The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening, I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight: The news of this day; then, Iraqi prison torture, new discoveries inflame old tensions; President Bush talks tough to China; new technology means everyone can be a journalist; why the FDA rejected the morning after pill; and three strikes, you're out-- punishing baseball players who use steroids.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: Five U.S. Marines and sixteen insurgents died today in a fierce fight in western Iraq. At least 11 Marines were wounded. It happened as U.S. and Iraqi forces fought to control a border town and stop insurgents entering from Syria. The U.S. military told of stiff resistance and said: "Insurgents believe they are trapped and have nowhere else to go." The military also announced three American soldiers died Tuesday in a roadside bombing near Baghdad, and another U.S. Marine was killed west of the city.

Sunni leaders in Iraq today demanded an international investigation into the alleged torture of prisoners in Baghdad. Last weekend, U.S. troops found more than 170 inmates at a detention center run by the Iraqi interior ministry. Many showed signs of being beaten and starved. Today, a top Sunni leader said it's clear the Shiite-led government has targeted his people.

TARIQ AL-HASHIMI: People have been tortured severely and most of them have been captured without any license from the judge. What has been also said that all those people are from Sunni community.

GWEN IFILL: But Iraq's deputy interior minister said today Sunnis were not the only ones kept in the secret jail. He said there were also Shiites, Kurds and some Turkomen. In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the incident is not affecting the U.S. Mission.

ADAM ERELI: Allegations of abuse like this have a noxious effect and need to be confronted and contained and redressed quickly and effectively and transparently, and that's what they are doing.

REPORTER: Does it have a noxious effect on U.S. policy?

ADAM ERELI: I don't see the connection, frankly.

GWEN IFILL: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. U.S. military officials faced questions today about the use of white phosphorous weapons in Iraq. The shells make smoke that marks positions, but they can also burn flesh. On Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed U.S. Marines used them in the assault on Fallujah one year ago. At times, they were fired into insurgent spider holes. The spokesman denied an Italian television report that they were used on civilians. A 1980 treaty banned that practice, but the U.S. never signed it.

Traveling in Japan today, President Bush challenged China today to expand political and religious freedoms. In contrast, he said Taiwan has embraced "freedom at all levels." China dismissed the comments; it considers Taiwan a renegade province. The president spoke in Japan, before leaving for South Korea. He'll attend an Asian economic conference there. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight.

China confirmed its first human death from bird flu today, and reported two other cases. The woman was a poultry worker who came in close contact with sick birds. The Chinese government announced Tuesday all 14 billion farm birds in the country will be vaccinated.

The nation's midsection added up the damage today, after nearly three dozen tornadoes hammered the region. NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman narrates our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: The tornadoes and thunderstorms cut a wide swath across the Midwest, blowing down buildings and leaving two people dead. Some of the worst damage came in Madisonville and Benton, Kentucky where homes were flattened.

WOMAN: Glass and stuff just went flying. I laid down by a recliner in my living room and that's when it took about half of my house, the garage, the car, everything.

KWAME HOLMAN: In Shiloh, Tennessee, the scene was much the same as residents picked through wreckage of their homes today. All told, people in five states headed for cover after hearing warning sirens sound. The National Weather Service had initial reports of 35 tornado touchdowns, and high winds and hail in more than 100 locations. The severe weather was caused when a fast-moving cold front slammed into warm, unstable air. It's the third outbreak of twisters this month to hit the region. After the storms moved through, icy cold air followed. Temperatures in some places dropped as much as 35 degrees overnight.

GWEN IFILL: The CIA leak case took a new turn today. The Washington Post reported editor Bob Woodward testified in a sworn deposition Monday that a senior administration official told him in June of 2003 that an administration critic's wife works for the CIA. That was a month before Washington columnist Robert Novak identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Her diplomat husband had criticized the prewar intelligence on Iraq. Woodward said the official was not Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff who has since been indicted for perjury. An attorney for White House advisor Karl Rove said he was not Woodward's source either.

The United States will keep control of computers that direct the Internet and its addressing system. Negotiators from more than 100 nations reached that agreement late Tuesday, averting a confrontation at a U.N. summit today in Tunisia. European and other nations have argued an international body should take over managing the Internet.

In U.S. economic news, the Labor Department reported today consumer prices were up just 0.2 percent in October. It was the smallest increase in four months, while on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 11 points to close at 10,674. The NASDAQ rose one point to close at nearly 2187.

That's it for the News summary tonight. Now it's on to Iraq's torture chambers; calling for change in China; do-it-yourself journalism; deciding against Plan B; and striking out with steroids.

FOCUS - IRAQI TORTURE

GWEN IFILL: What happened inside those Iraqi prisons? I spoke today with John Burns -- the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times -- earlier.

