeks. The Des Moines Register endorsement gives those people who might be on the bubble in regards to support her or not or wavering in their support. A reason to say, well yeah, it's a good vote, it's a vote I'll make in public for Hillary Clinton. And that I think is the reason, it's more important than the usual newspaper endorsement.

Let's stick with Iowa for a moment because then I want to move to the endorsements in New Hampshire. We also saw a couple members of Congress endorsed today in Iowa, as well as the first lady of the state. Do people pay attention to these kinds of endorsements? They pay some attention, it's better to have endorsements than not have endorsements. It's far better when the person endorsing you has a political organization that he can actually put at your disposal. But even for the most beloved person, the most beloved politician or most beloved political spouse endorsing you, it is very hard in practical politics to transfer that affection to somebody else. And because you support a congressman, because you have good feelings about the first lady of Iowa, it is hard to convince people to then say, yes, this is an absolute reason why I'm going to support their choice. And it was also interesting to see in Iowa that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came out with new television

yesterday in which if you didn't know that the Des Moines Register had endorsed Senator Clinton, you would have thought that it endorsed Senator Obama actually. Which is why Hillary Clinton, this morning on any number of TV shows, Ballyhood, that endorsement. You will see ads before caucus night emphasizing that. You'll see mailings emphasizing it and the calls are going out already emphasizing it. Okay, let's move on to New Hampshire. We saw the Boston Globe wait and they kind of supported Senator McCain as well. But on the Democratic side, Senator Obama and Senator McCain, what he pulled off, endorsements also in Portsmouth and from in Manchester in New Hampshire. That's right. And these are good endorsements. People tend to look upon newspaper endorsements, slightly as less partisan than a political endorsement to something based on some rational, logical basis, which the newspaper lays out rather than a political endorsement or emotional endorsement. And it should help both candidates, especially John McCain,

who is depending on independence in New Hampshire to vote for him. And independence in New Hampshire are 43% of the registered vote. They gave him a huge victory eight years ago by 19 percentage points over George W. Bush. And he needs independence. Again, independence are exactly those kind of people who might be paid more attention to a newspaper endorsement than others. Is that what the Joe Lieberman announcement was today? Was unusual to see a Democrat crossover to endorse in a Republican primary. Well, Joe Lieberman is actually officially the member of the Joe Lieberman Party. That's the way it read on the ballot. He's an independent who caucuses with Democrats. He is a pro-war independent. How many pro-war independence are out there? We don't know. And as Lieberman said today, one of the reasons he endorsed Senator McCain is because the Democrat asked him to endorse them. And John McCain did. That probably shows you how popular Joe Lieberman is with the Democratic Party right now.

But as I said, it's better to get that endorsement than to have it go to an opponent. So what happened to the front runners in this race, including one of the newly minted front runners? I know today that Mike Huckabee spent his day in Beverly Hills and that Giuliani, he's been spending a lot of his time in Florida. Giuliani takes the second part first. Giuliani has been prepared for a long time to seed the early primary states. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina hoping to win in Florida and then go on and win on those 20 plus states that are voting on February 5th. We're more than a thousand delegates are at stake and where one mathematically could win. The trouble with that strategy, of course, is that if you lose all the early states, those poll numbers could turn around and you may not be popular in the later states. For Mike Huckabee, he needs money.

Even if he gets a win in Iowa, he certainly has an impressive lead in the polls. The question is, can he use that win in the later states that take more media, more money, and more organization? And he has to go out there and he has to go to any state where people will put dollars in front of them, and if that's Beverly Hills, California, that's where he's going to be. So it's not just that it's warmer there than it is in Des Moines. I feel your pain, Roger. Well, thank you, but we're indoors right now. That's good. We take care of that for you. Let's talk about Bill Clinton. The number one bigfoot surrogate in this race who has been weighing in, apparently according to the newspapers behind the scenes, as well as in front of the scenes on behalf of his wife, is he helping or hurting? I don't think he's been helping that much lately. He is a beloved figure in the Democratic Party. The only Democratic president to win two terms since Franklin Roosevelt, a huge support in the African-American community,

but he's had a series of missteps or misstatements. When he gave a speech here in Iowa, telling people how he had always been an opponent of the Iraq war, and then people produced his statements to the contrary, it raised the worst possible thing you could raise if your name is Clinton, the word parsing. She doesn't want to be seen as someone who has passed as to her initial support for the Iraq war and her opposition now. He wasn't part of what he said on Charlie Rose over the weekend that the country would be rolling the dice by supporting Barack Obama. No, and it is certainly his role as a surrogate to take on the opposition for his wife. But it's emotionally difficult, and you could see your reference Charlie Rose. You could see how emotional he was on that show. I think it is probably harder to have your spouse running in a difficult race than running in a difficult race yourself. And I think he's going to be campaigning here in Iowa tomorrow, and I expect he'll take on Barack Obama again.

