The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

LaLera campaign finance reform in the House, journalism conflicts, a massacre and a victory, and a conversation with novelist Louise Erdrich. Tonight on the Clinton is our . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . corporation for public drug. Yes, thank you. This program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. President Bush will propose pharmacy discount cards for senior citizens. A White House spokesman said today the cards would be an interim step toward a permanent drug benefit under Medicare. News reports that the plan would rely on private companies that buy drugs in bulk and negotiate discounts. They would then sell cards to Medicare patients to buy medicine at reduced rates. The president is expected to unveil this plan tomorrow and we'll look at it in detail on the news hour tomorrow night.

The House voted today to let Americans buy prescription drugs from overseas by mail order. They're often three to four times cheaper in Europe and Canada. The bill would let individual consumers bypass the food and drug administration. It has refused to certify the safety of American made drugs that are so to broad and then re-imported. That refusal effectively blocked distribution companies from getting involved. A new study added today to the debate over stem cell research. It was published in the Journal of Fertility and Sterility and it came as President Bush was reviewing limits on federal funding of that work. Our health reporter Susan Denser has the story. Researchers at a prominent Virginia fertility clinic reported that they had created human embryos in the lab from donor sperm and eggs not to produce babies but for the sole purpose of destroying the embryos to obtain their stem cells. Originally presented at a fertility conference last fall the research is the first public acknowledgement that an action like this has ever been

undertaken. Stem cells are the basic cell building blocks that ultimately grow into all the specialized cells of the human body. Scientists believe that one day unlocking the secrets of stem cells could lead to revolutionary therapies. For example they could be grown into nerve cells for victims of spinal cord injuries or even new organs for those with kidney or liver disease. Research on human embryonic stem cells has long been controversial since embryos that are just several days old must be destroyed to obtain the cells. The newly published work carried out by scientists that the Jones Institute in Norfolk, Virginia is potentially even more controversial. That's because the embryos used were not left over from previous fertility treatments but were created expressly for the purpose of destroying them to harvest the stem cells. In their article the researchers said they'd concluded after an extensive ethics review that quote, the creation of embryos for research purposes was justifiable and that it was our duty to provide humankind with the best

understanding of early human development. Eggs from 12 consenting donors and sperm from two others who gave consent were ultimately used. When the resulting embryos were six days old and similar to those shown here they were taken apart to isolate the stem cells. The cells were kept alive in lab dishes and so far have not been used for any therapeutic purposes. At the White House today presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about the Jones Institute report. The president uses a reminder that this is not a simple matter that this is a matter that involves very sensitive and important issues that involve questions that are fundamental about life, about preserving life with science. The president's decision on whether to tighten restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research is expected within days or weeks. Microsoft will change its licensing agreements for the Windows operating system. The company said today it will let computer makers remove the icons or graphics for Microsoft products from the screen. They were

barred from doing that under previous licensing deals. Last month a federal appeals court ruled such deals were illegal but it struck down a lower court's order that Microsoft be broken up. Police searched Congressman Gary Condon's apartment in Washington last night with his consent. They were looking for information in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. The 24-year-old former federal intern has been missing since April 30th. According to news reports, conduct has told police he'd been having an affair with Levy. The police say the California Democrat is not a suspect in her disappearance. We'll look at the news coverage of the story later in the program tonight. Also coming, the campaign finance reform debate moves to the house, a Bosnia massacre anniversary, and a conversation with novelist Louise Erdrich. The house is ready to take up campaign finance reform. Call me home and begins. Throughout his five terms in Congress, it's been easy for Maryland Democrat Albert

Nguyen to spend time with constituents back home. He represents Prince George's county just a few miles from the U.S. Capitol. What do you go to school? Nguyen's easy-going manner and constituent service have made him a popular figure in his district, which is home to America's largest black middle-class population. On Monday for instance, Nguyen volunteered to read to children at a local library as part of a program sponsored by the Washington Redskins and the National Football League. Came down with the bump from up the on the ball, but contrary to the low profile, he usually displays at home. Nguyen has been attracting a great deal of attention back in Congress. He's head of the campaign finance task force for the Congressional Black Caucus. And as most Democrats prepare to throw their support tomorrow behind a bill to ban unlimited, unregulated, soft money contributions to political parties when is leading the opposition. I'm here to say that this whole notion is a hype, is a sham. Soft money has been used by the two major political parties primarily to produce and broadcast

so-called issue or attack ads against opposition candidates. During the 2000 elections, the two parties combined to spend nearly $500 million of soft money. And they continue to raise money at a record pace as they take aim at next year's elections. In one evening last month, President Bush helped raise more than $20 million to support Republican congressional candidates. The next night, former President Clinton helped raise $2 million at a Democratic event all this during a non-election year. But while the parties have used soft money mostly to air issue ads, a small part traditionally has been used to pay for voter registration drives. Albert Nguyen claims the proposed ban would not stop soft money from finding its way into the campaign system, but it would devastate the political parties get out the vote efforts. We are concerned with the National African-American Hispanic minority vote, the vote of women,

