The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a look at what may change in Mexico under its new reformist president; Terence Smith reports on television's latest trend, called reality; Ray Suarez talks to Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for president; and a retired teacher reads her favorite poem. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton today announced a new Middle East summit. Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat are to meet at Camp David outside Washington early next week. Mr. Clinton said he would help them try to reach a final peace agreement. He said lower-level talks have stalled.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: To state the task is to suggest the magnitude of the challenge. Behind the Israeli Palestinian conflict lie the most profound questions about beliefs, political identity, collective faith -- etched in each side's mind are intense fears and emotions, in a deep-seated commitment to defend their people's interests. There are no easy answers, and certainly no painless ones. And therefore there is clearly no guarantee of success.

JIM LEHRER: The two sides have set a mid- September deadline to end talks. Arafat has threatened to declare a Palestinian state by then if a deal is not reached. Barak today warned against such unilateral actions. In Northern Ireland today, police and British soldiers police tightened security after a night of violence by protestant loyalists. In Belfast, they've demanded the British allow a traditional parade by the Protestant Orange Order through a Catholic neighborhood. We have a report from John Irvine of independent Television News.

JOHN IRVINE: There was rioting in several parts of North and West Belfast. Loyalists blocked off roads with hijacked and burning vehicles. (Cheers) Here, a policeman is set on fire by a petrol bomb. Nine officers were injured last night. In West Belfast, there was an exchange of gunfire between the police and loyalist paramilitaries. (Fireworks explode) Rioters also attacked with fireworks-- normally used for celebrations, here they were weapons. (Fireworks exploding) Last night there was more trouble, and from the security forces, there was a new response. They brought in water cannons. Repeat, across the barricade the stone throwers were doused. Today the army has been putting in position huge barricades that will prevent the Orangemen from leaving Drumcree Church, when they march next Sunday.

JIM LEHRER: The largest Protestant-backed political party called for an end to the demonstrations. But protesters returned to the streets this evening, blocking rush-hour traffic. The Pentagon and Veterans Administration could save $300 million a year if they merged their prescription drug programs to get larger discounts. The General Accounting Office reached that conclusion in a new audit. Officials at the VA and Pentagon dispute the findings. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Mexico's new future, reality television, the Libertarian candidate for President, and a favorite poem.

FOCUS - WINDS OF CHANGE

JIM LEHRER: The president-elect of Mexico promises a new politics and government for his country. Spencer Michels begins our coverage.

SPENCER MICHELS: Two days after his upset victory, Vicente Fox, on the left here, set aside his fiery rhetoric and met with outgoing President Ernesto Zedillo. Fox, leader of the center-right National Action Party, or PAN, won the Mexican presidency in Sunday's elections. The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, lost for the first time in 71 years when Francisco Labasta, its candidate, was defeated. The PRI is promising a smooth transition, the first peaceful transfer of power from one party to another in modern Mexican history. Yesterday, speaking at a news conference in both Spanish and English, President-elect Fox looked ahead. Among his top agenda items is fighting the drug trade. Fox proposed a new hemisphere- wide body to combat the problem throughout the Americas, rather than the U.S. imposing sanctions on countries that it says condone drug trafficking.

VICENTE FOX: The main aspect on drug- trafficking would be convincing the U.S. to substitute the unilateral certification process on countries in Latin America on this issue, to substitute it with a multilateral agreement including countries that produce, that traffic or transit drugs, and countries that consume them.

SPENCER MICHELS: Fox says he will seek to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement and allow even more merchandise to cross borders.

VICENTE FOX: And our idea is to sell a long-term project where we move upwards from a trade agreement to a community or a North American common market, to move in that direction, which implies more than just trading and more than facilitating the transit of merchandise, products, services, and capital.

SPENCER MICHELS: Fox also addressed the thorny issue of immigration. He pledged to create more jobs at home, but he repeated his request that the U.S. relax its strict border controls. On the domestic front, Fox pledged to tackle what he called nests of corruption. He plans to create a watchdog group for law enforcement agencies, which have been accused of criminal ties, torture, and domestic spying. The president-elect also spoke of more government programs to alleviate poverty. Finally, he promised to reopen peace talks in the southern state of Chiapas, where leftist rebels were seeking greater autonomy from the PRI government. Fox takes office December 1st. Today, President Clinton invited him to the White House.

JIM LEHRER: Now, three perspectives on what may be in store for Mexico. Robert Pastor was part of the election observer team headed by former President Carter. He was on Carter's National Security Council staff, and is now a professor of political science at Emory University. Bernard Aronson was Assistant Secretary State for Latin America in the Bush administration. Andres Rozental is an adviser to President-elect Fox. He is an international business executive and a former Mexican ambassador to Great Britain. First, Mr. Ambassador, on this issue of drugs, a multilateral agreement rather than the unilateral action that the U.S. takes now. Why? Why is that a good idea from Mexico's point of view?

