The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a report and both perspectives on the latest agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a Lee Hochberg report from Oregon on opening adoption records, a debate about journalistic practices in the Food Lion versus ABC News case, and a conversation with a daughter of Martin Luther King. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Israeli and Palestinian cabinets approved the Hebron agreement today. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Leader Arafat initialed the deal early this morning at a border post between Gaza and Israel. The agreement implements the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Hebron and other areas of the West Bank. It was easily approved by the Palestinian cabinet this afternoon. The Israeli cabinet debated for nearly 12 hours before voting eleven to seven to ratify. Outside the Israeli parliament building in Jerusalem some Jewish settlers denounced Netanyahu and the move toward Palestinian independence. In Hebron Arab business owners began preparations for the pullout by painting over anti- Israeli graffiti on houses and storefronts. At the White House in Washington President Clinton hailed the agreement but said much work was needed to complete the peace process. Spokesman Mike McCurry said both Arafat and Netanyahu would make separate business to the United States to meet with the President in the coming weeks. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Also at the White House today President Clinton held a brief ceremony as Mexico repaid the remainder of its emergency loan from the United States. Treasury Sec. Robert Rubin and Mexico's ambassador to the United States signed documents ending the bailout. Mexico borrowed $13.5 billion two years ago. President Clinton said the loan was repaid three years ahead of schedule.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Two years ago helping our friend and neighbor in a time of need was quite controversial. Some said that we should not get involved, that the money would never be repaid, that Mexico should fend for itself. They were wrong. Today the American people can be proud that we did the right thing by Mexico and the right thing for the United States, and the right thing to protect global prosperity.

JIM LEHRER: The acting U.S. Trade Representative said today the United States will impose sanctions against Argentina if it does not provide better copyright protection. Charlene Barshefsky said patented U.S. drugs are being copied by Argentina's pharmaceutical industry. Barshefsky said the sanctions will affect $260 million worth of trade and will begin in March. On the Peru hostage story today the Tupac Amaru terrorists said they would accept the government's proposal for talks mediated by a peace commission. They have held hostages in the Japanese ambassador's residence for four weeks. Seventy-four hostages remain. In South Korea today violence broke out again on this second day of a general strike. We have more in this report from Ian Williams of Independent Television News.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: For the second time in five days thousands of riot police fought running battles with groups of students and striking workers, turning the center of the South Korean capital into a battlefield. The violence followed a day of mostly good natured protests by thousands, demanding the repeal of the new law which gives employers more power to sack their workers. It was the first time the country's official union had joined forces with the illegal labor group that's been spearheading the strikes. But today's strike faction did not have the wider impact the unions had threatened. Seoul has been largely unaffected by the strike, with many public sector workers defying the union and reporting to work as usual. Union leaders conceded they were disappointed. But this was still the biggest protest since South Korea returned to civilian rule in 1993.

JIM LEHRER: Back in this country on the Gingrich ethics story today another member of the House Ethics Committee recused himself from its investigation of Speaker Gingrich. The move by Republican David Hobsen of Ohio balances yesterday's recusal by Democrat Jim McDermott of Washington State. McDermott is embroiled in a controversy over a tape recording of a Gingrich phone conversation. The ethics panel has five members from each party. Now there will be four each. The committee is expected to receive a report tomorrow from its special counsel on the ethical violations Speaker Gingrich has admitted. Public hearings may be held this weekend. The crew of Space Shuttle Atlantis boarded the Russian space station Mir today. They docked with it yesterday. Atlantis crew member Jerry Leninger will replace astronaut John Blaha, who has been aboard the Russian space station for four months. The two spaceships will remain locked for five days to transfer three tons of water and supplies for Mir. The Federal Aviation Administration will order Boeing to modify the rudders on its 737 passenger jets, and Boeing has agreed to do so and paid for it. Vice President Gore made the announcement today at an aviation safety conference in Washington. He heads a White House Commission Air Safety and Airport Security. Rudder problems were suspected in two crashes involving 737's, one in Pittsburgh in 1994, another in Colorado Springs in 91. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Hebron deal, opening adoption records, Food Lion Versus ABC, and a conversation about Martin Luther King. FOCUS - PROMISED LAND

JIM LEHRER: The Hebron deal is first tonight. It was made last night by Israelis and Palestinians after months of negotiation. The immediate issue was control of the ancient West Bank city. The long-term stake was the peace process, itself. Our coverage begins with this background report by Sirah Shah of Independent Television News.

SIRAH SHAH: In Hebron, the old order was already making way for the new. For Mr. Netanyahu's government it was a watershed, the first time his Likud administration had ceded land for peace. The Israeli prime minister faced anger from within his own cabinet at the accord. At least seven right wingers had already said they'd vote against the deal. The commitment for further West Bank withdrawals is particularly sensitive but today a senior adviser to Mr. Netanyahu insisted there was enough flexibility in the agreement's wording to allow Israel to hold onto half of the West Bank, if necessary. The deal was made in the early hours of the morning after weeks of negotiation. It will, however, be seen as a sellout for many of the people who voted for Mr. Netanyahu in last May's elections. Ironically, it's now the support of the labor opposition which ensures its survival in parliament.

