Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

White House Vandalism: Should Anyone Apologize?

Aired June 04, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: White House vandalism, damage done by departing Clinton staffers? Democrats say it never happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: A GAO study has confirmed there was no destruction of keyboards, there was no graffiti, there was no vandalism. The only thing that was trashed was the reputation of hundreds of people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: But White House officials say it did indeed happen in the Eisenhower executive office building next to the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: As far as we're concerned, it's over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Fleischer says there's no record of damage because the president wanted to move forward, and no one ever made a written report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEINER: I hope that President Bush does the right thing and offers an apology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Also...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I put animal parts in you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: David Manning called "The Animal" a winner, and Heath Ledger the year's hottest new star. But who is David Manning? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOEL SIEGEL, ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR: David Manning is apparently someone's old college buddy. They made up -- they used his name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: And Sony is left sputtering apologies after an employee created the fake movie critic to boost its films with rave reviews. Was the public duped? How much stock do you put into movie reviews?

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Pranks or vandalism? What did Clinton's staffers do, if anything, when they left the White House? Bush staffers tell "The Washington Post" that among other things, obscene messages were left on phone lines, a presidential seal was ripped from the wall, and computers were damaged. But a General Accounting Office report turned up nothing, and Democrats now want an apology and reputations cleared. But what's not so clear is exactly what did happen and why.

Joining us today, New York Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner. He's the who's calling for an apology. Also with us, Georgia Republican representative Bob Barr. He initially called for the GAO investigation.

Just when we thought this story was over, gentlemen, in the last week or so, we have Congressman Weiner calling for an apology from the White House. The White House suddenly coming out with a list over the weekend of the damage that was done. We're all confused again.

So Congressman Weiner, why are you calling for an apology now?

WEINER: Well, unlike some of the high-profile members of the Clinton administration, most of the people whose reputations were impugned were nameless, faceless bureaucrats who frankly had sacrificed a good deal to work in government. And it's one thing to use them as political canon fodder and accuse them of things that turn out not to be the case, but once they are cleared by a government study, a nonpartisan government study that my colleague, Mr. Barr, was right to request, I think the time has come to close the chapter by offering some kind of an apology or at least an acknowledgment that their reputations had been smeared.

BATTISTA: But is that exactly what the report indicated, Congressman Barr, that there was absolutely no damage done or there just was no report of any damage done?

REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: Well, Mr. Weiner continues to operate sort of in this "Alice in Wonderland" area -- world of the Clinton administration. President Clinton becomes only the first elected president to be impeached, then he says the American people ought to apologize to me. I don't really understand what it is that Mr. Weiner wants the Bush administration to apologize for. They didn't accuse the Clinton administration of doing anything. There were a number of reports, Bobbie, as you all know when the Clinton administration left office, to sort of clear things up. I have written to GAO and I said, "Look, you all are the ones in charge of all this. Let us know: Was there damage or wasn't there damage? Well, apparently, there was some. All I'm saying is that we need to have a better system of keeping records of this so the American taxpayers who are the ones ultimately left footing the bill for this sort of nonsense know in the future and we have a better system of keeping track of this stuff.

BATTISTA: Well, Congressman Weiner, the White House evidently didn't keep records of any of the damage that was done or take photos or anything like that. So I mean, how are you ever prove that there was damage done or not?

WEINER: Oh, well, we have a way to deal with this, and Congressman Barr was on the right track. The Government accounting office is an agency of the Congress that does investigations on all types of things, and here's what they said: "GSA," which is the government General Services Administration, "has inspected the office in the White House East and West Wings after the Clinton administration left and found no significant damage to facilities. The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect when we encounter tenants vacating an office."

Simply put, we asked someone nonpartisan to look into this. They said the stories were not true. They were rumor mongering. And you know who was doing it? It was the Bush administration. It was Ari Fleischer. It was unnamed sources.

And what I'm saying is unlike President Clinton or John Podesta or even someone like me who has an opportunity to cease the public microphone and respond, what about the hundreds if not thousands of employees of the White House whose reputations have been tarred? I think it's only fair. We did the study, they were cleared. Now let's have an apology.

BATTISTA: Well, if the report did clear these people, what was the point of the White House releasing a list of this supposed damage over the weekend, especially if their contention all along has been that "We want to move forward"?