ANDRES ROZENTAL: I think the point really is that there is no reason for this to be a bilateral issue when there are so many other countries that are involved. There are the producer countries, the transit countries and the consuming countries, in terms of the drug trade. And we have always felt here in Mexico that the issue needs to be looked at in a broader perspective. And I think that's what President-elect Fox would like to do. We also feel that it's not just the United States that has, that should have the onus of judging everyone else, but that everyone should have the possibility of judging the behavior and the efficiency of each one of the countries' efforts against drugs and drug trafficking.

JIM LEHRER: Is it basically offensive that the U.S. does this?

ANDRES ROZENTAL: Well, I think in Mexico we've always felt that it's a little bit not only offensive but, to put it very succinctly, who judges the judge. After all, the major reason why there is such a flow of drugs through Mexico is because there is a tremendous demand in the United States for the drugs. And I think that we can do much better multilaterally on this issue, bringing in the South Americans, the Central Americans and also the Europeans. Our experience is that every time there has been a choking off of drug trafficking, say at the border or through the Caribbean, the drugs find their way to Europe and then come up to Canada and come down to the United States through Canada. So this is a global problem, not just a bilateral problem.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Pastor what do you think of that idea?

ROBERT PASTOR: I think it's a very good idea. For some reason we always felt we only judge the rest of Latin America on a problem which we share. I think President-elect Fox has offered a good opportunity for us to think about this problem in a manner that we can share in the solution of it. And I think such a new approach may be more effective than the approach that we've had in the past.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

BERNARD ARONSON: I think the United States is very receptive to that approach. What the United States wants is results, and if they have a government like President Fox offers, President elect-Fox, which wants to cooperate with the United States and not have a fight every year over whether Mexico is complying with U.S. standards, I think a U.S. Administration is open to that.

JIM LEHRER: Would you concede there's a touch of arrogance to it?

BERNARD ARONSON: I think it seems arrogant, and I think the arrogance really comes because Americans confuse themselves about this issue and think that Latins can solve it by themselves. Until we do something about demand, Latin America cannot end the drug problem, and I think Latin Americans recognize that. And I think there is some arrogance in it, yes.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Pastor, on another one of President-elect Fox's ideas on trade, to have more of a North American common market, rather than NAFTA, how does that ring to you?

ROBERT PASTOR: I think it's a very bold idea. NAFTA has been very successful for what it was designed to do. It dramatically reduced trade and investment barriers, increased trade and investment, but it has been inadequate for dealing with a host of other issues from migration to drugs, to social development. Thinking about integration in a broader context of a common market makes a lot of sense. I think there's a lot that the United States and Mexico can and should do. And Vicente Fox has suggested some of those ideas.

JIM LEHRER: The common market, Mr. Aronson?

BERNARD ARONSON: I think ultimately that's where we will end up.

JIM LEHRER: Like the European common market?

BERNARD ARONSON: Yes, but we're talking -- as Vicente Fox said - he said, this is a long-term project. But it's right to put those issues on the agenda. We are integrating our two countries more than economically. I mean, you look at the population of the United States, the largest Spanish speaking population in the world next to Mexico will be in the United States by the year 2020. And there are issues like immigration that can't just be addressed by having a trade agreement. But the huge gaps between the two countries economically also have to be overcome. This can only happen in the context of Mexico's development and gaining first world status, which I think it is beginning to do.

JIM LEHRER: First world status, Mr. Ambassador, is that where Mexico is headed and wants to go?

ANDRES ROZENTAL: Well, I think the results of Sunday's election certainly put us at the forefront of countries with a democratic process that works well -- surprisingly well, considering that we didn't have either any experience or any knowledge of how to bring power for the first time in this century basically. I think that that puts us squarely in the forefront. Obviously our economy is a very large economy. We have a large population, we are, within the world's ten top trading powers. But I think that we have to be careful about seeing ourselves as a country that has solved its problems. We have not solved our problems; we have a good deal of problems. We have 40% of our population that is at or below the poverty line. We have needs in education; we have needs in job creation. We have needs in many areas of our life. And I think that we need to be careful not to triumphantly say that we're there.

JIM LEHRER: Where is the common market idea fit in to what you just said?

ANDRES ROZENTAL: Well, if you look at the European experience, they're the free trade part of the common market, which preceded further agreements, came later on with regional development funds that were given to the countries that were below the levels of economic development, than the higher up countries in the European Union. And we put this question on the table when we started the negotiations with NAFTA back in the Salinas administration early on with President Bush, but because Congress was so skepticalabout NAFTA and because it was clear it was going to be difficult to get it passed, the issue was squashed almost immediately, because of opposition. I think now after six years of the experience of NAFTA, which has been very positive for all three countries, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, looking at what's happening over in Europe and what's happening in the southern cone, I think that we need now to focus on what we call NAFTA plus. Where are we going to go from here? And there are obviously a whole host of issues, as Bob Pastor said, where we still have a way to go. And we think that should begin to be on the agenda between the two new presidents as they take office in December of this year and January of next.

