Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

How Seriously Should America Take the Latest Alert? Did the Canadians get Robbed?

Aired February 12, 2002 - 15:30   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.
GARY TUCHMAN, HOST: Terror alert: 17 men, possible attack, unknown target.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a very different kind of warning than the earlier FBI warnings when there was just a general sense that there is a heightened danger.

TUCHMAN: How seriously are you taking this latest alert? Have you seen these men? Are you even looking for them?

Also: Olympic gold draws boos at the couples figure skating competition. Did the Canadian team get iced by the judges?

And lining up for Oscar gold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL SMITH, ACTOR: Sidney Poitier was the last black man to win and that was 28 years ago. This year, Denzel and I, and Halle are all nominated in major categories.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TUCHMAN: And are these friends worth their weight in gold?

Hello and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Gary Tuchman. The United States is under a new terror alert. This time there is name and face to go with it. We will get details and find out what you should be looking for in just a minute. But first, a Pakistani militant believed to be responsible for the kidnapping of journalist Daniel Pearl is under arrest today.

Joining to us talk about it is CNN terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen. He is the author of "Holy War Incorporated" about Osama bin Laden and Islamic militant groups. He is one of the few journalists who's interviewed Osama bin Laden.

Thank you very much for joining us.

PETER BERGEN, AUTHOR, "HOLY WAR INCORPORATED": Hi, Gary.

TUCHMAN: Peter, I want to ask you at this point, what cay you tell us about this fugitive who has been caught?

BERGEN: He is sort of an interesting character. He is a graduate of the London school of economics. He speaks several languages, well educated from a sort of middle class, upper middle class English family.

Got involved in various sort of jihadist activities, first (UNINTELLIGIBLE) near age 20. Spent several years in an Indian prison and was sprung, basically released as a result of a hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet in December of 1999. The hijackers hijacked the jet with 155 people on it. The killed one of the passengers and one of their demands was the release of this man who no one had really heard of before, but clearly, already an all-important figure in the militant groups, the militant Kashmiri and Pakistani groups -- Gary.

TUCHMAN: His full name is Achmed Omar Said Shikh (ph) , also known as Shikh Omar, not to be confused with the former head of the Taliban government. Do U.S. authorities believe this man's information is reliable and could be counted on?

BERGEN: I would guess it would be very reliable. If he is telling the truth this is somebody that played a key role -- he has been involved in other kidnappings of westerners. The group -- there are various names for this group -- is sometimes called Hari Cato Mujadeen (ph) or Jaish Muhammed (ph) , or Hari Cato Unsa (ph) , essentially all the same group.

The have kidnapped western tourists in the past in Kashmir in the '95, '96 time frame. This is somebody who has a lot of knowledge and is clearly an important player in the militant groups in Pakistan. So, if he is telling the truth, he can give some very reliable information in my view.

TUCHMAN: Peter, we can't lose sight of what's most important about this particular story, the welfare of Daniel Pearl. Have you heard of any evidence that he is definitely alive? There have been reports both ways, now they are saying they optimistic he is alive, that perhaps he could be released as early as today. What have you heard?

BERGEN: I have heard nothing directly. But just as a matter of common sense, if you only have one hostage you don't ruin your one bargaining chip. You don't in some way damage or kill your one hostage. I think it would be very unlikely. And if you look at previous kidnapings by these groups, the hostages were kept alive for quite some time. Also there is a hell of lot more pressure on the Pakistani government than there was in the '95, '96 time frame when the western tourists were kidnaped in Kashmir.

It seems I think that the United States government has put a lot of pressure on Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan to really come up with some results and clearly we are seeing that.

TUCHMAN: Peter, let's shift gears a little bit and talk about this terror alert. Is this type of thing that is merely scaring people? Should we not be told anything, should we be told more? What is your opinion on that?

BERGEN: I think this terror alert is an excellent development because the specificity of the information is really quite -- you know, first of all you have a date which is today, which is roughly the six-month anniversary of Trade Center attacks as it happens. Secondly, you have a list of names. You have 17 names. They seem to be the real names of these people. They are not aliases. This is a very good kind of alert. Because rather than a sort of generalized panic in the United States, these people are perhaps going to do something, perhaps in the United States, perhaps in Yemen on this particular day. I think it's the kind of alert that we are all looking for in a sense.