GWEN IFILL: John Burns, welcome back. What can you tell us about how and where these prisoners were discovered?

JOHN BURNS: They were discovered about a mile and a half from here in the district called Jadriyah, which also is only just across the Tigris River from the American command center in the green zone, this on Sunday night when American troops reacting to a whole series of complaints from mainly Sunni-Arab residents of the city about relatives who have disappeared into this place raided the center, although they don't like to call it that, the Americans, that is.

They went in with Iraq troops; they found 173 detainees, almost all Sunni Arabs, mostly men, some teenage boys, malnutrition, and as we learned, yesterday, tortured, so it seems, to some considerable degree with implements of torture and so forth.

Because of the fact that these appear to have been Shiite policemen or Shiite religious militiamen in police uniforms inflicting this torture on Sunni Arabs, this has, of course, further inflamed the sectarian divisions here, which were already running at a very high level.

GWEN IFILL: This was something rumored which had been rumored to be going on for a long time but there wasn't any proof of it, I guess.

JOHN BURNS: You know, when you hear American officers as we did today at a rather high level of the command talking about the problems that they confront over issues like this, you have the feeling that it is really kind of Ali Baba's cave that they are operating in here, separating truth from fiction and can be extraordinarily difficult in a society which under Saddam Hussein was always awash with rumor and conspiracy.

There have been these rumors of secret detention centers, of malicious, carrying out extrajudicial and judicial killings, death squads and attacks for many months.

What we were told today by one of the most senior generals in the command was that they have investigated all of these reports that have reached them and have not been able, until this instance, to actually run to grounda detention center.

Now there are reports that some of these detention centers are mobile in the sense that people are held in the basement here and moved to a basement somewhere else, and who knows, possibly some of them killed.

It is an extremely difficult thing in Iraq in general to separate truth from fiction and I think this is a very good example of that.

GWEN IFILL: As you know here in the states the discussion about torture has been this week, at least, about what U.S. forces may or may not be engaged in.

To make a distinction this is not what about U.S. forces are doing; this is alleged to be about what Iraqi forces are up to?

JOHN BURNS: That's exactly what it is about. The allegation is that policemen under the authority of the interior ministry, which is run by a Shiite minister in the Shiite religious-dominated transitional government, that these police officers, perhaps belonging to a Shiite religious militia themselves inflicted this torture on Sunni Arabs. Now, the Americans have reacted to this with tremendous vehemence and unusually, given how careful they have been in the past year and a half to try and put, as they say, an Iraqi face on the government here.

This is, after all, a formerly sovereign state. Unusually, the American commander here, Gen. George Casey and the American ambassador, have taken the lead very publicly in going to the Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and saying do something about this; get to the bottom of it.

Now, of course, it has to be said that American officers one would hope, in any case feel outraged by this. But all American officers, all American troops operate, of course, under the shadow of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal and other prisoner abuse scandals that have afflicted the American forces here -- and that has further, if you will, motivated the command here to make sure that this time on their watch this thing is properly investigated and tracked down.

GWEN IFILL: Is there any fear in a larger sense that these allegations, should they prove to be true, would it further exacerbate Sunni Shiite tensions which exist anyway?

JOHN BURNS: Well, yes. I mean, that's the headline in all this. And that is certainly what we were hearing today even from moderate Sunni Arab political groups, including some of those who have agreed to participate in the Dec. 15 elections and already named and fielded a slate of candidates.

But there's another side to this, and that is that according to Gen. William Webster, who commands the Third Infantry Division with 30,000 troops in Baghdad, his troops within the last 24 hours since the prime minister announced the investigation at the insistence of the American command, his troops, American soldiers are hearing on the streets for the first time a kind of flood of approval from Sunni Arabs who are saying, well now, now you are showing us you are here not to favor one side, that side of course being the Shiite majority who have taken power under the transitional government.

Gen. Webster, and he is not alone in this in the American command feels that, as the Chinese say, out of all things bad something good, that there may be an undercurrent here that will actually bear fruit in terms of Sunni Arabs perhaps thinking again what America is really up to here.

GWEN IFILL: So has Prime Minister al-Jaafari set a deadline for the report on this investigation?

JOHN BURNS: He has. He ordered his deputy prime minister, a Kurd, to report within two weeks and the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, along with the American military command, are going to be actively involved in this investigation providing all manner of support.

And there was a separate inquiry ordered which -- by al-Jaafari, the prime minister, for a count to be taken of all prisoners and detainees across Iraq for their locations to be determined and for a report to be made on the conditions under which they are held.

GWEN IFILL: John Burns, as always, thank you.

JOHN BURNS: It's a pleasure.

UPDATE - MORNING AFTER PILL

GWEN IFILL: Now Jeffrey Brown updates us on two stories we have been following. We begin with the latest controversy over the morning after contraceptive pill.