the vote of low-income communities. We believe it's important to invest more money to get that vote out. Look, I respect Al Nguyen a lot, but he's defending the indefensible. Massachusetts Democrat Martin Mean, along with Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays, are the architects of the soft money ban that is the core of the main campaign reform bill. Soft money is the reason that we don't have prescription drug coverage as part of the Medicaid program. Soft money is the reason that when we had a conference committee on reasonable gun safety legislation, it died after one meeting. And Mean argues soft money is the reason there aren't more minority voters. It's why voter participation is going down in America. The reason why working families aren't as active as involved in grassroots parties on as involved is they look at it and they say they don't need me. The big money interest at deciding what the political parties do. It's disenfranchising the base of what should be the

base of the Democratic Party. In short, the Shays Mean campaign finance reform bill would ban all soft money contributions to national political parties currently made by corporations, unions, and individuals. VAR corporations and unions from broadcasting issue ads mentioning a federal candidate 60 days before an election and require special interest groups that do run ads to disclose their expenditures and contributors. The Shays Mean bill passed the house by large margins in 1998 and 1999, but both times the efforts stalled in the Senate. However, in April, the Senate finally approved the soft money ban in a similar bill by Senators McCain and Fine Gold. But the Senate's action now has members in the house reevaluating their support. Well, I suppose there are some members of the House who are looking at this saying, by golly, this could become law. The President may actually sign the bill and they're looking at it more closely than they did at the past. They're asking more questions

than they have in the past, which is fine. And we're trying to respond to those questions. And those questions are being raised primarily by members of the Black and Hispanic caucuses, worried that a total ban on soft money would hurt minority voter participation. The two groups comprise 56 Democrats, almost all of whom, including Albert Nguyen, voted for campaign finance reform in the past. Most members haven't yet announced how they'll vote tomorrow. People are saying, wait a minute. Let's catch a breath. Let's get responsible. Let's do this the right way. Ohio's Bob Nay is chairman of the House administration committee and has crafted an alternative campaign finance reform bill, which has the backing of most Republicans. Under Nay's proposal, individual soft money contributions to national political parties would be capped at $75,000 a year. The parties would be allowed to use that money for voter registration and get out the vote activities, but not to broadcast issue ads. And there would be no restrictions on corporations and unions broadcasting issue ads.

Our bill is constitutionally up to muster. Chase me and his arms does not gag individual citizens belong to advocacy groups. Chase me and does. And Nay's bill has done something Republican campaign finance alternatives failed to do in the past. It's attracted Democrats. One of them is Albert Nguyen. In fact, Nguyen has signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill. Well, I think obviously people in Democrat leadership are not terribly happy with the idea, but some probably have indicated they think I'm doing the right thing. And I think that is certainly important. Nguyen says the bill is a compromise that regulates soft money without diminishing the role of the two main political parties. We think it's important that there be money for get out the vote effort, voter education, voter mobilization. And so we sit instead of an outright ban of soft money, we should restrict it, regulate it, allow limited contributions of $75,000 per contributor, fully disclosed, and restrict it in terms of how it can be used. The parties could

not use this money for attack ads, a criticizing other party or other candidates, but only for legitimate get out the vote efforts. But Martin Nguyen argues the Nay Nguyen bill is not serious campaign finance reform, because it's still would allow unrestricted soft money contributions to state political parties. How is it a legitimate campaign financial reform bill, if a member of the United States Senate can pick up the phone and raise millions and millions of dollars from wealthy individuals and corporations and have that money funnel through their state party, then to be used in their campaign in negative television ads against their opponent? That's a loophole that means that it's nothing but a sham. Nonetheless, Bob Nays says his bill is gaining momentum as members head into tomorrow's debate. Right now, I think we're going in cautiously optimistic and hoping that our version comes out by no stretch of anyone's imagination. Can we believe that we are way ahead or that, in fact,

chase me in his way ahead? Indeed, today Martin Nguyen wasn't ready to declare victory either. Glenn Eiffel takes it from there. Now for our closer look at what lies ahead for campaign finance reform, we're joined by the weekly standards David Brooks and Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne. David, you know, we've been through this before at this best, the House in 1988, 1998, 1999, passed the Senate a couple of months ago. What's different about it this time around? Democrats are backing away. I'm reminded there was a line I learned in Britain. They jumped ship so fast, the rats were left gaping and applauding, and that's how fast some of the Democrats have jumped from the campaign finance reform ship because it might pass, and they may have to live in the world. The difference this time is that the Senate has passed it, and the Senate debate was like Sunday school. There was the golden sword of campaign finance against the evil devil of soft money. But a lot of these Democrats and Republicans are looking in saying, how will my life be different? And the difference for House members is that, unlike

senators, they have a tough time getting media coverage. So they're saying soft money is my friend. Soft money helps me promote myself. Soft money helps me get out the vote. One of the Hill staffers told me the other day, you know, in Chris Shays district, they all read the New York Times. But I need soft money to get out my message, and I'm scared of losing that. And the New York Times, of course, editorial page has been very much in favor of the Shaysman bill. EJ, what's your take? What's the political alchemy going on here? Well, I agree with David that the fact that this bill could become law has made a lot of people in the House take it very seriously, and some people are back in the way. The question is, how many people are back in the way? I mean, this is, if this has so many moving parts, that no one, no smart person I talked to on this today has any idea how it's going to come out, because you've got the black caucus, which is split. You have people like John Lewis, John Conyers, Harold Ford, Jr. All members of the caucus who say, look, we don't benefit from soft money. Our constituents don't give soft money. They're working very hard to keep as many of those votes in favor of campaign finance as they can. Model Republicans are very much in play on this. There are a lot of Republicans who voted for this.

