Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Will Media Coverage of the 9/11 Anniversary Be Too Much and Too Graphic?; Will the Real Miss North Carolina Please Stand Up?

Aired September 10, 2002 - 15:00   ET

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

ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
The country is now under a Code Orange or high terror alert, which means, among other things that, additional precautions are being taken at public events. And, of course, it comes as the country prepares to commemorate September 11.

A short while ago, Attorney General John Ashcroft and later President Bush urged Americans to remain alert.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The U.S. intelligence community has received information, based on debriefings a senior al Qaeda operative, of possible terrorist attacks timed to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to a different level of concern, a threat level, which means our government will be providing extra security at key facilities and they will be increasing surveillance.

We will do everything we can to protect the American people. And Americans need to go about their lives. They Just need to know that their government, at the federal and state and local level, will be on an extra level of alert to protect us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK, here to talk about this raised terror warning are CNN national correspondent Mike Boettcher and Juliette Kayyem, a terrorism expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

I would like to welcome both of you to the show.

And, Mike Boettcher, I want to start with you on this subject, because we are talking about this higher level of alertness that was precipitated by some chatter U.S. intelligence agents were able to overhear. They are convinced, I understand, that it is from al Qaeda members. And if you could, tell us about this chatter. What sort of information might intelligence agents extract from this sort of information?

MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, chatter consists of many different things.

It is not necessarily just phone calls or Internet intercepts, but it can be related as well. And I think a lot of this particular alert is related to information from an al Qaeda operative or more than one who are in custody by coalition forces. And there have been past instances where these detainees have provided information that have broken up attacks around the world.

Now, on the other hand, there is chatter. The al Qaeda has gone back to trying to reconstitute itself and has. It has members that are spread around the world. And some of these people are leaderless. They are not in contact, like they were on 9/11, with the mother ship, so to speak, in Afghanistan. That's all gone. But they are in contact with each other.

In that regard, they are more sloppy and more things could be heard, although they are very adept at using the Internet.

NEVILLE: And they are still just as determined.

BOETTCHER: Oh, very determined.

They have gone back to various countries around the world and have formed alliances with other terrorist groups, creating their own terrorist groups. Some terrorism experts and analysts call it Supercells. And those strength from North Africa all the way to Southeast Asia.

NEVILLE: Ms. Kayyem, how real are the threats from this so- called chatter?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, TERRORISM EXPERT: Well, it is sort of -- chatter is sort of like noise, in the sense that we are hearing a lot of activity. The government is probably picking up a lot of activity.

It seems, fortunately, that that is going to be targeted not in the United States, but to United States interests abroad. And what it basically means is, let's pick up our resources. Let's be more cautious. Let's work with local and state law enforcement agents, who are going to be on the front lines of whatever activities, memorial activities happen tomorrow.

So it is real. And I think it is not very specific in the sense that what we are hearing is not, "OK, we are going to attack the Empire State Building next." It's a level of activity that is consistent with the fall 2001. And that is what has got people nervous. It's as much noise as we were hearing before September 11.

I do want to remind people, though, that this -- we have heard this kind of noise before leading up to July 4. People will remember the alerts regarding the banking institutions on the Northeast. So I think that us going up one level of alert has a lot to do with September 11 as well.

NEVILLE: But you're right. That is a significant date, obviously. And this is what I wanted to talk about now: the psyche of a terrorist and the likelihood or what would they get out of trying to attack again on September 11, 2002.

BOETTCHER: Well, it would mean that they are still alive and kicking out there. And I think that is what they want to show.

But I think they are less constrained by anniversaries. Al Qaeda has a game plan, a terrorism game plan, that goes out five, 10, 15, 20 years. And I really believe that they are not tied to an anniversary. I think the attacks you might see, if they do occur, will be more from lone-wolf terrorists who are out there who want to make a point that al Qaeda is still alive, but without any direct orders. That is according to intelligence analysts in the coalition I have been speaking to.

But, at the same time, there are still very credible, large-scale threats. The inner core, the core around bin Laden still exists. My sources believe he is still alive and they are still trying to launch a big attack. But I do not think they feel like they have to do it on September 11.

