Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should We Color-Code Threats?; Should Mike Tyson Fight in D.C.? Just How Much is Dave Letterman Worth?

Aired March 12, 2002 - 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Two major stories caught our attention today. Homeland security chief Tom Ridge's color chart -- certain colors are supposed to just let us know how much danger we are in from terrorists. Will this be too confusing is the question. And one of Osama bin Laden's wives is talking with reporters. What is it like to live with public enemy No. 1?

I would love to get you in on that discussion, so give me a call 1-800-4-CNN. Or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com. And here is what else we have in store for you today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(AUDIO GAP)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: All right it looks like our technical difficulties are continuing, but that's OK, we are going to roll right along. Now, U.S. officials say bin Laden has four wives, and an ex-wife. It is being speculated that his youngest wife, a 19-year-old from Yemen, may be the woman that granted an interview to a Saudi magazine. And joining me to discuss the article and its implications, CNN national security correspondent, David Ensor.

First of all, David, thank you very much for being here. And first question I want to go with here, you have been investigating the women in bin Laden's life, let's start with his mother. What do we know about her?

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: His mother is Syrian. She is from Damascus. She lives now in Saudi Arabia. Her name is Hamida or some call her Alia al-Attas. She is remarried. She lives as quiet life as she can arrange which is not too quiet given who her famous son is. I am told that she has not been asked yet for DNA samples but it is possible that the Saui government may be asking had her for some kind of DNA sample soon on behalf of the U.S. government.

NEVILLE: And that is to determine whether or not bin Laden is alive?

ENSOR: Right. NEVILLE: If she is his mother would she be held under law to abide by those rules and comply with the government? Or could she say, no, I am not giving you any DNA samples?

ENSOR: To be honest, I don't know what the law is in Saudi Arabia on that. I suspect that is the Saudi government really wants a sample, it can get one.

NEVILLE: They will get it. Exactly. Let's move on now to his four wives. What can you tell us about those women?

ENSOR: Well, it is kind of interesting. He has four wives from four different countries. His first wife is Syrian. Her name is Najwan Ibrahim Ghanem. Last noted she lived in Damascus. She is the mother of approximately 11 of his roughly 24 or 25 children. His second wife is a Saudi citizen, we do not know her name yet. Third an Afghan, again don't know her name. And the fourth is Yemeni, and that is Amal al-Sadah, the 19-year-old you mentioned a moment ago. She married bin Laden approximately two years ago when she was 17.

NEVILLE: Now David, what kind of intelligence do you think that these women can provide?

ENSOR: Well, you mentioned that there has been a magazine interview with a wife described as a wife with the initials A.S. That could be the youngest one. I suppose that the insights will be pillow-talk in part. But here is a couple of quotes from A.S. She says that bin Laden used tranquilizers, had a lot of kidney pain and, quote, "used to talk to me, that he has a great project in mind and that he has committed himself to face the U.S. and Israel." She also said, "I feel inside me that he is still alive and that if he were dead the world would know because the death of Osama cannot be concealed."

She also talks about how she got out of Afghanistan and how she ended up in Pakistani hands before moving on to another country which I do not know the name of.

NEVILLE: But David it is interesting because she was chronicling all this information and how they moved, when they moved as compared to just several weeks or days before September 11, and then after the bombing started -- U.S. bombing started -- then they moved into caves. I thought that was a lot of information she was revealing, so one has to ask the question if there is a smoke screen uninvolved here?

ENSOR: It is possible. One thing you can be sure of, and U.S. officials assure me of, these women are being closely watched either by the U.S. or by its allies -- anybody they talk to, anyone they communicate with in any way, that is known by U.S. or allied intelligence without any question.

NEVILLE: Now of course we have all these eyes on these people, but how do they keep in track, of them? We are talking about a lot of people here.

ENSOR: That's right. He's got 24 children, four wives, one -- a fifth one, because he is divorced. It is a quite a large family, the bin Laden family. I did not mention by the way, that bin Laden himself said in -- and it was quoted as saying in a number of news articles earlier, that his mother and father were not actually married. That it was not a Koranic union, as he put it. In other words, that his mother was not one of the four legal wives of Mohamed bin Laden. That may help explain some of his psychology. He is obviously a man who is angry with at least parts of the world.

NEVILLE: Hmm-- well, David, thank you very much for that interesting information, and of course we will get you back when you have any more on the developments, OK?

Thank you, David.