TUCHMAN: Peter, here is the question: What should the people in our audience actually be looking for? People are confused. They don't know what to be looking for.

BERGEN: I would somehow doubt that these people are in this country. I mean your guess is as good as mine. It quite possible these people are all -- most of these people are either Saudis or Yemenis. It's quite possible they may remain somewhere in Afghanistan. They may be dead. They may be in Yemen. It is sadly not -- there is no reason to assume they are in this country or there is no reason to assume that they are anywhere. We just don't know, but the fact is that most of them are Yemenis and Saudis and it is quite possible that they are in their own country at the moment.

TUCHMAN: Peter, one more question for you, you know more about terrorism than anybody. Any of these faces familiar to you that we have seen?

BERGEN: There is name of one of those people on the list, his name is al Nati (ph) , and that is -- he is a Yemeni, and that is a name which is the same either family or tribal grouping of somebody called Jamal al-Nati, who is alleged to have bombed hotels in Yemen in 1992 housing American servicemen. No one was killed in those attacks, but it is an interesting coincidence that there is a similar name of a group that was linked to bin Laden in '92 to one of the people on the list.

TUCHMAN: Peter Bergen, thank you very much for being with us today.

BERGEN: Thank you.

TUCHMAN: With us now is John Fund. He is member of the editorial board at the "Wall Street Journal." He is currently on leave to write a book and contributes to the "Journal"'s Web site: opinionjournal.com. Also, CNN military analyst Brigadier General David Grange and Clarence Page, a nationally syndicated columnist in the "Chicago Tribune's" Washington-based editorial board member.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us. Let me start with you, John fund, is the government telling us everything they know and should they be telling us everything they know about this? JOHN FUND, OPINIONJOURNAL.COM: This alert is much more specific and more detailed than some of the more general ones we have gotten, and I think it's obviously designed so that people will look out for these people and be at a heightened state of alert. Previous alerts I think often caused more problems than they solved because they simply raised people's nervousness and sense of tension, and they didn't really give people the information that they felt they could act and do something.

TUCHMAN: But is there information more specifically oriented to what we need to know that will help people in this country? For example, you are being told names and shown faces, but you are being one of two countries. You are not being told what's being thought about. Certainly wherever we got this information from, that person or these people must know about this. Should that be being told to us?

FUND: Well, we at least have the basis for an original investigation here. Obviously, people overseas are watching CNN. They are watching these other networks. I think they will be able to track some of these people. I don't think they can hide forever. These people have faces now, we can identify them. Obviously this will prompt further interrogations in Guantanamo and in Pakistan. We will probably know more in the next couple of days.

TUCHMAN: Clarence Page, I want to ask you a related question. Do you think this is enough information? If we are being told this much, should we be told more?

CLARENCE PAGE, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Of course, we should be told more. We in the media have been complaining all along during this entire war effort that this is the most secret war we have ever had, and some of it has been excessive. There should be more cooperation between the media and the government and getting more information out.

As far as this alert is concerned I'd think any information is helpful to us even when, as one of those empty general alerts we have seen in the example of the aircraft that Richard Reid almost blew up his shoes in that that episode was stopped because the crew and the passengers were alert. It helps for us Americans to go about our daily lives but to still be cautious and aware of any unusual activity like somebody trying to set their shoes on fire.

TUCHMAN: Clarence, I'm just curious, do you think it's harmful that more information is not being released about this, though?

PAGE: I'm an absolutist when it comes to wanting to have public disclosure. I'm also a military veteran. I understand the importance of secrecy at certain times, but I think the more secrecy you have, the more suspicion and the more irrational fear you have on the part of the public. So, it's consoling, especially for Americans, it's comforting and strengthening for Americans to be informed so they feel like they are a part of this action.

TUCHMAN: General Grange, do you think this is being handled correctly by the U.S. government? BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I do. I think that it is very important that this is put out to the American people. After all, it's American lives at stake. I think this war against terrorism involves all Americans, everybody has some type of responsibility. And what it does is, it at least gives you the situational awareness. In other words, stay alert. If you see something unusual report it. Don't panic. But just buy into this unity of effort to fight terrorism.

My personal belief is that we are given the amount of information that the government can possibly give us. If there's other information it may not be given to the American people because there's a lead to capturing someone that would spoil that operation. I'm confident what has been put out is what can be put out at this time.