JEFFREY BROWN: Last year, the Food and Drug Administration rejected a recommendation by its own advisory board that the so- called "Plan B" drug be made available over the counter. The FDA action stirred wide debate and criticism, and this week, the Government Accountability Office issued a report raising many questions about what it called the FDA's "unusual" decision- making.

Here to take us through the story is our health correspondent, Susan Dentzer. The health unit is a partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Welcome, Susan.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thanks, Jeff.

JEFFREY BROWN: First remind us, what is Plan B, and why is it so controversial?

SUSAN DENTZER: Plan B is an emergency contraceptive. It's the so-called "morning after pill." It's taken after sexual intercourse. It's essentially high-dose birth control pills taken after intercourse to prevent ovulation or interfere with fertilization of an egg by a sperm.

It's been controversial among social conservatives for several reasons: For one thing, there seems to be some misinformation that it is really an anti-abortion - or, rather, an abortion-inducing pill, which it is not; it doesn't cause an abortion. It actually interferes with fertilization or with ovulation. It's a contraceptive, some confusion about that.

The other source of concern among social conservatives has been in making it broadly available, especially among younger teenagers, if you were to make it available over the counter, would lead to greater sexual promiscuity among teenagers.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. So last year, the FDA rejected its sale over the counter. What was the reason for it?

SUSAN DENTZER: What the FDA wrote in the letter it sent Barr Laboratories, the owner of the rights to the drug, was that it was concerned about the fact that there was not sufficient scientific evidence about how younger teenagers, people below the age of 16, girls below the age of 16 would respond, how their behavior would change if the drug were to be made available over the counter, specifically, that we lacked evidence about the cognitive development, the maturity of younger teenagers.

And even though there had been information submitted about the effect in older teenagers, the FDA said we could not extrapolate from that the behavior of younger teenagers and therefore it could not be approved.

However, the FDA did offer Barr Labs a way; it said that Barr Labs could come back, apply to make the drug available over the counter for women 16, older on a prescription basis for women younger than 16 and that the FDA would seriously consider that, and that, in effect, is what Barr then did.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, the GAO looks at all of this and files a report this week that finds unusual, that's their word "unusual" decision making. Tell us what that means.

SUSAN DENTZER: Yes. And it said it was unusual in several respects. First of all GAO said upper level FDA officials told lower level FDAofficials that they, the upper level officials, would make the decision, not lower level officials who customarily make these decisions.

Secondly, there's dispute about this but there's some suggestion that the upper level officials made the decision before all the scientific evidence was really in. And then the final thing that the GAO pointed to was this whole business about the cognitive development of younger teenagers. It said never before had FDA taken up a decision where it said we have to look at older adolescents and younger adolescents; we can't extrapolate one set of behavior from another, said this had never happened before, and this was highly, highly unusual.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, the report, if I am right, did not go into why the FDA did this, but critics cried politics or they saw politics in it, correct?

SUSAN DENTZER: Yes, indeed. And the big elephant in the room, in effect, was why did the FDA do this? Democrats who asked the GAO to do this report in the first place, even many moderate Republicans are now saying in effect the Bush administration here, the FDA caved to the concerns of social conservatives, that and even though the GAO did not address that question, that appears to be a widely held belief.

The second thing the GAO did not address is what's happened since and we do know, as I said a moment ago, that Barr Labs came back, said to the FDA, okay, we would like to make it available on a prescription basis for kids under the age of 16, over the counter for older women.

And then what happened is just this past summer, the former FDA commissioner, Lester Crawford, before rather mysteriously resigning said in effect we have to do, we're not -- having said that we think we can do this, we are not certain that we can do this and we must go through a very extensively rule-making process to determine whether it's even possible to have this kind of split availability of the drug, in effect, as some have charged kicking the can down the road, yet longer.

JEFFREY BROWN: So a kind of indefinite hold. But what happens next?

SUSAN DENTZER: Well, that's the big question. There is a bipartisan bill in Congress which bears the sardonic title of Plan B for Plan B Act which would say that in effect, the FDA would have 30 days to make a decision about whether to make the drug available over the counter; if not, it will be considered to be approved for over the counter use. Some Democrats are asking now for hearings to be held to look further at this. And we'll see just have to see what happens. In the meantime, the interesting thing is that prescriptions of Plan B have doubled.

JEFFREY BROWN: That's what I was going to ask you, are people using it or not?

SUSAN DENTZER: Absolutely. Prescriptions doubled; sales are rising; and now about $25 million worth a year and actually, seven states have acted to make the drug available on a so-called "behind the counter" basis. You don't need a prescription. You do have to go to the pharmacist and ask for the drug.