Generally speaking, the candidates in the race like to end on a positive note right before election day, the surrogates are free to go negative for the whole way. Okay, Roger Simon, I think it's time for you to go back outdoors. Thanks for staying here with us. Thank you for the opportunity, Glenn. And now I look at the importance of who owns local news companies. Jeffrey Brown has our media unit report. Three, two. How many media outlets should one company be allowed to own in a given city? That's a question the Federal Communications Commission is taking up tomorrow. When it votes on a controversial plan to ease 32-year-old restrictions on a company's right to own both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market. The plan was put forward by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

I believe the revised role would balance the need to support the availability and sustainability of local news, while not significantly increasing local concentration or harming diversity. Martin's proposal would allow newspapers to purchase a TV station in the nation's 20 largest markets under certain conditions. Among other things, the newspaper and TV outlet would be required to commit to maintaining editorial independence. But consumer groups and others, including several FCC commissioners, contend that easing the rules would give too much power to too few companies, allowing fewer voices to be heard. The FCC is lurching dangerously off course. Frustration over the measure was on display at a recent congressional hero. Are you aware that the association of free community papers opposes lifting the cross ownership? Yes. Are you aware that the independent free papers association opposes lifting the cross ownership rule? No, I haven't heard of that associated. They are. Are you aware that the community papers of Michigan opposes lifting the cross ownership rule? No.

How about the free community papers of New York? I knew the free community papers association was. The free community papers of New England? I know. The Texas Community Newspapers Association. No. The Wisconsin Community Papers Association. No. He was your chairman. In spite of such concerns, the measure is expected to pass tomorrow with three Republican commissioners supporting Martin's proposal and the two Democrats opposed. And joining me now to discuss the merits of FCC chairman Martin's proposals are Gene Kimmelman, vice president for federal and international affairs at consumers union. And John Sturm, president of the newspaper association of America. Welcome to both of you. Thank you. Mr. Sturm, what would this change allow the newspapers you represent to do and why do you think it's needed? Well, in actuality, the change that's been discussed at the FCC in advance of tomorrow's meeting would afford just a little bit of relief to America's newspapers. In the sense of, in a few markets, it would allow the possibility of that newspaper acquiring the fourth or fifth rated broadcast television station in that market or a radio station. A fairly limited relief, but nonetheless, we've been at this now for over a dozen years.

This regulation has been in effect for 32 years. And any kind of forward movement is at least a positive movement in our view. Why? Why is it needed? It's needed because this regulation went into effect in 1975 in a media world that doesn't exist anymore and guess what won't exist in the future. And this regulation should go away just based on the fact that it is not current. It has no basis in today's media world. We've seen the largest explosion of media in the history of the world since the mid-70s. And yet this rule, and it's the only FCC broadcast rule that has never been changed, never been modified to fit the times. This rule should be changed immediately. Mr. Kiliman, how do you define the stakes and why do you oppose this? Well, I wish it were as narrow as John said. We're afraid it's laced with loopholes that we're hoping to close before tomorrow morning. But here's what has not changed, which is very important.

This rule is about local news. This isn't national, this isn't global. How do you get your local news? In every survey we've done, and independent sources have done, citizens say they turn mostly to their local daily newspaper for local news and their local broadcast TV stations. And on cable, almost all you get is the local broadcast TV stations with local news. On the internet, you get your newspaper dot com, you get your broadcast station dot com. It's the same sources of news using new media, new technology as John points out. So we're worried about too few owners controlling the points of view, the bias, the information presented in local news, and all the new media being furthering and amplifying those voices rather than providing diversity and competition. So a narrow change in the rules may not be the end of the world, but we're worried about the loopholes that are there that could mean it's much more than the fourth of the station and many more than 20 markets. Is there evidence that the fewer owners make for less diversity of ideas and views and news in local markets?

