Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Where Should the Super Bowl be Held?

Aired December 18, 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.
TUCKER CARLSON, CNN HOST: Who will help in the search for Osama bin Laden?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope some deals are not being contemplated. We need to finish off the al Qaeda leadership. We need Osama bin Laden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Do the United States and its Afghan allies have the same agenda when it comes to capturing bin Laden?

And the NFL sympathy play.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: It's clear to everyone we need the Super Bowl. It's clear we deserve the Super Bowl. We want it in 2007, and if we can get the it sooner, sooner than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Will the NFL warm up to New York?

Also, selling hard liquor, toasts and roasts as NBC drops its voluntary ban on alcohol ads.

Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Tucker Carlson. The U.S. is steadfast in its drive to track down and capture, perhaps kill, Osama bin Laden. But what about the Northern Alliance what's it's agenda once Afghan cities and the countryside have been secured, does the Northern Alliance have any interest in continuing the pursuit of al Qaeda or bin Laden. Here to talk about that are Haron Amin, the Northern Alliance special envoy to the United States; and Pakistan analyst Mansoor Ijaz.

Mr. Ijaz, let me ask you this, there are reports that thousands of -- certainly hundreds, perhaps thousands -- of former Taliban al Qaeda fighters are crossing the border from the Tora Bora region into Pakistan. What assurance do we as Americans have that the Pakistan government is doing its best to apprehend them? MANSOOR IJAZ, PAKISTAN ANALYST: Well, I don't think there's any -- ever going to be any complete assurance on that, because a lot of these movements are taking place in foothills and in areas of northern Pakistan that are difficult to monitor. However, I think the Pakistani government is certainly clear about the fact that allowing Arabized fighters to go into Kashmir, and cause even more problems for them later on, if India were to decide to take out terrorist cells there, as well, would do nothing but complicate matters. And so I think the army is doing the best it can to try to ensure that this doesn't happen.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Amin, there's a sense and you saw it reflected this morning in a number of stories in "The New York Times" that many of our new Afghan allies, Northern Alliance, eastern alliance, have maybe different priorities than the United States does. There's a sense that they finished their job, they secured this land and they are not as interested as going forward and capturing members of al Qaeda. Do you think that's true?

HARON AMIN, NORTHERN ALLIANCE ENVOY TO THE U.S.: Tucker, I don't think that is true whatsoever. Remember that the al Qaeda, along with the Taliban and others in Afghanistan have come, they victimized the Afghan nation. They have slaughtered people, just like they did on September 11 in the United States of America, but they have done it over the years. They've killed and victimized by far a much larger number than they have here in the United States of America.

We are after al Qaeda leadership, indeed, he was behind the assassination of our legendary commander and leader Ahmad Massoud on September 9. And so we are after him, as much as you are. This campaign has not ended yet. We will make sure that our American allies, that the international coalition will be satisfied that every cave is going to be looked at. That every place, the prospective place, the hideouts for al Qaeda will be looked at and searched, and scrutinized before we call it off. And, so far, that's not the case whatsoever.

CARLSON: Mr. Ijaz there was a fascinating story this morning on the UPI wire written by Arnordabo Gravaney (ph). Went out to the border, between Pakistan and Afghanistan and tried to see for himself how difficult it would be to go from Afghanistan into Pakistan. He was stopped by a Pakistani border guard who said to him, Americans are not welcome. To which Arnordabo Gravaney said, what about Taliban? To which, the guard replied, Taliban are always welcome.

And it points out the problem that people have been talking about for months, which is Pakistan created the Taliban. So again, I ask you, what motivation would Pakistani authorities -- not the government, not General Musharraf, but on the ground -- what motivation would they have to stop former Taliban?