And here is a question for you, what is the difference -- I am going to ask you -- between a soft alert and a high alert -- thanks, David -- all right.

Here we go. The new color chart put out today by the homeland security director. Maybe it will help us understand just how much trouble we are in. We will talk about that after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back. Over the past six months the government has issued any number of terror alerts. In the wake of those we went around wondering just what those alerts meant, how much danger we were in and what we were supposed to be looking for when the president asked us to be on the lookout for terrorist activity.

Today homeland security director Tom Ridge offered us a color code to help us rate the danger. With us now are CNN correspondent Jeanne Meserve and Bill Daly a security specialist and former FBI investigator.

All right, Jeanne, let's start with you -- I knew I was going to do that by the way, Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Everyone does.

NEVILLE: I know! Sorry about that. OK, let's get serious now. Jeanne, how does this color-coding work anyway?

MESERVE: Well, what's going to happen is that the attorney general will evaluate and intelligence that he has and decide whether the current terrorist threat is credible, if it is specific, how grave the threat is, and then he will issue a threat level which will be distributed to local and state officials, also to the private sector and to the public.

The lowest condition would be green. Guarded is blue, that means there is a general risk of terrorist attack. At that point governmental authorities in the private sector would check communications and do things like review emergency response procedures. Yellow or elevated means there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks. At that point surveillance of critical locations would be increased and emergency plans would be coordinated with nearby jurisdictions.

Orange means there is a high risk of terrorist attacks. At this security would be coordinated with the armed forces or law enforcement agencies and there would be additional precautions at public events.

Red means there is a severe risk of a terror attack. This would lead to the closing of some public and government facilities and possible redirection or closing of some transportation systems.

NEVILLE: Jeanne, I am getting the idea here that it is really on the part of the government that, depending on the color code we are in, that they are the ones that have to make the adjustments.

MESERVE: This will be distributed all across the spectrum, as I mentioned, to state and local officials, to the federal agencies, and to the private sector, and to the public. It has gone into effect immediately for the federal government. In fact I have in my hand here the message that just went out from the FBI to law enforcement saying that the threat from al Qaeda remains high and so the country should remain on stage yellow.

And the system does not however kick in immediately for state and local officials. There is nothing that the federal government can do to make them comply with it, however, they were crying out for this system. Response to it generally has been positive today and everybody expects they will buy into it as well.

NEVILLE: Jeanne obviously did an incredible job of explaining this and I still do not know what this means. So we are in a state yellow, code yellow. I mean, this is confusing. Is this going to be too confusing for people? People just want to know when do I need to run for cover?

BILL DALY, FMR. FBI INVESTIGATOR: Well, I think you are right. It will take a while before people understand really what the dynamics are of these levels. And I would probably suggest that maybe over the next 45 days, which is the period in which they have asked for he commentary from state, local and federal agencies, they may narrow this down to maybe being less colors, and maybe being a little bit more broad.

It does kind of finely cut up and put into minutiae the differences between levels. But I think at the end of the day, what it will do is give a framework for local and state agencies to be able to go out and put additional security in place, around key locations like bridges, tunnels or power plants. I do not think it is really meant at the end of the day for citizens themselves.

NEVILLE: Exactly, that is what I am getting, I am understand that it is more with the city or state officials, or national officials have to do to take necessary precautions. In the meantime, I am going to let John from Texas jump in here.

JOHN: I have a question regarding each individual code. Is there some type of preparation that the American people should be doing at each level? And I am also concerned, will it cause undue panic across America at the highest level as it may advance to the highest level? Different people have different perceptions regarding each code, some may be calm and not afraid, and others may just take it to the highest extreme, think it is all doom and gloom and hide under the bed, et cetera.

MESERVE: I would love to take at that, Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK, go ahead Jeanne?

MESERVE: I think what they are trying to do is prevent panic. I think that when they issued those general terror alerts, nobody who what they were about or what they were supposed to do, and so they hoping by graduating the threat level like this people will be able to respond accordingly.

As to whether the public was told specifically how to respond to these threat levels, as of yet, they he have not. There will be we are told, more specific information developed that will be disseminated, but at the moment, no, they have not told the American public very much of how to prepare for anything.

NEVILLE: OK, so Faith from Virginia, Jeanne just explained to us that the idea here is to alleviate any kind of panic among us, the citizens. What do you think about this?