JIM LEHRER: Bob Pastor, do you think the political climate in Congress and elsewhere in this country will entertain serious proposal for a common North American common market?

ROBERT PASTOR: Well, I think it will be very difficult for the United States, just as it was difficult to absorb NAFTA. But in the end I believe that after full debate and consideration, for what North America has become, which is the largest market in the world, larger than the European Union, our two neighbors now are first and second most important trading partners; I think once people begin to realize how important our neighbors are to us, to our economy, to our society, I think they will begin to seriously consider the implications of what a common market can become. But there are many steps that need to be taken between now, to get to that.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Mr. Aronson, let's go to the corruption issue - of corruption. What do you use - based on your experience, observing Mexico - what's the level of corruption? What's he talking about?

BERNARD ARONSON: You know, when one party has ruled the country for 71 years without any competition -- and has not only controlled the politics, but trade unions, segments of the private economy, a huge network of patronage -- it is a breeding ground for corruption, and that is what has happened other these decades. I think nests of corruption is actually a pretty good term. And that is one reason among many why this election is so important for Mexico, because so long as the PRI was in power, even though there are many good and honest people in the PRI and many reformers, they had a vested interest in protecting their own and protecting this machine. And even in this election, which was very clean and honest, some of the old dinosaurs who were in the middle of that corruption, were part of the campaign team. And until that crowd was out and a new face was in who had a mandate from the Mexican people to clean up the corruption and also was not a part of the entrenched machine that had created it, you couldn't begin to address it. But having said that, you should not minimize the task. This is cleaning the Augean stables, because the depths of it are enormous, they go back for decades. But also the drug trade has added a new dimension. You may remember a few years ago a Mexican general acknowledged that he had been offered a million dollars a month by the drug traffickers just to look the other way. And that kind of drug money and corruption pervades the police, the army, the attorney general's office, some of the judiciary.

JIM LEHRER: As we speak it does?

BERNARD ARONSON: As we speak, of course.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Rozental, what would you add to that, help us to understand the extent of this from your perspective, of corruption in the government of Mexico.

ANDRES ROZENTAL: Well, first of all, I agree entirely with what Bernie Aronson has said. I think our basic problem in being able to deal with these issues was precisely the fact that we had one party in power for so long, where the ingrained corruption and the very fine, if any, difference that there was between party and state, contributed to having corruption as part of the system. It was the oil that lubricated the system.

JIM LEHRER: We're talking about bribery, we're talking about those kinds of simple bribery corruption, or does it go beyond that?

ANDRES ROZENTAL: It goes beyond that. It's corruption that goes everywhere, in all aspects of political and economic and social life. It's corruption among the unions, it's corruption in the media. It was corruption in bureaucrats, it was corruption -- I mean, Mexicans grew up and still grow you knowing that corruption is the way to get forward in life. And we have to change that. This is obviously one of our biggest challenges, and I think and I agree with Bernie that President Fox, President-elect Fox is going to be the first possibility to attack this, because he was not part of that system. The PAN wasn't part of that system, the party that he represents. And I think the people that will be around him in his cabinet and his government will not be part of that system.

JIM LEHRER: Robert Pastor, how long will that take, do you think?

ROBERT PASTOR: It's going to take a long time, certainly more than six years. But I agree with my two colleagues that Fox has the first opportunity to do something about it. Corruption, distrust and suspicion were endemic in a government in which there was a monopoly of power by one party. Now that you have a more competitive system, an open system, I think there are possibilities for changing it, but it will take time to establish an independent judiciary, an independent and credible prosecutor to pursue these charges. But I think the first step has been taken.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you all three very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the coming of "Big Brother," the Libertarian candidate for president, and a favorite poem. "Big Brother" is the latest entry into this summer's television entertainment craze, so-called reality TV. As this show premieres tonight, media correspondent Terence Smith takes a look at what's driving this trend.

SOUND TRACK: ("Gilligan's Island") Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale a tale of a fateful trip...

TERENCE SMITH: As the old saying goes, "imagine you are stuck on a desert island." In the 1960's television version of this scenario, Gilligan and his cohorts lived a carefree existence on their piece of paradise. Now, in the case of "Survivor," the summer blockbuster on CBS, it's survival of the fittest. The eight men and eight women who are allegedly marooned on a Malaysian island struggle to find food and shelter. Each week, they gather for a tribal council on a set that one critic described as resembling a Holiday Inn Polynesian lounge, to expel the weakest of them

SPOKESMAN: B.B., the tribe has spoken. It's time for you to go.

TERENCE SMITH: The last person on the island wins a million dollars. But in order to get a shot at the pot of gold, contestants have to survive on a diet of bugs and rats, watch out for monkeys and sea snakes, and most of all, cope with ten cameras and countless crew members following their every move. The result is some intense personality conflicts.

WOMAN: You want to vote me of? Fine, but we got to organize this. I don't want to sleep in that anymore.