Every study that the FCC has done, every independent study shows that there is bias in news, that there is some interference. Not every day, not for every newscast, not for every newspaper story written, of course, very seldom maybe, but at key points in time near elections, or when a city council vote is up, when you want to find out whether the garbage men are corrupt in your town, there could be influence, there has been the voice, the point of view of the owner inserted. That's the danger, and it's not just to diversity. This is the basis of our democracy. Everyone says they turn to newspapers and newspapers online, broadcast, broadcast online, to figure out how to make decisions in their community other than what their families can help them with. So if we don't have the straight story here, if we don't have enough information, we're harming our democracy. Would you dispute that?

I would dispute it. Is the editorial point? No, certainly dispute the editorial point. I think the culture, it's clear that the culture of newspapers and the history of journalism in this country is strongest on the newspaper side in terms of the independence. Whether a newspaper is owned by a large company or is an independent, those editorial decisions are made in the editors and in the editorial area of the newspaper, they are not made in some other location. What we do agree on is the importance of local news. And I would argue that what this rule change will do, at least give the prospect of having additional investment in local news. James Wright, it is the most important thing. But what we see now is a plethora of media channels from all over, but not much investment in local news. And if you let the newspapers, which is the most local of all medium, invest in local broadcast stations, they're going to do more. And this is what the studies show, more and better local news on those stations.

The trend on television right now is for more and more stations to give up local news, not do any local news. We would like to reverse that trend by owning a few more radio and television stations around the country and let newspapers do what they do best, which is local news. What about his earlier point about the total change in the media universe that there are so many outlets now that people have in so many different kinds of media that these rules, 30 years and running, are kind of in an acronym. And when you look closely at that, you find that yes, the medium has changed, the internet, cable television. But it doesn't bring in very many more independent voices, opinions about local matters. Yes, all around the world, you get more information, you can get news from Africa and Asia. But if you want it about your local community, it's your local newspaper and your local broadcasters, you need to turn to for that reporting. One's right, we need to boost local reporting, we need more investment in it.

But the data also show that where you have cross-owned entities, you actually get less overall news in the market. You may get one company doing more news, but we worry it's one point of view or not diverse points of view and you get less overall news in the market. That's dangerous to competition and really fundamentally to what democracy is about getting a real fight about information and points of view. So that people can make up their own minds, how they'll vote, or what they think's really going on in their community. You started this by saying that you would like this to go much further. Absolutely. Absolutely. And what Chairman Martin is proposing, which would sort of go to what he fears the most here. Well, I'm not sure that Gene really has much to fear, but what we see now is the opportunity for the local newspapers to also get in, let's say radio. In small and medium-sized markets where there just really isn't much local news on radio at all. As these stations have been owned by larger companies from outside the market, newspapers have been kept out for 30-some years.

There'd be more all news radio stations around the country if newspapers were allowed to own radio stations. So on radio or television, newspapers stand ready to put more and better local news and serve the public in the way that every other medium can do so. You open the program with a discussion about how many outlets you can own in a community. Well, anyone else can own all the outlets as long as they don't own the newspaper in connection with the broadcast station. So anyone else can own anything they want except the local newspapers can't own any two stations of the top four stations. So what Chairman Martin has proposed is actually emulating that same limit there that you want to keep the dominant newspaper from owning or be owned by any of the four top broadcasters in a market. That really prevents the worst kind of bias and control of news in a market. Beyond that, it's less dangerous. As long as he really sticks to that limit, I think this would not have as nearly as dramatic effect as we worry.

There does seem to be an effort of foot in Congress to try to delay this or push the process through the next few months. There was an earlier effort, of course, by Chairman Powell, which ran into trouble with the courts. Briefly, what do you see happening this time? Are you looking at court action again? A historical note, the lifting of the ban, which the FCC did do under Chairman Powell, was affirmed by the court in Philadelphia. What was sent back to the FCC was a new set of rules. The court agreed that there was no reason, no public interest reason for this ban anymore. And that was several years ago, we've seen more media since that. But I think it is now time for the Commission to move ahead, and it really brings some sense to their regulation of broadcast ownership as it pertains to newspapers. My view is the court threw this out because it found it to be irrational and illogical and shifted back to the FCC. Congress has intervened appropriately because the chairman has been rushing.

The process has been just horrible. There's been no transparency. The review of the studies have been really just atrocious. So at a process basis, this could very easily end up back in court as well. All right, Gene Kimmelman and John Stern, thank you both very much. Thank you. Thank you. The beginnings of a deal on climate change in Bali. Nuzara correspondent Kwame Holman begins with some background. It was only after 11th hour negotiations this weekend in Bali that delegates from 187 countries agreed to a roadmap for a new climate change treaty over the next two years. The two weeks of talks often were contentious and emotional, with much of the displeasure directed at the United States. The reference by the representative of the United States to developing countries, not accepting the full responsibilities, is most unwelcome and without any basis.