FAITH: I think it is very confusing. I mean, there are a lot of colors, a lot of different things to memorize. I am just kind of curious how they expect the people of America to memorize something and remember what they are supposed to do when they see something like this come on their TV or hear it on the radio.

NEVILLE: Right, because when you are in a statement of panic, you do not remember colors. You barely remember your name.

FAITH: Like you said earlier, you just want to run.

NEVILLE: You can't even find your car keys, at that point when you need to get out of Dodge, right?

Let's take a call now, from I think, Ontario, and the caller's name would be Bernadette, go ahead.

CALLER: Actually, I just wanted to say similar to what you said earlier, we are not going to remember all of the colors. And it is under (UNINTELLIGIBLE) conditions that these colors are put into the place. Who will remember oh, it is going to be code-red or code-green once a bomb hits a certain area of the states.

And just to also remember that whatever happens in the states here also has a big impact on what happens in Canada as well. Because whatever is done in the states, whatever decision making is made in regards to anti-terrorism laws, in regards to how colors or whatever ideas in regards to lowering terrorism is, Ontario and the rest of Canada does follow suit.

NEVILLE: Bernadette, let me let Jeanne jump in there. Maybe she can help you understand some of this.

MESERVE: Yes, I think first of all, it does seem confusing at first glance see these five levels, but you are just looking at them today for the very first time, and I think the feeling is that there will be growing familiarity with them.

I mean, we have all learned how to read a weather map in the newspaper that has different colors for different regions of the country, indicating where temperatures are different. So I think they assume sooner or later we are going to grasp this and be able to deal with it. That is my principle thought on that one.

NEVILLE: Jeanne, what do you think of the notion, when you are reading a weather map, you just want to know, OK, is it raining in Houston, is it going to be sunny New Orleans, and are you fine with that. But once again, when you are looking at something that could affect your life, you are not so calm.

MESERVE: Well, the thing is that this is supposed to be a warning system that prepares for you for something. It is not necessarily reflection of what happens after a terrorist event occurs, so this is to put you on a certain footing to prepare for something that could possibly happen down the road. So I don't think panic would necessarily ensue immediately when you are told let's say from level yellow that we are at today to perhaps an orange level down the road.

NEVILLE: Scott?

DALY: If I could jump in for a second.

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

DALY: I think that what they are trying to do is accomplish similar to what we were talking a second ago with weather is look at hurricane alerts. We have all over a period of time, now been able to ascertain the different levels of hurricanes and I think if we lose that same analogy, that is where the government wants to go as far as these terror alerts are concerned.

NEVILLE: Scott, what do you think?

SCOTT: The only question I had was whether these alerts will be regional or is it the nation as a whole?

MESERVE: They can be very specific. They can break them down. They may break them down by geographical area. Let's say if there is a threat in California, California will be put on an elevated state, but New York wouldn't be. They also can break it down to indicate if there are specific infrastructures that are going to be affected. So for instance if they think there is a threat to the power system, a directive would go out to the power industry to upgrade the threat level, but other portions of the economy may not be affected at all. And local officials really like.

NEVILLE: Jeanne or Bill, how are we going to get this information?

MESERVE: It is going to be publicly announced.

NEVILLE: On the radio, the television, every -- both places?

MESERVE: I am told that the attorney general, when there is a change in threat condition, the attorney general will come out and publicly tell us that the threat level has changed with this exception: If they have some terrorists under surveillance, and they he are hoping to catch them, they may not tell the public there is an elevated threat level because that they fear could tip off the terrorists and send them further underground.

But otherwise my understanding is it will be publicly announced, the specifics of the communications systems otherwise, the law enforcement and the private sector are still being developed by the office of homeland security in concert with other government agencies.

NEVILLE: OK, let's take a caller right now. Mark, you are on the air.

CALLER: I am a Cleveland policeman and when we came on duty this morning we were on a fairly high alert, and I see a yellow alert now, and that is kind of contradictory to what we were told today as far as what to watch out for. An elevated alert we were more or less it was high, it was a high alert, actually. So discrepancy right now, I would say.

NEVILLE: Bill, why don't you jump in.

DALY: I think what we will see here is there is going to be a period of time of adjusting and acclimating ourselves to what these different levels mean. I think what they are trying to do is establish more of a framework, as opposed to these general alerts that we had back at the end of the year, and also trying to get away from some of these individual state alerts.