The last time around again, when it didn't have a chance of becoming law, and Senator McCain campaigned for a number of these Republicans. And it's saying to them, look, when I campaign for you, you said you were for campaign reform, how can you now back away from this? He's not just saying that. That means writing them letters. And I think Dennis Haster, the House Speaker, called him a bully for doing that. Right. It was shocking that McCain was trying to get votes for his bill. You assume that the Republican leadership sends flowers and chocolates and sweet notes to their members to get them to vote for the bill. I think that it's going to be different for different Republicans. I mean, if you take two freshmen Republicans, Shelley Moore, capital of West Virginia, she's in a Democratic district. She won with 49% of the vote. I think she's going to be very reluctant to have John McCain on her back in a election. He also campaigned for a guy called Mike Rogers in Michigan. Rogers won a close race, but the Republicans control redistricting, and guess what? He's got a much easier district this time. And he's saying he doesn't feel obligated to vote with McCain. So you have all these tensions. Then you've got some pragmatic

Democrats who say, well, gee, we're, the Republicans are better at raising hard money. We're pretty good at raising soft money. Why should we give this up? But the Democratic leader has really been working very hard. He's fallen into line behind. She's me. And so this is a real test for him. Does this turn about on the way that Democrats raise money versus the way Republicans raise money? Yeah, I'd have to say that if you want a shorthand, this bill will make it harder for Democrats to get elected because they would face up. The Republicans have a big hard money advantage, but they'd find it. It means meaning. It never hurts three minutes. If soft money were eliminated where the Democrats and Republicans have parity, then it would be a hard money world. And in the hard money world, the Republicans just have a lot more money because they are much better at raising small amounts of money from direct mail and from other things. But once elected, I think Democrats would find it easier to pass legislation because most of the legislation that's blocked is blocked by special interests of soft money. So Democrats face these cross currents and it's really tearing them apart and Republicans. Democrats are supposed to be very tight,

very closely just generally to labor unions who are hard necessarily in favor of change. Right. All the unions are against it because they donate soft money. A lot of the organizations, the associations, ACLU, the NRA on the right are against it. One of the things this bill does, and again, we're getting down into the practical effects of it, not the moral effects of money, is that it weakens the parties. The parties are like Hollywood studios who funnel all this soft money into projects they like. Without that soft money, the parties are weaker and the associations and the unions and the industry groups that feed those parties, the soft money are weaker, and the people who are stronger are us in the media. Does Biden be still have, is it a good position to actually pass, to actually defeat the Chase Mean alternative? This is the alternative. If you talk to Chase and Mean, they're less worried about nays bill passing than they are about some amendments that might shake some Democrats loose from the bill. For example, the current bill has written limits contributions to house races to $1,000. Some people want to raise

it to $2,000. Some members, especially of the black caucus, say they might fall off the bill if that limit goes up. There's another provision that would prohibit resident aliens, people who are here in the United States but aren't citizens yet from giving money to campaigns. If that amendment passes, a lot of the Hispanic caucus says they'll jump. But I want to disagree with David on a couple points. One, it is true that unions are not crazy about this. On the other hand, there are a lot of people in the union leadership who say, look, we're out spent by business 10 to 1. We can't win in this game. And so they have been pressuring their unions to say, no, this is better for us than the reform is better for us than the current system. And the other question about whether or not this strengthens parties. In a lot of ways, the parties are just a pass-through. They become a kind of shell. And really, it's the candidates themselves who raise the money directly can get around the existing limits and say, don't give it to me. Give it to this soft money account in the party. So it's not clear the parties are any stronger now that we have soft money than they were 10 or 15 years ago. I think you can make a good case that they're weaker.