BARR: The point is if Mr. Weiner had just kept quiet and not gone out and had a big press conference, it would have blown over. What's happened is he stirred up the pot here. He accused the Clinton -- the Bush administration of not having the evidence to back up its claim when they said, "Yes, there was some damage, but we elected not to make a point of it," which is true. And he went out and stirred it all up, so they were simply saying, " Well, Mr. Weiner has said, "Nah- na-nah-na-nah, there's nothing going on here." And they said...

BATTISTA: But if the report cleared these people, is that such...

BARR: No, the report didn't, Bobbie. All the report said -- it said that as far as real property is concerned, which means structural damage, there was no structural damage. Well, good heavens, one hopes that they didn't structurally damage the White House. That wasn't really the point. The point was that to the limited extent that they were able to look into it, they couldn't find records of what the damage was. Then Mr. Weiner has this big press conference and demands apologies. And in response to that, the Bush administration simply said, "OK, you've called us liars. Now here's the damage that there was." There were a number of telephones destroyed, a number of keyboards destroyed. Some telephone wires cut. Some pornographic material placed in the copy machines. And they were going to keep quiet about it until Mr. Weiner went out and holds a big press conference.

BATTISTA: Well, in order to put this to rest, are you going to ask for documentation from the White House for this? Are you going to pursue this further?

BARR: What I've asked for, Bobbie, is simply for the GAO, which is that arm of the government that is accountable for making, keeping track of the physical plant of the government facilities, to come up with a better system of keeping records of these things so that we don't have this uncertainty in future administrations.

BATTISTA: Let me bring another voice into the conversation here. Mike Allen is the White House correspondent for "The Washington Post."

Mike, first of all what was on the list that came out this weekend from Ari Fleischer?

MIKE ALLEN, "WASHINGTON POST": Well, Bobbie, the White House this weekend said that among the things that happened were 10 phone lines were cut. There were six seals that were missing off the walls, a number of phones had to be reprogrammed. And they said there was graffiti on six of the walls.

The Clinton administration jumped in and said a lot of those things are things that could have happened accidentally, could have happened in the moving process. And they point out there were a number of some more things that were done when the first President Bush, the president's father, was leaving back in '93. They way there were phones glued to the desks and apparently some signs that said, "We'll be back." So apparently, this was not unprecedented.

BATTISTA: Yeah, I was going to say -- I have to ask the question: Is this somewhat of a traditional thing, right or wrong or stupid or not? Is it kind of a tradition that when administrations transition that these kind of pranks and damage and this kind of stuff is done? Do we...

ALLEN: Well, Bobbie, I think we can question whether graffiti on the wall of the Eisenhower executive office building is really a tradition that needs to be maintained. But what you're seeing there is that now we're talking about degrees. We're talking about how many 23-year-olds tipped over their desks on the way out?

BATTISTA: Do you think that there is any documentation? Do you think the White House has any documentation of this? ALLEN: The White House said that there are not records that indicate specific damage by outgoing Clinton staffers. What a number of the staffers have said to us is the White House -- "We're in a position of just having to believe whatever the White House tells us now." There should be -- if you want a phone fixed in the White House, you have to fill out a form. If you want a computer fixed, as you probably do in your office, you have to fill out a form. And what the Clinton alumni are saying is, "Let us see the forms. Don't just sort of put out this list and make us believe it."

WEINER: And Bobbie, let me point something else out. This is part of a pattern. Many of your viewers probably remember the great controversy of things stolen from Air Force One: champagne flutes and the like. Well, that turned out not to be true as well. And I have a letter from the White House saying they have no records of any of the damage that Ari Fleischer and some of the administration have been whispering about.

And all we're saying is reputations have been besmirched. You think someone looking for a job saying, "I was part of the transition team from the Clinton administration," you think people who have heard jokes on "The Tonight Show" and David Letterman about damage done at the White House don't deserve an apology? I think that they do.

BATTISTA: Congressman Barr?

BARR: Well, you know, if Mr. Weiner wanted this to die down and go away, he's sure doing his best to ensure that that doesn't happen.

WEINER: I don't believe we should sweep this under rug. I believe these people don't have the ability to stand up for themselves. They're relatively anonymous people. Fifty-three of them signed a letter, and frankly, I think they're asking for something fair.

BARR: Well, they're not anonymous then.

WEINER: Their names were besmirched, and now I think they deserve an apology.

And Congressman Barr, you of all people, you did the right thing. You asked for a nonpartisan government agency to answer these questions they have. Let's close the case with an apology.