For instance we say in California there was an alert put out against suspension bridges. There was another one in Texas that was put out unconfirmed against a school district. So there will be a time of acclimating ourselves not only to what all this means, but also for law enforcement agencies all to be on the same sheet of music.

And I think that is the intent, and if there is some discord right now, I believe it will settle down and hopefully we will be at a place where people know what those brackets are.

NEVILLE: It's like anything. When you are first introduced to something it is a little confusing. You are not sure if it is going to work, but with time it will all be resolved. Let's hope. Jeanne Meserve, nice to see you. Bill Daly, nice to see you as well. Thanks to both of you for joining us today.

DALY: Thank you.

MESERVE: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Sure, and coming up next: can Mike Tyson fight his way into the nation's Capitol? Why would D.C. take him in after Nevada, Georgia, and Texas turned him out? We will talk about that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Mike Tyson is still looking for that matchup with Lennox Lewis after being rebuffed in Nevada, Texas, California, and Georgia, he turned his attention to the nation's Capitol.

Like other cities, D.C. needs the money a heavyweight boxing match would generate. Will the boxing commission there fight? Here to talk about are Joe Madison, a Radio One talk show host, hi, Joe; and Rob Becker, sports commentator, New York attorney who does some legal analysis on Fox Sports Radio. All right...

ROB BECKER, SPORTS COMMENTATOR: Nice to see you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see both of you. Thank you.

Let's get right to it. The mayor says straight up, the city needs the money. Bring on the Tyson fight. In essence, is he pimping the city?

(LAUGHTER)

BECKER: That is an easy one, Arthel. He is pimping the city. Four other states in this country have turned this man down. He has a long history of abuses, crimes, and what is going to happen now, there is going to be a black mark on Washington, D.C., which is the Capitol of this country, and represents this country abroad. In fact, it could even accrue to President Bush's detriment, because a lot of people in this world don't really realize that Bush does not run D.C. the way we know that.

NEVILLE: I mean, do you really think that -- you think people from other countries think that our president runs D.C.?

BECKER: Sure. You think everyone and the rest -- this is...

NEVILLE: They know the White House is there, but come on.

BECKER: No, I think with what you are forgetting is your own knowledge that he doesn't run it. But there is a lot of places where the head of a country could run the capitol. I mean that is about the biggest problem here. What we have here is the sacrificing of morality for money.

People say you know, the city needs money. Well you know, you can always make that argument. You can say, let's have nude wrestling on the mall, let's have cock fighting in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It will certainly earn money for the city, but no one would say you should do that. And this is another something from that same category. We are just going to sacrifice morality for money.

NEVILLE: All right, Joe, I know you want to jump in here, but before you do, Sarah was about to jump out of her seat, so I think I need to let Sarah speak now.

SARAH: I am a educator in the state of Texas, and every day I find it more and more difficult to show these children, fifth and sixth graders who you ought to look like, who you ought to stand up and proud of. And I am really kind of fed up and they are too. Get over it and move on.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Spoken like a true Texan. All right. But she was born in Mississippi, she wants me to know. All right.

Joe, go ahead. What do you have to say?

JOE MADISON, RADIO ONE: Well you can also tell the children from Texas they can look up to people like Colin Powell, they can look up to people like Condoleezza Rice.

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

MADISON: They can look up to people that are even sometimes do not look like them, they can still look up to them. Let me just -- Anthony Williams has been called a lot of things, but one of the things I do not think that anybody in Washington would call him is a pimp.

Let's understand one thing, this is a city of homes, businesses, that were hit extremely hard because of the terrorist act that happened at the Pentagon.

BECKER: Are you suggesting that that should be an excuse for Tyson to fight in Washington? Don't you think that the people who died on September 11 in New York City would be rolling in their graves to hear you say that? And don't you think any widows watching this program would really be appalled at what you just said?

MADISON: I will continue my paragraph. This is a city that there are 600,000 people who are suffering economically, who are out of work. You know, historically, and I will make this quick, in the state of Georgia, a -- couple of decades ago, there was a boxer by the name of Mohammed Ali, and which I think my colleague would have been opposed to. He was considered a traitor, a draft dodger...

(CROSSTALK)

BECKER: Mohammed Ali was a great man!

NEVILLE: Rob, let me jump in just for a second...

BECKER: OK, but I just don't want him to attribute that thing, because that is not correct. NEVILLE: I was going to do that for you, Joe -- I mean, Rob. Joe, I wanted to ask you, really, you cannot really compare or put Mohammed Ali and Tyson in the same sentence at all.