IJAZ: Well, Tucker, there is no easy answer to that, and as I've said before, guilty as charged where the Pakistani borders are concerned. There is no guarantee that we can ensure they won't be complicit in hiding bin Laden or any of his people. However, I think there is one other thing to keep in mind, and that is that the man who is the new intelligence chief in Pakistan, a man who I know personally and a man of enormous integrity has -- before he became the ISI chief, he actually was the commander of the core units along the borders there in Pakistan, right next to the Afghan border. And that means, that by definition, we are going to have somebody there who knows the tribal leaders, who has explained to them what the risks are to the Pakistani government, to the Pakistani society and in all likelihood whatever trades are being done, both back and forth, with al Qaeda on one side and these Pashtun tribal leaders on the other, are being done with that kind of national security implication in mind.

There's no question about the fact that there is no border there in real terms, that's for sure.

CARLSON: Mr. Amin, last week around Tora Bora Pashtun tribal leaders negotiated a brief cease fire, about a 36 hour cease fire with members of al Qaeda trapped up in the mountains. They did this over the objections of the United States. And it's believed now that in that 36 hour period, a lot of them escaped, perhaps Mullah Omar, perhaps Osama bin Laden. Wondering -- if you can tell us -- what the motivation for coming to a cease fire like that would be, when it strikes me as obvious it would given the enemy a chance to escape?

AMIN: The negotiations that went on, at the moment, was not in any way to try to win them amnesty. The idea was that under a lot of pressure by the international community, the United Nations was involved -- they were bringing up the issue of Geneva conventions, and so on and so forth. And the negotiations were done in such a way not that it would not provide them the opportunity to flee. And indeed it was an ultimatum delivered to them, that would definitely draw them into some sort of a trap. But the idea was to get them alive, get information about al Qaeda, get more information about overseas al Qaeda operations around the world, that was the aim. It didn't go that way, we had to go after them eventually. And during that period of that cease fire, there was indeed a pause even in terms of bombardments so it was in line with the international coalition.

CARLSON: But the United States objected to it from the beginning, as far as I know, and by releasing the pressure of infantry going forward, didn't anybody in the Afghan alliance forces on the ground suspect that these guys -- they are al Qaeda, after all -- they are terrorist, that they would try to escape. Nobody thought that?

AMIN: There was the intention, on the part of some of the al Qaeda people, that they wanted to come in a lump sum, to come to our side and give themselves in. Eventually that wasn't the case. But we were apprehend from the early on, Tucker, and you have seen my interviews on CNN and all over. And I have said, that the probable area for these people to even flee, long before the campaign even began or after the campaign began -- was Pakistan. And I think that the same sort of cooperation that we have give to the international coalition, ought to be provide by the Pakistani government making sure that...

IJAZ: It is being provide there.

(CROSSTALK)

AMIN: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) would be destroyed in Pakistan. So we can ascertain a guarantee of security in the region.

CARLSON: And it is being provided, you said?

IJAZ: Absolutely. I think that's just a charge that has to be very carefully level from Haron. And that is that Pakistan has done everything. They've moved, they have taken a very serious national security step by moving their troops along the border to ensure that bin Laden or al Qaeda members officially, at least, will not be able to cross the border very easily, if they do.

CARLSON: But wait a second, Mr. Ijaz, not to interrupt you, but we know now, for certain, that as late as early October when the bombing campaign was already going on -- in other words, the U.S. was at war with Afghanistan that there were convoys of arms crossing the Pakistani border with the knowledge of Pakistani border guards, into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

IJAZ: And it was also, sorry Tucker, it was also early October when the changes in ISI's leadership were made so that these bad things would not continue to go on. There is no question that prior to September 11 and prior to October 7, when the bombing took place, that the Pakistani intelligence services played a very double-sided game. No one is going to argue that, and certainly I won't.

But the point I'm making to you is that to say that the Pakistani government is not taking risks today to ensure that the al Qaeda leadership and bin Laden are not brought to justice is just factually inaccurate. They are have committed almost one quarter of their ground troops to that border along Afghanistan. And that puts them at serious risk if India decides they want to push into Kashmir or do something else. Pakistan is going to have a great deal of difficultly trying to handle both borders at the same time.