BARR: Why don't you hold another news conference asking for it?

WEINER: Why don't we go on TALKBACK LIVE? We'll reach more people.

BATTISTA: Was that Mike trying to jump in there?

ALLEN: Yeah, Bobbie, something interesting about this story, it started out it was Republicans that were enjoying this story because it sort of made look -- Democrats look immature. Then for a while, Democrats thought that there had been some vindication, and they were pushing the story. And now we're back to a very interesting situation where neither side is really sure how this is going to come out looking for them. I think maybe both sides are sorry that this story is still going four or five months later.

BATTISTA: I imagine they are. We'll get a little bit more into that. We're going to take a quick break here. What do you think? Do you think former Clinton staffers will ever get invited to White House T-ball? We'll talk to President Clinton's former press secretary right after the break. Stay with us.

Then a bit later, exposing Sony's phantom film critic or what won't they do for a good review. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: In 1993, Clinton aides arrived at their new offices to find up-ended desks, headsets glued to telephones, and bumper stickers mocking the new president.

BATTISTA: Welcome back. Let me go to audience quickly to get some opinions here.

Andrew, go ahead.

ANDREW: Well, my comment was that we heard about this the week after it occurred and we all forgot about it the next day. And why do we have to bring an issue like this that was so petty and so below the radar to the forefront to the point where now the rest of the world is looking at us and saying, "Don't they have better things to do over there?"

BATTISTA: And back over here to George.

GEORGE: George. My question for Mr. Weiner is: Why bring this up? I don't understand how you can belittle somebody's name and besmirch, as he calls it, their name, if they are anonymous?

WEINER: Well, frankly, you know, the people who were working in the Clinton administration made of relatively young people who sacrificed a great deal financially to work in government. For those people, this was not a small slight. For those people whose names are associated with an outgoing administration, that people have been accused of this, this was sufficient to demand a GAO investigation for my colleague, Mr. Barr.

All right, if the investigation came out that impugned them, you can bet we'd be hearing about it. It comes out that it clears them. I think they have a right to that recognition.

BATTISTA: Joining on the phone is Jake Siewert, the former press secretary to President Clinton.

Jake, what do you know about this story?

JAKE SIEWERT, FORMER CLINTON PRESS SECRETARY: Well, all I know is that I didn't see any vandalism and neither did anyone else that I talked to. And so I think everyone ought to be very careful here, the press included, to stick to the facts. And I guarantee that not a single other guest on your show saw any evidence of any vandalism. But the people who clean the building and make repairs, the GSA, took a look at this and said they had no evidence of vandalism. They didn't have any evidence of damage to real property.

So I think everyone ought to be very careful, as Congressman Weiner said, about smearing a lot of good people who worked hard in the government, tried to put aside their careers for a moment and have gotten smeared when they left. The press is blowing this thing way out of proportion, and I think it's time to just stick to the facts and stick with what we know.

BATTISTA: Well, and you do have an issue with that. You wrote an op-ed piece for "The Washington Post" right after the GAO report came out. And your issue was that the press was not covering this fairly. It was all over the front pages when it first happened, and then when the GAO report came out and cleared them, it was basically buried inside the paper. But at the same time, it wasn't the end of the story either.

SIEWERT: No, but, I mean, the problem is that a lot of things were printed that were just flat out untrue. And my own hometown paper, the "Boston Herald," said the flat jacket, which is this old traditional jacket that's passed on from press secretary to press secretary, had been stolen. They never retracted that when, in fact, it had been picked up by a cleaning person and was in a pile of clothes that they thought were to be thrown away.

There was also things reported about Air Force One about that having been trashed. I was on the plane when it flew to Chappequa. There was no damage done to the plane. And eventually, the Bush people backed away from that. Turned out there wasn't any factual basis for that.

So now we have some new allegations five months after the fact and yet there are no written documents that support it. And the reality is every repair that's done at the White House is supported by written by document because it's a matter of public record that this repair was done or that repair was done. When I had to get my phone fixed, I filled out a form. So if there's evidence, I agree with Congressman Barr, let's bring it forward and not smear the whole White House staff. Find out who really was responsible.

BATTISTA: Do you think an apology is due the White House staffers?

SIEWERT: I don't know. I mean, I think it's hard to say who spread all these anonymous leaks. That's the problem with anonymous leaks, and that's why I think the press has a special responsibility to try to dig a little bit beneath a lot of accusations and try to find out the facts. The facts are ascertainable; at least they were five months ago, but no one bothered to find out what they were.

