The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight, Margaret Warner looks at holiday threats of terrorism; we debate whether Internet companies should pay taxes; correspondent Terrence Smith reviews some important stories that didn't get much attention this past year; Jim Fisher has our millennium essay; and we close with some music from Curtis Mayfield. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: Indian negotiators began talks today with the hijackers of an Indian airlines jet diverted to Southern Afghanistan with hostages aboard. They spoke by radio to the five armed captors at the Kandahar Airport. We have this report from Jo Andrews of Independent Television News.

JO ANDREWS: More than 150 passengers have spent their third full day on board the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Southern Afghanistan. Several deadlines have passed, but so far the hijackers haven't carried out their threats to start killing the hostages unless the Indian government agrees to release an imprisoned Kashmiri separatist. Earlier today a plane with a high-level negotiating team on board finally arrived in Afghanistan to begin talking to the hijackers, but so far the main contact has been through the U.N. Delegation.

SPOKESMAN: We listened to a very strong appeal by the captain of the plane, who asked us to transmit the message to the international media and to world leaders to... Asking if pressure could be brought upon the government of India.

JO ANDREWS: The Afghan administration, run by the Taliban, are keeping a watchful eye on developments, and say they're prepared to use force if they have to.

KAMAL HYDER: The tension is definitely heating up, and the Taliban have said that if there is an attempt by the hijackers to kill any passengers on board, they will definitely storm the aircraft.

JO ANDREWS: Meanwhile, in Delhi, the families of those held captive rioted at the Civil Aviation Ministry, convinced that their government has been too slow in reacting to the crisis and is failing to do enough to protect the lives of the passengers. So far one man is known to have died on board the aircraft, but there has been little news about the condition of the others.

GWEN IFILL: In Chechnya today, Russian troops encountered fierce resistance from rebels defending the capital city of Grozny. The rebels fought to reopen supply lines to the South after Russian forces seized control of key routes. To the North, Russian artillery and aircraft continued to pound areas surrounding the city, but there were no breakthroughs in that offensive. A second oil slick threatened France's Atlantic Coast today. The fuel leaked from a Maltese oil tanker, which broke apart off the Brittany coast two weeks ago. The first wave of oil washed up over the weekend along hundreds of miles of shoreline. France's environment minister said the region is facing an ecological catastrophe. U.S. officials said today new arrests on the Canadian border did not involve terrorism. The border patrol stopped seven Jordanians yesterday at the Blaine, Washington, checkpoint. Two were children. But, the Immigration and Naturalization Service said, the incident had nothing to do with terrorist groups. Instead, a spokeswoman called it the kind of "routine alien smuggling" that happens on a daily basis. The space shuttle "Discovery" was scheduled to land this evening at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The seven-member crew spent eight days in space, repairing and upgrading the Hubble space telescope. NASA wanted the shuttle to return to earth well ahead of New Year's, to avoid any Y2K computer problems. The music world mourned rock and roll Hall-of-Famer Curtis Mayfield today. He died yesterday in a suburban Atlanta hospital at 57. Mayfield had a string of hits in the 60's and 70's that focused heavily on civil rights and social issues. He'd been a quadriplegic since a lighting rig fell on him during a 1990 performance. We'll have more on Curtis Mayfield later in the program tonight. Also tonight, warnings about terrorism, taxing the Internet, news from overseas you may not have heard about, and a millennium essay.

FOCUS - HIGH ALERT

GWEN IFILL: Terrorism alerts on the eve of a new year, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Inthe past two weeks, U.S. Government agencies have been warning of possible terrorist attacks on Americans over the Christmas and New Year holiday period. On December 11, for example, the State Department issued the following alert: The U.S. Government has credible information that terrorists are planning attacks specifically targeting American citizens during the holiday period. The statement went on to warn of attacks at locations throughout the world where large gatherings and celebrations will be taking place. American citizens should avoid large crowds and gatherings, keep a low profile and vary routes and times of all required travel. Other warnings have come from the FBI, yet government officials, including President Clinton, have told Americans to go ahead with their holiday plans. A series of incidents have prompted the concern. The arrests in Jordan early this month of 13 men believed to be plotting terrorist attacks against Americans and Israelis. The arrest of an Algerian man as he tried to enter Port Angeles, Washington from Canada carrying explosive and timing devices in his car and the arrest of a Canadian woman and an Algerian man on December 19 as they tried to enter the U.S. along Vermont's border with Canada. Federal prosecutors say the woman has ties to Islamic terrorist groups. For more on these warnings and what prompted them, we turn to Graham Fuller, a consultant for RAND Corporation, a federally funded research organization. He had a 27-year career at the State Department; Brian Jenkins, a security consultant and author of a recent book "International Terrorism, A New Mode of Conflict," Philip Wilcox the State Department's ambassador at large for counter terrorism from 1995 to '97, and Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Welcome, gentlemen.

Ambassador Wilcox, how unusual is it to have this many warnings from the government in such after short period of time about terrorism?