YOSSI BEILIN, Labor Party: I believe that from today on it's a different Likud, it's a different government. It is committed now to the Oslo process which will begin, and I believe that we might find ourselves in a new phase whereby the rightist government will go according to our game plan.

SIRAH SHAH: There was welcome too from the United States, which has acted as broker. It hopes the agreement will spark a revival of the wider peace process, including talks with Syria.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This achievement brings to a successful conclusion the talks that were launched in Washington last September, and it brings us another step closer to a lasting, secure Middle East peace. Once again, the Israelis and the Palestinians have shown they can resolve their differences and help to build a brighter future for their children by finding ways to address each other's concerns.

SIRAH SHAH: Under the deal Israel must pull out of 4/5 of Hebron within 10 days. Mr. Arafat has gained a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank rural areas which must be completed by mid 1998, but the Palestinian Authority will not control Israeli settlements and military areas. This could be a loophole. Within two months Israel and the Palestinians will begin talks on the final peace agreement to define their borders and the future of Jerusalem. Angry settlers today besieged a cabinet minister visiting Hebron. They feel betrayed.

NOAM ARNON, Israeli Settler: We are very concerned from bringing in the PLO troops into the city which will bring only suffering and bloodshed.

SIRAH SHAH: And the Islamic resistance movement, Hamas, which opposes the Oslo peace agreement, also issued a statement rejecting this accord. The Israeli army tonight said it would not begin to redeploy until after tomorrow's Knesset vote. With so much potential for violent opposition, however, it's likely to be hoping for a quick, clean getaway.

JIM LEHRER: Now the official Palestinian and Israeli views of this agreement. They come from Shlomo Gur, deputy chief of mission of the Israeli embassy in Washington and Hasan Abdel Rahman, chief representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington. Mr. Gur, is this agreement good for Israel?

SHLOMO GUR, Israeli Embassy: [New York] Good evening. Yes. I think it's a very good agreement. I think it is a very important agreement which reaffirms Israelis commitment to the peace process. It's the first agreement that they--that was signed by the new Israeli government, and I think that removes all kinds of suspicions and concerns that were with regard to the commitment ofthe Israeli government to the peace process. This proves that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the government is committed to the peace process and is ready to move forward on a reciprocal basis on the Palestinian track, as well as on other tracks of the peace process.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Rahman, would you agree that that's the most important factor in this, that the Netanyahu government has made a deal at all?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN, Palestine Liberation Organization: Well, it's an important agreement no doubt, but on the wrong road towards achieving a comprehensive peace. Yes. Of course, there has been reluctance by the Israeli government since its election to come aboard and support the Oslo accords. We hope now that this Israeli government has signed the agreement they will--now we will have to wait for the implementation. We hope that they will implement what we have agreed on.

JIM LEHRER: Would you agree with Mr. Gur that that is the most significant part of this?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: It is significant that the Israeli government signed onto the Oslo accords because without the Oslo accords we do not have a peace process.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Gur, does this agreement have the support of the Israeli people, do you believe? We know it passed the cabinet eleven to seven a short while ago. What about the people of Israel?

SHLOMO GUR: Tomorrow we're going to have a debate in the Knesset and a vote in the Knesset, I think, and I think that the response of the vote will show the massive support that the agreement has within the Israeli public because if previously it was alleged that it was the Labor Party and the left wing party that was supporting the peace process, and anything on the right of the center was opposing it, I think now under the Likud government, you have first of all the left support of this agreement, and the Likud which is the right of the center, a major party, is joining, is joining this forces who are supporting peace; therefore, you have a vast majority of the Israeli population which supports the peace process. Of course, you will have an extreme element in both sides, in Israel, and on the Palestinian side, who will try to derail this process, and it will be the role of the Israeli government, as well as the role of the Palestinian Authority, to fight those elements and eradicate them in order to ensure that the same majority will enjoy the fruits of the peace.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Rahman, what kind of support does this agreement have among the Palestinian people on the West Bank?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: I think it has an overwhelming support among the majority of the Palestinians. Of course, there's opposition to the agreement, which is natural and sometimes even necessary, but the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian public support the agreement. We have--we just concluded--our cabinet just concluded a meeting that lasted for six hours where the agreement was debated. It was approved. There was some people who reserved themselves on the agreement but ultimately it was approved. Now, again, as I said, we need really to move on the implementation because the implementation of this accord, what gives significance to the accord.

JIM LEHRER: What is the most significant part of the implementation? What are you most worried about when you say we must forward on the implementation?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: The question of redeployment of the Israeli troops out of areas B and C.

JIM LEHRER: That's outside of Hebron.

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Outside of Hebron. Hebron we know, and the agreement on Hebron was concluded about aweek ago. That was not really the most important part.

JIM LEHRER: It's called the Hebron agreement.

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: But that was--

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Yes, but the other elements of the agreement that are going to be negotiated concurrently, such as the safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza, this is an extremely important issue.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Because it connects Gaza and the West Bank together At this point they are separated, and it is very, very--

JIM LEHRER: These are the two Palestinian--

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Are two components of the Palestinian territories and without free access and free trade and free movement of people it really dissects the Palestinian National territorial integrity.