NEVILLE: Mike and Ms. Kayyem, either one of you, seeing that you just mentioned the whole idea that you believe, according to your sources, that bin Laden is still alive, then I want to ask you now, then why this -- it feels like sudden urgency to go after Saddam Hussein?

BOETTCHER: Well, that's a good question. I mean, there are people in the military asking that question as well, and countries around the world.

I think, initially, the government wanted to show and try to prove that Iraq somehow had close ties to al Qaeda. There is a lot of circumstantial, anecdotal evidence out there indicating as such. There have been meetings between top al Qaeda people and top Iraqi officials, dating back to 1996, maybe even earlier. But they could not quite make that connection.

I think that there is a feeling, among some of the administration, that it is a threat. But I think you are going to see the two things divorced. I think, gradually, you are seeing them divorced. If you look at all the talk over the last few days, it has been about Iraq trying to build a nuclear weapon, so to speak, and its own weapons of mass destruction. So I think the two things will be separated -- they will try to.

NEVILLE: Then, Ms. Kayyem, if I may, let me ask you this, then.

If in fact there is a separation here, a divorce, if you will, then, again, trying to get inside of the heads of a terrorist, from your expert point of view, what does that do to the al Qaeda operation, knowing that now the U.S. is really focusing on Saddam Hussein, of course not ignoring al Qaeda, but putting a lot of attention on Saddam Hussein at the moment?

KAYYEM: Well, I think, picking up exactly on what Mike said about: What is al Qaeda now after the war in Afghanistan or during the war in Afghanistan? And if we look at Richard Reid, for example, if we look at the arrest in Germany last week of the guy who was going to target a military headquarters there, these are not people that we can link a direct line between them and al Qaeda. I think al Qaeda as a group sort of no longer exists and you are going to see sort of these more difficult to catch, more sort of free-rider, I guess, so to speak, types of terrorists.

And those are sort of more difficult and more difficult to sort of link directly to al Qaeda. And my sense is that is the kind of terrorist attack that we are going to see in the future, that the sort of big-bang attack, while possible, and certainly a threat from Iraq, whatever it is -- and the administration is trying to make its case -- may still exist, the al Qaeda specific threat has been disrupted by the war and it will look very different in the future.

And I think Mike is right. Al Qaeda has never been interested in anniversaries. They are interested in high-profile targets. They are interested in not September 11, because we are all on alert now. They are going to be interested in October 28 or something like that, a date where we wake up one morning and go to work, which was exactly, until last year, what we did on September 11.

BOETTCHER: You know, last summer, we were working on a documentary here at CNN called "ONE DAY SOON" about the probability of a mass-casualty terrorism event in the United States before the end of the year.

One day happened before we could get that documentary together. There was chatter like this before last September 11, dating back months before. I mean, if you go back to December of 1999, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said at the time that there would be such a mass-casualty terrorism event in the U.S. within two years. And he was right. That's Admiral Wilson.

So we hear these alerts, but there is some hard information behind them. It is more than just noise floating out there. There are very hard facts, information coming from reliable sources that have thwarted attacks before. And I would not take this too lightly, what is coming up.

NEVILLE: OK, Mike Boettcher and Juliet Kayyem, thank you very much for being with us.

We're going to take a break right now. But when we come back, we're going to go live to the streets of New York to find out how folks are reacting to the Code Orange alert and what it could mean to planned events there.

And I want to know what's on your mind at this point. Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: the Code Orange terror alert. What are your risks? Will you change your plans? And should the media turn down the volume on 9/11?

Then later, we'll take stock of Martha Stewart, as well as what North Carolina plans to do with two queens.

It's all ahead on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We're talking about the country being under a Code Orange or high terror alert. We are going to find out right now how people in New York are reacting to this heightened-level warning.

CNN's Jason Carroll is talking to people there in the streets of New York.

And, Jason, first of all,, for a year now, New Yorkers have been on a high level of alert or at level Orange. And I want to know, how do they feel now that the rest of the country is on that same level?

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we are about to present that question to two people right here who are joining me.

I have got Lauring (ph) Bush. He said no jokes about his last name. I also have here Julie Papito (ph). Both of them are from the New York area.

I am going to start with you, Lauring.

Right now, the rest of the country is on a heightened state of alert. But, as you know, New York City has already been at that level for quite some time. In terms of security in the city, what are some of your thoughts about that?