PHILIP WILCOX: It is unusual, Margaret. I think the approach of the millennium is one reason for the heightened concern by the administration, but over the years, there has been an increasing frequency of terrorist advisory warnings by the Department of State. I think this reflects real and genuine and justifiable concern by the administration and it's a very tough balancing act to measure the need for warning the public against the anxiety and the concern that these warnings promote. My view is that perhaps there should be a more measured, careful judgment on the frequency of such warnings. Such warnings are necessary but if they're issued too often, they lose their credibility, and they tend to create more concern and alarm than the actual facts of terrorism justify.

MARGARET WARNER: Brian Jenkins, do you share that concern, that perhaps these are too frequent, too many of them?

BRIAN JENKINS: Well, certainly that concern is valid. I mean, we've had in the past two-and-a-half months now five warnings, worldwide warnings, put out by the State Department advising Americans that they may be targets of terrorist attack. That is an unusual frequency. These warnings do reflect a continued high volume of noise about terrorist activities, that is when terrorists are not carrying out attacks, they're planning attacks or at least contemplating, talking about attacks. And so if we have pretty good, intelligence sources, that is going to provide a steady stream of information. How many of these reports will ultimately prove valid, probably not many of them, although the arrest in Jordan and recently in Washington are real events.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Fuller, you have spent your life-- all four of you have-- looking at terrorism, studying terrorism from the events, at least what we know publicly, how credible would you say the threat is as the millennium approaches?

GRAHAM FULLER: Well, I think given the fact that it's actually a millennium coming and we haven't had this experience before of a millennium on full-time television, I would take it fairly seriously. I think millennium traditionally attract all kinds of nuts and cooks and end of the worlders and apocalyptic visions. So it's very hard to know what is going to happen. I think though what is important is how much we are actually contributing to building up some of these terrorist organizations by frequent or perhaps over frequent reference to them. Are we really improving security of Americans if we simply issue statements that there's a generalized danger? It begins to approach the danger of being struck by lightning which is also very real under certain conditions. Finally I think what's really critical is: are we building Bin Laden into far more of a figure than perhaps he merits to be? There's no question he's charismatic. There's no question he's got a lot of money but when he's consistently... when almost every one of these events is traced back in some way to him, I think it must increase his bank roll, it increases his followers, it increases the feeling that he's really on to something, that I don't think necessarily assists our side in defending ourselves.

MARGARET WARNER: You're referring of course to Osama bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi, who has been blamed for two embassy bombings in the past year-and-a-half. Edward Luttwak, how credible do you see - I mean, the FBI has put out statements both privately which different news organizations have gotten ahold of and also somewhat publicly, linking some of these arrests saying that piece people work for Osama bin Laden or they were directed by him, how persuasive do you find that evidence?

EDWARD LUTTWAK: Well, there is something to be explained here because I agree with what all the previous speakers said. We all know terrorism is not that important. More people died of lightning strikes last year, as a matter of fact, than terrorism. But within that thing, there is something quite serious here. The serious part is the fact that they've arrested 13 people in Jordan, the 13 people, let's say, belonged to an Islamic fundamentalist organization, yes, but no previous history of attacks against Americans -- American targets. There may have been terrorists, the organization, of course, proposes violence, favors violence, funds violence, but never against American targets. Suddenly these people are arrested. We go on the say-so of the people arresting them that they were talking about attacking American targets. This would be, say, American citizens outside and in fact if I remember correctly the first State Department warning said, "watch out, Americans who are outside the United States." Then there's the arrest of the Algerian, this Ahmed Rassem, at Port Angeles, in Washington. He is associated with a group of people who belong to or are affiliated or belong to an organization called the Group Islamic Ahmed. Now they're very bad boys.

MARGARET WARNER: This GIA.

EDWARD LUTTWAK: GIA, very bad boys. Terrorists, enormously violent, killed thousands of people. But no American targets. If anything, the GIA, as an Algerian group, has reasons to be, if you like, pro-American. They have never attacked Americantargets. They have no reason to attack American targets. Suddenly not only do we have a second group with no history of attacking but, moreover, it's no longer American citizens abroad; it's the fellows coming into the United States with bomb equipment. So the implication is the only possible logical inference that no logic applies, but the only logical inference is there is somebody outside a group organization or country, which is now mobilizing these groups and we happen to have heard of two of these cases. But if two rather marginal groups-- marginal, with no history of attacking Americans or American targets-- suddenly are aiming at the American target and the United States, the implication is that the same general contractor has gone out and solicited other, more plausible organizations which do have a history of attacking Americans. That's why there is reason for war.

MARGARET WARNER: Brian Jenkins, do you connect the dots that way?

BRIAN JENKINS: I would be careful not to see this in strict organizational terms. In the 1970s and 1980s, we were probably more confident in talking about identifiable terrorist organizations with leaders that we could identify, with modus operandis that we could identify. Today's terrorist world is organizationally much more fluid. In fact, it's very difficult to apply any sort of hierarchy to it. Instead we're forced to speak of a universe, of like-minded fanatics, in which there are clearly galaxies, constellations, individual conspiracies. Now one can enter that universe and take advantage of those linkages. I don't know that we should see this in terms of this organization connected with this other organization, but it's entirely possible that we have had... we have a case of individuals who may have been in one organization in the past and now are operating under a somewhat different banner.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Graham Fuller, how do you read these signs, in terms of whether there is some sort of organized attempt, anyway, to have an organized plot or whether these are a lot of self-starters who are all attracted by the coming millennium as a great, just, opportunity?