At the Bob Naille turn of the passes, which has these higher contribution limits then then chase me and does this debt? In my view, instead, the crucial issue would be what used to be called snow deference, which is the proposal that says 60 days before an election, a special interest group could not run ads targeting a candidate. That's in the Senate bill. That is not in the Naille. There's no compromise between either you have it or you don't. So I think you have irreconcilable differences, big divorce. And it's interesting, finding gold and McCain said today, if this loses their out of the campaign finance reform business, they did their best throughout. Well, what happens if it passes and it ends up in the president's desk? What does president wish do? I mean, if it's the shays being a campaign and again, the Senate bill comes to the president. First thing is, I don't think anybody knows. And I think some of it is how much is President Bush willing to risk a fight with John McCain? He clearly doesn't like McCain fine going to shays me in as written. It's not, it doesn't go with anything he said during the campaign in terms of reform. However, if he viewed those this, he gives John McCain yet another reason to, to club him very hard and perhaps even to go off

the reservation. There's been a lot of speculation McCain wants to run as an independent. This should be a perfect excuse for McCain if he wants the excuse. Hasn't the president is sending frantic signals that he might sign? I think he said he signed it. You know, it's interesting and indicative of Bush. He sent a letter when this whole process started saying, I've got four principles of campaign finance reform. McCain fine gold shays me and has none of those four. And yet he's willing to sign it. He's not a triangulator of the way Bush was. He's a next napper. Right, Clinton was. The way Clinton was, yeah. I'm going to get written out of my magazine for me. Once he decides he's going to be ruthlessly pragmatic on an issue, he can do 180 degrees in her world left spinning. But I think he'd probably sign it. Okay, well we'll be watching, of course, both tomorrow for the vote. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Still to come on the news, Eric tonight. A conflict in news judgments. The Srebrennica massacre and a conversation with Louise Erdrich. Ray Suarez has the news story.

It started as a story of a missing 24-year-old intern in Washington in the spring. Good evening tonight, the plot has thickened. It blossomed into a summer blockbuster of a media story, leading some national and local newscasts and playing on the front page in many newspapers. Initially, the reporting focused on the fact that a young graduate student, Chandra Levy, from a well-to-do California family, could not be located. Her parents hired a public relations group, which dealt with the media on other high-profile missing persons cases to give their case a full-court press. If for any reason my daughter here is this, it's somehow we can get her home. When the friendship that Levy, a paid intern at the Bureau of Prisons, had with California Congressman Gary Condon was reported, coverage of the case increased significantly. Fox on top of shocking new allegations about the private behavior of Congressman Gary Condon in post-Monica, Washington. Story of a young woman, a government intern linked to a married

Congressman, proved irresistible for 24-hour cable news channels, which in some cases gave the story play at the top and bottom of every hour whether there were new developments or not. Over the weeks TV and radio talk shows that he did tell the police the Congressman that she spent the night in his home. And the network morning shows gave the story a great deal of time, while some newspapers, especially the New York tabloids, devoted banner coverage to it. Congressman Condon's aides and attorneys denied that he had an intimate relationship with Levy and took the media to task by writing letters, correcting details and stories, such as these letters to the Washington Post and the New York Daily News, and refuting charges in the press. Then came an interview with a flight attendant, and Marie Smith, who told Fox News she had an affair with Condon, and that the Congressman asked her to lie to authorities about it. Condon says Smith's story is not true.

Do you believe that Congressman Condon and his staff were asking you to sign something that they knew was false? Yes. How so? Well, obviously Mr. Condon knew it was false, and he was asking me to sign it. A change in the intensity of the coverage came last week, when the media, quoting sources, not the Congressman or police, reported that Condon admitted in his third interview with police that he had a relationship with Levy. The Levy family has tried to keep the story of their missing daughter in the news, especially on cable stations on the air around the clock. Thank you very much, and thank you for watching CNN. The CBS Evening News is not mentioned Levy in its weekday coverage at all. ABC's World News Tonight has aired coverage of the story twice. The news hour has not mentioned the story until tonight, NBC Nightly News has run 10 stories. The Washington Post has largely put the story in its

metro section, giving the story front page play only three times. The New York Times has given it no front page coverage, while USA Today ran its first front page piece this week. Many in the media tried to couch their coverage in terms of a political story. What did candidates constituents think? How would it affect his re-election? But Condon's lawyer, Abby Lowe, told the press they're missing the real story of where is Chandra. Go take your cameras and your pads and your pencils and try to see if there's somebody else out there who might have some information that can actually find this woman. And Tuesday, as Condon's fellow house Democrats tried to brief reporters about energy policy, they face this reality. Many in the media are focused on another story. Has he told you the truth about that we're talking about? I've never did. Never talked to him. Are there any other questions on energy? The picture, the wrongs of journalists covering Condon's attorney's press conference,

a reminiscent of the scenes outside Monica Lewinsky's lawyer's office three summers ago. And once again, the news business is asking itself, what is news? And when does a story with no known crime, no charges, no-named suspects become fair game? Joining us now to discuss what's news are four long-time media men. Wolf Blitzer, the anchor of CNN's daily program, Wolf Blitzer reports, and the host of late edition on Sundays. Phil Bronstein, the executive editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, Steve Cap, the number two editor at Time Magazine, and Carl Gottlieb, the deputy director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. A gentleman I'd like to begin by going around the table in effect and asking for your impression of the coverage so far. Good or bad, too much, not enough? Phil Bronstein? I don't think it's a question, Ray, of too much or not enough.