MADISON: If I had been allowed to finish my thought, I wasn't not about to do that. And believe me I was around at that time. What I am saying is he could not fight anywhere in the country...

NEVILLE: True.

MADISON: ... because people had a visceral response to who he was. He was not considered great when they would not allow him to fight in any state in the country...

NEVILLE: But Joe. That was because of political issues and his political stand. It had nothing to do with whether or not he was going to bite somebody's ear off in the ring or if he was going to get into a fight at a press conference. But I want to move on now.

MADISON: I want to finish my thought, though...

NEVILLE: You know what, Joe, I have to talk to the people for a second here, so give me a moment to let Tony chime in -- Tony.

TONY: I am an ex-Vietnam veteran, and we live in a democracy. That is what makes this country so great. If you do not like 'em don't buy the ticket. If you like them, buy the ticket. We have this in all sports, basketball, everything.

NEVILLE: Eric, what do you say?

ERIC: I was just going to say on the flip side of things this may actually be an opportunity for us to see him get his bell rung, you know?

NEVILLE: Let me go to a caller right now. Caller, you are on the air, go ahead. Karen, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, I would like to say that everything, not everything but pretty much all of the charges that they have pending against Mike Tyson were done outside of the ring. By holding up his right to fight is holding up his right to make money, and therefore, what is he going to do if he cannot box, become a criminal, and therefore we as a society will have to continue paying for him.

And if you are going to stop everybody who has gotten into trouble, let's look at some of the politics, and some of the politicians, you know or God knows we have had enough of them who have also gone in to the legal systems and have had their hands smacked once or twice themselves.

If D.C. doesn't grant Mike Tyson the right to fight another state will pick it up. If not, another country, therefore taking money away from people who could use it in D.C., than giving it to another state -- or God forbid -- another country. MADISON: I am going to try to do this. The decision to fight in Georgia was purely an economic one. That is why the governor made that decision. The decision to fight in D.C. will be an economic one. You will also have to find out...

(CROSSTALK)

MADISON: You will also have to find out if there is any legal reason to keep Mike Tyson because it will be a commission who will look at whether or not there is a legal reason.

And finally, let me say this: if my friend there or whoever he is, is so concerned about Washington D.C. then stand up for the people of the District of Columbia to have representation in Congress and the Senate.

NEVILLE: Joe, you get the last word before the break. I've got to go to a break. I've got to go to a break right now, but we will continue this discussion on the other side so don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody.

Before the break, Reggie here wanted to weigh in on whether or not you think Tyson should fight in D.C.

REGGIE: Definitely. Let him fight. I love the sport of boxing. I'm a boxing fan. Mike Tyson is a great fighter. Lennox Lewis is a great fighter. The whole world wants to watch the fight. It is going to generate a lot of revenue for the city of D.C. And I guarantee you everyone here is going to be at a fight party. Everyone here is going to either buy the pay-per-view. Arthel told me she is coming to my house to watch -- to my fight party.

NEVILLE: You see what happens when I forget to wear my ring for one day?

REGGIE: And I guarantee you Rob is going to watch the fight.

BECKER: You are wrong. I am not going to watch it.

REGGIE: I'm sure Rob is a fan of boxing. And, Rob, you are welcome to come to my fight party as well.

BECKER: While I'm very happy you invited me, I must respectfully decline.

REGGIE: Once again, in my opinion, Mike Tyson is not a saint. He's not a preacher. I don't really care what Mike Tyson does outside of the ring. No one should emulate Mike Tyson to be a role model. But Mike Tyson is a great fighter. And it is going to be a great fight. And I'm sure the world wants to watch it. It is just too bad that Vegas did not allow the fight to happen in Vegas, because I love Vegas. I love to go to gamble.

NEVILLE: Well, thank you, Reggie, for weighing in on that. I appreciate your comments.

And I think we have a caller now, Brian -- or Ryan from...

CALLER: Yes, Ryan.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Ryan. What do you have to say?

CALLER: Well, I think that Tyson is basically an animal. He has bitten people twice. He has been convicted of rape. I think that what we should do for Lennox Lewis is, the first time he fought Holyfield, he was obviously robbed. They should let the fight go on in London. And maybe, just maybe, Lennox Lewis will pound some sense into Mike Tyson. And that is pretty much all I have to say.

NEVILLE: Joe or Rob, go ahead and respond.