GRAHAM FULLER: Well, I think what Edward pointed out earlier is very significant. I fully agree with him. In other words, if suddenly a group that has had nothing to do with Americans and no interest in Americans for several years, we now find members of that group possibly involved in terrorism against the United States, I have to say either it suggests that this organization has entirely changed its tactics, which is unlikely, or else there are people free lancing from that group. But there's another very complicating element in all of this as well, and that is what we've got states-- and let me be specific-- the Algerian state which has pulled a coup de tat, which canceled legitimate elections, Islam is one, in 1991. The Algerian state is involved in a very brutal struggle against Islamists across the whole spectrum, some more democratic, some very, very violent. And so it's in the interest of the Algerian state and other states in the Middle East and the Muslim world to feed us information suggesting that everybody that the regime doesn't like and that maybe has something to do with Islam and politics is a terrorist. The term terrorist is being used extremely broadly for almost any group that these states don't like. That makes our job much tougher in trying to figure out the real bad guys, the real terrorists from people who are, yes, honestly carrying out armed insurgencies against their own states but with not a lot of interest in the American -- in the United States or the American position.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Ambassador Wilcox, given the obvious murkiness of all of this, one is the U.S. Government handling this right in your view with these warnings? Is there something else the U.S. Government should do? And how should civilian Americans respond, I mean civilian Americans?

PHILIP WILCOX: The U.S. Government has done a very good job in identifying terrorists, going after them, prosecuting them and convicting them. I've been extraordinarily successful in the last decade in bringing terrorists to justice. But the real essence of terrorism is not the number of people killed which is miniscule compared to other forms of mayhem and violence. It's the fear that terrorists create. So, government officials and the media have to be very careful in treating, dealing with terrorism so that they don't inadvertently exaggerate the danger and thereby play into the hands of the terrorists whose real job is to create fear and give them a psychological victory.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Mr. Luttwak, your view of both how the U.S. Government is handling this now and how Americans should respond.

EDWARD LUTTWAK: Well, from my own background as a journalist, I must say that I'm stuck with the fact that we have made a lot of noise. We have talked a lot. Mr. Fuller was quite right in saying that it was a terrific mistake to give so much advertising to the Saudis, which I will not mention, and at the same time we have not, in fact, used instruments that the taxpayer might think we have. For example, at one point apparently we knew who -- Mr. ... the unmentionable person was. Instead of going to get him the way governments have that around the world in dealing with terrorists, you send people to pick him up; you arrest his people, you take the documents, you read the documents, you blow up his stuff and you bring him home. Now we launch cruise missiles. On the one hand, terrorism is a terrifically important problem. But on the other, it is not sufficiently important to employ our special operations forces, our high-quality, high cost, special ops forces are not sent for that. Afghanistan is a very permissive environment, it's one of the easiest places in the world to do such an operation, obviously. We didn't do that. But instead, oh, yes, we could send cruise missiles. In other words it's a sort of... it's a threat that you emphasize because there are no other threats. You talk a lot about it but you don't actually do things that involve any cost or risk. So this I think is the balance there.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you all four very much.

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, taxing the Internet; overseas news that wasn't widely reported, a millennium essay and Curtis Mayfield.

FOCUS - TAXING THE INTERNET

GWEN IFILL: Now to taxes and the Internet. Spencer Michels begins our report.

SPENCER MICHELS: The holidays are traditionally the time of year when retailers nationwide make the bulk of their annual profits, but this year, an estimated $30 billion is being spent on the Internet, a small but growing portion of retail sales. Consumers are going online to buy books, toys, and jewelry. Anything that can be bought at a store can be bought via a computer. Consumers not only find it convenient, they can save money on taxes as well. When they purchase over the Internet, they are not charged a sales tax, as they are stores in most states. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that retailers do nothave to collect sales taxes when they ship goods into states where they do not have a substantial "physical presence," like a store or a warehouse. But that could change. An intense debate has erupted over whether Internet purchases should be subject to the same sales taxes as goods bought traditionally in retail stores, taxes that vary widely from one jurisdiction to another. Last year, Congress approved a three-year moratorium against sales taxes that might be levied on Internet purchases, and there's legislation pending that would make the temporary ban permanent. However, the majority of the nation's governors and local state officials are for an Internet sales tax, fearful that they could lose up to $10 billion a year. Sales taxes are the single largest source of revenue for most state and local governments. In 1997, sales tax revenue accounted for $147 billion nationwide. And as one would expect, traditional retail stores also are in favor of taxing Internet purchases. They argue a tax moratorium puts them at a competitive disadvantage. The debate over Internet taxes has crept into presidential politics. All the presidential candidates support the moratorium, but differ on whether there should be a permanent ban on sales taxes on Internet purchases. Only Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Bradley has said he would not endorse a permanent ban on Internet sales taxes. Congress created an advisory commission to study the issue of Internet taxation. It is due to submit its recommendations in the spring.