JIM LEHRER: So from the Palestinian point of view you want to make sure--you're waiting to see if Israel actually is going to do that?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Absolutely. It is extremely important. And that's why we believe that the signature of the United States and the involvement of the United States and the guarantee by the United States of those accords gives those accords importance.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Gur, does Mr. Rahman--is Mr. Rahman justified in having some concern about that particular element, connecting the Gaza to the West Bank?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: I think that's one of the issues that will have to be negotiated. And in the notes for the record it is stated very clearly that this will be one of the issues that will be negotiated and very shortly. But may I comment on another issue that Mr. Rahman said, and he was right in stating, that a very important component is now the implementation. And one of the principles of this implementation is reciprocity, and I think that is emphasized in the opening statement of the--the opening statement for the record. And reciprocity is a key issue in order to move forwards in the process because alongside the Israeli commitments there are Palestinian commitments which has to do with transfer of suspect with fighting terror and infrastructure of terror and--and the cooperation on the security side, completion of the abolition of the Palestinian covenant--all those are extremely important components of the agreement. And on a reciprocal basis with mutual trust I think we can move forward. But as I indicated, all those things have to be taken one step forwards, meaning the Palestinians have to stand by their word, by their commitment and now they reaffirmed their commitment today through the Oslo accords, and both sides could work together in order to move forward.

JIM LEHRER: That would be your counterpart to Mr. Rahman's concern about the Israeli, I mean, about the Palestinians, that they honor their commitments, and what is the most important one that you are concerned about, the one you just mentioned?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Those and as well as the important question of the regions from where the Palestinian Authority will operate, which has to be within the Palestinian authority and not in other areas which are not part of the Palestinian Authority, mainly in Jerusalem.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mr. Rahman, is there any question from the Palestinian point of view, that there is--this is a reciprocal agreement?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Absolutely. We are eager to have in this Israeli government a partner as we did with the previous Israeli government. We were seeking this partnership, and I believe that the only way to achieve peace is when we approach both peace with the spirit of partnership, and that this is not a zero sum game, that both parties will benefit from this peace process. And I believe that, I hope that this agreement will mark the beginning of this change of mind and heart by the Israeli government to perceive the Palestinians as their partners in this peace process.

JIM LEHRER: Many people said going into this that there is no way that Arafat and Netanyahu were ever going to make a deal about anything. Is this a new world here, a new world order?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Well, hopefully it is a new world. I'm glad to see that a working relation was established between President Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and that both will hopefully, will act as partners in order to achieve the peace that our two people desire and deserve.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Gur, how would you assess the Netanyahu-Arafat deal, arrangement, relationship?

SHLOMO GUR: I think that a relationship, a partnership is being developed which is crucial and essential, so moving forward the process, and I think that what was proven now, that all those allegations about a new Israeli government, when it was elected, has to be withdrawn and now work in all parties--we, the Palestinians, the other partners to the peace process, as well as the other countries in the region have not worked in cooperation and close cooperation in order to create the environment which will--which will be able to induce this kind of peaceful relationship in the future.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Gur, I want to pick up on a point that Mr. Rahman made a moment ago, which is the United States' involvement in this. How important is the United States' role in this peace process right now?

SHLOMO GUR: I think the United States is very important, and I think this is the right opportunity to express our thanks first of all to the American President and the administration who--and the entire U.S. Government--that was ready to allocate time, effort, and bring this--this process forward. Its involvement was critical in the last stages as well as previously. And I think that its intimate involvement helped to achieve this agreement and its continued involvement will help to, to reach other agreements.

JIM LEHRER: Would you use the same word, "critical"?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Absolutely. In fact, the Palestinian cabinet issued a statement thanking President Clinton for his support for the process and his involvement and for the American team led by Dennis Ross for the positive role without which probably the settlement could have not been reached, and to Egypt for its positive role, and for King Hussein also and for--

JIM LEHRER: King Hussein got involved here in the last couple of days.

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Absolutely. I mean, so there are many parties that became involved in the achievement of this agreement, but President Clinton personally and the U.S. Government and the secretary of state and everyone was very helpful, and again, I repeat, without their involvement, probably this agreement could have not been achieved. And we hope and we urge the United States to continue being involved because we need the involvement and the support.

JIM LEHRER: For those of us on the outside, to you, Mr. Rahman, first, and then Mr. Gur, what should we look for in the next few days as a kind of a sign post to whether or not this is going to work?

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: Well, start first by the redeployment out of Hebron.

JIM LEHRER: The Israeli troops start to leave.

HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN: And transfer authority to the Palestinian Authority and to the Palestinian police.

JIM LEHRER: From the Israeli point of view what should be looked for, Mr. Gur?

SHLOMO GUR: First of all, I would have to look tomorrow for tomorrow's Knesset approval of the agreement, then signing the agreement, hopefully on Friday, and the immediate implementation of the redeployment in Hebron, beginning to build this kind of mutual trust which is essential for moving forward and then moving together to tackle the outstanding issues which remain from the interim agreement and further the negotiations with regard to the final status.

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much. FOCUS - IN SEARCH OF...

JIM LEHRER: Now, adoption and the law and the growing demand for open adoption records. Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Broadcasting reports.