CARLSON: OK, who can we trust? That's a question that one of our guests here this afternoon, Art, who is an Army veteran, has -- Art.

ART: I don't think we can trust them. The whole area has a history of switching alliances whenever the proper moment arises. They like to be with a winner. Right now, the United States is winning. If we start to lose, I think they will all go away.

CARLSON: And what about that, Mr. Amin? I know you can't speak for all the Pashtun tribal groups, but do you think if the United States wasn't successful or didn't seem to be successful at its bombing campaign, that these groups would've come over to the American side?

AMIN: Well, Tucker, let me correct here one thing, and that is we were sincere from the very early on. Remember, Tucker, we have fought against al Qaeda long before the international community even paid attention. We were victimized. We have done our best, even right now. Our country is available to the international coalition. They can venture in any area that they want. We have joined them together. We have gone hand-in-hand to make sure this job gets done. If we've had one piece of bread, we've shared it with our international allies in Afghanistan. We will do our utmost.

The question is now if the search is going in Afghanistan, when that search ceases and al Qaeda is not going to be totally decimated -- I mean it's going to be decimated in Afghanistan -- if they have crossed over into Pakistan, the question is let us live with the facts. Taliban leadership top tier are in Pakistan, al Qaeda people are in Pakistan, the sincerity of the Pakistani government must be sought right now.

IJAZ: Do you have proof of that, Haron?

AMIN: I'm sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

IJAZ: May I just ask, do you have proof of that?

AMIN: I'm saying that right now, top leadership of the Taliban is in Pakistan. That is indeed the case. The "New York Times" wrote articles on that. Everybody else -- what I'm saying...

IJAZ: Well, if that's the case, why don't you provide us with the locations so that General Musharraf can go round them up? I mean, in other words, let's not make accusations here about -- this is not a matter of blaming one side or the other.

You have a responsibility to ensure that the Northern Alliance is presented. You've controlled the interior ministry. You control the defense ministry. You control the foreign ministry. That means that you have a responsibility to ensure the American people have unobstructed access until this problem is finished. I can assure you, as an American citizen, that General Musharraf is giving that kind of cooperation to the American people. Now the question is whether you guys are.

AMIN: Yes, Mansoor, very good.

I'm speaking for the United Front. I'm speaking for the interim authority. I wonder if you are in a position to speak for Musharraf, my very conviction is let a Pakistani come and give the same kind of assurance. You are a U.S. citizen. I don't think that you are in a position to speak on behalf of the Pakistani government.

CARLSON: OK. We're going to have to -- unfortunately, let that be the last word. Mansoor Ijaz, Haron Amin, thank you both for joining us today.

AMIN: Thank you.

IJAZ: Thank you.

CARLSON: We'll be back in just a moment with TALKBACK LIVE. See you then.

Still ahead: New York makes a play for the Super Bowl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: The Super Bowl belongs in New York.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Maybe, but would any city pass it to the Big Apple?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUMER: We suffered for the nation. We have suffered more damage than any other place in the nation and our economy is facing real trouble. So we very much need a boost. So I'm respectfully also asking the owners to at least consider requesting that one of upcoming host cities accept a slightly delayed date in recognition of the special circumstances facing New York.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

New York Senator Charles Schumer has an idea for helping New York City dig out from under the 9/11 attacks -- not surprisingly -- give New York a Super Bowl and do it soon. He says the NFL avoids colder climates for its end of the season showstopper, and next several years have already been assigned to other cities.

That hasn't stopped him. It appears Schumer is looking for end run around the rules. Should he be? Joining us, Steve Malzberg, a radio talk show host at WABC in New York City; and Robert George, who is associate editorial page editor for the "New York Post" and a thoroughly decent and sensible guy, Robert George, which is why I'm wondering how you could support this? I mean, is New York going to ask for Miss America pageant from Atlantic City or maybe the Olympics from Salt Lake. I mean, it strikes me that...