GWEN IFILL: For more on Internet taxation we're joined by Governor William Janklow of South Dakota, who says Internet shopping should be taxed, and Bob Bowman, CEO of Outpost.com, an Internet only retailer of consumer technology products. He says new taxes will hurt an emerging industry.

Governor Janklow, let's start with you. What difference is it really for you between Internet sales and old-fashioned brick and mortar sales?

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW, (R) South Dakota: Look, this is a matter of fundamental fairness. Why do we have taxes? And I think that's why we have to ask that question. We have taxes because we have to educate our kids. We have to take care of the elderly when they can't care for themselves. We have to care for the blind and the deaf and have police protection and fire protection and do the basic things that we all agree governments have to do. So the question is: Who's going to pay for this? And the announcer in the lead-in to coming on to me put this thing right into a nutshell beautifully. What he said was that you can take a situation where an emerging business can escape paying a tax that a traditional business has to pay. That's nonsense, and that's gobbledygook, and that's unfair competition to established people in business.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Bowman, what's the big difference for you?

ROBERT BOWMAN, CEO, Outpost.com: Well, I think it's a little bit more complex than that. Equity and efficiency are the two hallmarks of any tax code. Equity means that if we're going to tax Internet, then we'd better tax cataloguers; it had better mean that bricks and mortars aren't getting any other unfair tax breaks, i.e., helping them invest and build their own stores in the states where they do have a nexus and taxes are already being levied. And efficiency means that these taxes can be collected evenly and equitably in the sense that there's voluntary compliance. I think Internet taxation by itself and only on Internet companies fails both those tests remarkably.

GWEN IFILL: Governor Janklow, in your South Dakotabudget for -- predicted for next year, you were counting on about $450 million -- $480 million in sales and use taxes. Do you have any way of telling from the season just past whether you're going to be taking a hit?

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: No. And let me tell you why. We all know we're taking a hit -- to whatever extent Internet sales take place in my state we take a hit. But what you just listened to is really gobbledygook by that explanation. Let me tell you why. The fact of the matter is when you look at the taxation, all we're asking, all we're asking is that Internet sales be treated like catalogue sales. You know, who are these people that think somehow they have a right to go into business but they shouldn't pull their fair share of the wagon? They want the retired people and the handicapped people and those working stiffs out there driving trucks to pay their taxes and then they complain that it's not a level playing field. What they're doing is falling through a loophole that's going to make them a lot of money at the expense of working people.

GWEN IFILL: Bob Bowman, are you - is this gobbledygook? Are you robbing state governments of money they should be getting?

BOB BOWMAN: Hardly. There is gobbledygook being espoused here, but I wouldn't say it's coming from me. I think that we're all willing to pay our fair share. But if we are going to use the use tax right now, which in this state, Michigan, where I am today, they're going to try enforce, then everyone ought to have to pay it, everyone who orders from a catalogue and Internet. No one's arguing that it should be any more fair for us versus catalogue sales. No one's arguing it should be more fair for us than bricks and mortar. But do our bricks and mortar people, are they getting investment tax credits? Are they being encouraged to build their store from states? Are states utilizing the tax code to encourage people to build their buildings there, and therefore creating an unfair playing field in their states? As soon as we eliminate that and create a truly level playing field, we say hallelujah, let's all pay taxes, make it fair. And I'm sure the governor agrees.

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: What taxes do you want to pay? Tell us what taxes, right now, you want to pay?

ROBERT BOWMAN: I'm happy to pay any tax that everybody else is paying, Governor.

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: Is that through the Internet sales?

GWEN IFILL: Governor, is it possible that the Internet is already taxed, just to get access to the Internet?

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: No, no, ma'am, taxing to get to the Internet is a different issue. I'm not in favor of increasing taxes or putting the burdens on that commerce. That's not the issue. Everybody agrees the Internet sales are exploding. So, there's no taxes out there now that are inhibiting the sales on the lines that you're using. What he and I are debating on whether or not when he sells a product to someone in my state that he should have to collect that sales tax from them just like Sears, and Kmart, and the grocery store does, and the clothing store does, and everybody else does. And in the software world this is a no-brainer to collect. What he's really telling you is, he wants to pay all taxes that he's entitled to pay, but the fact of the matter is he wants a zero-tax rate. He wants to have an unfair advantage.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Bowman, since the majority of people with household incomes over $75,000 a year have Internet access, the majority of people who earn less than $25,000 a year don't have a Internet access, is that a tax break only for the rich?

ROBERT BOWMAN: In terms of the Internet sales?

GWEN IFILL: Yes.