WOMAN: Okay. But you think she was from Arizona? You think that's her hometown.

CHRIS JAMISON, Adoptee: I think that's where she's from. Yeah.

WOMAN: Well, good.

LEE HOCHBERG: Chris Jamison walked into this meeting of the Oregon Adoptive Rights Association with only the sketchiest of details about his mother. He had an old address, a name that might have been her maiden name. He'd heard she might have had auburn hair.

CHRIS JAMISON: I know that she's, well, according to my biological father, she is very pretty.

LEE HOCHBERG: Jamison was adopted 36 years ago. Like many adoptees, he didn't know where his birth mother was or who she was. State laws in Oregon and most other states seal adoption records from adoptees unless they have a court order.

CHRIS JAMISON: To know that people know who your birth parents are and they won't tell you, I think it's ridiculous.

LEE HOCHBERG: States began sealing adoption records around 1930. They sought to protect birth parents and adoptees from the stigma of illegitimate birth and protect adoptive parents from unwanted interference. As social attitudes changed, pressure mounted to open records. A 1979 Act of Congress would have done that, but it was shelved during the Reagan administration. Today, records are open in only two states, Kansas and Alaska. And an estimated one million adoptees and birth parents are using private eyes, support groups, and classified ads to look for each other.

CHRIS JAMISON: People who have been denied this are like fish gasping for air.

LEE HOCHBERG: Psychologist Betty Jean Lifton, herself an adoptee, says keeping records shut is demeaning and alienating to adopted people.

BETTY JEAN LIFTON, Open Records Advocate: Then they get to be an adult and they think, how am I going to age? Everybody else has their family around them like a hall of mirrors that they can look at, and the adoptee is in a void.

LEE HOCHBERG: This summer the Tennessee legislature opened that state's adoption records, but the law is being challenged in federal court, where critics argue it violates the privacy rights of birth parents. The National Council for Adoption's Bill Pierce says Tennessee is breaking an implied promise it gave to birth parents that their history would be kept secret.

BILL PIERCE, Open Records Opponent: Tens of thousands of people, not just in Tennessee but all over the country, made important life decisions based on the fact that there was an expectation of privacy and confidentiality.

LEE HOCHBERG: Lifton, who's written two books on the issue, says it's cynical to suggest birth mothers got any promise of privacy.

BETTY JEAN LIFTON: They had no choice. They were told. This is the system. You give up your child, and you disappear, and you never come back. No one said to her, we're giving you confidentiality. Most birth mothers who want to know what happened. Wouldn't you want to know what happened to your child?

LEE HOCHBERG: Lifton tells audiences that six states conducting studies, including Tennessee, have found 95 percent of birth mothers want to reunite with their children. The critics say those who don't want to be found deserve anonymity.

DARLENE WILSON, Searcher: [on phone]: I'm trying to find someone that I've kind of lost track of.

LEE HOCHBERG: Finding parents without access to official records is an expensive and often daunting task.

DARLENE WILSON: [on phone] Well, I think she graduated about 1957.

LEE HOCHBERG: Not wanting to spend a thousand dollars on a private investigator, Chris Jamison turned, instead, to Darlene Wilson of the Oregon Adoptive Rights Group. She voluntarily uses her computer to conduct searchers.

DARLENE WILSON: [on phone] Yeah. Was she in California for a while? Oh, really? Okay.

DARLENE WILSON: Some searches are almost impossible because there's so little information available. It makes me angry because it just isn't fair for them.

LEE HOCHBERG: Some birth mothers who've struggled with the memory of pregnancy, giving up their child, observe the Open Records movement with alarm.

SHERI TRUJILLO, Birth Mother: Your rights stop there at my face. Okay. Anything past that's my rights.

LEE HOCHBERG: Sheri Trujillo gave birth to a boy 13 years ago, after a date rape. Two years later she gave the child up for adoption.

SHERI TRUJILLO: Dishes, cello, and if it's not done, then you're busted.

LEE HOCHBERG: Today she and her husband have three children of their own. The pain of her earlier pregnancy and separation from that child is not something she wants to revisit.

SHERI TRUJILLO: Not every person wants to be found. Not every person wants to remember how that situation came to be. It was a horribly, horribly painful experience. It was worse--it was worse than if he had died. And, and even sitting here talking 13 years later, I still have those feelings. Granted, it may not be fair to him that I don't want to be found, but it has to be accepted. It has to be.

LEE HOCHBERG: Trujillo says backers of open records are being inconsiderate of birth parents.

SHERI TRUJILLO: It's selfish on their part. If my child came to the door, the records were opened and he could find me and just come knocking on my door. Can you imagine what that would do to a marriage and to siblings, to find out that there was somebody else out there?

LEE HOCHBERG: Critics like Pierce suggest opening records could reduce the number of domestic adoptions. He cites a study from the government's General Accounting Office that finds 10 percent of those who adopt internationally do so to avoid dealing with birth parents. Opening records, Pierce says, would force more interaction with birth parents and drive more of those seeking to adopt overseas.

BILL PIERCE: If you take a look at the people today who are adopting children from other countries and you ask them why they are going to other countries to adopt when we've got kids that need families here, they're saying it's because I don't want somebody showing up on my doorstep.