TUCHMAN: General Grange, John Fund, Clarence Page, thank you very much for joining us.

We will take a break here and then we will go to Salt Lake City where security is a major issue at the Olympic games. We will also talk about last night's figure skating competition that left the audience booing. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TUCHMAN: Welcome back everybody. While the country is on alert for terrorists, imagine what security must be like at the Winter Olympic Games. CNN's Carol Lin is in Salt Lake City, and Carol, I heard you talking before relating security and your underwear. I need to know more about that. I didn't hear all those details. What was that all about, Carol?

CAROL LIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I was doing a live shot for the morning show and Daryn asked me how tight security was. Well, it turns out, I went through a security check point yesterday to get to one of the main Olympic venues and when I went through I didn't have my backpack on because I wanted to move through very quickly.

Let me show you something: in my hand are couple of coins that I had in my pocket, and this is all it took to set off the magnetometer. What happens is when you set off the magnetometer is you get pulled aside by the National Guard standing by and you are automatically treated as a threat. So she pulled me aside. She had one of those magnetic wands and she started wanding me all over, and every little metal stud on my ski jacket set off the metal wand, in addition to the backside where she proceeded to ask me questions about my under garments; how they were constructed, she wanted me to turn down the top portion of my jeans. It was a far more rigorous search than certainly I was expecting.

TUCHMAN: Carol, what other changes have you noticed today as compared to yesterday since this warning has been issued for as early as today?

LIN: Gary, that's about as tight as I every expected security to get yesterday. I made some phone calls today to the Secret Service and some of the other security in charge here and they laughed. They said that it has been completely quiet. And as anybody knows, most terrorists are not going to strike when people are ready. They are going to strike when people are not ready.

Though this is not an armed camp let me tell you by all appearances, precautions, extraordinary precautions have been taken. It is a record number of National Guard which are present, some 5000 members of the military are here. That's 2000 more than in Afghanistan. So, I think this is an area that is pretty tightly patrolled including closing off all the airspace above us and 45 miles around Salt Lake City.

TUCHMAN: Carol, does this diminish the enthusiasm of people who come to Salt Lake City and spend thousands of dollars to get there and watch the Olympics?

LIN: You know, Gary, I think there are mixed feelings by people, because people don't want to be reminded of September 11 while they are trying to enjoy what is supposed to be the greatest peacetime event in the world right now. But at the same time they are reassured by the security presence. It's an inconvenience but people are starting to acclimate to that. Even as they flew here to get through the airports, which really shows how far a lot of Americans have come, Gary, in terms of tolerating this level of security.

TUCHMAN: We have a gentleman in the audience here, his name is Ivan. Ivan is from Indiana. We wanted to talk to him because in the last segment we were talking to General Grange and Ivan served under General Grange in Korea, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's correct.

TUCHMAN: Tell me your opinion about all this, about the warning, about all the security.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well I think -- of course I'm going to agree with General Grange, he is a former boss -- but I think you have specific threats and you have general threats. I know have talked to my family about this, and I think the general feeling among the folks I know is that if the government knows something, we want to know, and especially if it's specific. But even general in nature I think it raises the national awareness to where it is obviously helping against the war on terrorism.

TUCHMAN: Do you think we need to know more?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. We need to know what the government knows.

TUCHMAN: Are you worried about being court-martialed by General Grange for saying that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me?

TUCHMAN: Court-martialed for saying that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think I have anything to worry about.

TUCHMAN: The general is on television right now, looking at you smiling. He's not going to court-martial you. He respects your opinion. This is America after all.

Carol Lin back to you for a second. I just want to know, the sense of well-being, the people who are at the Olympics right now feel a sense of well-being, or have you found people that seem to be a concerned?

LIN: No. I think people feel extremely (AUDIO GAP)

TUCHMAN: All right, we lost Carol. That has nothing to do with losing her sense of well being. That's just a signal -- now we have her back. Carol, what were you just saying? We lost you for a second.

LIN: Well, I was saying that one the controversies here is some of the technology they are using to secure the site: face-recognition technology and some 200 cameras that are cited around the venues, and the ACLU had complained prior to that because they are saying look face-recognition technology is not that reliable.

And what if somebody is identified out of the crowd randomly as a potential terrorist suspect and they are tracked down in their hotel rooms. I would be really interested in hearing what you audience has to say about that. What if this technology is being tested here at the Olympic sites and is to be used broadly in cities across America?