TERENCE SMITH: The concept, based on a European import, is an unscripted docu-soap set in a contrived wild where the characters reveal their private thoughts to the television public. Is it reality TV, as its creators call it, or simple voyeurism? In either case, "Survivor" is part of a trend that is rewriting the rules of summer television, normally a wasteland of reruns. This show, "Big Brother," caught fire in the Netherlands and Germany, and is about to be unveiled here by CBS. The premise for the American version is ten contestants cohabitating for a hundred days in a makeshift house on a lot in Studio City, California. Their every move is constantly monitored by 24 cameras and 60 microphones. Every two weeks, the housemates nominate two candidates for eviction, and the viewers pick the loser. The last inhabitant wins $500,000. The reality notion is new for the networks, but not cable.

WOMAN: I don't know what to tell you.

MAN: Come on.

TERENCE SMITH: MTV, the music television network, has built ratings by using journalistic documentary techniques on its show "The Real World," now in its ninth season. Here, seven twenty something's coexist and advertise their angst at every turn. There is no prize except the exposure to a national audience.

PERSON: Oh, my God.

TERENCE SMITH: A lesser-known MTV entry in this field is "Road Rules." Six young adults travel the country in a Winnebago, armed with maps and missions, in search of prizes of up to $100,000.

MAN: All for love baby...

TERENCE SMITH: ABC recently launched "Making the Band," a real-life drama providing a glimpse into a group of young men pursuing their dreams.

ANNOUNCER: Take an ordinary home, gut it, rebuild it to 1900's specs...

TERENCE SMITH: PBS, the public broadcasting system, has its own version of reality TV. On "1900 House," a huge hit in Britain, the Bowler family copes with the conveniences, customs, and foods of a century ago.

GIRL: Everything's dirty, smelly, and greasy, and skanky.

TERENCE SMITH: The already indistinct line between news and entertainment has be blurred even further by CBS, which has been vigorously cross-promoting "Survivor" on its third-place morning news show.

ANNOUNCER: And we're back with the "early show" on this Thursday morning, "Survivor" Thursday around here, and as we always do, it's time now for our "Survivor" scorecard.

TERENCE SMITH: The "Early Show" has featured interviews with the castoffs, and its news reader, Julie Chen, will actually host one night of "Big Brother." This cross-plugging has already paid off, attracting 100,000 new viewers a week since "Survivor" began. So hot is "Survivor" that the network has launched a web search for participants for "Survivor II," which will be shot in the Australian outback.

TERENCE SMITH: For more on this popular television phenomenon, we turn to "Survivor" executive producer Mark Burnett; to Jill Geisler, a veteran journalist who now teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies; Robert Thompson, head of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse university; and Frank Farley, past president of the American Psychological Association, who teaches now at Temple University. Welcome to you all.

Bob Thompson, let me begin with you, and ask you the question: Is it reality, or is it voyeurism?

ROBERT THOMPSON, Cultural Historian, Syracuse University: It's not reality any more than a football game is reality. You set the stage, you build the arena, you get the cameras ready, and then you put a bunch of people out there, turn on the cameras, and watch what happens. And that's very much what's going on here. I think it's best to compare this to a sporting event, perhaps what jazz is to traditional music. These programs are to real reality documentaries. Voyeuristic TV is probably, however, a better name than reality TV, because none of this would exist if there weren't cameras to record it.

TERENCE SMITH: Jill Geisler, is there a danger, in your mind, that the audience will confuse this... with...this documentary approach, with news?

JILL GEISLER, Journalist, The Poynter Institute: Well, I think that would make the networks happy if they did. My concern is that they're mortgaging the credibility of the anchor, and asking her, essentially, to put her truth- telling value on hold, and become a pure promoter.

TERENCE SMITH: You're talking about Julie Chen and the CBS cross promotion?

JILL GEISLER: Mm-hmm, yes.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Frank Farley, what are the psychological implications of this, both for the characters involved and for the audience?

FRANK FARLEY, Past President, American Psychological Association: Well, I think that there's some positive things. You know, a lot of people are having fun with it. They're having office polls, you know, voting who will get blackballed next week, et cetera. So a lot of America's having fun with this show. And that's okay, that's positive. But there's a very destructive and negative side to this pretty much all the way around, which is the underlying themes are themes of humiliation and degradation. And it's part of a general trend in our culture towards making the private public, taking the inner life, the inner private emotional life, that weak, small center that people have, and getting it out in front of the whole country. And I think that's a very negative trend, and this whole idea of focusing on humiliation and degradation-- and it's obvious greed that's for sure-- and conflict. Everyone's looking for, you know, someone to crack, or some, you know, and who's going to go out first. The whole idea of blackballing people, that's a very destructive side of this type of programming.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark Burnett, what's your reaction to these criticisms of the show?