LAURING BUSH, NEW YORK RESIDENT: Well, I still have serious concerns.

I think that, during this timeframe, probably more likely than not everything will be OK. My concerns are usually after the holidays. I mean, in a heightened state of alert, everyone is aware. They're looking. They're checking. It is after the dates that I am more concerned with.

CARROLL: Julie, you have some concerns as well. You told me a little earlier that you had definitely some thoughts about tomorrow and what might happen.

JULIE PAPITO, NEW YORK RESIDENT: Well, I have trust the Lord with all my heart and lean not on my own understanding. But my own understanding, I am a little frightened for tomorrow.

CARROLL: Why is that? Are you frightened because you don't feel as though the city has done enough in terms of security?

PAPITO: I don't know what the city has done. It is more ignorance more than anything else. I don't have any background as to how -- what preparations have been made for protection tomorrow.

CARROLL: You know, I have been talking to some New Yorkers and they have been -- there are so many different ways that people are going to be marking tomorrow. What will you be doing tomorrow?

PAPITO: I'll be teaching in the South Bronx.

CARROLL: Teaching?

PAPITO: Reading.

CARROLL: Reading.

PAPITO: I am setting up for the Title 1 program.

CARROLL: Will you do anything to mark the occasion?

PAPITO: I will pray.

CARROLL: Lauring, how about you? What will you be doing tomorrow?

L. BUSH: Well, I'll be home with my family, little Lauring and River, and just enjoying the day, take a moment to say a prayer for folks that did not make it. And that is basically it.

CARROLL: Very quickly, I also want to point out that I did have a conversation with the police commissioner, Ray Kelly. He said that the city has been working diligently for the past year to enact a lot of security measures.

Does that in any way bring you any sort of sense of comfort, Julie?

PAPITO: Sure. That's the first time I have heard that, but I am happy to hear it.

CARROLL: Kelly also points out that the city has hosted a number of major events: the U.S. Open, that NFL concert we saw in Times Square. All of these events went off safely, without a hitch.

Lauring, your thoughts?

L. BUSH: Well it is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Wow.

You know, when you have got the big event coming up here with George Bush coming to town, you just never know. You just try and do the best you can with security and hope that nothing comes about. But that's the best. Hope for the best.

CARROLL: Lauring and Julie, I want to thank both of you very much for joining us, especially at such short notice. Thanks very much. Thanks again.

L. BUSH: Take care.

CARROLL: Thank you.

So, again, Arthel, in terms of talking to some of the New Yorkers out here just on the street, you heard what they say. There are definitely some concerns about tomorrow. But the police commissioner says that the city has done everything that it possibly can in terms of trying to protect various landmarks, bridges and tunnels in the area, doing all that they can to make sure that people feel as secure as possible -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK, Jason Carroll, thank you very much. It looks like a beautiful day there in New York.

CARROLL: Hot, but, yes, beautiful.

NEVILLE: OK.

Listen, Brian, we were just listening to the people in New York and how they are going to approach tomorrow. We would like to know your thoughts about that.

BRIAN: I think everybody should take the time to reflect in their own way on what happened last year. And, obviously, the large- scale commemorative events are great and have gone off without a hitch, like he said.

But I think, also, we need to just kind of use tomorrow as just another day to just move on, kick-start the rest of everybody's lives, and keep going, and not think about terrorism as something that is going to take place on an anniversary, like she was saying earlier, that the very idea behind it is that it's a surprise, and that you are not going to always know, and that, sure, it is smart to maybe be a little bit more cautious in what you are doing, but that we should really just keep moving on.

NEVILLE: So what do you think about the fact that we are now at a higher level of alertness?

BRIAN: It kind of happened after we got here, so we missed a lot of why it was. But I think part of it, like somebody else was saying earlier, is that there is a pretty good chance that it seems like it is just -- it's a motion to kind of scare everybody up another notch just to kind of get everybody on an even higher level of alert for tomorrow. And, in my opinion, that is kind of pointless.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

I have got another -- a guy here in the audience, Ed, who is joining us from Alabama.

What are your thoughts about tomorrow?

ED: I think that it is ridiculous that people should live in fear. I think it is more important for everybody to go out and live their life, travel, have a good time. I know that last year, my birthday was September the 10th. I woke up to a very horrible morning.