LEE HOCHBERG: And some conservatives say, opening records will lead to more abortions. Evangelist Pat Robertson and his followers are fighting the new Tennessee law. They say women will chose abortion rather than risk later contact with the child they put up for adoption.

SPOKESMAN: And we're making sure that the right to adopt is still a legitimate option in Tennessee.

PAT ROBERTSON: That's the most important option of all, frankly,not abortion but adoption, and Jay, congratulations.

LEE HOCHBERG: Statistics, though, suggest open records don't lead to fewer adoptions or to more abortions. Alaska and Kansas with open records have higher rates of adoption than the nation at large. And the Gutmacher Institute finds five countries with open records; all have lower abortion rates than the U.S..

DARLENE WILSON: Do you know where she works? Oh, okay. Is she a nurse?

LEE HOCHBERG: For all the challenges, open records advocates say the payoff of a reunion is great enough that they'll keep the political pressure on in the five states with proposed open records legislation.

DARLENE WILSON: Thank you so much. Bye-bye. Well--

CHRIS JAMISON: Wow. Okay. Tell me what you know.

DARLENE WILSON: Here's her phone number.

LEE HOCHBERG: Jamison's search yielded an unusually quick possible match. Lucky to know the Arizona high school Jamison's birth mother had attended and lucky a class reunion was being planned, Wilson got from the reunion committee a current phone number for a woman with the right first name. Not much to go on, but Jamison tried and got a surprise.

CHRIS JAMISON: [on phone] Well, my name is Chris Jamison. And I was born on January 23, 1960 in Los Angeles. And I just wonder if--does that date mean anything to you at all?

WOMAN: [on phone] Yes, it does. I remember. I know who you are.

CHRIS JAMISON: Wow!

WOMAN: [on other end of phone] You're in Portland, Oregon?

CHRIS JAMISON: Yeah. I am. I'm just really excited right now, so you'll have to forgive me, but--

WOMAN: [on other end of phone] That's okay. I have thought about this.

CHRIS JAMISON: Have you?

WOMAN: [on other end of phone] Yes. Well, you watch those programs.

LEE HOCHBERG: Jamison and his mother made arrangements to meet each other in Arizona.

CHRIS JAMISON: [on phone] I just really look forward to visiting with you.

WOMAN: [on other end of phone] Oh, I hope so.

CHRIS JAMISON: Okay. Talk to you soon.

WOMAN: [on other end of phone] Talk to you later.

CHRIS JAMISON: Okay. Bye-bye.

WOMAN: [on other end of phone] Bye-bye.

CHRIS JAMISON: Whew! That is just nuts, man.

DARLENE WILSON: Did she hesitate at all?

CHRIS JAMISON: No. I just feel like I'm like five years old or something like that because she just sounded like, like my mom, you know, just totally nice, and her voice was really sweet, and I was like, wow, I don't know what to do.

LEE HOCHBERG: Mindful of the joys and problems caused by reunions, Oregon adoption officials are seeking a middle ground that promotes reunions and protects privacy. Program manager Kelly Shannon says 700 people have put their names in a state adoption registry in case someone's searching for them. And for a fee of $500 the state will conduct a search of its own.

KELLY SHANNON, Oregon Adoptions Manager: It's time. It's time to start dealing with difficult issues like this. You can't argue about their right to have information they don't have.

LEE HOCHBERG: But Oregon's Adoptive Rights Association says a registry and state searches are no substitute for open records. President Bill Bossert says even with Oregon's system, if a person doesn't want to be found there's little adoptees can do.

BILL BOSSERT, Oregon Adoptive Rights Association: If the person says, no, I really don't want to, then that system shuts down and you cannot make contact and you still have nothing anyway.

CHRIS JAMISON: I recognized her from the plane. I, you know, I could--I knew who she was. Her smile, the way her teeth are, exactly the same. I was just like, oh, man, this is too weird.

LEE HOCHBERG: A court ruling is expected within weeks on the stalled Tennessee law. Adoption experts say if the Tennessee records stay open, it will send a strong message to other states that may consider opening theirs.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Food Lion- ABC News case and remembering Martin Luther King. FOCUS - ABC - MALPRACTICE

JIM LEHRER: Now journalistic practices on trial and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: On November 5, 1992, the ABC News Magazine "Prime Time Live" broadcast one of its high profile investigative reports. The story accused Food Lion, an 1100-store grocery chain, of selling old food, cheese gnawed by rats, and spoiled meat washed in bleach to kill the odor. ABC used some controversial techniques to learn about Food Lion. Two producers worked undercover in two North Carolina supermarkets, lying on their resumes to get the jobs. They each wore a wig hiding a tiny lipstick-sized camera, and each carried a concealed microphone. Citing the ongoing case, ABC declined to allow the NewsHour to show any of the footage. Food Lion did not deny the undercover report's allegations, but two months before the story aired, the company filed suit against ABC, charging the network with fraud, trespassing, and other deception. On December 20th last year a Greensboro, North Carolina jury ruled against ABC. Ten days later the jury awarded Food Lion $1,402 in compensatory damages. Their grocery chain had sought twice that amount as compensation for wages paid to producers, plus the company's costs to train them. But that's not the end of the story. Food Lion is also seeking up to $2 billion in punitive damages to "deter illegal conduct" by news organizations. A jury has been deliberating the punitive damages in this case for two days. Today jurors told the judge they were deadlocked. He asked them to try again tomorrow. Now, a debate on the issues raised by this case. We're joined by Jane Kirtley, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a non-profit association that provides legal defense and research assistance to journalists, and Martin London, an attorney with the New York firm Paul Weiss. He has tried a number of cases involving media news gathering practices. Mr. London, in your view, what's the significance of the ABC-Food Lion case?