The Bush administration refused to accept a plan backed by Europe and many other countries calling for all industrialized nations to cut their own greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. We would like to find a way forward here. We are not prepared to accept though this formulation at this time. Thank you. Thank you, United States. May I continue? Thank you. Canada and Japan also were opposed to mandatory cuts, but the sharpest rhetoric was directed at the US. And I would ask the United States, we ask for your leadership. We seek your leadership. But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us, please get out of the way. There also was criticism from former Vice President Al Gore. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.

We all know that. We all know that. The US, which is the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter ahead of China, Russia and India, eventually agreed to compromise. Under the Bali roadmap deal, the delegates essentially agreed to negotiate a treaty by 2009. The agreement says significant cuts in emissions will be required of industrialized countries, but does not specify the size of those cuts or whether they will be mandatory. The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure that we all will act together. So with that, Mr. Chairman, let me say to you that we will go forward and join consensus in this today. China and other developing countries also agreed for the first time to consider controlling the growth of their emissions, but that promise too came without any binding commitments.

Industrialized countries also agreed to provide developing nations with economic and technological aid to slow deforestation. For now, the US stands alone as the only major industrialized country to reject the Kyoto agreement on climate change, which is set to expire in 2012. But Congress is nearing approval of an energy bill that would include raising fuel standards for passenger vehicles for the first time in 30 years. It would require a fleet wide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Margaret Warner picks up the story from there. To assess what was and wasn't accomplished in Bali, we turned to two Americans who attended. Harlan Watson is the senior climate negotiator at the State Department. He was a leading member of the US team in Bali these past two weeks. And David Doniger is the policy director on climate change for the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.

He served as a climate negotiator at the EPA during the Clinton administration. And welcome to you both. And David Doniger, I want to start with you because climate change activists were disappointed, expressed disappointment in this outcome. And many editorial writers used phrases like baby steps. Yet the UN chief of the climate chief said, well, you know, Bali delivered what it needed to. From where you sit was significant progress made at Bali toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions, that ultimate goal. The most important thing is that the countries agreed to kick off a two-year negotiation of the next treaty. We really only have one chance left to put together a treaty that would stave off the worst effects of global warming. So it's good to get started on this, but man, it was pulling teeth to get it done. Pulling teeth because the United States objected? No, not at all. There were many, many issues that, and this is a consensus-based process.

And so finding the right language that satisfies all, it was a long and difficult process. But we, in the end, we all came together. Well, Harlan Watson, what the Europeans wanted going into this was to set up a framework, like the one that was set up, but that had, that stated specific goals in the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions cuts that would be met at a by a certain time. Perhaps on the level of greenhouse gas emissions, there are all kinds of measurable benchmarks. The United States didn't want any of those. Why? Well, basically, we didn't want to pre-determine outcomes. What we wanted was a process that would keep all options open. This is going to be, again, a two-year negotiation, and we wanted to make sure that we did not pre-determine outcomes. We did have a reference to the work of the undergovernmental panel on climate change. This is the group that Koche, the Nobel Peace Prize, with Al Gore.

Yes. And I might add that we were not the only ones who were having difficulty with specifically stating specific numbers in the, within the Bali Road map itself. How much from your perspective, how much of a, a disappointment is it, or a reduction in what this might have accomplished, the fact that there are absolutely no benchmarks laid out. Well, what we need in the final agreement two years from now is for the industrial countries to take legal limits on their emissions. And that's what we need to do in the United States, especially. And this has been a big obstacle from the current administration that both in the domestic legislative process, in the regulatory process, and in the international process, this administration has been unwilling to accept legal limits on the total pollution of the United States. All the other countries involved in the Kyoto Protocol, ten years ago, all the industrial countries agreed to that. And the developing countries are saying now, we're willing to do our part to slow the growth of our emissions, but we need to see the historical big emitters, the current big emitters, do their part.