ROBERT GEORGE, "NEW YORK POST": Keep going, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, I mean, I don't know, New York is getting all this federal money and it deserves it, but why the Super Bowl?

GEORGE: Well, I think it's a great idea. Obviously, economically speaking, if you -- if Paul Tagliabue, the head of the NFL, wants to give -- wants the Super Bowl to come to New York, it makes more sense, economically speaking, in terms of the hits we took from the terrorist attacks, to do it sooner rather than later.

I mean, scheduling it in 2007 sounds like a politician's idea. You know, we need a stimulus package but we are going to phase it in in 2007 -- kind of silly. So I think it's a great idea to try and bring it to New York now. It would be fantastic.

Well, Steve Malzberg, Robert George makes a good point. It's not a handout. It's not another grant. It's sort of a more natural or organic way to help the city, no?

STEVE MALZBERG, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it's a very unnatural way to help the city because the Super Bowl is traditionally played in a warm weather site or in a cold site that has a dome. We don't have a dome here.

It's so windy outside this building right now, I walked from Seventh to Eighth Avenue to get here, and you couldn't throw a pass in this weather. You want the Super Bowl to be your showcase. So I don't see the sacrificing of the quality of the game just to do New York a favor. And what city that has already has the game scheduled in their city is going to say, "You know what, let's give it to New York." It's just not going to happen. It's a pipe dream.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Robert, let me get to you respond this. There may be a deeper problem with this idea. This comes from Robert in Plainsboro, New Jersey who writes, quote, "Unless the Super Bowl is held at Yankee or Shea Stadiums, then New York can't host a Super Bowl. It would take place at the Meadowlands." In other words, New Jersey would be hosting it.

Could this be a problem?

GEORGE: That's a legitimate point. However, it's -- the Meadowlands are still the home of the New York Giants and the New York Jets. So I don't have a problem with that.

But speaking to Steve's point though about the weather conditions: Look, football is meant to be played outside. A year ago, the NFC championship game, in which the New York Giants played the Minnesota Vikings, was played right in the Meadowlands. It was in the middle of January. Yes, the winds were swirling, but that's the way football was meant to be played. In fact, I think the Super Bowl is actually an aberration. It's the only major league sport where, you know, you kick into a specific geography just to play your championship sport. Play it outside, you know, where the "Ice Bowl" was played years ago.

MALZBERG: I mean, I agree. I think football was meant to be played outside. However, it doesn't change the fact that it's not played outside in cold weather during the Super Bowl. If the NFL says, and this is what they are saying, well, you could you have it in 2007. Well, we have to build a domed stadium by 2007. That's the only way we will get it. That is a very hot political potato here in New York City.

Mayor Giuliani wants one on the West Side, just a couple of blocks from this studio. It would wreak havoc with the traffic. I think it is a terrible idea. But that is the only way we should get it here in New York, not out of charity. We don't need charity. CARLSON: But Robert George, does New York even need it? You have got Time Square, you have got Broadway, you have Hillary Clinton, all these tourist attractions, and it strikes me, that if you want it, I mean, there are many cities that would be helped by it, but does New York really need this?

GEORGE: Of course we do. I think, in the context of the incredible economic hit that the city -- that the city and not just the city but the entire region took because of the terrorist attacks, I think it's a good -- I think it's a good idea. I mean it's good for the people, I think it's good in terms of entertainment value.

MALZBERG: And what do you tell the city, the city that is going to give the charity in effect to New York City, what is mayor of that town tell his city -- well, we turned down $400 million in revenue. In effect, we are contributing to the World Trade Center fund.

It stinks to high heaven. It's just not good.

CARLSON: Steve Malzberg, when you leave the studio tonight, and you walk out on the street and face all those New Yorkers, is that going to be a problem? Is this an idea, in other words, that has support in New York City?