TUCHMAN: What would you think about that, audience? Round of applause. Would you like to see technology like that being used?

(APPLAUSE)

TUCHMAN: Who thinks that is invasive and doesn't want to see that?

A security conscious crowd right here.

John Fund, I want to ask you, a guy like yourself, just as a civilian, are you are worried about a threat like this? Does this concern you?

FUND: I think the point is the winter Olympics are so well protected I'd believe terrorists would probably be foolhardy to stage something like that. I agree, they are far more likely to go where he don't expect them. We have already heard tales that they might be interested in a nuclear power plant or they might be interested in something else.

While the attention of the world is focused on Salt Lake City I suspect terrorists are focused elsewhere, at much less security conscious places.

TUCHMAN: That's precisely my question: Are you concerned about being in other places, in everyday walks of life? Should Americans be concerned in your opinion?

FUND: Yes, American's should be concerned, but probably in places they don't expect it. New York City, probably not as nearly as dangerous a place as it was in the last few weeks. We are looking at someplace completely unexpected, completely unaware; a sneak attack somewhere where no one would expect it.

TUCHMAN: General Grange, I want to ask you the same question. You, as civilian, are you considered when you walk around America, when you have a warning like this?

GRANGE: Well, I'm not overly concerned, but I'm aware. I think there will be another attack somewhere. I'm sure there was a lot of attacks already planned. I think some have been delayed or negated through the efforts that are going on right now against terrorism.

But our infrastructure, power grids, air-traffic control, bridges, tunnels, water supply, food supply, those type of things are great targets for the enemy, and we have some vulnerabilities that we don't have a lot of means in place to protect or detect any kind of attack on those.

So, yes, it's a concern. And this effort that we are doing right now, $38 billion will really kick start or take care of years of past neglect to try to catch up with some type of means to protect Americans.

TUCHMAN: General, do you remember this guy Ivan from Indiana, by the way?

GRANGE: Yes, I am a general threat, and yes, but he has a good haircut, he is looking squared away. And I do remember him quite well. He is the best lieutenant I had.

TUCHMAN: Ivan, how about that. A round of applause for Ivan, everybody.

(APPLAUSE)

TUCHMAN: We have embarrassed poor Ivan. Sorry about that.

We have a caller from California right now: Randy.

, what do you think about all of this?

RANDY: Well, I'm comforted that the government does go that specific because now I feel like the people that were going to do the terrorism know that they have been identified and they are going to abandon what they had planned, in my opinion.

TUCHMAN: Randy, thank you very much. Clarence Page, I want to ask you this. Do you remember during the Oklahoma City bombing there were some people who complained that perhaps the government knew about a threat and didn't say anything and they were very angry the government didn't say anything back then. Could this possible be a case now, all these warnings we get of CYA, and I don't mean Cover Your Apples, but you know what I mean by that?

PAGE: Yes's it is a well-known military phrase that I recall from my days. Very true. Obviously, American who on the one hand joke about or grumble about the generalized warning, or it gets lampooned on Saturday Night Live, on the other hand, if we were not warned, and we found out after a terror attack that the government knew and didn't tell us, I think we would be much more angry and upset.

Again, we are in a new era of terrorism. We have to be like the people of Israel or Northern Ireland or any other country that to lives with terror, to be cautious and alert every day. I think it's good every so often that we do get an alert to get us back on our toes.

TUCHMAN: Clarence, thank you very much. I want to thank all our guests. It's nice to see smiles on people's faces when we are talking about a topic as serious as this. General Grange, John Fund, and Clarence Page, we are glad could all be with us.

Later this hour taking gender out the Oscars, and TV's million dollar Friends. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE SALE, OLYMPIC FIGURE SKATER SILVER MEDALIST: We have no control over this and it is not the skater's fault either. It's -- we do our job and the judges do their job, and they are human too, and we are not sure what happened, but we are just really happy with what we did, and we are really proud of ourselves and proud of our team that was here with us and supported us all the way and we are happy that Canada and the U.S. think that we should have won gold. That's nice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TUCHMAN: Most amazing picture last night on the medal stand when Jamie Sale was getting her silver medal. A tight shot of her face, and you saw tears streaming down her cheeks, and it wasn't the traditionally tears of joy. They were tears of frustration. She thought she should have had the gold, she got the silver.