That's where the U.S. has been lacking. Now, the U.S. did agree to even have take part in this upcoming negotiation. That was regarded as a big concession. Explain why. Well, two years ago in Montreal, the last of the big climate meetings, Harlan and his colleagues blocked the start of a negotiation like this, along with some other blockers from the developing countries. So it's good that both the administration and the key developing countries have moved on now to start a negotiation. This is going to go for two years. We're going to have a presidential election in the middle. We're going to field a different team in the second half. And the whole world is aching for a different face, a different perspective from the United States, looking really to the second half in 2009 to see if we can show something different. Before I ask you about the fact that you won't probably won't be concluding these negotiations,

let me ask you about the change of heart between the meeting in 2005 and this meeting. Why did the Bush administration at least agree that there was a need to negotiate a follow-on treaty to Kyoto and agree to take part? Well, I think the President Bush stated we're going to learn from this science. I think clearly the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been about a five-year process now and working through all the sciences occurred. I think that certainly had a major part of that. I think we've also had a great deal of success in our interactions with China, India and some of the larger developing countries and working with them and they're indicating a real willingness. I believe to address the issue also. So in terms of the United States attitude of the Bush administration's attitude, are you saying political climate has changed, spurred in part by everything from the Al Gore movie to this UN Panel on Climate Change?

Well, in its scientific findings? Yes. Well, certainly that and certainly the domestic scene has changed also. I think we're now seeing an interest in industry in particular on wanting to address the issue, taking on meaningful targets. So I think the political climate has changed, the scientists change, the sciences change, and again also we're getting very good signals from the major developing countries, which are going to be absolutely essential if the United States will ever be able to enter in an international agreement. So how significant was this concession by China and the developing countries that at least they would what pursue or that this new agreement would somehow reference measurable and verifiable what emissions cuts by these developing countries? When we negotiated in the previous administration, the Kyoto Agreement 10 years ago, the developing countries had a very hard line, no new commitments for them. It was negotiated in that particular line in Berlin and it's been called the Berlin Wall.

So the Berlin Wall was breached because the science is screaming at all of the countries that they all need to take part this much we agree on. And the Chinese, the South Africans, the Brazilians in particular showed a real open hand that they were finally ready to come off that position of nothing and negotiate what they would do to slow the growth of emissions as they rapidly grow. This is what we need. We need industrial countries to cut their emissions, developing countries to slow the growth and later to cut their emissions. And that's the only way to avoid the dangerous levels of warming that the scientists are telling us are coming. But what the developing countries agreed to at least at Bali doesn't commit them to anything other than what voluntary for suing some sort of voluntary standards, is that right? Not quite. It's not quite right. The doors open to negotiate binding obligations for both sides of the equation developed and developing.

But what it's going to take in order to get developing countries to move is for the United States to agree to an absolute limit and reductions like the legislation that's moving through the Congress now sponsored by Senators Lieberman in a Warner that would cut emissions 20% by 2020 and by almost two thirds. You said up this caputrients, exactly. What is your assessment of how far the developing countries the Chinese and the Indians really went? I think it was a major step. Again the difference between when David was there and I think in the day we're really seeing a sea change in her attitude. We do believe they're firmly committed. Although the language is a little fuzzy right now we think as this negotiation process goes on we're really going to see them step forward significantly. Mr. Watson, I have to ask you, were you in the hall when the U.S. delegate was booed? Yes. And what was that like? How did you react to that? Well, we're always disappointed, but I think what was significant about that when under Secretary Dobrozki said we were having trouble with the particular wording.

What was comforting to me is the number of developing countries came forward South Africa, India and Brazil and others came forward and say no we are going to move forward in a positive matter. So that to me was very gratifying and that's what of course led to the under secretary then joining the consensus. But we could move this so much faster if the United States government would say we can embrace something like the Lieberman Warner bill and then we can take that on the road to other countries and say this is what we will do now what will you do in return. Right now the other countries are still waiting for the signal of serious action. Is the administration ready to support this bill? Yeah. All right, Harlan Watson, David Donger, thank you both. Thank you Mark. Thank you.

On our website you can read more about the global warming debate and you can use our interactive feature to explore how changing levels of greenhouse gases will affect temperatures around the world. It's all at PBS.org. Again, the major developments of the day the White House in Congress seated some ground in an effort to compromise on a $500 billion spending bill. Republican Senator John McCain was endorsed for president by Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democrats 2000 vice presidential choice and the Midwest and Northeast Labor to recover from a major winter storm over the weekend. A final note you may have noticed the news hour is now broadcasting in high definition. You can learn more about our conversion to HD on the news hour website at PBS.org. We'll see you again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Eiffel. Thank you and good night.

Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by Every day it seems talk of oil, energy, the environment. Where are the answers? Right now we're producing clean renewable geothermal energy, generating enough energy to power seven million homes. Imagine that, an oil company as part of the solution. This is the power of human energy. The new AT&T, Pacific Life, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

to purchase video of the news hour with Jim Lehrer. Call 1-866-678-News. We are PBS.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.