MADISON: Well, I want to make something clear. I am not a fight fan, even though my grandfather was a prize fighter. I am not going to the fight, because I certainly can't afford the ticket. And doubt if I am even going to watch it on pay-per-view.

What I am saying is -- and I am not a fan of Mike Tyson. I have three daughters, and I don't want any of them to bring him home. This is not what it is about. The decision by the commission is going to be made on economic and legal reasons. You know, we have NFL players that are peeping through holes drilled in locker rooms to watch women take showers. No one is suggesting that we not play...

BECKER: Right. And they have gotten sued. And they have been sued.

MADISON: No one is suggesting that we not have NFL games. We have rap artists that rent out facilities all over this country that have misogynistic lyrics, some of them very racist lyrics, but yet we still have these concerts.

And Hugh Grant should never be allowed to make another movie or have it distributed if we want to play that kind of game.

BECKER: There is a difference here?

NEVILLE: What's the difference, Rob?

MADISON: Yes, what's the difference?

BECKER: I'll tell you.

We have a public body regulating the situation. And they have to use their discretion. It is not a question of: Does Tyson have a right? He does not a right to fight anywhere until someone gives him a license. And when this body is using their discretion and representing the city and, to some extent, I would say even the country, they should keep in mind what this says to people.

It says you to people: Look, you can do all of these things and you can still make millions and millions of dollars. It is really OK. We say it is not OK, but it is really OK, because you can make a lot of money.

And I think it is about time this commission -- which, by the way, I do not know if you are aware of this. This commission has an inborn conflict of interest. They, on the one hand, promote fights and draw the fighter to come to Washington and then they regulate it. In fact, in particular, Michael Brown, the vice chairman of this committee, he brought in -- he has been recruiting Tyson for weeks. And now this same guy is going to vote on whether it's OK. What do you think is going to happen tonight?

MADISON: This same guy is a very distinguished individual in our community.

BECKER: Yes, that's right. He paid a $5,000 fine for illegal campaign contributions five years ago.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: What does that have to do with the subject, Rob? Rob, come on.

MADISON: This same guy is a very. He is a son of a very good friend of mine, the late Ron Brown. He is a distinguished individual.

My point is that there are a lot of cab drivers, a lot of maids, a lot of hotel managers, and, you know, quite honestly, a lot of people around this CNN studio who want this fight.

NEVILLE: We have got an interesting caller now. His name is Phil. He's in Arizona. And he used to be on the boxing commission in Arizona.

Phil, what do you have to say about all of this?

CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. I am a past chairman of the Arizona State Boxing Commission.

First of all, I would like to say that any fighter that we find to be suspended in D.C. or any other state, when they come to Arizona, we reciprocate by not allowing them to fight, with our suspension relevant to theirs. And the other point is that D.C. needs the money. Well, so does Phoenix. So does Tucson. And so does New York and Detroit and every other city in the country. And we do not allow them to just take any fight they want once they've got a suspended fighter.

And the last part is that Tyson is a convicted felon. He is a public batterer. And he is a wife beater. And, frankly, this state wouldn't have someone like that in the ring.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: You know what? Joe, excuse me. I would like to hear a woman's opinion in response to what the caller just said. HELEN: Well, I just believe very strongly that there are just more things in life more important than just money: principle and role models. And I believe that what Mike Tyson needs is -- he is out of control and he needs to be in a mental institution. That is my personal opinion.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Thank you, Helen.

Go ahead, guys.

MADISON: Like I said, I am not a psychiatrist. I have all the same feelings at some point in time.

All I am saying to you, though, and this comparing the city, outside of federal government, the No. 1 industry in Washington, D.C. is tourism. And all I am saying is, if people were coming to Washington, D.C., if their schoolchildren were coming here on their spring breaks and their summer, maybe this wouldn't even be an issue.

But the mayor has an obligation to try and find revenue for this city and get it back on its feet. We were hit hard by the terrorist attack, like New York was. And New York received a tremendous billion-dollar bailout. Washington, D.C. did not get that.

So, all I am saying is, I agree with the attitude everybody has about Tyson. But if that is the way you feel, there would be a lot of people who wouldn't be in sports. Didn't we just see Darryl Strawberry?

NEVILLE: Yes.

MADISON: And excuse me.

BECKER: Strawberry is a different issue. He does not hurt people and he has a problem with cancer. That's a completely different issue from Mike Tyson. We cannot put them together.