NEVILLE: Excuse me. That means your birthday is today.

ED: Yes, it is.

NEVILLE: Happy birthday.

ED: Thank you. I am 22 today.

(APPLAUSE)

ED: But tomorrow is going to be a much better day than I woke up to last year. And it is ridiculous for me or for anybody else, for that matter, to live in fear and to listen to everything that the news media says, because it's -- nobody knows. If something is going to happen, it's going to happen.

NEVILLE: What do you mean the news media? We are reporting what the administration is telling us. You just heard John Ashcroft speaking.

ED: The news media in general tries to horrify the public.

NEVILLE: Oh, come on. You know what? We have to talk in the break, OK? You and I will have to talk.

Listen, I have to take a break right now. But Ed and I, the birthday boy, we have some things to talk about.

And I have a lot to talk about with you as well when we come back. And we have a great panel lined up for you. So there is much more to come on TALKBACK LIVE. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Let's meet them right now.

Victoria Jones is a radio talk show host and special correspondent with Talk Radio News Service. She is based in Washington.

VICTORIA JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Hi, Victoria.

Also Robert George, associate editor of "The New York Post" editorial page -- hi, Robert.

ROBERT GEORGE, "THE NEW YORK POST": Hi, Arthel. How are you?

NEVILLE: Good.

And Ian Punnett, a talk show host on KSTP Radio in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Hello, Ian.

IAN PUNNETT, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel. Thank you for having us.

NEVILLE: Good.

Listen, Victoria, you are going to be up first today.

The administration has put the country on high alert. We are told this is the result of chatter. And we are told that that chatter is, of course, coming from al Qaeda operatives. Is this too much information?

JONES: No.

I mean, if anything, it is not really enough information. I am glad we have been put on Orange alert. We can get out our crayon boxes and write in orange, which none of us understand anyway. I am glad we are on high alert. We need to be on high alert. I imagine that they do have something. I'm sure that they do.

But there is a cynical part of me that wonders, wouldn't they have put us on high alert anyway the day before September the 11th because they want to make sure nobody gets blamed if something happens? I think so.

NEVILLE: Robert, how do you see it?

GEORGE: Yes, I understand the position that the Bush administration is in, considering some of the criticism -- a lot of legitimate, in terms of some of the warnings that came out. We found out later on that there were some warnings a year ago.

However, I think it is similar to what the gentleman said just before the break. When you hear about the need to go to some new alert when nothing really has changed, you don't really know what to do. It is sort of like the old double secret probation. You don't really know exactly what that is supposed to do in terms of your everyday life. As, as you also pointed out, New York has been under Orange alert for a year now. And we have basically just gotten on with our lives.

NEVILLE: So what about you, audience? Do you feel in any way that this is too much information? Anybody with any thoughts on that? Anybody here?

Yes? Scott from New Jersey, go ahead and stand up and talk to me.

SCOTT: Hi.

There was a famous saying once that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. And I don't know what an Orange alert means more than anybody else does, but I think the reminder is not a bad thing. NEVILLE: OK.

And, Ian, I haven't heard from you yet on this. What do you think?

PUNNETT: Well, I think we live our lives in the tensions of trying to go about our lives and also be vigilant, to try to remember tomorrow and reflect on the importance of 9/11 and, at the same time, look skyward and keep an open ear out for something that we might be able to use.

I think these are good reminders that we are in these difficult times where we can't be any one thing for too long. We can't be complacent, but we don't want to be fearful. This is where we are as a nation. And we may be here for a while. We might as well get used to it.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have got a call coming in now from North Carolina. I want to go ahead and take Robert's call.

Robert, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi.

NEVILLE: Reggie. Excuse me.

CALLER: Well, I am just wondering what we are supposed to do now. I mean, we have not been told what to do. We are just, OK, we are on Orange alert. I am in North Carolina. I'm in Raleigh. I don't know what to do.

NEVILLE: Be more vigilant and also live your life the way you have been.

JONES: And that is a direct contradiction in terms. It's so bizarre: to be more vigilant and live our lives. Living our lives, we have not been particularly vigilant. We were vigilant for a while. We have not been very vigilant for most of the year. So I guess we'll be vigilant for a little while.