I think that there's a litmus test that we seem to be applying here. When you went down the laundry list of media outlets and those that had put it on the front page or not, I think the tabloids do what they do. This is a story among other things about the convergence of sex and power as was the Clinton Lewinsky story, and that's been a subject of great interest to human beings for at least two millennia that we know of. It's also a story that's a who done it, not to make light of what may be a very serious case. Missing persons at the very least, it turns out to be, as we understand it a case, of as was the case in the Clinton Lewinsky situation of a member of Congress lying to his staff, or at least the staff representing things that weren't true, and I think it's about a potential abuse of power. That is separate and above from the issue of a potential crime. So I think this is a story of great interest, and the media outlets you mentioned have covered it in the way that they saw fit. I think the coverage has

been appropriate. tabloid coverage has been appropriate to tabloids, and the New York Times has been appropriate to the New York Times. Carl Gottlieb? Well, it's hard to argue that this is an a news story. I think it is for many of the reasons that Phil cited at the same time when we don't have enough meat there, when there aren't any real facts to go on, what we see, and we see this particularly with the 24-hour cable networks, is the creation of news. Fox yesterday, or the other day, had an interview with a lawyer from Miss Smith, who recounted the alleged sex practices of the congressman. I'm not sure why that's news. What was worse is the reporter interviewing him never challenged, never dealt, never asked, why are you telling me this, and why is this news? CNN has done internet polls, which are pretty much meaningless as we understand them, to find out whether or not the congressman should take a lie detector test. What's that all about? It's the creation of news to appear that there's more to a story than exists. I'm not against

covering this. I think we have to cover it. I think that we should do everything we can to dig out the truth, whatever that truth may be. But at the same time, we can't let the almost show business aspects of trying to keep a story hot for 24 hours at a time, take over the real information. Well, there's no doubt in my mind this is news. This is serious news. I've been a reporter here in Washington for more than 25 years, and I don't remember when the DC Police Force, the DC Police Department, conducted a midnight search of a sitting congressman's apartment here in Washington, DC. I don't remember when there was a time when they were pressing a sitting congressman to accept a lie detector test. I don't remember when they were, I do remember when the Monica Lewinsky investigation, when an independent counsel was seeking lie detector test and

doing interviews with all sorts of people. But in this day, we do see a flight attendant who has alleged that she had a year-long affair with Congressman Condett come to Washington and be questioned by representative, senior representatives of the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of Columbia. All of these are legitimate aspects of a story that is sad at its core because there is a young woman who's missing a 24-year-old woman and all of us of course would love to know that she's okay. But there's a very sad aspect of the story, the fact that she remains a missing person, but it's taken on so many other strange twists that I don't see how we can ignore it. Steve Kent? Well, I think every media outlet does what they individually do and each has its own distinct character. Our approach has been measured with two or three modestly long stories because our standard is what new information or context can we bring to it. At the same time,

I don't begrudge anybody their pleasure in speculating about it on TV or around the watercolor or anywhere else because it's a tantalizing case. But a lot of times leaps are made that aren't really the kind of thing that we would cover such as the fact that just because the guy's lying means that he's also lying about maybe being connected with the disappearance of this woman. Having affairs is all about lying as we learn from other cases, so we shouldn't be too surprised if that's happening here too. Well, we've heard Wolf Blitzer from Carl Gottlieb from Steve Kent talking about what's new and when you revisit a story on a place like CNN, are you almost bound to do something tomorrow because you've been doing a lot today and doing a lot today before today? Well, we have been doing a lot and I don't think we have to apologize for that at all. And if there are new developments, we'll continue to do a lot because this is a story that has generated a lot of interest out there around the country for a variety of

reasons. Some of them may be pure, you know, may not necessarily be the best of reasons given the sexual aspect of this story, but there's been a lot of interest in this story. So we'll continue to cover it and I don't think we should back off if there are new developments, we'll go forward. One thing that I want to say about, you know, the saturated coverage that some are suggesting all the cable news networks are giving it, people don't sit for 24 hours a day and watch television. Some people watch for half an hour, other people may watch for an hour, some people may watch for five or ten minutes. So it's not as if they're watching this, most of our viewers are watching this 24 hours a day. Most people watch CNN or the other cable news networks for a lot less than that. Well, if I agree, that isn't how people watch television for the most part, but when you turn on CNN and I'm not singling them out, you're here, or any cable network. And the first thing you see is a promo or a tease for the latest news on the Chandra Levy or the content investigation. And the latest happens to be a walking shot or the latest

scrum outside somebody's house. And there really is no new information. What this tends to do is alienate viewers. It also really eats at the credibility of the organization reporting this as news. Because in the end, there is no news. And personally, I'd be happier, and I think a lot of people would be happier to see coverage come when there are indeed new developments. Now, you know, the midnight search, the live detector, indeed, there are unusual events and they should be covered. But what do we know beyond that? And all I've heard today is, you know, what I heard this morning, frankly. Can I see you say something as a newspaper person? Phil Brunstein doesn't necessarily have to defend his own medium. I think it's really important to understand that the public is not stupid. So when we talk about TV alienating viewers or newspapers alienating readers or magazines, the public has its own response. Now, television has a measure of that response, day in and day out. So if in fact CNN or MSNBC or CBS is alienating viewers and CBS is