ROBERT BOWMAN: Again, I don't want to... I want to make sure we eliminate the distinction here. Internet sales and catalogue sales are about the same. Catalogue sales do not pay taxes. There are use taxes that states can collect on cataloguers that some are and most are not, because it's a virtually impossible tax to enforce. And all we're saying is if we're going to tax the Internet, then let's tax the cataloguers, let's eliminate the tax breaks for everybody else. Sure, there's unfairness within the tax code as to somebody who makes $75,000 versus $25,000. I don't think the Internet's any worse than any other utilizer of a government system, though. And if there's unfairness, let's eliminate it. No one in the Internet world is saying let's not pay taxes. Let's not do this. We're just saying, let's make sure it's done fairly. And Governor, I would also urge that before we rush out and start levying taxes, this is still a young industry and we ought to see how it looks before we start to this animal.

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: We're not taxing the animal. We're taxing the sales to your customers. Your tax rate would be zero; all we're asking you to do is collect. And you better remember something; it's really the young people, the younger generation that understands how to use this technology; 70 year old people don't understand how to use this technology very well, and they're going to get stuck paying these taxes so you can give an unfair advantage to the people who fall through this loophole.

GWEN IFILL: But Governor, how do you tax? How do you tax this? Every different jurisdiction has its own set of taxes; how do you do that?

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: Thanks for asking that question. Go ask Sears Roebuck; they're in 50 states and thousands of small communities. Go ask Wal-mart, they figured out how to do it. Go ask K-mart, they figured out how to do it. The fact of the matter is, in a technological world that we live in it's a no-brainer to ask the technology community to write the software that takes care of this kind of problem. And I'll also concede that if you can't write software that takes care of this problem for the companies, then they shouldn't have to collect the tax, because the key thing in this whole issue is we don't want to put a burden on them, we just want them to pay their fair share and not escape a reasonable tax that they have to collect.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Bowman?

ROBERT BOWMAN: Well, first of all, let me defend 70 year olds, Governor. My mother just celebrated her 77th birthday, and she understands this just fine, thank you, sir.

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: God bless your mother, but the rest of the 70 year olds don't.

ROBERT BOWMAN: God bless my mother and I think she's pretty typical. And maybe that just those of us here in the Midwest -- that hearty blood. But beyond turning it into a generational issue, we're all in favor of saying let's have equity. We're all in favor, if you think there's a software system that we can figure out the tax code for 40,000 different jurisdictions, then bring it on. I would only observe that this is a new industry, we don't fully understand it yet, we have cataloguers that have fought this long and hard for so many years now and in 1992 won -- won, in their words, maybe lost in your words -- the court case. And as long as we bring every body under the tent and treat everybody the same, then let's go forward from there. But to pick on the Internet versus the cataloguers, versus the bricks and mortars who get local tax breaks and state tax breaks just doesn't seem fair either.

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: You keep saying that, but let me ask you... you've got to understand something, sir, in my state, retailers don't get all kinds of breaks. We do things for economic development in South Dakota, but we don't have a corporate income tax, we don't have a personal income tax. We live on taxes like the sales tax and we don't give breaks to retailers to open businesses with tax breaks.

GWEN IFILL: Is there any chance, any possibility of a middle ground between your two points of view?

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: Sure, look, we ought to be able to agree. I want them to be taxed just like catalogues are. If there's nexus, they're taxed, if there's no nexus, they're not taxed. It doesn't take an act of Congress. Ma'am, we've got to understand, the state governments in this country have cut $25 billion worth of taxes in the last five years. It's the federal government and the President that don't know how to cut taxes for the American people. The states have stepped up to the plate. In my state, that has neither a personal, nor a corporate income tax, we have cut the property taxes in South Dakota, by the end of this next legislative session, 30 percent for every farmer, every rancher and every homeowner in South Dakota. That's phenomenal.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Bowman, excuse me, you get the final word.

ROBERT BOWMAN: I would say there's always room for a compromise. Having spent ten years in state government we'll always find the middle ground, but I think the Governor has just pointed out part of the problem. Every state is different, every locality is different, and therefore rush to judgment, we have a quick answer, let's take out the hacksaw - probably is not the best way to go. We all agree, let's have equity, let's move forward with that in mind and I think we'll achieve the goal. It may not happen in six months, it may not happen in 12 months, but we'll get forward and we'll all be treated equally I'm quite show.

GWEN IFILL: Lively discussion, Bill Janklow and Bob Bowman. Thank you both very much.

ROBERT BOWMAN: Thank you.

GOV. WILLIAM JANKLOW: Thank you, Gwen.

FOCUS - UNCOVERED NEWS

GWEN IFILL: Some stories from overseas you may not have heard about this year. Media Correspondent Terence Smith reports.