Booing at the Winter Olympics last night and it doesn't happen very often. It seems the crowd did not agree with the judges when it came to crowning the pairs figure skating champs. It came down to the Canadians, who are said to have given an emotional and flawless performance. The crowd roared. It loved this couple. And then the Russians, who skated a more traditional line, wowed the judges and took home the gold. Boy, was the crowd angry.

Here to talk about the performance, judging and scores is Mark Lund. He is the publisher of "International Figure Skating" magazine. He is covering the Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Thank you very much for joining us, Mark. MARK LUND, "INTERNATIONAL FIGURE SKATING": Good afternoon.

TUCHMAN: In a nutshell, were the Canadians ripped off?

LUND: The Canadians were robbed 1000 percent. They should have won, absolutely.

(APPLAUSE)

TUCHMAN: Mark, let me just say one thing. When it comes to ice skating, one of the problems with ice skating and with snowboarding and with gymnastics is, you have to rely on judges. In baseball and football and hockey and basketball, if they judged you on how well you swing the bat, if they judged you on how well you pass the football, no one would watch these games. There's a score at the end.

LUND: No one would watch them.

TUCHMAN: Right. Now, isn't that the inherent problem with this sport?

LUND: That has always been the inherent problem with figure skating. You have nine judges that judge what they want, not what they see. And we saw that last night. It was an absolute national disgrace that the Canadians got second. It's like they should have won. I do not know what the judges were watching. Maybe they were watching Ken Lay trying to confess something, and we know didn't.

TUCHMAN: OK, a little cynicism here. I want to find out from you -- because of us don't know much about scoring figure skating -- why were they robbed? How do you know for sure the Canadians had a better performance?

LUND: Well, anyone that looked at both of their performances, you can see that Jamie and David, their lines were clean. Their jumps were clean. They were very confident on the ice. The Russians were rather hesitant. Anton turned out of his double axle. Elena's landing on two of her throw jumps were a little shaky. They were not clean. Jamie and David's program was above and beyond Olympic gold medal caliber.

TUCHMAN: So what was the motivation for the scoring?

LUND: Well, I think the motivation for the scoring was all prearranged before the competition even started. I think it was a majority for Elena and Anton to win. And I think the swing judge was perhaps the French judge. Let's not forget we have ice dancing coming up later on this week. And there is a French ice dance couple that probably is already slotted to win gold. And that was probably the trade-off.

TUCHMAN: Mark, you are making a very strong allegation, to be blunt with you.

LUND: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely.

TUCHMAN: You are saying it was fixed?

LUND: I am going to use that word fixed until the referee from the pairs event tells me otherwise, which I left him a message about an hour ago asking him to call to me to explain to me what went on at this meeting this morning. What was the explanation? Why were the Canadians shafted into second place when everyone on this planet watching these Games said they should have won? It is just awful. So, yes, I am going to use the word fixed.

TUCHMAN: That is a strong allegation. And we do eagerly await the results of that phone call, if you get it.

David Pelletier and Jamie Sale won the world championship. The Russian are saying: Hey, what goes around comes around. We thought we should have won back that. This is what happens in this sport.

What do you say about that?

LUND: Well, I disagree with that Russian statement on this particular championship. You know, it is like what goes around does come around in some ways. Skaters compete. They win. They lose. They withdraw from injury, or what have you.

I mean, Jamie and David's program was just, to sum it up in one word, perfect. And Elena and Anton's just wasn't. And, at the press conference late last night, they really couldn't even answer questions on why they won. They were just dumbfounded. How do you justify first place when you should have been second?

TUCHMAN: Is it possible, though, that it is a question about the style? There is a Western style of skating, an Eastern style of skating. And it is the Eastern Bloc judges who understand that style. And perhaps it was legitimate.

LUND: Well, the Eastern Bloc judges always generally vote together, if you will. The Russians do have a very different way of skating than the Western skaters do, American or Canadian, even coming down to the other European countries. We skate differently than the Russians do. It does not mean we skate worse. We just skate differently and sometimes better.

TUCHMAN: All right, we have a caller from the country directly affected by this, Bob, calling from the province of Ontario.

Bob, what did you think about all this?

CALLER: Well, my wife and I watched with horror whenever the score came in. We were just expecting a nail-biter, expecting it to be close. But when the Russians fell and the Canadian were flawless, these are kind of the sweethearts. We are a proud nation. We are also very tolerant, but right now we are ticked off.