BATTISTA: Mike, did this story get a little bit out of control?

ALLEN: Well, Bobbie, I've moved on to sort of the tax cut and the nuclear missile shield, and some other issues like that. And we didn't realize how much emotional power this story has on both sides. I've gotten much more e-mail and many more calls about this than I have any other issue including arsenic in the water. This is something that because it was maybe symbolic -- came to be symbolic of the last days of the Clinton administration matters a great deal to the alumni of that White House. And I don't think anybody recognized that.

I think Jake makes a valid point that we should stay on the White House and keep asking them to back up the assertions that they make. We're doing that. That's why we have additional information that we've got over the weekend. Unlike the congressman there, I don't have subpoena power, so we have to sort of be patient and be persistent. And it's not clear who in this story is going to come out looking smaller. But you can bet we're going to stay on top of it.

BATTISTA: Let's go to the audience quickly -- Bill.

BILL: Who's trashing what? This looks like a smoke screen to take attention away from what the current administration is doing. The vandals didn't move out; they moved in. The Constitution, environment, oh, boy.

ALLEN: But, sir, realize that it was Democrats who revived this as a news story in the last few months.

BATTISTA: But nonetheless, is this being used as somewhat of a political football, Congressman Barr, to keep the volleys going, shall we say, between the two sides?

BARR: Well, it's strange, Bobbie, because I had written a letter on it back in January when we saw initially all of these press reports coming out, apparently very exaggerated ones. And all I did was write a letter to the folks that I thought would know what the situation was, those responsible for the government facilities. I wrote them a letter in January and said you know, "Let me know. Was there this damage done or wasn't there?" That's all I did.

And then they wrote a letter back saying, "Well, we really don't have good records." Well, I think they ought to do a better system of keeping track of these things. And then the next thing I know Mr. Weiner's out there holding a press conference. And I still believe that if he had not done that, this thing would have died down considerably just a few days ago and wouldn't have been reignited.

WEINER: You know, it's funny. We just heard a friend for "The Washington Post" who's covered this story talk about all the stories that came out at the time. Congressman Barr talks about all the stories that came out at the time. All we're asking is that one come out now that the facts are out there. And it's happening. The facts are getting out. This was a created scandal. This was a created effort to slander people. And I think that finally people are starting to see that that's not a good way to treat people and that the truth will eventually come out.

With all the fanfare of this story, I think the thing that should have been done, that a decent thing should have been done is that when this cleared, these folks were cleared, Ari Fleischer should have stood up before the press corps and said, "You know what? All those stories we spread, they were dead wrong."

BATTISTA: I've got to take a -- I'm sorry, I've got to take a quick break here and then I'll let whoever who was trying to jump in there and answer that.

But Jake Siewert, thank you very much for joining us.

We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires the outgoing administration to hand over all of its paperwork to the national archives. The access official records of the president and his staff are property of the United States and not the chief executive.

BATTISTA: All right, I interrupted -- I think I interrupted Congressman Barr as we went to the commercial break there. I guess the big question on a lot of people's minds is, though: What happens next here?

BARR: Well, all I'd like to see, Bobbie, is for a better system to be put in place so that in the next administration transition, whether that's in 3 1/2 years or 7 1/2 years -- and we all have opinions on when that would be -- that the next time this takes place that we have a better system of keeping track of this problem so that we don't run into this again. That's my only hope. And, you know, if we could just cut out the news conferences and let the system, the people that are in charge of handling this, the folks at GAO and GSA handle it, then I think we'll all be better off.

WEINER: Let me just observe for Congressman Barr, as Mr. Siewert already said, is a very careful record-keeping device that is in place in the White House. But the problem is there's no there, there. You can't have a record of something that didn't happen. And that's why when out of the blue, Ari Fleischer stands up and says, "Oh, wait a minute. We do have this whole long list. What we told the GAO and the GSA in this letter was false, actually we do have a list of things." Kind of makes you wonder where the truth lies.

BARR: Well, the problem here, again, Bobbie -- and I know we're sort of beating a dead horse and Mr. Weiner keeps resurrecting -- if he hadn't had this big press conference and said that the Bush administration are a bunch of liars, then there wouldn't have been any need for them to come out and specifically say, "OK, this is what actually happened. We didn't make big deal out of it at the time, but you challenged us, and this is the truth." That's all.