MARK BURNETT, Executive Producer, "Survivor:" I don't think they're criticisms. I think it's just discussion, really. I think, firstly, we've never said "Survivor" is reality, because what's real about dropping people on an island they never would have found without us? It's certainly not reality, is it? I mean, reality would be a show like "Cops," where a policeman is arresting a suspect, there happens to be a camera crew along with, so the cop would do the same job with or without the camera. I think the example of sports is pretty true. Those football players wouldn't be in that stadium were it not for the television. Clearly, these 16 people would not have found the island without us. So it's really - we joke around saying "dramality," a mixture of drama and reality. It's real people in an unscripted drama in a contrived situation.

TERENCE SMITH: What about the words Frank Farley used - "degradation," "humiliation?"

MARK BURNETT: Well, I think Frank should look each week at the people who are voted off and how positive they feel about their experience and the fact that the big joke amongst them is they would all have paid us for the same experience, and want to reapply next year -- so, frankly, just an opinion. The people who actually went through the experience, and therefore should be rather embarrassed, if Frank was correct, are clearly not embarrassed.

TERENCE SMITH: Bob Thompson, as somebody who studies television, how do you explain not only the thousands in the audience who watch, or millions who watch the show, but the thousands who apply to go on this show as participating contestants?

ROBERT THOMPSON: Well, with "Survivor," you're offered two things: The possibility of becoming really famous and getting your own TV show without any acting lessons or tap dancing, or anything else that no one normally has to go through; and secondly, a million dollars. Fame and fortune are two pretty big plums in American society. I'm surprised... 6,000 applied. I guess I'm surprised six million didn't apply to this. The interesting thing about this type of programming I think we have to pay attention to, though, is that we have to look at each one differently. We're going to see hundreds of these things over the next several years, and some of them open up the possibility of really cashing in on some of the less noble parts of the human spirit. And I have to say that I and many of my professional colleagues, and it think a lot of intellectuals and thinking people, really wanted to hate "Survivor." We really saw it as something that was going to start something that we might not want to see happen. But if you watch that program, it's really not a bad show. I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty good show. For one thing, no one is really in danger there. There's no sense of blurring reality with fiction, because it's so completely contrived. The little contests they have are announced in doggerel on these little Boy Scout camp kind of messages that they get. All of the Tiki torches and the luau night kind of situations, there's no sense that you could turn this on and think that it's news by any stretch of the imagination. And lastly-- and this what people don't talk about much with "Survivor"-- unbelievably it's one of the closest things we've got to family programming on network television: Very little violence, unless you're a rat, a grub, or a stingray; not much swearing, and what there is is dropped out; there's been very little sex up until now; and there's no evidence of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco on that entire island. In an odd sort of way, this is old-fashioned television programming, of the kind that so many people are wishing we'd get back to again.

FRANK FARLEY: Except that one of the underlying themes, again, is that idea that people want to see people fail, or crack, or some kind of serious conflict happen. I still submit that an underlying theme for this is some form of humiliation.

ROBERT THOMPSON: I'm not sure...

FRANK FARLEY: It's sort of like gladiators, in a sense.

ROBERT THOMPSON: I'm not sure with "Survivor," though, that's true. And I'm sympathetic to the idea that we're going to see more of that in the other kinds of programs like this that come out. And I think you're right, we will. With "Survivor," though, these people really aren't subjected to humiliating sorts of situations. It's a sporting event, and any more than the Indiana Pacers felt humiliated because they lost to the Lakers in the NBA Championships, I'm not sure people who get voted out on "Survivor" have really been subjected to anything that really is humiliating.

FRANK FARLEY: Well...

TERENCE SMITH: Jill, Jill... Let me ask Jill Geisler if you think Bob Thompson's right. In other words, does the audience successfully sort out that which is supposed to be news and that which is entertainment?

JILL GEISLER: I think my real concern is, the audience may be able to do that, but for the last three years, I've led a seminar at the Poynter Institute called "Anchors as Newsroom Leaders." And anchors come here from all around the country, and they talk to us about the problems they're having in their newsrooms, and trying to grow their skills in dealing with it. And more and more they say that they're being asked to essentially shill for entertainment programs that are produced by the same companies that own their news divisions -- and not just to do a story about it, but to do that story and have it look like news, and cast a totally uncritical eye. In this format tonight, you're hearing people debate about the merits of these programs. The anchors are being told, your role is to promote the programs, and put them out there as though they look like news. And that, when you add the components of a network anchor, now becoming part of the program, I guess the analogy that I'd use, Terry, is if an anchor goes to see a stunt, like the human cannonball. If a journalist is there, the journalist's role is to maybe do a feature, maybe check on the safety of the cannon, how Mr. Cannonball is doing, and if he lands and hurts anybody. But in this case, we're asking the journalist to come in and be the ringmaster, and her only obligation is to help get more people in the tent. And that erodes her credibility, but also journalism's credibility.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark Burnett, do you think there is a blurring of that line?

MARK BURNETT: Clearly with "Survivor"-- I can only comment about my own show. Clearly, "Survivor's" a lot of tongue in cheek, as obviously one guest here actually got. Clearly, there's no real tribal council, no one's being thrown to the wolves, and I think it would be pretty silly to think that "Survivor" is actual news. But the point of the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, "Survivor's" the least of our worries. How much of news shows on American television is actual news? And that's the big question. It's now about whether "Survivor" is news of not, it's how much supposed news shows really cover news.