MALZBERG: No. I don't think people care. Because they know right now as we alluded to earlier, you alluded to earlier, or the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) did, there is no stadium here in New York. It is not going to come to Shea Stadium. It is not going to come to Yankee Stadium. It would probably be at the Meadowlands. There was talk earlier in the year that New Orleans had a scheduling conflict, so Charles Schumer held a press conference and said, let's bring the Super Bowl this January right here. That didn't happen, there was no scheduling conflict, but it will take place in the Meadowlands. That is not New York, that is New Jersey. GEORGE: Steve, I am sorry, you are slightly incorrect on the facts there. In fact it was Paul Tagliabue who floated the idea of moving the Super Bowl to New York because, indeed, there was a scheduling conflict. Fortunately, though, the NFL was able to make a deal with some car dealership to move their convention.

So, it was actually thought of, and when they worked out the details they were able to put it in New Orleans anyway. So, there is actually no logistical problem with actually having it in the Meadowlands.

CARLSON: But is there's a deeper question, is there a moral problem? One of the questions we will bring up when we come back in just a moment. And we will be back on TALKBACK LIVE in a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Should New York snatch the Super Bowl from the clutches of another, less-deserving city? That is our topic. One of the cities under discussion is New Orleans, and it turns out we have someone from New Orleans in the audience.

Walter, what do you think of the idea?

WALTER: I think not only just because I'm from New Orleans, that I agree with this, but I think it is totally detrimental to the city, or whatever city to take the Super Bowl away from there. And not only that, New York has had many charity events. They can have more charity events, they can have more concerts for the citizens and for the city itself.

CARLSON: What do you say to that, Robert? What about for -- this may seem like a good idea to you who lives in New York City, but what about the person wounded by it? What about the resident of New Orleans?

GEORGE: I think, obviously, something like this, you are going to have work with the NFL, work with an effected city to come out with a suitable arrangement. I'm not saying -- we don't have the power to arbitrarily swoop down and steal this from New Orleans. But I think it's something that it's fair to talk about.

MALZBERG: Why -- you know what, this makes absolutely no sense. Can somebody tell me why, A, we should disrupt the schedule, take it from another city, causing that city to lose the revenue, and B, put it in a stadium here in New York City or New Jersey that isn't equipped to have a top-notch game? It could be snowing, it could be, you know, windy, it could be whatever. What sense does it make? What's the reason? Do we deserve it.

GEORGE: Calm down, Steve. There is absolutely nothing wrong...

MALZBERG: Everybody has pity on us, so we have to have it? I don't get it.

GEORGE: There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a football game played in snow. There is nothing wrong.

MALZBERG: But it is not ours. It is not our game to have.

CARLSON: Robert, you must admit, it does open up a whole series of possibilities and you sort of brushed off my question when I first asked it. But if the Super Bowl, then why not lots of other events? Can you think of other events that ought to be relocated to New York in order to help the city?

MALZBERG: The Grammys, the Oscars.

GEORGE: Actually, the Grammys are -- actually, we should bring the Grammys back here, which, that may actually happen. That's not a bad idea. And the fact is, and I'm actually happy that this has happened, several organizations have rescheduled, and moved some of their conventions to New York, partly to help out the economy and so forth. You have to remember, in helping out New York economy also helps out the national economy as well. I'm not saying that because I live in New York. It's a fact.

MALZBERG: I want the Rose Bowl to be held in New York. I want the Rose Bowl, every bowl as a matter of fact. Let's put them all here.

CARLSON: We have a caller from another state apart from New York. Steve from Massachusetts is on the line. Are you in favor of this, Steve?

CALLER: No, I'm not, sir. I feel that the politicians in New York are just trying to use this atrocity that has happened just to try to benefit for themselves and for the state economically. It just seems to me, I agree with the gentlemen before that was in your audience there, I think, if New York wants a Super Bowl they need to just wait their turn and they will get it, if they deserve it.

CARLSON: Steve Malzberg, I want to ask you, is this going to help Chuck Schumer? When he is up for re-election, are voters going to think, as they are in the booth, well, he was the guy who wanted to bring the Super Bowl to New York.