ALLEN: Bobbie, something that I think is important to point out to your listeners is I think that there was a genuine desire on the part of this White House, whatever they did initially, to let this drop as part of their effort to sort of have more peaceful dialogue in Washington. Democrats, though will point out to you that they did supply the beginning just enough information to sort of get the fire started.

But the White House did let this go, and it did come back. And I don't want your viewers to be confused. There's not a report that's been conclusive about this. The letter that the congressmen are referring has to do with the walls and floors and specifically doesn't have to do with furniture or equipment. So that part is still to be worked out.

WEINER: That is absolutely not true. Let me read you what the GAO director of physical infrastructure said. "There was no record kept of any cords being cut or any damage to computers or copiers. In general, there was no proof of anything matching the allegations." Mr. Allen is simply wrong.

BATTISTA: Are you going to let that stand, Mike?

ALLEN: As the congressman reads on, he'll see that the letter says that the investigation does not involve damage to furnishings or equipment. We would not normally conduct such an investigation. But what this shows about this, Bobbie, is it shows how passionate people are about this. This is an issue that really is real to people, and that's why it sounds like the White House is going to be called on in coming days to provide even more documentation of this sort of list that they've handed out. Both sides are going to want to see as much as they can about this.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call from Karen in Oklahoma.

CALLER: Oh, Bobbie, is he implausible that reams of paperwork wouldn't be generated in the form of work orders? And isn't it ironic that one of the first comments of this new administration was a lie?

BATTISTA: A couple of e-mails here. Daphne in Pennsylvania says: "It seems to me that this is just another excuse for the Democrats to oppose President Bush in the White House. It shows just how petty they can be."

Bob in Texas says: "The Bush administration says they are changing the tone of negativity in Washington, yet they spread these tales with considerable relish when they first came out. Now that they cannot be supported, they are unwilling to do the right thing and apologize."

Well, we've got to go on this one, but it seems to be the next time there's a transition, maybe the GAO should supervise during the process..

BARR: Have some adults supervise the transition. I like that.

BATTISTA: Yeah, a little adult supervision, and you know, it'll be fine.

Congressman Barr, thank you very much for coming in.

BARR: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Congressman Weiner, thank you very much.

WEINER: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Mike Allen, appreciate your input on this as well.

ALLEN: Thanks, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Got to take a break. And when we come back, film critic David Manning loved the new movie, "The Animal." In fact, you can read his review right here in this ad of "The New York Times." But what's wrong with this picture? David Manning doesn't exist. The case of the phantom critic right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: David Manning raves about every new Columbia Pictures release, be it "The Animal," "Hollow Man," or "Vertical Limit." He loves them all and he urges his readers to see them.

The trouble is, David Manning, movie critic, does not exist. He is not, as the ads suggest, the movie reviewer for the "Ridgefield Press." According to "Newsweek Magazine," he is nothing but a hoax.

Joining us today, two real, live, in-the-flesh movie critics, John Anderson, movie critic for "Newsday," and Andy Seiler, the movie critic for "USA Today."

Were you guys shocked by this, Andy?

ANDY SEILER, "USA TODAY" MOVIE CRITIC: Yes, this is pretty amazing. I didn't really believe it when I first heard it. Because -- it's weird for a number of reasons. It's so unnecessary. After all, there are plenty of critics who will praise anything you tell them to praise, who are real critics. So...

(LAUGHTER)

BATTISTA: Why did they need to do that? I imagine it makes you pretty angry, John, doesn't it?

JOHN ANDERSON, "NEWSDAY" MOVIE CRITIC: Yeah, it makes me angry. I think anybody in the media should be pretty outraged by it. I don't think it's surprising. It's become -- the kind of thing that's become possible but it's fairly predictable.

BATTISTA: How do you guys get your blurbs into the movie reviews into the paper, or on the back of the video boxes or whatever? How does the whole process unfold? Do they approach you?

ANDERSON: Well, we have nothing to do with it.

SEILER: We don't have anything to do with it. And a lot of respectable critics -- by the way, I'm just one of the critics at "USA Today," but none of us submit our stuff, or say please include us or anything like that.

However, there are people who do. There are some critics who will go to junkets, these press affairs with free food and all this kind of stuff, and actually hand out favorable quotes that they can use and work them into their reviews. It's not the professional way to do it, but some people do it.

The way it works is there are people at the studios who look at the reviews, look for somebody saying what they want them to say, and then they quote them. Unfortunately, somebody at Columbia must have not been finding what he wanted, so he wrote it himself.