TUCHMAN: What did you think when you saw Jamie Sale's tears on the silver medal stand?

CALLER: Well, everybody was breaking their hearts up here. That just shows the kind of class that these people are. They did not demand the gold medal. They went out and they earned it. And when they did not get it, they showed the caliber of people that they are by the class act that they are, by their actions.

TUCHMAN: Bob, thank you very much for your call.

Well, coming up next, we will have one half of the famous figure skating team known as America's sweethearts. Randy Gardner, who used to skate with Tai Babilonia, takes center ring right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TUCHMAN: We welcome you back to CNN Center and TALKBACK LIVE.

With us from Salt Lake City right now is Randy Gardner. He and his partner, Tai Babilonia, were household words and were also the 1979 world pair figure skating champions. They were America's sweetheart team in the 1980 Olympics.

But, as I recall, Randy, you were injured and you were not able to fulfill that dream. That was very disappointing to a lot of us.

RANDY GARDNER, 1979 WORLD PAIR CHAMPION: Yes, well, thank you. It was 22 years ago already. Time flies, right?

TUCHMAN: But none of us have gotten any older, Randy. That is what's amazing.

GARDNER: It's amazing, isn't it?

(LAUGHTER)

TUCHMAN: Let me ask you, what did you think about last night's competition?

GARDNER: Well, I was quite surprised, disappointed.

I do think Jamie and David should have won. They actually skated a long program better than the Russian team. I am just as curious and sort of in the dark as the public is. I would like to know where the rationale was from the judges. It is kind of like a jury in a criminal case in a court. I would like to sort of ask each one what they were looking for, what they saw, because obviously we missed a lot of stuff.

I would really like to know. I am just -- it's mind-boggling to me.

TUCHMAN: Well, let me ask you this. Mark Lund -- I do not know if you heard during our last segment -- went as far as to say that it was fixed.

GARDNER: Yes, I don't like that word fixed. That's kind of scary to me. I hope we are not going in that direction. It certainly looked that way. When you go from trick to trick, from move to move with both teams, the Canadians really did do a better job. They were smooth. They were fast. And they were right on with everything. And I would love to do a split-screen sometime. Maybe we'll come back and we'll do a split-screen of a couple of the maneuvers that both teams did, and then ask the judges what was better and why they went with the Russian team.

TUCHMAN: Mark Lund, Randy does not like that word. Do you take it back?

LUND: No, I don't take it back. Randy knows me well enough to know when I speak my mind, I mean what I say.

The problem with the judging is that it just needs to be overhauled completely from top to bottom. It's too much of a close- knit little club. I think Randy will agree with me on that. These people have been judging for years. They are either friends or enemies, or what have you, and they vote in blocs and groups. And this often sometimes translates to what we see on the ice, or more importantly, like last night, what we didn't see, Jamie and David winning gold.

TUCHMAN: Mark and Randy, I want you to know that, in our audience, we do have some people who feel the Russians should have won.

This gentleman right here, this is Brendan. He is from South Africa.

Tell me why, Brendan.

BRENDAN: I am not an ice skating expert, but what I watched last night, they did a good job. They skated well. They had the same judges, for the Canadians, for everyone, everyone that took part in it. It was fair. And I think the Canadians should just realize they were second best on the night.

(CROSSTALK)

TUCHMAN: This woman right here Jennifer -- let me just get to Jennifer really quickly. She told me something interesting before.

JENNIFER: Well, I think that the way they skated was admirable, but I think that the Canadians skate for themselves and the Russians skate for the judges. And that is the difference.

GARDNER: Do you think the Russians have more passion?

TUCHMAN: Is that what you think? They had more passion, Jennifer?

JENNIFER: I don't think that they have more passion, but I think they know what the judges want to see. They know what is going to get them the medal, you know?

(CROSSTALK)

LUND: Do they want to see mistakes, though? Anton turned out of a double axle. Elena, two of her jumps had a shaky landing. Are we awarding for mistakes here or are we awarding for good performances?

TUCHMAN: Let me ask Randy this question.

Randy, what Jennifer just said, that Canada skated for themselves and Russia skated for the judges, in your line of work and what you have done for all your life, trained so hard for, is that a rationale?