But seven states including a large one, California, have already made this broadly available. And so far t he proponents of making this drug broadly available says there's no evidence that it's leading to any behavioral changes in anybody, including younger adolescents.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Susan. Thanks a lot.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thanks, Jeff.

FOCUS - NEW STEROID RULES

JEFFREY BROWN: Now to update number two: Baseball gets tougher about drug use.

JEFFREY BROWN: How much of the on-the-field action has been impacted by the use of performance-enhancing drug use off-the-field? That question has been asked more and more of baseball in recent years, including on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have demanded tough, new punishments.

After initial resistance by some owners and the players' union, Major League Baseball began testing for steroids in 2003, and then introduced penalties for their use.

But members of Congress said the new policy didn't go far enough.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: It's not quite as tough, at least as far as first offense or a permanent ban for a fourth offense as minor league baseball is, and it certainly is a long way from the penalties enacted as far as Olympic athletes are concerned.

JEFFREY BROWN: Some of baseball's most recognizable athletes testified at a House hearing on steroids in March, including Orioles slugger Rafael Palmeiro. He maintained he was clean.

RAFAEL PALMEIRO: I have never used steroids, period.

JEFFREY BROWN: Tests later showed Palmeiro had tested positive for steroids, but the first baseman said the results might have been due to vitamins he'd taken.

Spurred by the threat of federal legislation, baseball owners and unions agreed yesterday to a new, more stringent policy on steroid use. It also established mandatory testing for amphetamines.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The use of these drugs, these performance-enhancing drugs will not be tolerated in Major League Baseball any longer.

JEFFREY BROWN: Baseball officials said the agreement is to take effect before spring training next year.

JEFFREY BROWN: And joining me now on this story is Buster Olney of ESPN, the Magazine.

Welcome to you, Mr. Olney. Start by walking us through the new penalties for drug use.

BUSTER OLNEY: Well, if you think that 40 months ago there wasn't even a testing system in place for baseball, and under the previous testing system before the one enacted yesterday a player could get 10 games for the first offense, 30 for the second and 60 for the third.

Now if a player is suspended, 50 games for the first offense, 100 games for the second offense, and the third offense he would face a lifetime ban; he would be able to apply for reinstatement after two years but it's a significant ramp up from where they were.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, one thing that got a lot of attention is that amphetamines were included for the first time. Why was that important?

BUSTER OLNEY: Well, it's important because in the culture of baseball, amphetamine is as common place as coffee is in the average household. I have talked to players who would tell you, they believe 75 to 80 percent of players use amphetamines, some a form of them.

In fact, playing without amphetamines in baseball circles is called playing naked, it is so uncommon to have players not to use amphetamines, so baseball wanted to step up and take care of this problem.

The big concern is how quickly they could do this because so many players use the stuff. And we're going to see a graduated scale of penalties and amphetamines. It's going to be different than steroids because they know so many players do use it.

JEFFREY BROWN: And do the players tell you why they use amphetamines so much? Is it the rigors of a schedule or the games, what is it?

BUSTER OLNEY: That's exactly right. Over 162 games they feel like on a daily basis they need a pick up. And, in fact, some players said that if amphetamines came to be subject for testing, baseball might have to face the question of whether or not they would have to shorten their season.

That's how important some players feel amphetamines is to getting through the daily rigors of the baseball season.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now the testing regime for all of this has also been beefed up. Tell us how that will work now.

BUSTER OLNEY: Well, under the previous testing rules, a player could conceivably be tested only one time during the course of the year. Under the new testing system it's going to be at least twice and there are going to be many more random tests.

In addition under the previous testing system, there were loopholes such as a player could be informed that he was going to have to give a test that day and then he could literally walk away from the person who was going to administer the test for as long as two or three hours.

Now they are going to standardize that; they're going to make the people who administrator the test stay with the players so that they are not able to have an opportunity to potentially cheat. And they certainly have toughened up that part of the testing program.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, as you know, of course, there has been resistance to all of this over the past few years. What made it happen? Was it the congressional pressure, Rafael Palmeiro's testimony, what happened?

BUSTER OLNEY: Well, I think the first thing that happened is the silent majority within the players union, I think dating back to the late "90s; they were very uncomfortable with what was happening with steroids. Most of the players I think absolutely favored testing in 2000/2001. That opinion has finally manifested itself within the union leadership and their decisions that they make. That's the first thing.

The second thing is without a doubt, the congressional pressure has been the rocket fuel for this entire process. They put pressure on Major League Baseball. Bud Selig, the baseball commissioner, reacted to that, and what he did after that was put pressure on Donald Fehr, the leadership of the union -- leader of the union and that's how we have gotten where we are.

JEFFREY BROWN: Every time we hear about a new drug regime or penalties we always also hear about potential loopholes, the kind of new drugs on the market. Are there some fears here about some things that either aren't covered or aren't easily found?