(CROSSTALK)

MADISON: Of course it is different, but he obviously can't be a good role model. And they are getting ready to bring him back to New York to work for the Yankees.

BECKER: No, I don't believe they are.

MADISON: Yes, they are.

NEVILLE: Joe, Rob, we can go on with it, because there are lots of other comparisons we can make to this story.

MADISON: Yes.

NEVILLE: But I do have to go now.

But, Joe, can you do me a favor, please, when you see Mr. Mayor, Anthony Williams? Let him know that I was not calling him a pimp.

MADISON: I think he understands.

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: I'm asking the questions.

MADISON: I understand.

NEVILLE: OK. All right.

MADISON: All right.

NEVILLE: Joe Madison and Rob Becker, thanks so much for being here today.

BECKER: Thank you.

NEVILLE: All right, still ahead: David Letterman's new deal. Is Dave worth it? We will talk about that when we come back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN")

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: What I have decided to do -- and this has not been a very easy decision for me -- I have decided to stay here at CBS. And I want to thank...

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")

JAY LENO, HOST: David Letterman has agreed to stay with CBS for $31.5 million a year. And not to be outdone -- you know, high water lifts all boats -- today, NBC gave me a "Leap of Faith" T-shirt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: All right, Jay, a "Leap of Faith" T-shirt, huh?

All right, well, Dave Letterman is staying with the family, as he calls it. We are talking about $31.5 million a year. It helped him prove that he loves CBS or it made him think he's loves it, anyway. And I like Dave, by the way. I'm going to go on record. I like Dave and Leno, both of them. So there you go. Am I a wuss, guys?

No, they are both good. But it seems like a lot of money, some people say. Is he worth it?

Well, right now we're going to meet Lynette Rice. She is a television reporter for "Entertainment Weekly."

And, Lynette, let's talk about Dave's perks, because it is not just about the $31.5 million a year. We are talking about perks that go along with that as well.

LYNETTE RICE, "ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY": You know, that is a question, because getting anyone to admit anything, be it the salary itself or what goes along with the contract, is very difficult.

The big question -- and this will be kind of hard to confirm -- is whether Dave will be able to own his time slot once he retires. Keep in mind, that is like the producers of "Friends" owning 8:00 p.m. Thursday after "Friends" goes away, which seems absurd, but that is what Dave wants. And he wanted it for 10 years. And that was a deal- breaker at first. That's why the negotiations were so protracted.

That is why ABC had the chance to go in and try and make a play for Letterman themselves, because CBS would not give that to him. So that is the key to look for now in the subsequent stories: Did Letterman get that really great perk?

NEVILLE: Because that has never done before, right?

RICE: No, that is a little unheard of.

Now, granted, he did already kind of get that in his last contract negotiation. He wanted to own the time after his show at 12:30. So he produces the "Kilborn" show. So he owns that show. So now the key is, he wants to basically own his replacement. His production company wants to produce the next "Late Show."

NEVILLE: Let me ask you about -- well, you seem to have a problem with this, Lynette, the way you are saying this.

RICE: Well, you know, in covering the business, you are never -- you continue to be surprised at the demands that stars make. And, granted, he is a powerful guy. He is very important to CBS. That is a pretty ludicrous request: to own a spot for 10 years. CBS should be able to have control over a time slot once the guy leaves. So it seems a little surprising.

But who knows? CBS made the deal. Maybe they caved for five years. Who knows?

NEVILLE: Well, we will find out, as you said.

Now, let's talk about Letterman's concern for cross-promotion. I understand that was part of the deal.

RICE: Apparently, one of his major complaints -- and keep in mind that Letterman loves to do that, is to complain -- he would watch NBC and he would see all these wonderful promos for Jay Leno's show. And he would say: "Why don't I get that? Why don't I get that?"

Well, the problem with Letterman is that he does not like to cut promos. He doesn't make himself readily available. If anyone will read stories about Letterman in the press, my magazine included, Letterman doesn't even like to do interviews. He does not publicize himself. So he is not a good partner to the network in that regard.

Sure, CBS would like to cut more promos. But the guy has got to make himself more available.

NEVILLE: All right, Lynette, let's talk about overall value, star value.

"Fortune" magazine did a little bit talked about stars and their salaries and their cost per viewer. How it works it that you divide their salary by the number of people they reach. And we put together a little chart here from that.