case by not running the story, they'll find that out. And they'll be a response. There's a much more, there's much more responsiveness in the media to the public than I think some people who analyze the media understand. Those of us who sit in the newsroom every day, you know, our readers at the San Francisco Chronicle vote with their quarters each and every day. And we pay attention to that. That's not to say that the newspaper anymore than CNN is run by readers or viewers. But certainly we have to pay attention. We all got upset people in the media because, you know, why weren't people out there? Why wasn't the public getting angry at Bill Clinton? You know, the public responded in its own way, in its own time, as it always does. They're thinking real people out there. And they respond to what you put on the air or put into your newspaper. And you know what that is. You know, I think it all feel about the participation of various media outlets as players in this story, demanding that certain interviews be conducted, demanding that the investigation

takes certain directions. And then lo and behold, it starts to happen. Well, I think everyone's playing that game in reality. You know, the Washington DC police, from the chief to the guy who's the number two guy, suddenly, you know, he's a suspect, he's not a suspect. They're going to his house to take blood samples or look for blood samples. Clearly, I mean, I think it's clear that the Washington police is leaking to the Washington Post. Everyone's, as you will, playing in this. But this happened with Barbara Walters and Manachim Beagan and Anwar Sadat was at Barbara Walters. I think who organized the interview, the first interview between an Egyptian president and Israeli president, and presumably one might argue led to, now this is not in that league. But the reality is the press is always intervening in some fashion. That's what the press does. And you know, if I could just add to what Phil is saying, I read an excellent column today by Maureen Doug in the New York Times. And she's a great writer as we all know. Let me read what she says about coverage, legitimate coverage

of this story. She says this, this is the stuff of great drama and novels and journalism through the ages. It's just as legitimate as covering the patient's bill of rights or campaign finance. Maybe more so because here the press has a crucial role in forcing out the truth. And I think the Levy family from the beginning understood this. Certainly, that's why they brought in public relations team Billy Martin, who was Monica Lewinsky's mother's attorney, a high power team to try to generate some publicity in this search for their daughter. And no one can complain about their efforts since they're at the center, of course, of this entire drama. But on the other side, now you have Congressman Codd that bringing in a very well-known, prominent attorney, Abby Lowell, who was one of the impeachment councils on the Democratic side in the case involving President Clinton. So there are so many aspects of the story that are so interesting. And they can't just be seen in the vacuum of a missing person's case. It has to be seen in the drama of Washington, D.C., a politician and a young intern. There's a lot of aspects

of the story that I think are definitely worthy of coverage. Steve Kemp is there a distinction to be drawn between reporting and actual presentation. Are you and your team doing a lot of work on this story that we're not yet seeing in the pages of the magazine? Yes, we're working on it because one of the important things in a missing person's investigation is the time value of the information. And the investigators have been so incredibly slow and deferential to the Congressman in this case. And they may have lost a chance to make, take advantage of certain tips or leads that the Congressman may have had. And why this happened is fascinating. And I think the media clamor about this has put pressure on the investigators to finally get going and try to catch up with this. Does it force an organization like time even if your first inclination is to stand on the sideline to eventually get in line and start covering this more heavily? Do you watch what everyone else is doing? I think we are doing things behind the scenes sometimes

that we don't necessarily put into the magazine because it's not ready yet. We're certainly working on this story all the time. And as things go on and we have something to contribute as we have two or three times, we'll do it again. The case with more information coming out about the Congressman, it's gotten more and more fascinating. So when would we get to the point where it clears your bar call and everybody's ready to jump? It's really cleared my bar. My biggest complaint about this is the saturation coverage. The coverage we see on TV, where we're actually watching the process and sometimes the process doesn't produce any more news than one person shouting at another. Again, I have to say and I've spent most of my life looking at ratings and television newsrooms that viewer erosion because of mistrust doesn't happen overnight. It happens over time. And if you look at households using television for news over the years,

they've come down dramatically. And every time we have one of these stories that we drag on forever presents something as news that isn't really news, that really turns out to be a better yarn that it is informative. I think we alienate our viewers just a little more. Gentlemen, did I just thanks to you all and fortunately we got to go. Today is the sixth anniversary of the massacre of Shreibranisa, more than 7,000 Muslim men from the Bosnian village were rounded up and shot by Serbian forces, loyal to former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. He's been arrested by the UN War Crimes Tribunal for Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, but the search continues for the killers of Shreibranisa. Lindsay Hillson of Independent Television News reports. It was in this field opposite the metal factory that the women of Shreibranisa saw their men

for the last time. The question now is will the prosecution in the Hague be able to link Mr. Milosevic directly with what happened in Shreibranisa, the worst single atrocity of the Bosnian war. More likely they'll try to pin Shreibranisa on General Rachomladich, seen here at the time. He commanded the Bosnian Serb army which seized the enclave from the Muslims. He's indicted for war crimes, along with the Bosnian Serb political leader Ratavan Karadich, but they're both still on the run. Shreibranisa today is a miserable haunted town. Many people here are Serb refugees forced to flee from Muslim areas. They're poor and resentful. What massacre they say? Muslims killed Serb as well, but nobody cares about that. There are so many war criminals in the newspapers. I read about those. That haven't gone yet to the Hague. Here are four, and on the next page there are four more.