BUSTER OLNEY: Yeah. And let's face it. There's going to be more steroids to come, new designer steroids that they are not going to have a test for and they're going to have to try to catch up to those.

Right now, without a doubt, the biggest loophole in this testing system is human growth hormone; it's on the banned substance list for baseball; they don't even have a test for it.

And so it was conceivable, and everybody in baseball knows this: In 2005, you could take human growth hormone risk free the entire season, which is why some people have wondered how is it that a dozen players can test positive when they know how to beat this thing?

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, I gather that this would be the harshest regime in American sports now. Will this, would you expect this to put pressure on other sports to follow along?

BUSTER OLNEY: There's no doubt. And Bud Selig, after getting hammered by Congress for so long was able to stand up yesterday and say that. Baseball has the toughest standard now in other sports, I think you will see Congress go to the other sports and say, look, you have seen baseball react; now it is your turn to step up.

JEFFREY BROWN: And, finally, you know, every time we talk about this, we all look at the records that have been broken, what's been happening over the past few years and there was this continual question about whether there is a taint on what has happened. Was anyof that addressed in this new agreement? Do you see any movement in that regard?

BUSTER OLNEY: No. I don't, and I don't think they can. The bottom line is baseball did not test for this and so all the records from 1988 to say 2003/ 2004, they will all be looked at differently I think than any other numbers in baseball history, we'll look at that as the steroid era and sadly, all the great players that came through that era are going to be viewed through that prism and we will start to see that manifest itself when guys like Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds come up for Hall of Fame eligibility; there are a lot of voters who say they will not vote for players who have been tainted by the steroid scandal.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Buster Olney of ESPN, thanks very much.

BUSTER OLNEY: Thank you.

FOCUS - WE MEDIA

GWEN IFILL: And now to the story about citizen journalism. Special correspondent Terence Smith has this media report.

SPOKESMAN: --World News tonight --

SPOKESMAN: CBS Evening News -

SPOKESMAN: NBC Nightly News --

TERENCE SMITH: For years, Americans have been accustomed to getting their news from professional journalists on network and local broadcasts, on radio and in newspapers. But these days, more and more Americans are taking newsgathering into their own hands.

WOMAN: What we started doing is the whole issue, sort of the next theme issue on growth, taxes and growth.

TERENCE SMITH: This editorial meeting at a kitchen table is citizen journalism in action --

WOMAN: And that's one of the lead stories for the next time.

TERENCE SMITH: -- and so is this promotion event for a new television venture.

SPOKESPERSON: Go to current.tv, and there you can check out all the pieces and viewer-created contests submitted by people like you.

TERENCE SMITH: And here's a web site example.

SPOKESPERSON: This is not a member of the community, somebody in the public who thought to change it.

TERENCE SMITH: The fast-emerging field of citizen journalism comes in as many shapes and sizes as it has names: "Participatory journalism"; "community journalism"; "hyper-local, grassroots"; "do-it yourself;" "bottom up"; "open source"; "social media"; "user- generated journalism". These names all add up to a phenomenon that is grouped under the heading, "we media." It is built on the notion that thanks to new technologies, everybody is, or can be, a journalist.

Veteran newspaper reporter Jan Schaffer heads J-Lab, the University of Maryland's incubator for interactive journalism projects.

JAN SCHAFFER: There is an enormous capacity for citizens to want to be able to participate in news and information in various ways-- participate in interacting with it, questioning it, truth-squading it and creating it. And now that they have the tech tools and the tech skills to do that, the appetite has only increased.

TERENCE SMITH: One of the citizen projects for which J-Lab has provided seed money is the all- volunteer Forum in Deerfield, New Hampshire, population 4,000 -- a new online newspaper about and by the residents of four local communities.

Founder and chair Maureen Mann explains that the rural New Hampshire hamlet was a black hole for mainstream media.

MAUREEN MANN: For the most part, we're sort of a little vacuum between the sea coast, the major cities and there's almost no coverage. So we're hoping to provide coverage of local events; we're also hoping to essentially give people an opportunity to become reporters themselves. We almost want people to be the news.

TERENCE SMITH: Relying on a handful of regular contributors, the paper has covered news from the new fire engine in town to the regionally recognized Deerfield Fair to poetry.

MAUREEN MANN: But, on the other hand, we are utilizing space efficiently, someone might say.

SPOKESMAN: Very efficiently.

TERENCE SMITH: On this day, Maureen Mann was wearing one of her many hats-- interviewing local school officials about overcrowding.

Last year, Deerfield residents voted to abandon the centuries old tradition of town meetings. So in a sense, the Forum has become the electronic equivalent.

At the Lazy Lion Cafe, the only restaurant in town, members of a local women's bible study group gather.