BATTISTA: I might add that we have a statement from Columbia Pictures. A spokesperson there said:

"It was a case of very bad judgment for which there was no justification. We put an end to it immediately. We are looking into the circumstances surrounding this, and will take appropriate action."

Did they think the poor folks at Ridgefield Press were not going to notice, do you think?

SEILER: Apparently, they didn't, though. This is what I can't figure out, because one of the movies -- I mean the "Hollow Man" came out not this summer, last summer. And I find that very peculiar, because I've noticed that that guy's quotes from time to time, and I thought, don't you think if you worked there, you'd say, "But we don't a film critic"? That's just another one of the mysteries of this whole thing.

BATTISTA: That's true. John?

ANDERSON: The other thing, they are quoting, you know, the Ridgefield, Connecticut newspaper with such frequency. That should have tipped somebody off.

SEILER: You would think it would tip somebody off at Columbia, and why it took a year to detect, who knows?

ANDERSON: As Andy was saying, though, there's no reason to think that this was necessary. They get everything they want. Every film critic who's done it for any length of time knows about writing for the marquee. You can easily keep your name out of quote ads if you want to. And the people who frequent them do it intentionally. So, you will always find somebody like -- I mean, somebody liked "Pearl Harbor." I know it.

BATTISTA: And everyone is going. See, that always amazes me. Universally, the critics hate it, but everybody goes. How much weight do you guys carry on a film?

ANDERSON: With some movies, none. Whenever I trash a movie, it goes right to the top of the book office for the weekend.

SEILER: Also, I don't know why we would have credibility when there are things like this going on, but also what goes on all the time. My word of advice: the worst movie in the world will have great quotes. Somebody will praise it.

So, I think readers don't even know what was praised or what wasn't praised. So, it's hard to know how much stock they place in it. My feeling, if you never heard of the critic or you never heard of the TV station or whatever it is, you shouldn't ever take it with any salt at all.

ANDERSON: Yes, there is a pecking order to the quotes. You know, they can't get a quote from the "New York Times" or Roger Ebert, they start working their way down. And anybody who is aware of any of this stuff knows, if you have a quote from -- not to disparage any city, but let's say the "Akron Bugle," you've got a movie in trouble.

BATTISTA: Yes, we are just looking at the ads. You are right; there is a pecking order. Let me go to the audience. Christy?

CHRISTY: I think it's a shame. We already don't trust the media, and this just makes it worst.

BATTISTA: This is what's tough for you guys, too.

SEILER: Keep in mind though that there was no media involvement in this at all. Apparently, no critic was involved, no newspaper. This all happened at the movie studio. So, in this particular case, it's the studio that I think loses the credibility.

ANDERSON: This one is not our fault, but the fact that no one was surprised that this critic liked, let's say "Hollow Man" says something about the state of the profession.

BATTISTA: Or "Animal". Richard, comment.

RICHARD: Yes, I think a respectable critic may be an oxymoron. If you have someone like Columbia Pictures, a large advertiser in some trade rag, then of course their movie will probably get great reviews. So, you just have to disregard what the critics say.

ANDERSON: Oh, it's unfortunate that you feel that way. I don't think it's quite that bad.

SEILER: No...

ANDERSON: It depends on the publication, too.

SEILER: At "USA Today" for example, we don't even know who advertised in the pages and it does not effect what we write. If you read a critic in "USA Today" and the critic likes it, the critic really liked it. I know that may be hard to believe, but it is true.

BATTISTA: That applies more to what we were talking about earlier, when you know, when you see the same critics' names on what are clearly really bad movies, and they are actually saying something good about them. And that's maybe more what Richard is talking about. And there are people that -- what, are they on studio payroll or just highly courted or what? ANDERSON: You know, when you go to junkets, and you are being wined and dined to the degree that some of these people are, it's -- as someone once said -- it's kind of good manners to like their movies.

SEILER: No, no. I mean, you are suppose to keep your -- I mean, what do you have if you don't have your name in your own sincere opinions? It's true -- I mean, a lot of newspapers or television stations, if they send reporters to junkets, that may be the only time they can interview the stars.

But they pay for their hotel room, the newspaper does. But there are people who pretty much make a career out of going to Los Angeles, going to New York, going to whatever exotic location where they are holding something, letting the studio pay for their airfare, letting the studio pay for their hotel rooms, and eating the free food, and then basically writing wonderful, nice stuff. And it's unfortunate but it's been going on a long, long time.