MALZBERG: Well, you know what they say about Chuck Schumer, and my politics will enter into this, there is no more unsafe place than between Chuck Schumer and a camera.

CARLSON: I'm afraid, Steve, we are going to go right to breaking news. We are going to go to Daryn Kagan here in Atlanta -- Daryn.

(INTERRUPTED FOR BREAKING NEWS)

CARLSON: Our debate this afternoon: Should New York City intercept the Super Bowl?

And I think, Robert George, you have found someone on your team.

Cathy, what do you think?

CATHY: Yes.

First off, I would like to say I love New York City. We were in New York City as a tourist five days before the September 11 attack. And tourists were having lots of fun. I would like to think and see New York City return to the enjoyment of having people there from all over the country, all over the world. And, if it requires that it would have sports' Super Bowl -- is that what it is? -- there at that time, I think that would be very good to get a lot of people there to be tourists and enjoy it.

CARLSON: Now, Steve Malzberg, that's a good point. You are sort of a heartless character, aren't you, wanting to deny New York all the much-needed tourism this would provide?

(LAUGHTER)

GEORGE: His middle name is Grinch, by the way, Tucker. I want you to know that.

(LAUGHTER)

MALZBERG: You know what? New York City had a major sporting event here. And we earned it on the merits. We had the World Series here. The Yankees lost in their attempt to make it four in a row, but we had it here. It's not like we are isolated and nobody is coming. We don't need to disrupt the whole order of things and sacrifice the quality of the game and then wind up having it played in New Jersey anyway. It's crazy.

GEORGE: Steve, you are acting as if this like sort of -- something from God or something.

MALZBERG: I'm a sports purist.

GEORGE: They have moved these things around before. None of these things is actually set in stone.

MALZBERG: Well, supposedly it is until 2006. And if they want to give to us in 2007, fine. But don't take it away from somebody else that already has it.

GEORGE: Well, I think -- as I said, obviously, this will be worked out with the NFL and so forth. Maybe give it to a city -- maybe they will double up on consecutive years or something like that.

CARLSON: Or perhaps New Orleans can give Mardi Gras to New York City. That may be the answer.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: We are going to have to leave it there. Steve Malzberg and Robert George, thank you both for being with us. We will be right back.

MALZBERG: Thank you very much, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks.

Still ahead, NBC serving a vodka in a Smirnoff ad: Will messages like this drive people to drink?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

Hard liquor ads are making their way back to the small screen after some 50 years in exile. This week, NBC became the first broadcast network to drop its voluntary ban on such ads. Critics already warn of desire consequences, including increased drunkenness, especially among young adults.

Here to talk about it: Lisa Hawkins, who is the vice president of public affairs for the Distilled Spirits Council, and Peter Sprigg, the director of culture studies at the Family Research Council.

Lisa Hawkins, it is hard to get around the fact that advertising changes people's behavior. It's meant to influence people's behavior. That is why people buy ads. And so why is it implausible to presume that alcohol advertising on TV will increase alcohol consumption? LISA HAWKINS, DISTILLED SPIRITS COUNCIL: Well, the goal of alcohol advertising is to talk to people who already drink and do so responsibly.

What we want to do is get our brands out in front of the American public, those adults who choose to drink, so that they have more information about distilled spirits products in the marketplace.

CARLSON: So, in other words, you don't hope to get new consumers by doing -- by putting these ads on, only to convince current consumers to try your brands?

HAWKINS: Absolutely. The science shows that alcohol advertising will not make somebody begin to drink.

The distilled spirits industry has a very long history of responsible advertising. And that commitment to responsibility will not change just because we are now advertising on the networks. The fact is we have been on more than 400 stations across the United States within the last five years. And the public has accepted these ads. They view it as just another form of beverage alcohol advertising and they believe that our ads are responsible.

CARLSON: Peter Sprigg, do you think this is going to increase drunkenness in America, alcohol abuse, these ads?