Joanne Bradbury says she likes the immediacy of the online paper since she lives outside the circulation of area dailies.

JOANNE BRADBURY: I can just turn on the computer and there it is, plus it's local people and they're talking about things that I know about locally.

TERENCE SMITH: Denny Grieg has been both a reader of and contributor to the Forum.

DENNY GRIEG: A few weeks ago, right after the tax assessors came through, the phone system went down at city hall. Well, you know, I'm sure that day a number of people were trying to call city hall and there was a full and candid explanation about what the issues were and how it was dealt with, and that's an incident that never would have been explained before.

TERENCE SMITH: A very different example of "we media" has taken root on a site called Wikinews, which allows web site users to contribute to and edit news stories.

"Wiki wiki" is a Hawaiian word meaning quick. Jimmy Wales recently founded Wikinews, an offshoot of his larger, well-established Wikipedia Encyclopedia project.

JIMMY WALES: One of the main motivations or the main ideas behind it, we had seen actually going all the way back to Sept. 11 when we were still a very young project, on Sept. 11 our page about the attacks was very good and, not only that, we did a great job of filling in background information. So who is the architect who designed the World Trade Center -- a whole article about his life and history.

TERENCE SMITH: Wikipedia, now five years old, gets two billion page views a month, making it the 40th most popular web site on the Internet with more readers than the New York Times, the LA Times, Washington Post, and USA Today combined.

JIMMY WALKES: You can trust Wikipedia because you know there's a community behind it, and everything on the site is reviewed by lots of people who are working together.

TERENCE SMITH: The bottom-up wiki concept prompted Michael Kinsley, then the Los Angeles Times opinion and editorial editor, to try it in his mainstream news organization-- an online editorial which readers were invited to rewrite.

The "wikitorial" attracted thousands of readers who weighed in on the issue of the war in Iraq.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Basically we published the editorial in a normal way and then we published it on a wikipage where anyone could go in and, you know, rewrite it, or anything. There's much more of a built-in cooperative spirit there.

TERENCE SMITH: This is an example of how the wikitorial worked. Any additions and changes by the contributors appeared in bold and were time-stamped; 10:37, the post reads "It merely proves, as explicitly stated in the memo, that 'no political decision' had been taken as of July 2002.'" One minute later at 10:38, another contributor added his change: "It proves, as explicitly stated in the memo that 'the intelligence was being fixed.'" His comments stood until the next contributor came along.

The experiment collapsed three days later after "cybercreeps" -- Kinsley's word-- posted pornographic material on the site. The LA Times management dismantled the wikitorial experiment.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: You can't just put it up there and watch it take off. Number two, would be there are a lot of snakes in this Eden and they will make trouble if they can. But number three is, there's a lot of interesting stuff that can come out of it.

JAN SCHAFFER: I think the spirit is to be applauded. I think that news organizations need to do a lot more kind of experimentation, throw stuff up on the wall, see what sticks, see what works. And what doesn't work, go back to the drawing boards and figure out the next thing.

SPOKESPERSON: Now you're also going to get awesome tips on how to make TV; you're going to get tips on storytelling, on editing -

TERENCE SMITH: In yet another approach, the we media concept is also showing up on cable and satellite television. Current, an independently owned news and information network, has 30 percent of its content contributed by viewers.

SPOKESPERSON: Taking the power of media into their hands.

SPOKESMAN: Thank you.

TERENCE SMITH: It's the idea of former Vice President Al Gore who addressed the young crowd that gathered at a recent Central Park promotion for Current.

AL GORE: I want to invite you to go to current.tv and participate in the conversation of democracy.

TERENCE SMITH: Keith Harris came to Central Park because he's interested in the idea. By day, he's the media coordinator of the Children's Aid Society in New York. By night, he's an amateur documentarian.

KEITH HARRIS: These are true-to-life stories that you can connect with. The stories and the people that are involved in production also the people that are involved in front of the camera, behind the camera these are people such as myself, who aspire to have our sensibilities appreciated.

TERENCE SMITH: This type of channel is necessary even in an already-crowded 300-channel television universe, Gore argued before journalists assembled by the Media Center, a think tank.

AL GORE: Ironically, television programming is actually more accessible to more people than any source of information has ever been in all of history. But here is the crucial distinction: It is accessible in only one direction; there is no true interactivity and certainly no conversation.

TERENCE SMITH: Even with all of these different illustrations, the question remains: Is we media really a viable alternative or a compliment to what the professionals do? Michael Kinsley is not so sure.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: When I go to a restaurant, I don't want my dinner cooked by the guy at the next table. When I pick up a newspaper or even go to the web, I like to think that, you know, our experience and training and standards will give us some advantage.

TERENCE SMITH: Citizen journalists themselves, like Maureen Mann, concede they do face limitations.