There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. But no one from the other nations, Croats or Muslims, indicted. So if you knew where Karadich and Milosevic were, would you keep it a secret or would you say? We don't know where they are, and even if we did, we would say. British troops in Panyaluka, north-west of Shreibranisa, where the current Bosnian Serb leadership is based. Until now, the international force seems to have avoided arresting Karadich and led it to fear of upsetting the delicate peace. Now, the UN authorities are pressurizing the moderate leader they've imposed on Republica Serbskar, the Bosnian Serb entity. What can he do? The police in Republica Serb, the number of the police officers, 8,000, 8,000, and if you compare that with the fact that we have close to 10,000 soldiers of the NATO, more better equipped,

even the better circuit service than we then cynically, I could say, it's more the method of the S-4 than on the local police. The fugitives are said to be somewhere in the mountains of eastern Bosnia, that the Prime Minister can't force the police to search because most of them are still loyal to Karadich and Milosevic. Where is General Milosevic and where is Mr. Karadic? Believe me, I really don't know that and I really don't have information about that. Although I think that the Republica Serbskar has to start to cooperate and I think that no one can protect anyone which did a crime. During the war, rather than Karadich had his headquarters in the village of Parlay, his wife and daughter are still here, but he's long gone. Just the other week, international troops are reported to have tried to ambush Mr. Karadich in one of these disused railway tunnels near Sarrievos. The report is unconfirmed, so is the sighting of Mr. Karadich at a monastery in Trebanier

or in the town of Focha and the way that General Milosevic is in an underground bunker, also in eastern Bosnia. Whatever the political pressure on the Bosnian Serb authorities, in the end it is down to the foreign forces here to find and arrest the two most wanted men from the war in Bosnia. But for the survivors, the world famous names are only a small part of the story. If I return to my hometown, when I come from originally, I would probably never meet Karadich in a large foreign village in the street, who I would meet is exactly those people who killed my family. And they are still there. My question is who is going to make it possible for me to go back to my hometown and not see these people. They should be removed. They should be arrested and punished. Some Muslims have nonetheless started to return, not to the town, but in nearby villages. The people here said 36 of their men are missing, believed killed in the massacre

at Trebanier Serb. Justice is a word they hear on the radio. The Hague is a place far away as they struggle through poverty and grief to build some kind of new life. Finally tonight a conversation about a new book and to Elizabeth Farnsworth. The author is Louise Erdrich and the book is her latest novel The Last Report on the Miracles at Little No Horse. It's about Father David Nordeste, a priest ministering to a Jibwe Indians on a North Dakota reservation from 1912 until almost the end of the century. The compelling secret of the novel revealed early on is that Father David is a woman pretending to be a man. Louise Erdrich is part Turtle Mountain the Jibwe part German. She's a poet as well as a novelist. Her book Love Medicine won the National Book Critic Circle Award in 1984. Thanks for being with us. Good to be here, thanks. Tell us a little about the background of this book. What images came to you that prompted you to make Father

Damian a woman? I wasn't sure that Father Damian was anyone I'd ever written about before. And I was writing the very first part of the book in which this aged and rather discouraged priest writes once again to the Vatican hoping for an answer and it turned out when my priest started going getting dressed to go to bed. My priest was not a man. My priest was a woman and I had to stop for a while after that. Retreat, talk to my mother, it's a devout Catholic, figure this out and from there I went on writing the priest. There's no secret as a woman. It messed up open up all sorts of possibilities for you that wouldn't have been there if she'd been a man. Oh, completely. And I think I had a sympathy with the character that I must admit I might not have had because by the end of the book the priest, Father Damian, the woman priest is really converted by the people to whom she's come to minister and it's a reverse conversion in a way.

I wanted to ask you about how much research goes into a book like this. How much is based on what you really learn about the facts and the times of that period and how much is imagination? I do a kind of research that wouldn't qualify in any academic circles as research. I read whatever comes to me and I go looking for things. I ferret things out. I find a lot in small town, small town, historical societies mainly. I don't go to the big places very often. And some of the pieces that seem perhaps more, oh, to be magical or extraordinary actually are based on pieces of research and on bits of history. Would you read one of those forests and set the context for it? Oh, I'd be glad to. This piece is inspired by an old hunter's diary and the with the buffalo actually do is a piece of research. It's the truth. It's not