TERENCE SMITH: By now the images are familiar: Ethnic slaughter provoking NATO action over Kosovo, earthquake devastation in Turkey, mayhem in East Timor, a global catalogue of crises thrust into American living rooms; far away places brought close by the presence of cameras and reporters. But even in this year of important and widely reported foreign news, overall coverage of ongoing international events remains selective and sparse in the American media when compared to coverage when the Cold War was hot. In an effort to bring attention to this shortfall, Doctors Without Borders, winners of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, recently issued its second annual top ten list of humanitarian emergencies around the world which the organization considers largely ignored by the U.S. press during 1999. The African continent is home to six of the 10 crises. Heading the list is the forgotten war raging in the Congo Republic. 200,000 people have flooded the capital of Rosaveu after fleeing the city late last year, prompting what Doctors Without Borders calls "an enormous medical and nutritional crisis." Civil war in Burundi has displaced 800,000 people. In the democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, years of corrupt regimes and internal strifehave left the health care system in ruins. Resurgent fighting in Angola again threatens civilians. One of the largest cholera epidemics in decades has infected over 60,000 people in Mozambique. And the chaos in the East African nation of Somalia did not end once American troops and journalists left the scene. There is still no stable government, warlords continue their domination of the country, and disease remains rampant. Elsewhere around the world, ethnic civil war on the island nation of Sri Lanka intensified this year, symbolized most recently by the unsuccessful assassination attempt against the Sri Lankan president. In Colombia, efforts by aid workers to help victims of ongoing guerrilla warfare continued to be severely hampered by extremely dangerous working conditions. Two decades of unabated conflict in Afghanistan have forced a refugee population of 2.6 million, the world's largest, to seek refuge in the neighboring states of Iran and Pakistan. Access to healthcare is virtually nonexistent. Lack of medicine to fight disease in developing countries is one crisis cited by Doctors Without Borders that knows no particular nationality. Millions of people die each year from illness long proven curable, that nonetheless go untreated. By issuing the list, Doctors Without Borders hopes to point out that while there may be little coverage of these stories, that does not mean there is no news.

TERENCE SMITH: To explore the reasons underlying this lack of coverage of events overseas, we're joined by Joelle Tanguy, the executive director of the U.S. Section of Doctors Without Borders, and Barrie Dunsmore, a former diplomatic correspondent for ABC News, and lecturer now at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Welcome to you both.

Joelle Tanguy, why did you and your organization issue this list?

JOELLE TANGUY: Well in fact it started last year. We were so frustrated during the Monica Lewinsky scandal that we were facing a massive famine in southern Sudan, and were not able to break the news. And we started to realize this was not the first occasion. There had been, during the year, a number of crises that had been completely under reported, sometimes not even mentioned in the media. And we were faced this year with a slight improvement. There were... The Kosovo crisis was portrayed extensively -- East Timor as well -- a number of others. But still, there were a number of crises on the list that got no coverage, and were having dramatic impact on civilian populations. So we decided to issue it again, until we finally get the debate possibly changed in reporting of humanitarian crises around the world.

TERENCE SMITH: Barrie Dunsmore is somebody who has covered a lot of foreign news over the years for ABC, does this ring true to you, and if true, why true?

BARRIE DUNSMORE: Well, it does, Terry. But I don't think it can be limited to just something like the Lewinsky scandal, because I think there have been some profound structural changes in news coverage, certainly in our country in the last decade. The three most important ones are: The end of the Cold War. Now, I know that's almost a clich today, but one cannot overemphasize how important the Cold War was for the reality of foreign coverage. I would say that in the 30 years that I was a network correspondent, 90 percent of the stories that I did had some Cold War element, even when they were humanitarian stories. The second big change, of course, is the proliferation of news organization and outlets, now as many as 50 or 100 or 500 where there used to be only three or four. And perhaps even most important now, is the whole question of the ownership of the main television news networks. Now, the old guys like Bill Paley and the Sarnovs and Leonard Goldenson, were not necessarily philanthropists, but they really did have a sense of community and a sense of responsibility. And they saw their news divisions, not so much as cash cows, but as loss leaders. The new boys in town, the Disneys, the Warners, the GE's, the news divisions are cash cows, but in order to make money, they have to bring large numbers of people into the tent. And the fact of the matter is that humanitarian stories, foreign stories, are not of great appeal to most American viewers and readers. They don't get the ratings and therefore they don't get much attention.

TERENCE SMITH: Joelle Tanguy, does that seem to you to be the reason for this relative lack of coverage?

JOELLE TANGUY: It rings true. It rings true in the sense that what we've seen is basically a real kind of media culture effect, and one that seeks the American angle, and the Cold War issue was really seeking that American angle which cannot be necessarily found. Even a year before an intervention in Kosovo, there was no American angle. There was one, a real one, a year later. But there was... We've also witnessed something which is dramatic is the lack of resources in the media for covering international news. When you think about it, CNN, which has a reputation of covering international news, has reduced its world coverage to half an hour a day, and let's say the East Africa correspondent for the "New York Times" is one person covering 22 countries, eight of them are at war. So there's really an issue of where the resources are allocated now.

TERENCE SMITH: Barry Dunsmore, have you seen that reduction in resources?

BARRIE DUNSMORE: Oh, absolutely, and I think for the reasons that I've just cited. There used to be many, many foreign correspondents for all the networks and for all the major newspapers and magazines. I don't know what that number is now compared to what it used to be, but my guess is it's now more than a quarter, and it might be even significantly less that that. ABC used to have bureaus in virtually every major capital of the world, now it's London, and occasionally they'll have somebody in the Middle East, and occasionally, but not even on a fulltime basis, people in Moscow. Again, the resources are going to the magazine shows particularly, which are the ones that they hope, at least, will be the cash cows to bring in the big bucks. Foreign news, once again, just doesn't make it.