ANDERSON: And that's why this David Manning thing is not all that surprising, because the studios have been creating this sort of subclass of critic for years. They cultivate these people by giving them freebies, they people virtually live off the studios, and of course, they get what they want. So, the fact that they have now cut costs by creating their own critic shouldn't surprise anybody.

BATTISTA: I got to take a quick break here, and when we come back, we will ask both of you guys if you have ever been misquoted or taken out of context in a review.

Jeff in Sarasota, Florida e-mails us: "Maybe David Manning wrote the White House vandalism article." Nice segue, Jeff. We will be back in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: The family-owned weekly "Ridgefield Press" has been supplying the 22,000 people of Ridgefield, Connecticut with news and information since 1875.

John and Andy, it's always curious, you know, we always wonder whether if you guys -- if you are used in a blurb whether it's misquoted or taken out of context, for example. Has that ever happened to either one of you?

ANDERSON: Not with a lot of frequency. I remember one time, "Blue Lagoon II" -- anyone remember that movie?

BATTISTA: Oh, yeah.

ANDERSON I said something like: "Although beautifully shot and beautifully cast, the movie was basically worthless," and of course, across two pages of "The New York Times" was "beautifully shot and beautifully cast, John Anderson, 'Newsweek.'"

SEILER: And even worse is when you get quoted on the video box, because your friends are renting it, you know, two years later, I read that that movie was horrible, you said it was great.

I was on a video box for a movie where I said that -- for -- I'm still on the video box for the movie "I'm Not Rappaport," because I said that "Walter Matthau gave one of the best performance -- his performances in years, but unfortunately no one told him when to stop and he keeps on doing it until you can't stand it anymore." Well, only the part about how it was great at the beginning is on the box, and then I had friends say: "Andy, I can't believe you said that was such a great movie."

So, these things do happen. There was quote that didn't have any name on it that said "USA Today" said of a recent movie it was terrific, wonderful, spellbinding, and we had panned it and nobody liked it, and we called them up and they said they didn't know how that had happened. But this ad ran over and over again on TV. It wasn't even a misquote, because there wasn't anybody quoted, but it -- certainly, no one said it, and we still don't know what even happened, or why it happened.

ANDERSON: David Manning was working in the ad department.

BATTISTA: Yeah, exactly. But what recourse do you guys have when a blurb like this is taken out of context?

SEILER: We ask them to stop, and they do.

ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah. You get burned like that once or twice, and you learn how to write around it so it won't happen.

BATTISTA: We had a question earlier from the audience, you know, wondering -- I don't know if you guys can answer this -- but wondering if the Ridgefield newspaper might possibly think about legal action, because this guy was, you know, allegedly representing their paper.

ANDERSON: The most famous person there doesn't exist. Isn't that sad?

BATTISTA: Right -- really.

SEILER: I don't know. I mean, we haven't really heard what happened. I mean, we don't know who was the person who wrote these reviews. We don't know why they didn't catch them. We -- they said they are going to take appropriate action, but we don't know what that is. So, the real story of what really went on is -- hasn't been told.

ANDERSON: Well, there were no reviews, right? Just quotes.

BATTISTA: Yeah, just quotes, I think.

SEILER: There is no review...

BATTISTA: Christine has a question. Go ahead, Christine.

CHRISTINE: I just wonder how we as consumers can tell the difference between critics who are legitimate and those who are wined and dined by the movie creators. ANDERSON: Well, you know, you have to trust your publication. I mean, you know your local person certainly and the people of national repute are mostly legitimate. If you don't know who they are, you have to wonder why they are in an ad a -- a national ad for a big studio movie.

SEILER: On the other hand, you know, speaking as someone who used to write for much smaller newspapers, obviously there is plenty of good people at small media outlets. The problem is that it tends to be in ones you never heard of where the most abuse goes on.

For example, at local television stations, if you see some guy and he is quoted as being with one of the big networks, except that is quoted with being with one of the networks at a smaller city, chances are -- and I hate to do this, but a lot of those guys are trying to get their TV station or usually themselves into the quotes. Same with smaller publications you haven't heard of.

And a lot of them are online, and that's really questionable, you know, these Internet things. And if you never heard of the organization at all, you just forget about it. I mean, really, the more familiar it sounds, the more likely it is to be legit.