TERENCE SMITH: Bob Thompson, how does the PBS entry strike you?

ROBERT THOMPSON: Well, it shows how that this kind of program is the universal donor. I mean, you could do "Survivor" at an accounting firm, and show it on CNBC if you wanted to. And I love the idea of how PBS, in fact, is now doing the real world by way of a merchant-ivory production. And of course, "1900" is just so PBS. (Laughter) But here's another example of taking these things individually. There's clearly no blurring... If you're flipping through the dial and come on to "1900 House," you don't say "oh, Y2K has kicked in. All the electricity is off." You're obviously watching something different. And it does help us to kind of think about what it was like before electricity, and all of the rest of it. I think it's an amusing little show, and in the end so many of these can provide so much amusement. We're about to see another one on July 5 on CBS, "Big Brother," which may begin to move this into other more arch directions: An Internet component, a live night that it's going to play. So far, however, what we've seen, I think, has been surprisingly innocent, and I've got to admit, professor or no, I'm thinking to myself, only six more nights until the next "Survivor."

TERENCE SMITH: (Laughs) Frank Farley, what do you think is the effect, or the message, on children? What do they derive from this?

FRANK FARLEY: Well, I don't know, but I watched it with my six-year-old, and she was bored. It's... I think the idea of this being family fare... If this is positive family fare in some way, where you're trying to see if people are willing to eat bugs and rats, that doesn't strike me as being very good family fare. Again, it's almost as if CBS has been taken over by a psychology professor, I must admit, who wants to create shows that will test people's limits-- how far can we get people to go for money? And that's not very ennobling to me. I mean, the show is interesting to a lot of people, and there's actually... with the real people involved, it's better than many sitcoms, where it's mainly actors. And so, we can all identify much more with this kind of show. But again, I come back to the underlying theme, sort of seeing what people are willing to do basically for money.

TERENCE SMITH: Testing people's limits, you say?

FRANK FARLEY: Yeah.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark Burnett, is that what you're doing?

MARK BURNETT: Actually, you're missing a very big point, which is, at the end of "Survivor," when there are two left, we bring back the seven who were most recently kicked off, and payback is sweet. The whole point of "Survivor" is you reap what you sow. And the lesson that comes away from it is, behaving badly doesn't necessarily benefit you. There's a lesson there.

TERENCE SMITH: All right, final word from you, Jill Geisler. Isn't journalism really intrusive in its... By its very nature?

JILL GEISLER: It's intrusive, but I'd like to point out that when you say "reality television," that isn't news. And when you mentioned "Cops," for example, those aren't independent observers who are going along. They are program producers who have cut a deal with those police officers, and you don't know what you're not being shown -- because in order to go along with them, they have to keep them happy with the final product.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. A distinction worth making. Thank you all very much.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Harry Browne won the Libertarian presidential nomination on the first ballot at their national convention this past Monday. He's 67, an investment advisor and author from Nashville, Tennessee. He has never held public office, but this is the second time he's run for president at the top of the Libertarian ticket. He finished fifth in 1996 with just under a half a million votes. Harry Browne, welcome to the program.

HARRY BROWNE: Thank you so much.

RAY SUAREZ: As you hear the major party nominees, the Republican and Democratic presumed nominees, Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, argue about Social Security, you must wonder how you can get in on this argument, because your plan is totally different from both of theirs.

HARRY BROWNE: Well, when they're arguing about anything, what they're really arguing about is who knows best how to run your life. Who knows how much you should save for your retirement? Who knows what kind of school your child should go to, or how the doctor should treat you when you go to the doctor's office? With Social Security it's the same thing. 15% of your income is taken right away from you, without your choice what so ever to go into a government scheme for retirement. Half of it comes through your employer, half of it directly from you. George Bush, magnanimously was you to be able to keep 2% of that and invest it on your own, provided you do it the way he thinks is best. What I think is that you ought to have that whole 15%, you ought to be able to do whatever you want with it. You should decide how much you should put aside for retirement, you should decide what's best. Do you want it in a bank savings account, do you want it in the stock market, do you want to buy government bonds? Why can't you make that decision? You're as smart as George Bush is, or Al Gore. Is Al Gore your investment advisor?

RAY SUAREZ: What do you do about the people who have already worked for significant chunks of their adult life, put in money into the plan -- how would you compensate them, how would you wean us from one system to the other?

HARRY BROWNE: Oh, that's a good question. Unfortunately today those people are dependent wholly on political promises. And that is the politicians promise to take the money from somebody else to give it to you if you're retired now. What I want to do is to sell off assets that the government shouldn't own, these hundreds of thousands of federal buildings, millions of acres of land, power companies, pipelines, commodity reserves, and use the proceeds to buy private lifetime annuities for everyone who is dependent on Social Security today. That means nobody will be left holding the bag. They'll have accounts they can count on. The politicians won't be able to borrow from that money, they won't be able to attach the money in any way; it will belong to you if you're a retiree. And then all the rest of us will be freed immediately, and completely from the 15% Social Security tax.