GARDNER: Well, I don't quite understand what that means, although I do know Russian skaters have more passion. I don't think that should win a gold medal in the case of last night.

But I would also like to pose a question to her: Does she realize that both teams did a throw triple loop, both teams did a throw triple salchow? Both teams did a double axle, double toe loop. I know this is skating jargon and lingo. That is why I would like to do a split-screen. They were doing trick for trick. And, quite frankly, the death spirals of the Canadians are much better than the Russians in the short program and the long.

TUCHMAN: Randy, a split-screen with you and Jennifer or a split- screen with the two ice skaters?

(LAUGHTER)

GARDNER: We can do that, too, wherever she is.

However, I do think it would be very interesting. No, the split- screen with the two teams.

TUCHMAN: OK, we want to go to another phone caller. this is Rhonda from the of state of Georgia.

Rhonda, what do you think about all this?

CALLER: Hi.

I actually was absolutely outraged at the call last night. And my comment is that the Olympic Committee just goes to these great pains to make sure that these athletes are drug free, not doping. And we saw that with an athlete suspended for two years. But they do not go to the same pains to make sure that these judges are impartial. And it just seems like there is a double standard here.

GARDNER: It may be that some of these judges do not know what they are looking at.

LUND: I would agree with that.

GARDNER: I truly believe that some of them aren't educated. Some were not skaters, which does not make that much difference. However, I think they might have to be trained at what they are looking at. And they do have a little TV screen now. They can go back and do a play-by-play or a replay. And maybe they should use that more.

(CROSSTALK)

TUCHMAN: Let me just ask Randy this.

Were you ripped off, do you think, in the past by unscrupulous judges?

GARDNER: No, never. Never. No, I don't really think so.

LUND: Randy, you always skated great, yes.

GARDNER: It is so hard to say. I would really like to know what was in the minds of the panel last night. Really I would. I think we all would.

(CROSSTALK)

TUCHMAN: One more statement from you, Mark. Just don't say the word fixed again, because we have no one to tell you it wasn't fixed at this point.

GARDNER: All right, I guess.

Well, my whole thing is that the judges, you know, they are volunteers. I have often been a big supporter that the judges should be paid. This should be a paid profession. I just think it is a mistake to have volunteers as judges. It should be an actual paid profession. Coaches are paid. Skaters are paid to perform. Judges are performing when they are judging. So I think it should be a paid profession.

GARDNER: Interesting point.

TUCHMAN: A very good point to close on.

Randy Gardner, Mark Lund, thank you. Randy, say hi to Tai for us, OK?

GARDNER: I will. I will find her somewhere around here.

TUCHMAN: OK. Thank you for joining us.

We are leaving Salt Lake now, but the next stop, Hollywood. Stick around.

Still ahead: hot for Oscar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALLE BERRY, ACTRESS: I am just out of my head. You know, I never thought in my career that my name would ever be mentioned with Oscar. So I'm just in shock.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TUCHMAN: The nominations are out. But let's give it a twist. What would happen if there was just one Oscar for the best actor, male or female, and women had to compete against men? You think about it and we will talk about it next on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TUCHMAN: Welcome back, everybody.

Let's talk about Oscars and let's talk about "Friends."

The nominations for the Oscars came out this morning. "A Beautiful Mind, "Gosford Park," "In the Bedroom," "Lord of the Rings," and "Moulin Rouge" are all in the running for best picture.

Russell Crowe, Sean Penn, Will Smith, Denzel Washington and Tom Wilkinson face off for best lead actor. And Halle Berry, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Sissy Spacek, and Renee Zellweger are in the running for best lead actress.

There's more. And here to talk about it are Christopher John Farley. He's a senior editor for "TIME" magazine and the author of "Aaliyah: More Than a Woman."

Thank you for joining us, Christopher.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN FARLEY, "TIME": Thanks for having me.

TUCHMAN: Also Linda Grasso. She is a correspondent for E! Television's "E! News Daily." She an urbane, witty woman. And she has also been a friend of mine for many years. Thanks for joining us, Linda.

LINDA GRASSO, "E! NEWS DAILY": Thank you, Gary.

TUCHMAN: Christopher, first of all, any surprises in today's major nominations?