PETER SPRIGG, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, I agree with the point that you made right at the outset, Tucker, that advertising is designed to change people's behavior and to increase consumption of the product that is being offered. And so I think it is inevitable that this will increase alcohol consumption. And although most drinkers may drink responsibly, it will inevitably increase alcohol abuse as well.

We are very concerned about that and especially about the impact that this may have upon young people.

CARLSON: Now, Lisa Hawkins, the American Medical Associations calls this move, NBC's move to put alcohol on the air -- quote -- "irresponsible and greedy."

Now, this is not a church group. This is the AMA saying this. Why do you suppose they would say that?

HAWKINS: Well, we think that is a very unfair statement.

As I mentioned, we have been on TV for the last five years. These ads are very responsible. All our members abide by a voluntary code of good practice, which has 30 provisions to ensure that our advertising is responsible, tasteful and intended for adults. And, in fact, the federal government took a look at our code and concluded that we were doing a very good job at self-regulation and commended the industry on the measures it has taken to ensure that the ads are intended for adults.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Sprigg, alcohol advertising, of course, appears in print all the time. The famous Absolute campaign is a favorite among teenagers, the clever Absolute vodka ads. So the fact is that minors are exposed to alcohol advertising all the time. Why is this different?

HAWKINS: Well, it's different because we are talking about broadcast networks here, which have exercised self-restraint in not broadcasting these hard liquor ads for a number of years.

The broadcast networks and broadcast stations operate in the public interest. They don't have quite the same freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so forth that print media have, because they are granted licenses by the government to operate. And, therefore, they are required to operate in the public interests. And I don't see any way that it is in the public interests for us to have this increase in hard liquor advertising.

CARLSON: Now, Lisa Hawkins, you are making what seems to me similar arguments, arguments we heard from tobacco industry, which were: We are not trying to hook smokers. We are going just trying to get smokers to change to our brand. It's a legal product. We have tasteful ads. We are not aiming at children. We're telling adults to use our product responsibly.

In fact, you are saying almost exactly the same thing the tobacco industry said. Why are tobacco ads banned, but liquor ads are not?

HAWKINS: Look, we are completely different from tobacco. There is absolutely no responsible use of tobacco. And yet 100 million American adults drink and they choose to drink and they do so responsibly. And for those adults, moderate consumption of beverage alcohol can be part of a normal, healthy adult lifestyle. And studies have shown that when consumed in moderation that there may even be some potential health benefits.

The fact is that we should be treated the same as beer and wine. The public has accepted beer and wine ads for decades. And there is absolutely no reason to draw the line at our entry. We are a responsible industry. And we are committed to responsible advertising.

CARLSON: OK, Mr. Sprigg, a member of our audience, Jezelle (ph) from Louisiana, has a question for you, I think.

SPRIGG: OK.

JEZELLE: I don't think is anything is wrong with advertising liquor on TV. If you are going to drink, you are going to choose to drink, not just because you see an ad on television. It's your choice.

CARLSON: What about that, that drinkers are going drink and the ads help them decide what to drink?

SPRIGG: Well, I think, again, we are naive if we underestimate the impact of the media, including advertising, on people's behavior. And I think we need to look especially at the impact on young people. Among -- your other guest mentions the number of people who drink responsibly. But we can't overlook the statistics showing that, among young people ages 12 to 20, nine million are current users of alcohol. Six million engage in binge drinking, which is more than 5 drinks at one time. And two million are considered heavy users of alcohol, which means they engage in binge drinking at least five times in the course of a month.

I think those are serious problems, that alcohol is implicated in the three leading causes of death among young people: homicide, suicide and drunk driving accidents. And I don't think we should overlook the impact.

CARLSON: OK, those are not cheery statistics. But nevertheless, happy hour continues here on TALKBACK LIVE. And it will when we return in just a moment.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are talking about alcohol. Should ads for it be on network television?

Lisa Hawkins, we received a statement from NBC listing all of the restrictions on ads for liquor that it will run. And one of them -- fascinating to me, anyway -- is -- quote -- "On-camera consumption may not be represented." Alcohol ads that run at NBC cannot have people actually drinking. This implies that NBC thinks there is something wrong with drinking. Why would this be one of the stipulations?