But what we have to learn is that things like packages left alone, wherever they are, not just in Washington, D.C. and New York, have to be reported to the authorities, things like that, things that we should be taking for granted after a year of this, and that, really, we are still seeing as new. And we're not getting with the program yet.

PUNNETT: And yet there we go about the word vigilant, too. Is that what it means to be vigilant, is to look for packages and to be suspicious?

JONES: It's one of the things, I think.

PUNNETT: Well, then, there is a certain point where we can just drive ourselves into a her. And is that ultimately going to serve our goals? Some of the things which are our biggest threats are coming in ways that we can't even imagine. And it's horrible to think about.

JONES: Well, let's start.

GEORGE: Well, I think that it is true. With have to just kind of hope that the people who are paid to consider these things are looking.

But there are a few things, on an everyday basis, that we can do, whether it's looking for bags that are unattended. Or if you see somebody that you think is acting suspiciously, it is not a bad idea to go talk to a police officer and say something. You may be a busybody, but, at the same time, you may be saving some people's lives.

NEVILLE: George, I have to take a break, but let me get Darren's comments in here quickly.

DARREN: Yes, I agree with the caller that it really does not matter what it is Red, Orange. Nobody knows what to do. But I don't think anybody needs to live in fear. And I think you need to just go ahead and live your life.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much.

Listen, up next; Are the media overdoing the 9/11 anniversary? How much about that day do you want to relive on television?

Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody.

We're talking about the September 11 anniversary and all of the activities planned under what is now a Code Orange terror threat.

Most networks are planning unprecedented coverage, including rerunning some footage of the tragic events of that day. But will those images of crashing planes, burning buildings and injured and terrified people be more than people should have to bear?

Robert, I want to start with you on this one, and ask you, what do you want to see on TV show, and what should be shown or not shown?

GEORGE: Well, I don't have so much -- I don't have a problem really showing the coverage of that day, because in certain ways, from a journalistic perspective, it was remarkable really and really excellent. But I think in terms of reflection, it should be -- there should be more context into exactly what we are seeing.

I don't not think in a sense it should be just showing victims -- you know, people -- you know, people injured and crying and so forth. I think in a sense it should be seen -- that day should be seen for what it really was, a foundation to the time that we are in right now, which is a time of war, which is a time of vigilance, which is a certain time of uncertainty. But I don't think it should be just an opportunity for an everlasting memorial.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Rob here in the audience. What do you say, Rob?

ROB: I'd just like to say that they shouldn't play the whole panic thing a whole lot, you know. Like, you kind of have to play the scenes of what happened, but just don't play it too much, like he said.

NEVILLE: So, would you want to see specifically -- I mean, we all remember the pictures from that day.

ROB: Right. I'm thinking more of like, you know, all of the scenes of the people running and screaming and things like that. I mean, we all know what happened.

NEVILLE: So, without those pictures, then, what should be shown, do you think?

ROB: Well, I think try to show how, you know, we can come together from all of this.

NEVILLE: And Darren, again -- thank you first of all, Rob.

And Darren is going to speak out again. What do you have to say, Darren?

DARREN: Yes, I agree to some extent, but I think that on that day, as tragic as it was, the United States was united, and we asked God to help. When we ask for help, we need to look for the blessing. We got the blessing. We haven't had any more terrorist acts to that magnitude. I just think we need to take this time to be thankful. That's what...

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much, Darren.

PUNNETT: Well, if I can, I just wanted to jump and say there is a certain perception in the media, and as a member of the media -- and you, too, Arthel -- we all know that the media has a way of contemplating its naval and then contemplating -- contemplating its naval, and kind of going into these circles of what it should and shouldn't do.

But I think we often make the mistake of thinking that just because we do it in the media that everybody will see it or that everybody will hear it. Fortunately, I think most people consume media at a level of their own pleasure or satisfaction.

And I think there will be a lot of folks who will watch some things on their favorite channels, maybe CNN, tomorrow for a period of time. And then, when they get to a saturation point, they're going to stop. And I think that that's one of the things that the media can do well, is just not expect everybody to watch and not to force people to watch things, not make things more horrible to lure people, but just to respect the fact that some folks are going to pick it up and some folks are going to turn it off and some folks are going to not look at it at all.

NEVILLE: Right.