TERENCE SMITH: Barry, is this, in your view... Which is the chicken and which is the egg here? Is it that the public has less interest, or that the media organizations focus less for their own reasons?

BARRIE DUNSMORE: Well, I think you've reached a very interesting conclusion there, because it's hard sometimes to know which of the two, because sometimes, if the networks were able to set the agenda, which certainly they did in the old days when there were only just the three of us, that would, in itself, attract a great deal of attention not just from viewers, but also from other news organizations, newspapers, and magazines. So certainly that's an important thing. I do recall that in the last years that I was working, ABC, because Peter Jennings wanted it, spent a lot of time focusing on the problems of Bosnia. And on one particular occasion, we did a special in prime time which actually ended up beating one of the final four games of college basketball, much to everyone's consternation. But as a general proposition, the feeling is that these kinds of programs do not get good ratings, and therefore, they're not put on the air. But I think there is some evidence to suggest that if we did pay more attention to them, they would, in fact, get better ratings.

TERENCE SMITH: Joelle Tanguy, do you find that there is a racial or cultural bias at work here, in this relative lack of coverage? Some of the ones that you cited, six of the ten, in fact, of the stories, of the crises, are in Africa. Would it be different... Is Kosovo different from Kinshasa?

JOELLE TANGUY: Maybe, maybe. The fact is, African crisis has been definitely under reported. But I think that also, because we've somehow over the years developed a fundamentally blurred understanding of Africa, lumped into one single, kind of, country, as opposed to the variety on the continent of the countries' situations lumped into that general image of a continent that's plagued by disease and wars and so on, where in fact they are dramatically different realities, and we don't have really a good understanding of Africa, and we're not helping by having only a coverage at a time of visible crisis, of something of interesting nature as opposed to a really thorough attempt at understanding and covering in depth. I really take issue with those who say that there is no interest in the public. I really believe that you can spur that interest in the public by providing quality information. And indeed, you create disaster fatigue if you just have flashes like this. But if we create a better understanding, there should be a way to elicit this interest.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. I'm pleased that we're joined now by Susan Moeller, a Professor of American Studies at Brandeis University, and the author of "Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death." Welcome. You're a victim, a bit, of Washington traffic. We're glad that you're here.

SUSAN MOELLER: Thank you.

TERENCE SMITH: We've been talking about just that. Compassion fatigue. Explain it in your terms.

SUSAN MOELLER: Well, I think there's really two kinds of compassion fatigue. One is the kind of compassion fatigue that the audience feels. And that's where we feel helpless, like we can't do anything, particularly when faced by an intractable crisis. But I think what's more the point in this instance is the compassion fatigue that the media responds to, because the media, which is really part... Most of the media's part of the larger entertainment industry. They want to turn a profit. They have to prevent their audience from turning the page. They have to prevent their audience from hitting the remote. So they do everything they can to prevent us from falling into compassion fatigue. So they skip from crisis to crisis, they sensationalize the news, so they play up the American angle, for example.

TERENCE SMITH: And the result of all this, as far as the public is concerned, I take it then is that they feel just another crisis, be it in Africa or Bangladesh or where?

SUSAN MOELLER: Right. I think the public is given short shrift. They never really learn enough about a crisis to care about it. And I think, you know, if you're going to the care about something, or if you're going to send your money, if you're going to put in your time, you have to know quite a bit about it, and that means not just hearing about it for two days or three days, at most a week, but for really sitting on the story for a while, and then even more importantly, coming back to it.

TERENCE SMITH: Revisiting it?

SUSAN MOELLER: Mm-hmm.

TERENCE SMITH: Barry Dunsmore, does that sound familiar to you as somebody who's fought these battles?

BARRIE DUNSMORE: It certainly does, although I am reminded of an old song that the Kingston Trio sang many, many moons ago, which you may remember, you and I being about the same age, they're rioting in Africa. I mean, I there is that kind of sense. At the same time, I also recall that in 1984, I spent a good deal of time in Africa covering the famines from Ethiopia all the way to West Africa, and there was an enormous public outpouring of interest and attention and money to that particular story, and I think that actually made a huge difference. So it's not necessarily that people will have a negative mindset and be unwilling to become interested. But I think also is that issue of the American involvement right now seems to be the main factor in getting attention in some story that's taking place in some strange part of the world. When there's the possibility that American forces might have to go in, where American lives might be at risk, then there will be an enormous amount of attention. But when there isn't any American angle, it's very hard to get the attention of the editors and the big bosses.

TERENCE SMITH: Susan Moeller, is that any form of isolationism at work there, in terms of public attitudes?

SUSAN MOELLER: I think it's more chauvinism, because you see it not just in the United States. You see it in England, you see it in France. I was in England the day that the tourists were rescued in Rwanda -- the guerrilla gorilla story. And the London papers were playing it up the commonwealth, tourists who had been saved. And then I landed in New York that same day, and of course the New York papers are playing up the American angle. I don't think it's unique to us. I think it's really more a reflection of, what do we care about? We care about our own. We care about our own soldiers, we care about countries where we have commercial interests, we care about places that we might visit as tourists.