FARLEY: Yes, there were a couple surprises. It was a bit of a surprise that Sean Penn got a best actor nomination for "I am Sam," because that movie did not exactly burn things up at the box office and yet he still got a nomination, partly because of reputation, partly because of the strength of his performance. It was also a bit strange that Baz Luhrmann got passed over as best director. He did direct "Moulin Rouge." Nicole Kidman got a nomination. And he had been so talked up, it was strange that he didn't get a nod as well.

It was also good to see that Halle Berry, Denzel Washington both got nominations. It was great to see three black actors, including Will Smith, all on the nomination list. It is something that has not happened since 1972, when Paul Winfield and Diana Ross and Cicely Tyson were all up for awards.

TUCHMAN: I think it was Sidney Poitier in the '60s, the last person to win a best actor award. Is that correct? And perhaps the only one, right? FARLEY: He is the only man to win best actor at the Oscars. And so maybe we will see a repeat of that this year. It is odd it is happening this year, because Sidney Poitier is also getting an honorary award at the Oscars this year. So it's probably appropriate that black actors have done so well.

TUCHMAN: Linda Grasso, what surprised you the most about the nominations today?

GRASSO: Well, just to add to what Christopher said, in terms of best director, I think the inclusion of David Lynch was a surprise to many. He directed a picture that, "Mulholland Drive," a lot of people didn't see, a lot of people said they did not understand, also a movie that came out of a TV pilot, which hard-core film critics don't like.

I think, in the best actor category, a bit surprised by the complete shutout of Billy Bob Thornton, who was nominated for two very strong performances for the Golden Globes, "The Others" and "Monster's Ball." He didn't get anything. So I think a lot of people would agree that his votes got canceled out. I think best picture was predictable. I think that is going to be an exciting race pretty much between...

TUCHMAN: Who do you pick for best picture? What is your prediction?

GRASSO: Well, I think it is going to be interesting, because "Lord of the Rings" got the most nominations, 13 nominations. And typically the picture that gets the most nominations wins. But "A Beautiful Mind" is a very strong contender. A lot of people think it is a front-runner. You've got strong performances by Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connolly. And it is a classic Academy picture in that the serious nature -- the topic is very serious. It's about a guy losing his mind, essentially.

TUCHMAN: Christopher, let me ask you, what is your pick for best picture?

FARLEY: Well, I would like to see "Lord of the Rings" win because I think that is a serious picture. I think it was a tough picture to make. I think it was a big gamble in terms of the way that New Line made three of these pictures at once. And so if the first one tanked, they still have two more in the can they had to release. So I think I would like to see Hollywood reward that kind of risk- taking, that kind of vision.

"A Beautiful Mind" is a fine picture, but I think that "Lord of the Rings" is really a complete cinematic vision. And Peter Jackson really should be applauded for making the film.

TUCHMAN: All right, let me tell both of you something.

In Saturday's "New York Times"," freelance writer Daniel Radish (ph) wrote the following editorial. He said -- quote -- "The Academy Awards indulge in gender segregation because the Oscars are first and foremost about glitz. Audiences want to see this year's dresses and hairstyles. Studios want female stars to help them sell tickets. That's the real purpose of the Oscars. The Motion Picture Academy should stop pretending otherwise unless it plans on eliminating the best actress category."

Christopher, you think it should just be one, just a best actor, men and women?

FARLEY: Well, I don't think that Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench, I don't think they are just about glitz. Certainly glitz is a huge part of Hollywood. But I think it would not do much good for actresses if they were thrown into one category in which a lot of actresses would not be getting nominated because men tend to get the better parts. It wouldn't help audiences because you wouldn't get to see Halle Berry show up in whatever dress she is going to wear to the Oscars.

So I think all around it would be a bad deal for people if actors and actresses were all competing in the same category and fewer actresses, as a result, got nominations.

TUCHMAN: In 15 seconds, Linda, do you think the "Friends" stars are worth $1 million a piece?

GRASSO: I think no one is worth that kind of money. I think it is going to drive up everything in Hollywood. I think it is going to make it harder for people with good ideas to get sitcoms and dramas made because of salaries like that.

TUCHMAN: We are out of time, Christopher Farley and Linda Grasso, but thank you very much for joining us and talking to us about what is going on in Hollywood right now.

We also thank our studio audience and all of you at home.

I'm Gary Tuchman. And I've enjoyed hosting TALKBACK LIVE these past couple of days. The show returns tomorrow 3:00 p.m. 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