PUNNETT: And we have to be happy with that.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, let me go ahead and jump in there and get Paul from Connecticut, who is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Paul.

PAUL: Hi. Yes, it just seems to me -- what's most bothersome to me is that it seems like the past two or three weeks on all of the major broadcasts media, it has felt like a pre-game warm-up show, almost as if to say, get ready for the big anniversary event.

Now, as this gentleman just said, the story has been in the forefront every day for the past 364 days with all of the monthly anniversaries being noted. And you have spoken of hoping that the country can get back to normalcy, and then you cover this to the saturation point, which I think makes normalcy impossible. And, you know, I do have this feeling that even this said that on September 12, 13, 14, we'll all be looking back at the events of the one-year anniversary...

NEVILLE: Yes.

PAUL: ... though I hope you don't.

And I would hope that in the future, you would poll the American people to find out where we stand...

NEVILLE: You know what, Paul?

PAUL: ... and act accordingly.

NEVILLE: Paul? We...

JONES: That's very valid.

NEVILLE: Paul, we do poll the people, and the ratings reflect it. So, we definitely hear what you are saying, and we hear what you are saying right now, and we really appreciate your call. OK?

PAUL: All right.

NEVILLE: Yes.

JONES: Arthel -- Arthel, could I jump in...

NEVILLE: Yes.

JONES: ... on the saturation point and a couple of other things.

On the saturation point, I think what was so difficult last year was that we didn't know when we had reached the saturation point, and we found ourselves watching 24-48 hours without realizing that we could actually turn the thing off. I think that was what was so awful in some ways for viewers that we just didn't know. We couldn't turn it off, and I hope that doesn't happen tomorrow.

And I think it's very important for all of us -- we all have to make our own choices to reflect, to think, to understand, and also to know. I think this is very important for Americans. We know we are not alone. Even though a lot of the world disagrees with us on Iraq right now, we should know that all over the world, there are commemorations for what happened to us.

In Great Britain, for example, they are having a minute of silence, of complete silence -- media, companies, homes -- throughout the nation in commemoration of September 11. So, we aren't alone, and we should know that.

NEVILLE: OK.

GEORGE: I think...

NEVILLE: I'm sorry, Robert. I'm going to have to jump in there, because I do have to take a break right now.

And when we come back, we are going to switch gears. Congress sends Martha Stewart's case to the Justice Department. We're going to take a look at Martha's mess right after this.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And right now on TALKBACK LIVE, we're taking stock of Martha Stewart.

And then later: Will the real Miss North Carolina please stand up. A crown controversy as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody.

We all know there is something wrong at WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing and other corporations.

So why is everyone fixated on Martha Stewart?

Stewart is under investigation for alleged insider trading. She sold 4,000 shares of ImClone stock just before it tanked. She denied the charges, and today, skipped her date with an investigative House committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BILLY TAUZIN (R), LOUISIANA: It is very clear now that Martha Stewart would not either voluntarily be interviewed, nor would she testify before this committee, will take advantage of her Fifth Amendment privileges. We're at the end of the road, as far as what we can find out about that collateral matter. And we believe now that faced with these inconsistencies that we cannot resolve that it's properly a matter for Justice Department.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK, well, lawmakers are asking the Justice Department to begin a criminal investigation into whether Stewart lied to the House committee about her stock sale.

And, Robert, I want to get your thoughts on this one first. What do you think the powers that be should do about Martha?

GEORGE: Well, I think we should just really just let -- you know, let the justice system just run its course. There's going to be a little bit of he-said, she-said. I would just say, just from our outside view, it doesn't look good for Martha Stewart. And it's only because of the kind culture of celebrity that sort of enveloped business types in the 1990s that everybody is so focused on this.

Basically, though, we'll just let the system take its course. And if she is found guilty, you know, she will do some time.

NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to take a phone call. Hang on.

JONES: But (UNINTELLIGIBLE) targeting her.

NEVILLE: Hang -- oh, Victoria, you raise a good point, but I don't want to go there just yet.

Let me go to Kentucky, where Betty is standing by on the phone. Betty.

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: What do you think?

BETTY: I think -- I don't think Martha Stewart is guilty of anything, other than being a very successful, smart businesswoman. And she is being discriminated against for that fact, only, by a bunch of men that have been stealing from the companies for years and getting by with it. And now, they have gotten this sacrificial lamb of Martha Stewart to beat on.