MAUREEN MANN: We've had a little bit of difficulty getting some answers from people we would like to speak to us. It doesn't mean we won't keep trying.

TERENCE SMITH: Jan Schaeffer says citizen journalists have their own strengths.

JAN SCHAEFFER: These are not journalists; they don't even aspire to be called journalists. But what they're doing has a lot of journalistic DNA, and so I think we look at that and think "wow, where is this going to lead?" It's very promising.

TERENCE SMITH: That promise shone through recently in New Hampshire, when the National Guard was ordered to New Orleans. Who broke the story? The Forum scooped theestablished paper in the area, the Manchester Union Leader.

FOCUS - BLUNT TALK

GWEN IFILL: Next, President Bush's stern words for China. Ray Suarez has the story.

RAY SUAREZ: From the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto, President Bush launched a four-nation tour of Asia, a trip that will be highlighted by an economic summit in Korea and a visit to China.

In the former Japanese capital, the president delivered what White House aides said was the major speech of the trip. He said freedom in China and elsewhere in Asia was critical for cooperation across the Pacific.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: And the best way to strengthen the ties of trust between nations is by advancing freedom within nations. Free nations are peaceful nations; free nations do not threaten their neighbors; and free nations offer their citizens a hopeful vision for the future.

By advancing the cause of liberty throughout this region, we will contribute to the prosperity of all and deliver the peace and stability that can only come with freedom.

RAY SUAREZ: The president praised not only South Korea, but also Taiwan for successfully transitioning from autocratic rule to democracy.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Like South Korea, economic liberalization in Taiwan helped fuel its desire for individual political freedom because men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will eventually insist on controlling their own lives and their own future.

Like South Korea, modern Taiwan is free and democratic and prosperous. By embracing freedom at all levels, Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society.

RAY SUAREZ: President Bush then issued this challenge to the Communist Party chiefs in Beijing:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it can not be closed. As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well. The efforts of Chinese people to improve their society should be welcomed as part of China's development.

By meeting the legitimate demands of its citizens for freedom and openness, China's leaders can help their country grow into a modern, prosperous and confident nation.

RAY SUAREZ: He also expressed hope the U.S. and China would resolve their trade differences and said the freer China is at home, the more welcome it will be abroad.

By the time President Bush reached South Korea, the second stop on his tour, China's foreign minister told reporters China's government would not pay attention to outside pressure.

RAY SUAREZ: What kind of reaction is President Bush's speech likely to get in China, and around Asia? We get two views. Liao Tienchi is deputy publisher at the China Information Center, a non-profit organization promoting free speech and expression in China. She was born in mainland China and grew up in Taiwan. And Wonhyuk Lim is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has written extensively about Korean and Northeast Asian economic development.

And Wonhyuk Lim, here we have an American president critical of China on the eve of a visit to China and holding up Taiwan as a positive example. What do you make of the Bush speech?

WONHYUK LIM: I think it was an interesting speech in that it emphasized the essential value of freedom quite a bit. But the style in which he delivered and the way he held up Taiwan as a model for China is not going to really play well in China, I don't think.

RAY SUAREZ: The specific example of Taiwan you mean?

WONHYUK LIM: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: Why is that?

WONHYUK LIM: I mean, Taiwan is regarded as a renegade province by China. It is a sovereignty issue, and although I credit the people of Taiwan for advancing freedom and improving democracy, there's also the "one China" principle that the United States has agreed to, and the Chinese leadership is not going to, I mean, even the Chinese people themselves are not going to be pleased with that kind of statement from the United States, statement by a president.

RAY SUAREZ: Liao Tienchi, what do you make of the speech?

LIAO TIENCHI: If the people in China have the freedom of speech and freedom of expression, I think President Bush will get a standing ovation from the whole nation.

Then you see there are a lot of journalists and authors have been thrown into jail just because they have written something, some critical articles on the Internet. There are over 60 authors being kept in jail and there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of expression.

So I think it is really important of President Bush that he got this topic; it is very skillful of him to speak, to just touch these very sensitive topics in front of his -- before he even touched Chinese ground.

RAY SUAREZ: So are you drawing a distinction -- saying that the reaction would be one way among the elites and leadership and a different reaction among the great masses of the people of China?

LIAO TIENCHI: I don't think so. I just said President Bush will get a standing ovation from the whole Chinese nation if they can express their feeling freely. Not only the elite need freedom, but also the general people, and their right to express their emotion and to struggle for their right are so under pressure, so I think they really appreciate the speech of President Bush.

RAY SUAREZ: Well you heard Wonhyuk Lim refer to Taiwan as China does as a renegade province. Is it important for an American president to raise the issue of Taiwan, keep Taiwan in the forefront of the conversation even as he's visiting China?