JIM LEHRER: That large sell off of government assets presumes a much smaller federal government, doesn't it?

HARRY BROWNE: Yes, doesn't it. I think the federal government should live by the Constitution. And the constitution has nowhere in it does it say that the federal government should operate a retirement scheme. Nowhere does it say the federal government should have anything what so ever to do with education or health care or law enforcement or welfare, or any of these things. And the 10th Amendment makes it very clear that if it doesn't say the federal government can do it in the body of the Constitution, then this is left to the states and more important to the people themselves, to take care of on their own.

RAY SUAREZ: So that smaller federal government would also allow you to, what, eliminate the income tax?

HARRY BROWNE: Eliminate the income tax.

RAY SUAREZ: How would you do that?

HARRY BROWNE: Well, if you limit the federal government to its constitutional functions the way it was for the first 120 years or so, you don't need an income tax. The government was financed completely by tariffs and excise taxes, and it paid for national defense, the judiciary, the mint, the post office, all of these things until 1913. When the income tax was passed, that provided a virtually unlimited source of income for the federal government, and they could get into anything they wanted because the money was always there, just raise taxes, raise taxes more. Today, tariffs and excise taxes are more than enough for a strong national defense, the judiciary, the mint and all those other constitutional functions. So we should repeal the income tax completely and not replace witness a flat tax or sales tax or any other kind of tax.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, who would build the highways? Who would patrol the inland waterways and keep dams open and those sorts of things that various federal agencies do today?

HARRY BROWNE: Sure. The funny thing t the highways is the federal government doesn't build a single highway. All that happens is we, our money is taken from us and sent to Washington, and then the congressmen get together and parcel it out on the basis of who has the most political influence, take 13% off the top and send it back to the states. And your statement government builds the interstate highway in your state. Now, two things happen: First of all, it becomes more expensive. And secondly, the federal government gets its hands, the politicians get their hands on this money, and they use it to build an airport in Denver, billions of dollars that nobody in Denver wanted that airport. They built a subway system in Los Angeles that everybody there thinks is a joke. They built a subway system in Miami that doesn't work -- a people mover system in Detroit that hardly anybody uses because it goes hardly anywhere, and this awful big dig in Boston, that probably won't be done for 20 or 30 years and is already billions of dollars over budget. These projects would never be built, these boondoggles, if that money, that highway money didn't go to the federal government in the first place. That's one of the dangers of letting the federal government into this.

RAY SUAREZ: So, once that large percentage is taken off the top and you get something more like your whole paycheck...

HARRY BROWNE: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: ...community, governments at lower levels start to provide all these services that the federal government once provided?

HARRY BROWNE: Some of the services. But some of the services should never have been provided in the first place. And what will happen of course is that education will be less expensive, when the money is not going to Washington in the first place. Get that government out of health care and maybe we will once again have charity hospitals in this country, which had been run out of business pretty much by government regulations. We will once again have free clinics; once again doctors may even make house calls. And hospitals stay won't take a year's pay, and health insurance will be available to everybody. All the things the politicians promise today in health care, we once had in this country before the federal government moved in. But then the government moved in, made it very difficult to continue doing all these things so, then the government says, well, now, see, you can't get health care for 20 and 30-year-olds. So we're going to have to do something about it; either we'll provide it or we'll mandate that companies have to do it. We have to have health care for people with pre-existing conditions, health care for people who leave their jobs. All of these things existed back in the 50's and 60's, but then the federal government moved in and now it's impossible for health insurance companies to provide that kind of service.

RAY SUAREZ: From reading your platform, I think one group of construction interests that might be very worried about President Browne, is the prison industry.

HARRY BROWNE: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: You would decriminalize drugs?

HARRY BROWNE: Absolutely. The drug war is probably the worst scourge that has been visited upon this country in its history. It has put a million people in prison, who have never done violence to anybody else, who have never intruded on anyone's person or property. And the result of that is that there's no room in the prisons for the murderers, the rapists, the child molesters who are getting out on early release and plea bargains, and are terrorizing our cities. The interesting thing is that there are no mandatory minimum laws for murder and rape and child molesting, but there are strict mandatory minimums for people smoking pot or selling pot to their friends and things of this sort. So you can't let those others out unless you get a presidential pardon, and I have sworn that if I am somehow elected president, and I know it's a long shot, but if I am somehow elected president, I swear that from the inauguration platform, I will give an unconditional pardon to every nonviolent drug offender who is in federal prison today.

RAY SUAREZ: All those programs that you talk about, each one had a friend, a sponsor -

HARRY BROWNE: Absolutely.

RAY SUAREZ: -- an interest group, a supporter. How could you become president and do away with them all?