MARTIN LONDON, Attorney: [New York] Well, I think the significance is very great. I think that the jury has already spoken, even though we don't have a verdict on punitive damages, and this jury may not be able to reach a verdict on that. But what the jury has already said is that ABC has violated the privacy rights of a citizen of the state of North Carolina, and the jury doesn't like it. We all enjoy privacy rights. We insist on privacy rights. And it's not enough to say, well, I'm trying to find the truth. We don't allow the policemen to break into our bedroom. We don't allow the policemen to break in our office, and we don't allow ABC to do that either. What happened in this case is that the jury found that ABC used fraudulent techniques to gather information. ABC has no right to use fraudulent techniques.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'll come back to that. I just want to get to the significance of the case, and then we'll come back to the specifics. What do you think? What's the significance of this case, Ms. Kirtley?

JANE KIRTLEY, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: I think the long-term significance is that we're going to have a lot of news organizations that will think long and hard before they take on their local industry, their local business because they will be concerned that they'll be dragged through the courts with spurious claims such as the ones that have been brought by Food Lion in this instance, trying to take tort law, wrongful conduct, civil law, and twist it around to cover behavior that in my mind was clearly justifiable by the motive that ABC had. And the motive was to uncover serious hazards concerning public health and safety.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We're used to seeing or hearing about libel cases, defamation cases that deal with the content of the case. This was all about news gathering techniques. Why?

JANE KIRTLEY: I think primarily because Food Lion knew that as a public figure it would have an almost insurmountable burden of proof in the court to show that ABC knew or had reason to know that what it was publishing was untrue. The fascinating thing about this is as a legal matter in court Food Lion has not challenged the accuracy of the story. They've certainly done some very creative spin doctoring to get in people's mind that it's inaccurate, but as a legal matter it has not been challenged in court.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. London, we're seeing more cases that challenge the news gathering techniques, aren't we?

MARTIN LONDON: Yes, we are.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why?

MARTIN LONDON: Well, I think that the prime cause in my own personal view is tabloid journalism. The television news magazines are programs that the courts have recognized as being shrill, one- sides, often defamatory. They're part of the marketplace. They're in a desperate search for ratings, and they do things that are important in order to get more viewers. They do so, and in the process, they step on the rights of all the rest of us. I think what Jane says is interesting, that in her view what ABC did was entirely justified. I'd like to know who it is that makes the decision of when you're allowed to lie, cheat, when you're allowed to invade people's offices, when you can come into their homes. Is Jane Kirtley going to make that decision? Is some producer at ABC going to make that decision? A policeman couldn't have done what ABC did. The issue here is not truth. The issue is conduct. We are a society that considers that we have a liberty interest in the dignity of the places in which we expect privacy. You cannot break into my office with a crow bar. If I invite you to my office, you're welcome to come. If I don't consent to your coming, then don't come in there. If you come in there, you're trespassing. Now, it matters little to me whether you trespass in my office either by using a crow bar to break down the door, or whether you use fraud and deceit to gain entrance. In either case, you have done the same thing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let's let Ms. Kirtley answer the question that you put.

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, I think that the trespass issue--and there certainly is a technical trespass here, or appears to have been, because the consent Food Lion gave to ABC was presumably procured with Food Lion thinking that they were meat employees when, in fact, they were not, but the interest that trespass is intended to protect is basically the inviolability of property. Primarily, as Marty knows, we're talking about personal kinds of property, I mean, your home. This was not their home. This was a place of business. And, granted, that the ABC employees did get access to parts of the building that were not typically open to the public, but I simply don't see that the damage to them was so severe that it would justify a lawsuit of this magnitude. And I would add that I think the jury has agreed at least so far by giving them exactly what they're entitled to under a breach of contract claim, which is to get back the money that they paid to ABC employees who didn't know what they were doing when they were cutting meat.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Just one second. Is it your argument that what ABC found in this place or alleged to have found in this place and showed is worth the--the--it makes sense because of the worth of what they found that the producers lied about who they were, wore wigs, used hidden cameras?

JANE KIRTLEY: I don't think that it's possible for me to justify every editorial decision that every news organization makes, but what I do know is that a court of law is not the place to make those decisions. Courts are not constituted to become ethics tribunals for journalists.

MARTIN LONDON: This isn't a matter of ethics. Excuse me, Jane. It's not a matter of ethics. It's a matter of rights. I disagree with your view of the law and happily, the Supreme Court does too. The Supreme Court has specifically said--let me read a sentence to you--"The press may not with impunity break and enter an office or dwelling to gather news." It is, therefore, beyond dispute that the publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others. That's the end of the quote.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You're making the argument that because you can't break and enter, you also can't lie about who you are?