LIAO TIENCHI: I think it is extremely important that President Bush raise Taiwan issue and take Taiwan as a model for freedom and democracy. A lot of people, especially a lot of specialists in western said well, China is a country with one -- with 800,000 million peasants; they don't understand what democracy, what freedom is. It is wrong. People know that.

Taiwan has got rid of this Chang Kai-shek kind of dictatorship and go past very peacefully to transform to -- very peacefully to a democratic country, and I think this is very good example for all the Asian countries. And it is, actually it is a pride - actually it is a Chinese pride.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you have heard Ms. Liao say that if Chinese were free to express their opinion, President Bush would be widely applauded.

Is the information market open enough in China so that the president's words would be widely reported there and the average person with access to a radio might know that he said these things?

WONHYUK LIM: I'm sure the average person would know that he said this. But the problem is that China also is, has a rich tradition and that the way the statement was delivered was somewhat patronizing and that may not play well with the Chinese people.

And also I would like to add that if I were to comment on Taiwan in the context of freedom in China, out of something like advancing freedom in China with improve the chance of peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue and sort of stop at that instead of holding out Taiwan as a model for China to emulate.

RAY SUAREZ: In your view, is the American president being hard enough on China when it comes to things like ethnic rights in Tibet, religious freedoms?

LIAO TIENCHI: It is not a problem to be hard enough or not. I think President Bush is very skillful in dealing with this topic, you know.

When the Chinese authorities, the Beijing regime, if they think just that -- hear that topic, human rights, they are just angry and afraid because they know exactly what they are doing is wrong. The people are against it. You cannot deprive the people of their freedom.

And President Bush has actually touched this topic very skillfully and very carefully. I don't think he hurt any kind of emotion of the Chinese people. He has said Taiwan is -- he always emphasizes -- Americans recognize and acknowledge this "one China" policy.

This touched that point and he said Taiwan is a model for democracy. He didn't say China should change - should develop after this model of Taiwan. He just emphasized it. Taiwan is a model for freedom and for democracy and that's the model not only for China but for many other Asian countries.

RAY SUAREZ: Well I ask because inside the United States there's a difference of opinion on whether the United States should stress economic relations in the belief that a rising economy will automatically make China freer or whether the United States needs to continue to emphasize human rights inside China as part of its relationship with the Chinese.

LIAO TIENCHI: Economic prosperity will not bring democracy or freedom automatically. These are really two different things. I don't think that you say we should strive for the better or for even stronger business or economic connection or trade-ship with China and then democracy will arrive. It is not that way.

And I think the president, he is the leader of the whole nation, and he is not the general manager of a big company. He has something he has -- not only to do his best to promote the business relations between these two countries but he also has to show the integrity.

And I think morality is somehow a kind -- belong to a part of the American policy. It is a kind of American tradition in the politics. So I think it is important that President Bush stand on this point.

RAY SUAREZ: Wonhyuk Lim, the president did during his speech make a special point of mentioning freedom in China. Does this continue to be a sore point in Chinese-American relations?

WONHYUK LIM: Yes. But I think the Chinese leadership is likely to regard that part of the speech as more for domestic consumption in the United States than sort of, you know, tough advice to China, really because, I mean, there are people who appreciate tough rhetoric on China coming from the United States President.

But, I mean religious freedom is an important issue, but I don't think, I mean, as the Chinese officials said after the speech, I think their attitude basically says they're going to disregard that statement.

RAY SUAREZ: And as China strengthens its own relationships with countries around the Asian rim and all over the world, does the United States policy toward China matter as much? Do other countries put a great emphasis on the state of Chinese-American relations as China becomes a stronger country?

WONHYUK LIM: I think America matters still quite a bit. But the problem is, as China is strengthening bonds with its neighbors and countries outside Asia, America needs to do something to present a strategic vision for Asia and how, what kind of new order it's going to craft in the region and that part of thinking, that kind of vision is missing from President Bush's speech.

RAY SUAREZ: In Australia, in Indonesia, in Thailand, countries that have close ties to the United States, but have strengthening ties with China, is it as important what America thinks of China as it used to be?

LIAO TIENCHI: Yes, it is. China becomes very powerful not only economically, but also militarily. So it is important to have this balance, American on the one side and China as the direct neighbor. So how America takes its leadership in the free world is really important.

China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba are the last four un-free countries. So it is important to show the Asian neighbor country America is still taking the lead.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you both.

LIAO TIENCHI: Thank you.

WONHYUK LIM: My pleasure.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: Five U.S. Marines and sixteen insurgents were killed in Iraq in a fierce fight near the Syrian border. At least 11 Marines were wounded. And Sunni leaders in Iraq demanded an international investigation into claims Shiite security forces tortured more than 170 prisoners.

GWEN IFILL: And again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are four more.

GWEN IFILL: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.