And we are going to start with Haley Joel Osment, OK? He's the best value, he's considered, because he costs the film studios 11 cents per viewer. And then you see you have Mariah Carey on the other side of that. And this is totally based on "Glitter," by the way. She costs record companies and film studios $98 dollars a viewer.

And, Lynette, what do you think about this? Does this mean that Haley Joel Osment is underpaid?

RICE: You know, I can't really speak to film stars, because my...

NEVILLE: You're in television, right.

RICE: ... strength is television.

But I think, even your average American can answer the question whether a star is worth the money. And that comes down to: Are they a favorite? Are you going to go and see a Haley Joel Osment? If the answer is yes, then, yes, he is worth the dollars.

And the same goes for David Letterman. Yes, $31 million to you and me, that seems like an astonishing amount of money, even the money that the "Friends" are now earning. But the fact is, before Letterman, CBS was an also-ran. It was like they hung up a "Gone Fishing" sign. They were not relevant at all.

And now that Letterman is there, they are relevant. Yes, Leno is beating Letterman. He continues to beat Letterman. But CBS is still more competitive in that time slot. And so, for that alone, yes, the money is worth it.

NEVILLE: Let's talk about other stars for a moment, if you will.

Will Smith: Will costs the studios $1.02 per viewer. I think Will is going to need a raise myself. What do you think about that, Lynette?

RICE: Again, this is a film star. But I think the man is worth it.

NEVILLE: I think so.

RICE: I did not particularly like "Wild Wild West." I mean, that was a scary movie. "Ali" is doing extremely well. The guy is a favorite. He was obviously a favorite on television. He's a favorite in the music world. I think he is worth the dollar. But I do not know if this is a fan talking or if this is business reporter talking. As a fan, I think he is worth every dollar.

NEVILLE: I am just going to go straight up on the fan side: Give Will a raise.

OK, before I get to you, Scott, I want to talk about the cast of "Friends," since, Lynette, you can talk a lot about the television side of things. Each cast member, as you know, gets paid $1,000,000 per episode. They cost NBC $4.86 a viewer. That's not bad, right?

RICE: It's not bad.

And keep in mind, too, that NBC pays some of the salary for basically buying the show from the studio. And the studio that produces the show pays the rest. I think the "Friends" stars, for the longest time, were a bargain. They were paid so cheaply. And this is a testament to the original business affairs department at Warner Brothers. They got these six actors in. And the actors kind of cut themselves off at the knees originally. And, all along, they wanted to negotiate as a group.

NEVILLE: That's right. That's how they got over. That's right.

RICE: And that killed them, because you will have people at the studio even today that will say: Hey, way back when, we would have paid Courtney Cox a larger salary than we would have paid Matt LeBlanc.

NEVILLE: Yes, but you know what? I actually admire the "Friends" cast for sticking together as a team.

RICE: You know, that's very cool.

NEVILLE: Yes, maybe a couple of the individuals may have gotten a little bit more, a little bit less. But you know what? I like the fact that they stuck together.

And, Scott, what do you think about all of this?

SCOTT: I think it's based more on the quality of the material than the star. Like, I went to see "Ali" not because I like Will Smith, but I wanted to see a movie about Muhammad Ali. And, I mean, you have a movie like "Memento," which didn't cost much and didn't have many stars, but it made a lot of money compared to how much it cost as compared to how much it made. So I think it's really the strength of the material a lot more than the star.

NEVILLE: You just made a lot of writers and producers real happy, Scott.

Lynette Rice, we are out of time, but thanks so much for joining us. And we would love to have you back to talk about some more television stuff, all right?

RICE: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Thank you. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back everybody. I am supposed to read e-mails right now, but I just want to say hello to Chacha (ph).

CHACHA: Good afternoon.

NEVILLE: Thank you so much for playing along. I just wanted to say your name on television. Thanks, Chacha. Thanks for coming.

All right, it's time to "Speak Up or Shut Up." Let's look at some e-mails you guys sent in.

OK: "Thank you for your 9/11 show yesterday. Watching the interviews in the first 30 minutes brought back the exact feelings of sadness I had on that day. It's good to experience those intense emotions again. It gives us a constant reminder of how that day affected all of us."

Thanks a lot, Steve, for that comment.

And that does it for us today. We are out of time. Thanks so much for watching. And if you are ever in Atlanta, come on down and be in the audience. I would love to see you right here in person.

We'll see you again 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