MARTIN LONDON: Well, of course. What ABC did in this case was they gained entrance to a facility, and they conducted themselves not by sneaking in at night by breaking the lock, but they gained a consent by fraud and deceit. They went through an elaborate process of false resumes, fictitious entries on job applications. They cheated their way into the premises. Now, the jury has already found that. And on the issue of damage, there's a long story to be told here, and we don't know what the end is going to be. They only asked for, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jane, some $2,000 in compensatory damages, and the jury gave them $1,000. Now there's a punitive damage phase in which the jury may or may not be able to reach a decision. But the fact is this jury found that this broadcast network violated the rights of this company. They violated their privacy rights.

JANE KIRTLEY: To the tune of $2, Marty.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. London, briefly, would you answer this question for me. There's a long history in the press of using false identities. In the 1880's a "New York World" reporter went into a woman's asylum and revealed terrible mistreatment in the asylum. She got herself committed to the asylum. Is there no case that would warrant these false identities, or in this case a hidden camera?

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, it's a very, very slippery slope. My view is that--and the law, I believe, is that a newspaper cannot break and enter, and if gaining entrance by fraud and deceit is the functional equivalent of breaking and enter, then the newspaper does not--does not have a right to do it. And the truth is that for the most part newspapers don't do it. The "New York Times" doesn't do it. The "Wall Street Journal" doesn't do it. Let me read you a sentence that A.M. Rosenthal wrote recently. He said--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: He's a "New York Times" columnist.

MARTIN LONDON: From the "New York Times." Correct. He said, "It demeans journalism to insist on the right of reporters to do in professional life something they would never willingly allow done to themselves, or to their news operations." It is demeaning. It's demeaning to the press, and it's demeaning to the victims of the fraud and deceit. This program that we're talking on now, this "NewsHour," has a long and valued tradition of covering foreign affairs, domestic affairs, economic affairs, political affairs. It makes a wonderful contribution to our First Amendment right to know. They don't need, so far as I've been able to observe, they don't need the trickery and deceit. They don't need masks. They don't need hidden cameras in order to report the truth and to enlighten the public. These hidden camera techniques are very, very popular now because they tickle the fancy of the television audience, and they drive up ratings in an area of journalism that is rapidly sinking into sleaze.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ms. Kirtley, are they demeaning these techniques?

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, I think that what we see, of course, is that the public loves them, and that's part of the reason that they are done. We also have an electronic--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Some of the public doesn't love them because the jury decided against them.

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, the fact is I think that they have kind of a love-hate relationship. They dislike them in the abstract, but they enjoy watching the stories, as the ratings demonstrate. But I think when we talk about slippery slopes, I'd like to emphasize that while many journalists do not use the techniques that ABC used, many journalists are not always completely forthcoming with their sources about what kind of story they're going to write, or what their agenda is. Many journalists go where they are not welcome. And it seems to me that it is only a very short step from this particular suit against ABC to all kinds of nuisance actions about any journalist who is trying to uncover a story about an important matter that the subject doesn't wish to have uncovered. I understand Mr. Martin is very concerned about the sensibilities of Food Lion. I'm a lot more concerned about its customers who were eating that rotten food.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. London. We have to go now, but thank you very much. I imagine we'll come back to this sometime. Thank you. CONVERSATION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight a conversation with Bernice King. Her father, Martin Luther King, Jr., would have celebrated his 68th birthday today. The national holiday will be observed on Monday. He was assassinated in Memphis in 1968. Bernice King is a Baptist minister, author of "Hard Questions, Heart Answers," a collection of her sermons and speeches. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with her earlier today.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Bernice King, thank you for joining us.

REV. BERNICE KING, Author, "Hard Questions, Heart Answers": Thank you for having me.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: This is your father's actual birthday, although we celebrate it next week. Do you have a favorite memory of a birthday with him?

REV. BERNICE KING: I'm told by my mother that he celebrated my last birthday prior to going to Memphis, and that's special to me to know that he was able to be there, on my fifth birthday, it was a week actually prior to his actual assassination, and so every time April 4th comes around I know that one week prior to it, if it's a Friday, I know the Friday before is my birthday.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: You talked about your young adult years when you--what did you say, you ran from destiny, even once contemplating suicide. How did you get from there to there?

REV. BERNICE KING: It was a combination of a lot of factors, and what it boiled down to is I felt like a failure of sorts, that I was not leaving it up to some of the standards, and I was in law school at the time, and so I was devastated by the law school experience and had already been placed on probation, and I felt like, my God, my world is caving in. This is the first time I had to deal with this kind of challenge and I started questioning my abilities as a person, whether or not I even had a purpose, because you had this call, on the one hand, and law school was kind of like an out for me.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Calling to--

REV. BERNICE KING: Calling to the ministry.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: When you were 17.

REV. BERNICE KING: Exactly.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What was that like? Just briefly, the calling, did something just come to you in the night, that you should do preaching?