BATTISTA: Dave, on the phone from Washington state. Dave, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Hi.

CALLER: First thing I'd like to say, you know, you delivered a stellar performance and I am going to give the show four stars today.

ANDERSON: Is this Manning?

BATTISTA: Thank you.

CALLER: But what I was going to say was that I think you have to make sure, like your guests were saying, that it's a credible and a regional critic, somebody like -- when Gene Siskel was still alive, or Ebert and Roeper "At the Movies" right now, are both, you know, reputable people, or the "He Said She Said" segments on Laurin Sydney's entertainment reports are always real good also.

BATTISTA: Yeah, you're right. You have to know your newspapers or your magazines and the reviewers, and usually people gravitate toward the reviewers who tend to agree with their own opinion.

ANDERSON: Yeah, if you read somebody with some regularity, you learn to -- you learn how to read them.

BATTISTA: Yeah, exactly.

ANDERSON: Certain critics -- if they like something I know I won't and vice versa.

BATTISTA: Right.

SEILER: And also -- and also, the other thing is people will say this is the best comedy of this year. If you look at your calendar and it's March, there is something weird going on there. But they do that all the time.

Another -- yeah -- one guy used to say, this was the best movie -- or this is one of the best comedies of this or any year. So, he was even dealing with the future.

BATTISTA: What's going on? Question?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, when he mentioned Siskel and Ebert, that was one of my favorite shows, because you get a balanced view of two reviewers, one of them may like the movie tremendously and the other person didn't get it, so a two-person review was very useful to me because I get a balanced review. Since Gene Siskel died, I've stopped watching the show because Roger Ebert and the other person seem to agree more and more with the same movie. I don't get a balanced view.

BATTISTA: All right, I have to take another a break here, and as we do, Kristin Bradshaw (ph) of Maryland kind of sums it up this way: "What's the big deal with the phony critic? Most of the movies that were critiqued by this guy were phonies, passing themselves off as real movies anyway."

We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We're back, and Alex is on the phone from Ontario. Alex?

CALLER: Hi, Bobbie, yes, thanks for having me on. I just wanted to say that I'm really not sure Columbia has anything to apologize for here. What I mean by this is that it may seem a little underhanded, but it is all part of their marketing campaign, and let's face it, motion pictures are essentially three-quarters marketing.

BATTISTA: But that's misleading. I mean, you have to admit that doing something like that is a bit underhanded and misleading.

CALLER: I think that -- again, I think it's really his marketing campaign here. I think you're going to find anyone who's going to say -- if anyone from the studio asks -- did you like my movie? -- I really think that you're not going to find too many people who, aside from, perhaps, your panel, will have the courage to say: No, I really hated your film, actually.

I really don't think you're going to find too many people to do that. I think it's much easier to say that you don't like the film from a column or from a TV show. But I think when it comes up to it, again, it's part of the marketing campaign.

BATTISTA: You know what, though? I think you're kind of wrong on that, because for example, this e-mail says I rarely even look at reviews anymore. It seems as if pop culture movies are frowned upon by reviewers. They only seem to give good reviews to unheard-of artsy films.

I think there's plenty of critics out there who would say "An Animal" was horrible, you know, and not worth your time. Don't you guys?

SEILER: Well, but actually some people gave "Animal" a good review so this guy wasn't even needed for that film. But it...

ANDERSON: You always find somebody who likes it.

SEILER: But, you know, obviously, maybe Columbia Pictures didn't think anyone was going to like it, because they had to make somebody up. I mean, in reference to what the caller was saying, you cannot quote people as saying things they didn't say. And you can't say a newspaper, a real newspaper, ran something that they didn't run. I mean, that's just basic ethics. I don't think that it's excusable at all, because it's not all marketing. Some of these are legitimate newspapers that don't want to -- that do have some credibility.

BATTISTA: Last word from John.

ANDERSON: The fact that Alex can say this is sort of symptomatic of the whole thing that the studios have engendered. The use of quotes in ads is supposed to exploit the objectivity of the press, so they create their own critics and they thus destroy the very credibility they were trying to exploit in the first place.

BATTISTA: All right. We're out of time...

ANDERSON: And Alex is a victim of it.

BATTISTA: Andy Seiler and John Anderson, thank you both very much. Appreciate it.

ANDERSON: You're welcome. Thanks.

BATTISTA: Learned a lot today about reviewing. We'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE. There's a look at our poll as we go.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com