NEVILLE: Well, Betty, I want to find out if Victoria Jones...

JONES: Thank you, Betty.

NEVILLE: ... is singing your song. Go ahead.

GEORGE: No, no, no.

JONES: Thank you, Betty. Yes, yes, yes.

GEORGE: No, no.

JONES: I don't think it's necessarily just because she is a woman, but I'll tell you this. It's not much money. There are a bunch guys with billions and millions, an awful lot of money. We're not hearing about them. We're hearing about Martha, because she is a perfection goddess, because she makes us feel inadequate, because she is a woman, and because she is an entrepreneur. And so, we can go after her as an individual rather than a company.

This is like, let's just burn her for a witch and be done with it I am sick of this.

NEVILLE: Wow! The old...

GEORGE: Oh, come on! You know, all of the people who have been taking these perk walks over the last six months have all been men. So there's one woman...

JONES: And what's happened to them? Nothing.

GEORGE: There is one woman found in the entire bunch, and suddenly, it's supposed to be, you know, discriminatory.

PUNNETT: Right.

GEORGE: I think that's silly.

JONES: And because the focus is all on her. Where do you see the focus on any of these other guys as individuals?

GEORGE: Well, you know what? She's got...

JONES: It's not.

GEORGE: You know why? As I said before, because one of the -- you know, because of the cultural celebrity, you know, just because everybody is focusing on you on the way up, they're going to focus on you on the way down.

NEVILLE: Oh, they love to put people on a pedestal, right?

GEORGE: In a way...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Let me get Terri (ph) from Alabama in here. Go ahead, Terri (ph).

TERRI: Well, I was just going to say that I think it's just about greed. I don't think it's about men or women, and I think that people that are doing the trading for her are the ones that maybe have put her in that position to where she thought she could get away with it. And I think it's about greed, not male or female.

NEVILLE: All right. Listen, Ian, I know you're wanting to jump in there, but I have a great e-mail just came across, and I want to share it with everybody.

It's from Darryl in Oregon. He says, "The focus is on Martha, because we love to see the perfect people stumble."

Ian, what do you say?

GEORGE: that's not a good thing.

PUNNETT: That probably is a part of it, but I would also say that perhaps this whole thing started because they thought, like they had made these other arrests and other investigations, that Martha might roll and that Martha might be the one that gives up other people that gave her the information, and help lead to more of these prosecutions of the men folk, which the caller from Kentucky seemed to feel are the ones that are conspiring against her.

NEVILLE: OK, I have...

JONES: But she is not connected with Enron or WorldCom. I don't see how she...

(CROSSTALK)

PUNNETT: No.

GEORGE: Well, you see that...

PUNNETT: And she is in the middle...

GEORGE: ... that's the other thing to keep in mind.

PUNNETT: ... in the middle of the ImClone scandal.

JONES: It's a perfection goddess.

GEORGE: Remember, this didn't start with Martha Stewart.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: ... was right. It's being a perfection goddess. That's her problem.

GEORGE: This didn't start with Martha Stewart. It started from the ImClone...

PUNNETT: Exactly.

GEORGE: ... and then, she was brought into it.

PUNNETT: Exactly. So it is ImClone. It's not Enron.

JONES: Then let's hear about ImClone. Let's stop hearing about Martha.

PUNNETT: Well, I think they were hoping that she would help them get more on ImClone.

NEVILLE: All right, listen, I have...

GEORGE: It sounds like the Brady Brunch. Martha, Martha, Martha. PUNNETT: Yes.

NEVILLE: I have...

JONES: Exactly.

NEVILLE: I have Ms. Edna here in the audience. What do you think, ma'am?

EDNA: I love Martha Stewart. I love Martha Stewart, and I like to watch her. I envy her her kitchen, and my children -- I have two little ones that come...

NEVILLE: How little are your little ones, Ms. Edna?

EDNA: How little are they? They're about my size.

NEVILLE: And on that note, we'll take a break, because it's about the kitchen. It's nothing about Martha's stock business.

All right, we're going to take a break, and when we come back, I want to talk about North Carolina's two queens. Are they twice the threat or double trouble at the Miss America Pageant?