magical. It's realism. If you know about the buffalo hunts, you perhaps know that the one I described now many generations past was one of the last. During that hunt, the rest of the herd did not bolt away, but behaved afterward in a chilling fashion. The surviving buffalo milled at the outskirts of the carnage, not grazing, but watching with an insane intensity as one by one swiftly and painstakingly each carcass was dismantled. Even through the night, the buffalo stayed and were seen by the uneasy hunters and their families the next dawn to have remained standing quietly as though mourning the relatives that lay before them skinned. At noon, the flies descended. The buzzing was horrendous. The sky went black. It was then that the sun's zenus, the light shredded by scarves of moving insects, that the buffalo

began to make a sound. It was a sound never heard before. No buffalo had ever made this sound. No one knew what the sound meant, except that one old, tough and hunter sucked his breath in when he heard it, and as the sound increased, he attempted not to cry out. Tears ran over his cheeks and down his throat anyway, wedding his shoulders for the sound gathered power until everyone was lost in the immensity. That sound was heard once and never to be heard again. That sound made the body ache, the mind pinched shut, an unmistakable and violent grief. It was as though the earth itself was sobbing. The buffalo were taking leave of the earth and all they loved, said the old chiefs and hunters, after years had passed and they could tell what's with their hearts. I find that passage so heartbreaking, and to, as I read it, right below it

is a line about one of the main characters in the book where you write. She was the residue of what occurred when some of our grief mad people trampled their own children. So you're making, you take it to talk about people too, and really your books are about the end of the whole world. When you set out to write these books, which treat the same characters, the same place, most of the novels, did you know this is what you're going to do? I have to back up because I don't believe they're really about the end of a world. They're about the change in a world. This is an ongoing world. It's a culture, I think that's remarkable for its resilience and the will to survive. And if we go along and make this analogy, the buffalo certainly have a great renaissance and a great resurgence, and people do connect the survival and the tenacity of native culture with

the survival and the tenacity of these great planes, animals. And I think there's something to be said for that kind of endurance that native people have had all this, had all this time. And did you know when you started out that this is what you would do, you'd write about this huge period of change in basically your family? No, I didn't. But as I let the story take me along, it began to be about change. And I really believe that all stories are about the capacity to endure change and the experience of hanging on to what's important, love, and family, and work through the great changes in history. This was a very complex novel. It goes back and forth in time. Was it really hard to write? I read that it took you quite a long time. It took me a long time,

not so much because of the formal aspects, but because it was about a spiritual search. And I suppose I was embarked on my own. And it really was about someone who starts out as a very firm, believing Catholic. And as I said, is converted slowly by the practical spirituality of the people who choose come to convert. I happen to read one of your older novels over the weekend. And you have some characters in novels that go way back, that you have to make sure you know what they did in those novels, so you're consistent. How do you do it? I have a secret weapon, he's named Trent Duffy. He's a wonderful copy editor who has kept track with me all along and who works with me to make everything connect at the end of the book. I write it all, and then Trent helps me connect it all. He must have a very complex genealogy.

It's so complicated. Finally, it's in the books and the end papers because readers kept coming up to me with these painfully constructed family trees and saying, is this right? And I really felt that I was obliged to do it. Is your next novel going to be about the same families? It hasn't been so far. It's called the master butcher singing club. And it really is inspired by the fact that my, the German side of my family on that side, my grandfather belonged to a master butcher singing club. I'll look forward to that too. We's your drink. Thanks for being with us. Thank you so much. Good to talk to you. Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the White House and President Bush will propose pharmacy discount cards for senior citizens and the House voted to let Americans buy prescription drugs from overseas by mail order. We'll see you online and again here.

Tomorrow evening, I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the new sour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by the White House. Imagine a world where we're not diminishing resources. We're growing ethanol, a cleaner burning fuel made from corn, ADM, the nature of what's to come. Helping people with the state planning so that those they care about get more than a simple will can provide. See how we earn it. Salamence, Miss Barney. And by the corporation for public broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Video cassettes of the new sour with Jim Lehrer are available from PBS video. Call 1-800-328-PBS-1.

Video,

You You Good evening, I'm Jim Lara on the

news hour tonight, Kwame Holman and Glenn Eiffel with David Brooks and E.J. Dionne, look at campaign finance reform in the house. Ray Suarez talks to Wolf Blitzer, Phil Braunstein. Steve Kepp and Carl Gottlieb about news coverage of the Gary Condon Chandra Levy's story. Lindsay Hilsome remembers Bosnia's, Shabrin meets a massacre and Elizabeth Farnsworth speaks to Louis Erdrich, author of the last report on the miracles at Little No Horse. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara has been provided by. Imagine a world where no child makes for food. For some we'll look on that as a dream. Others will look long and hard and get to work. ADM, the nature of what's to come. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your

PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. President Bush will propose pharmacy discount cards for senior citizens. A White House spokesman said today the cards would be an interim step toward a permanent drug benefit under Medicare. News reports said the plan would rely on private companies that buy drugs in bulk and negotiate discounts. They would then sell cards to Medicare patients to buy medicine at reduced rates. The president is expected to unveil this plan tomorrow and we'll look at it in detail on the news hour tomorrow night. The House voted today to let Americans buy prescription drugs from overseas by mail.