HARRY BROWNE: You've raised a very important point -- because that's how government grows and that's how programs continue forever -- because those who benefit from them will always be Johnny-on-the-spot in Washington. It doesn't matter whether they give money to politicians. The mere fact that they are there and we are not. We are at home taking care of our own business, our own families, working at our jobs, trying to pay our taxes, and in Washington those few people who profit from any particular government program are there, putting pressure on. Now, how are we going to stop that? How are we going break that cycle? The only way I know is that if we cancel all those programs at one time so that the reward will be so big, meaning the repeal of the income tax, that you and I and everyone else will be motivated to descend on Washington, either by mail or e-mail or fax or phone or what ever, but in some way be so motivated to put the pressure on the congress people not to renew these programs.

RAY SUAREZ: We've talked a lot about domestic issues. What would a Browne foreign policy look like?

HARRY BROWNE: It would be quite different. We have an enormous national offense today. We can annihilate any country in the world; we have troops in 100 countries around the world, as though we were the Roman army occupying the world. Our President can bully any two countries into any kind of settlement that he wants. But we have a very weak national defense. We can't protect this country from any two-bit dictator who gets his hands on a nuclear missile, that's why we're afraid of Saddam Hussein and his biological weapons, and the North Korean dictator and India and Pakistan testing nuclear weapons. We had a missile defense and a strong border patrol to protect us from those rampaging Canadians when they come running down from British Columbia, we would be taken care of. And we could do that for a lot less money and would be a lot safer, because we would no longer be stirring up trouble around the world and inviting terrorists to come over here and influence our foreign policy.

RAY SUAREZ: So the world wouldn't be a more dangerous place without an American involvement --?

HARRY BROWNE: It would be a very less dangerous place, because no longer would anybody care what we do. Terrorists doesn't attack Switzerland. They don't attack Sweden, because those countries mind their own business, and if we minded our own business, we would not have to fear these people coming over here and trying to make us change our mind about this.

RAY SUAREZ: Briefly, you've conceded that our a long shot.

HARRY BROWNE: Sure.

RAY SUAREZ: Why do this?

HARRY BROWNE: Because I believe that it's entirely possible that by the end of this decade we will have a Libertarian president. It won't be me, but I can pave the way to elect Libertarians to Congress in 2002, run a more competitive race for somebody else in 2004 -- and maybe by then or 2008, elect a Libertarian president. But it starts with every possible vote we can get this year will bring us a step closer. So if I can get two or three or five percent of the vote this year, we could change politics in this country forever and turn the attention away from what new government programs are we going to have, how fast should the government grow, to the question of how fast are we going to shrink the government and give you back control of your life -- because that's really what I stand for, is I want you to be free to live your life as you think it should be lived, not as Al Gore or George Bush thinks is best for you.

RAY SUAREZ: And it's hard work, too, this running for president?

HARRY BROWNE: Of course, but it very exciting also. I get to talk to people like you, and I mean that.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, good to see you again. Thanks for being here.

HARRY BROWNE: Thank you very much.

FINALLY - FAVORITE POEM PROJECT

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another poem from poet laureate Robert Pinsky's project of asking Americans to read their favorite poem. Tonight's reader is a retired schoolteacher in California.

OLIVIA MILWARD: My name is Olivia Milward. I'm retired, and I live in San Francisco. I came here six years ago from England. I have three daughters. I have an American daughter and an English daughter and a daughter I carry in my heart. My eldest daughter was a lover of gardens and gardening, and she planted in her garden a kind of shrub, it's like buddleia, which attract butterflies. She died of cancer, and a few weeks after her committal at the Buddhist monastery, I was sitting in my garden and a butterfly flew and settled on my arm, and it didn't go away for quite a long time. You know butterflies come and go very quickly; it just sat there, and I had the feeling that Gabrielle had come to say good-bye to me, so I think you can understand why the poem I chose is a particular... particular interest for me. This is part of a poem by Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe entitled, "The Holy Longing." "Now you are no longer caught in the obsession with darkness, and a desire for higher lovemaking sweeps you upward. Distance does not make you falter, now, arriving in magic, flying and finally insane for the light, you are the butterfly, and you are gone. And so long if you haven't experienced this to die, and so to grow, you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth." I don't think it helped me exactly, it just expresses very much how I have always felt about butterflies ever since. Butterflies symbolize my daughter and her life, for me. And I've become... I even have butterflies on my dress label. It's... I don't know, it's very hard to explain this; a comfort, no. There is really no comfort. You know, one doesn't expect one's children to die first, and I think it's something you never actually come to terms with, and that nothing is really quite a comfort. It's just that time goes by, and life goes on, and that's something you have to keep telling yourself. And I'm a survivor, and so I just go on doing all the things I do...and there are quite a lot of them, actually.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday. President Clinton announced a new Middle East summit. Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Leader Arafat are to meet at Camp David early next week. And police and British soldiers tightened security after Protestants rioted in Belfast, Northern Ireland. They demanded the British allow a traditional parade through a Catholic section. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.