HAWKINS: Well, that is a guideline they came up with with Guinness UDV. Alcohol is part of our society and it's a socially acceptable part of our society.

CARLSON: Then why would they say not to portray it in the ad if it is socially acceptable, I wonder?

HAWKINS: I think they probably just want to be sensitive to some of the concerns that the public may have. Again, these ads have appeared on stations across the United States and they have been met with broad public acceptance.

And I would just like to address Peter's earlier point about underage drinking. Our industry has been a leader in the effort to fight underage drinking. And the point is, you need to focus on solutions that work. Underage individuals will tell you that it's the parents and the peers that are the biggest factors in their decisions to drink, not advertising.

CARLSON: OK.

We have a call. Len in Arkansas.

You there, Len? CALLER: Yes, I am.

CARLSON: What do you think about liquor on TV?

CALLER: Well, first of all, I think your opponents there need to get a life and get out in the real world there. Liquor is a legal product. And they're worried about it having a harmful effect on TV? Have they watched TV lately?

You get over 100 channels of garbage, recreational sex, homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and all this other garbage? And they these think ads are going to have a bad effect on kids? I think we are little bankrupt on being political correct.

CARLSON: Mr. Sprigg, are alcohol ads the creepiest thing on TV, do you think?

SPRIGG: Well, no.

In a sense, I agree with the caller. There is lot of things that concern us on TV, including the sexual content, the violent content of television programs. But, in a sense, that is one of the reasons why we are concerned about NBC's decision to air these ads.

We at Family Research Council have long been advocating voluntary self-restraint on the part of television networks. And they are failing to exercise it effectively in many other areas of our culture. And this is just one more step back from the voluntary self-restraint that we would like to see them exercise across the board, a step back from acting on the basis social responsibility and a step towards acting simply on the basis of the bottom line.

CARLSON: OK, we have a comment from a member of our studio audience.

Art, what do you think?

ART: Well, alcohol is a very powerful drug. Television is a very powerful medium. I think you mix these two together, you get a cocktail with a lot of synergy and a lot of opportunities for abuse.

CARLSON: Well, Lisa Hawkins, it must be true that the distilled spirits industry believes that television is a powerful medium, else it wouldn't want its ads on television. That is a fair statement, isn't it?

HAWKINS: Well, I think it is true.

Back in 1948, when the distillers decided not to advertise on TV, at that time television was a very new medium and the entire family gathered around that TV. And we decided it was not the right time to advertise our products. However, the media landscape has changed dramatically. And there are now hundreds of channels to choose from. And we know that we can now reach our consumers and do so in a responsible manner.

CARLSON: OK, do you think it's...

SPRIGG: Well,

CARLSON: Mr. Sprigg?

SPRIGG: Yes.

Well, it's ironic that, because they have all of these other avenues for their advertising that they feel they have to push the envelope even further and reach these final few networks and so forth that are not open to them. It's not like they have been silenced or prevented from sharing their point of view.

And, frankly, I don't think they have offered a compelling reason why the policy which was in place for 48 years, I guess, from 1948 to 1996, of voluntary self-restraint by the liquor producers, any good reason why that policy was changed. And NBC hasn't offered any compelling reason why their policy has been changed since -- that they have followed for the last five years.

CARLSON: Lisa Hawkins, in 20 seconds, can you give us the compelling reason that Mr. Sprigg is asking for?

HAWKINS: Because our consumers have a right to receive information about the products that they choose to drink. These ads will be responsible. They have been responsible for the last five years. And, again, our industry is committed to responsible advertising.

CARLSON: OK. Well, thank you both very much. We are out of time. Thanks, Lisa Hawkins. Thanks, Peter Sprigg, for joining us.

Thanks also to our studio audience here and to you at home. TALKBACK LIVE returns triumphantly tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern.

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