REV. BERNICE KING: No. It was a spiritual tugging over time. I was doing probably some soul searching at the time because I became angered by my father's death at 16. I had an encounter for the probably tenth, eleventh time with the "Montgomery to Memphis" documentary, and this particular time I just began to cry at the end of it, you know, endlessly for hours. And it was at that time that I just allowed all of that that had been in me for 11 years to come out, and it resulted in a lot of anger towards him, towards God, and the Church, and the entire world. And so, you know, I started doing some soul searching and I made a decision I was going to, you know, forget the Church as much as I could. I mean, I was still 16 and under my mother's roof.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: So you turned into a rebel?

REV. BERNICE KING: Inwardly, and I guess God must have been somewhere inside of me because as I was rebelling, He was kind of saying, oh, no, you're going to stay connected. You're going to be a preacher. And I resisted it for eight years. And I wanted to do something different. I said, no, I want identity, I don't want to do what Dad did because I'll be consumed by that. And when I found out I wasn't doing well with law school, I said, oh, my God, you know, I'm losing that battle. But God again, once again, stepped into my life circumstance and said, oh, no, you have a purpose, you have a destiny. At that moment in my life when I had the ninth I had never before felt a sense of hope and relief. It was like I was carrying this hopelessness, this anger. I was being consumed by a lot of emotions that were negative, but all of a sudden out of nowhere comes this like an inward voice saying, no, you know, and it used something simple as if you do this you're going to be missed. I'm like, missed? Nobody's going to miss me. [laughing] Yeah, you're going to be missed. And you have--you have a purpose, and I'm going to fulfill that purpose. And it was shortly after then that I went ahead and resigned to my calling.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: You're the youngest of the four King children and the only one to follow in his footsteps. What do you think explains that?

REV. BERNICE KING: My mother explains it in an interesting sort of light. She says that I had to, it was--it was my salvation because she thinks that the death of my father created such a void in my life that I probably would have become consumed by all of the emotions and possibly end up, you know, dead one way or the other. And the reason I believe it myself is I had a dream with my father in it, and he was sitting in a chair, like I am today, and I was fussing at him, pointing a finger, you know, you haven't been in touch, and Yolanda was standing there right beside him saying, well, he's been in touch with me, yes. And he looked back and said, yes, I've been in touch with her; you will understand. It's my ministry. And I put that as a confirmation that God was using me in the ministry so I would better understand why my father had to leave, but it was also God's way of bringing me back in relationship with God, so that I would not have that distance, so I would be reconciled to him, and it was that one event, his death, caused me to say later for God. But I had to understand what my father was doing, and as I do what I do in the ministry, I am beginning to understand the sacrifice and the suffering.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: How is your ministry different from his?

REV. BERNICE KING: Well, I think my ministry is more geared toward the psychological and the issues of healing in an individual's life. I think so many people have allowed the conditions to consume them inwardly, unlike in the 60's, there was something inside you all that caused you all to not allow what was going on the outside to destroy your sense of hope and your sense of being. I mean, you had a "keep on" about you. And the people today don't have that. You know, the conditions have kind of just wrapped themselves around people, and they're choking them to death. And so I'm trying to speak to that pain and that hurt inwardly.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: It's been said that the state of race relations today, the poor state, deteriorating--widening gap between rich and poor, these things speak to a legacy that--a life that was lived in vain when they talk about your father's legacy. Do you accept that, that his death was in vain, his life was in vain?

REV. BERNICE KING: Oh, certainly not, because any kind of life is only a part of the puzzle. He was--he was a piece of the puzzle. It's an ongoing struggle. I mean, Frederick Douglas, himself, said, where there's no struggle there's no progress. The difference in today I think and then in the 60's is we couldn't dialogue, we couldn't get close because the law pushed us away. It said, no, you cannot be connected. We can't--there's no discussion on this issue, and if nothing else, his life was not in vain because he broke down that barrier and allowed us now to talk about the hot issue, the thing that controlled the behavior, and the attitudes.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: In your--in the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta, there's been a lot of turmoil and public discussion, fights, legal challenges over the intellectual property of your father. Some have said the fees that the family insists on charging and things like that are so inconsistent with his whole image as a selfless man.

REV. BERNICE KING: There is some profit motive behind what they're doing. The profit motive is not behind--we profit in the end--but the motive is not to profit. The motive is to maintain the integrity and to set a standard that's fair and equal. I had a conversation and I thank God for that conversation with Jesse Jackson, Jr.. One of the things he said I fought your father for is that he never understood the business aspect of what he was doing. He said, yes, we have to, to address the issues and things of that nature, but the bottom line is we cannot save our people if all of us are broke. And that's real. I mean, a hundred thousand is not going to do it. There are issues that are so difficult nowadays that require so much money, millions of dollars, to be able to address, and if you don't garner that kind of money, you can't address those issues, so you end up, you know, throwing nickels here, throwing dimes there. I have some dreams that are out of this world, and I can't do it with nickels and dimes.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Bernice King, thank you.

REV. BERNICE KING: Thank you. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the Israeli and Palestinian cabinets ratified the deal to pull Israeli troops out of Hebron and the West Bank. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Leader Arafat reached the agreement last night. Mexico repaid the U.S. Treasury the balance of its $13.5 billion emergency loan, and Boeing agreed to modify the rudders of its widely used 737 airliners suspected of causing two recent crashes. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.