TERENCE SMITH: Joelle Tanguy, if you are successful with this, and there is as a result more coverage of some of these under covered stories, what will be the result from your point of view, to get over this compassion fatigue?

JOELLE TANGUY: More awareness, more true understanding, and somehow a real healthy public debate, both here and around the world about the fate of populations in danger. I think that what we've seen is that wherever we're not bearing witness, wherever we have been the sole witness of situations of dramatic proportions when it comes to violence against civilians, if we don't speak up, there will be no effect. We have that guaranteed. We have no guarantee as what will be the final effect of kind of building a public awareness around the world of the fate of civilians here and there, but at least we have heightened the chances that we have a significant impact on their fate.

TERENCE SMITH: Final word, Susan Moeller? Is there some prospect, any prospect, of change here?

SUSAN MOELLER: Well, I think for the public, no news is not good news. No news means a country's in oblivion. And I think if there's hope for the future, it's that we're going to get more news from more places and maybe the Internet will play a role.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Thank you very much. Joelle Tanguy, Barry Dunsmore, thank you Susan Moeller very much.

SUSAN MOELLER: Thank you.

ESSAY - STORIES OF THE MILLENIUM

GWEN IFILL: We continue now with our series of millennium essays. Tonight wehear from Jim Fisher.

JIM FISHER: Beyond those now-barren trees here in Southeast Kansas there's a fair example of what this past millennium has really been all about: Technological change. Look closer. Hard by the last pit it mined for coal is a relic called big Brutus, until 1974 the world's second-largest strip-mining shovel. With a single bite it removed 150 tons of overburden. Standing 16 stories high and weighing 11 million pounds, it's a tourist attraction now, annually drawing 40,000 visitors who come not to marvel at man's righteousness or wickedness, traits inborn since before he first walked onto the savannahs, but to gaze at his creativity. Go back to this Millennium's start, when men in the middle ages scraped coal from an exposed bank to fuel their fires, run their crude forges, heat their huts, even provide a flicker of light against the long, frightful nights. Big Brutus and its ilk are merely the technological culmination of those long-ago scratchings. Shoot an arrow or fire a rocket at Cape Kennedy, recall the American Indians and their dog- drawn travois, then watch the g rigs roll on the interstate. Think of the pony express, then Federal Express, then punch a button.

SPOKESMAN: You've got mail!

JIM FISHER: Or mix charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur to create gunpowder, and then watch the black-and- white films of the cloud over Hiroshima. Technology, flowing ever onward, has been a constant over the past thousand years, starting in fits and starts, gaining speed, and then achieving an irresistible momentum, some malevolent, some glorious, yet never static. Take my right eye. A few weeks ago, I walked into a doctor's office at 8:55 in the morning. By 10 o'clock I was on my way home, a cataract removed, an inner ocular lens implanted, and 20/20 vision in that eye. That's technology. Or take this bridge a few miles north of the old shovel, spanning limestone creek. Looks ordinary. It isn't. It's made of composites, meaning plastic such as old two-liter pop bottles. Installed in four days -- all but indestructible. Expected to between 50 and 100 years. When it's worn out, grind it up and use its material for another one-- or new pop bottles. Today this bridge grabs us. 40 years ago, crowds flocked just to see Big Brutus assembled from parts carried in on 150 rail cars. Man loves change, newness, innovation, and thus it has always been, from the Barques that brought treasure to Spain, the stone castles which crumbled under artillery sieges, even this century's wondrous steam locomotives, discarded in a flash for diesel. Have we changed over the Millennium? Probably not much. We're better educated. The good of our technology means we live longer, have more leisure, live easier lives. And some among us have learned there's a human family, not just tribes, something that was worked out here in Southeast Kansas in what are called the little Balkans: West Mineral, Roseland, Corona, Scammon, once home to 10,000 Germans, Greeks, Slovaks, Blacks, Poles, Croats, Serbs, and all of whom, for the most part, got along. Man's creativity hasn't changed everything. We still hate. We hurt each other. But we also can love. We usually care for each other. Most worship, using words going back two or more millennia. And now, in the midst of the holiday season, lights that symbolize a greater force than even technology are being strung. Even on Big Brutus, there's something more basic. It's not a machine nor a technological wonder, even an example of man's adaptability to his environment, but faith, a twinkling luminescence against the night sky. I'm Jim Fisher.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again the major stories of this Monday. Indian officials negotiated with hijackers holding an Indian airlines jet and Russian troops ran into fierce resistance around Chechnya's capital.

FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, remembering singer Curtis Mayfield. Twice inducted into the Rock'n Roll Hall of Fame, he recorded such hits as "People Get Ready" and "It's All Right." In 1972, he recorded the sound track for the movie "Super Fly." Here an excerpt in which Mayfield sings "Pusher Man," one of the biggest hits of his career.

(MAYFIELD SINGING)

GWEN IFILL: Curtis Mayfield died yesterday at the age of 57. We'll see you on line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill, thank you and good night.