Oh, boy, TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Edna.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

All right, listen to this one. Two women are claiming to be Miss Carolina at this year's Miss America competition in Atlantic City. Rebekah Revels had the title, until an ex-boyfriend -- loser of an ex- boyfriend -- threatened to expose some topless photos of the beauty queen. So, she resigned.

Well, that opened the door for first runner-up, Misty Clymer, who was then given the crown. But as it would be, Miss Missy, the other one -- Rebekah, her name is. She wants to -- she wants back in, and she is asking a court to return her sash and crown.

And so, who is the real queen? Ian, who is it? Who deserves to be Miss North Carolina? Is it Rebekah or Misty?

PUNNETT: I have seen them both. They are both beautiful. I think if we are to believe the story of the first Miss North Carolina that she was -- her photo was taken surreptitiously, then that was certainly an unfair thing to have had happened to her. And it was probably wrong for her, then, to quit over that.

But I don't know what the honor code is, too, and whether it says whether you knew or whether you didn't know, if it brings dishonor are you obligated? Is there a code of ethics for something like that?

I think that she probably resigned too fast before she had had a chance to resolve those issues.

NEVILLE: I think she got nervous for fear that these pictures would come out, you know.

But let me get Peggy in here to speak out.

PEGGY: Hi. I don't know what the big issue is about being topless in the first place. You know, who cares really...

JONES: Thank you.

PEGGY: ... if someone is beautiful? And also, look at Vanessa Williams. She got to be more famous after she gave up her crown, didn't she? Wasn't that Miss America?

NEVILLE: Vanessa made a mistake, and she is fabulous. It's not about Vanessa Williams. We thank you, Peggy.

GEORGE: No, but she...

NEVILLE: I love Vanessa Williams. That's why I'm not going to you say anything about Vanessa Williams right now.

GEORGE: No, no. But the lady is -- factually speaking, though, the lady is correct, you know. I mean, she became Miss America, and then the pictures showed up. And she was able to parley that into a successful career, which quite possibly may very well happen with -- I guess it's Miss Rebekah in North Carolina.

NEVILLE: Yes, well...

GEORGE: I think it's just very funny, though, we are talking about the ethics in the middle of a -- in a beauty contest. I doubt if there's enough there.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Why? Why are you -- wait a minute. Come on, George -- I mean, Robert.

GEORGE: Arthel, it's a cutthroat business. You know that. It's a cutthroat business.

JONES: Yes.

NEVILLE: Yes, but do you know what? I've got to tell you something. This little story makes for great ratings for this pageant.

JONES: Oh! This is a great story.

NEVILLE: Now, I want to watch it.

GEORGE: And that's why we're talking about it here, too, right?

JONES: She could have said, publish in be damned. That's what she should have said. Publish and be damned, make her money and expose the boyfriend for the complete bleeping bleep that he really is.

NEVILLE: Oh, he is a big fat loser, that boyfriend, he is.

JONES: Yes.

GEORGE: Assuming, of course, she is telling the truth as to exactly how those pictures came to be developed in the first place.

NEVILLE: Oh, come on!

JONES: Well, however they came, if those pictures...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Well, but first of all...

JONES: Show them.

NEVILLE: But regardless, he's the one who said I'm going to try to publish those pictures.

GEORGE: Blame it on the boyfriend.

NEVILLE: Yes, he's a loser, the boyfriend is.

JONES: Let's show the pictures. He could be doing her a huge favor. She should sell the pictures, make the money, and get her own career going.

NEVILLE: These days, you're right, Victoria.

GEORGE: There you go.

NEVILLE: Hey, let me get Stephanie in here. What do you think, Steph?

STEPHANIE: I just find it ironic that this organization finds it OK to parade women around in a bathing suit, but they're going to force someone to resign over alleged topless photos.

JONES: Very funny.

NEVILLE: All right, listen, we're still going to talk about this. Who deserves to wear the crown for North Carolina at the Miss America Pageant?

Hey, if you're at home watching this, I want to hear from you after the break right now. But first, here is Judy Woodruff with a preview on what's ahead on "INSIDE POLITICS."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Oh, well, well, well, we have an interesting call, a lady with an interesting name, Madonna, is calling from North Carolina. Well, you are in the thick of it all, Madonna. OK, who should it be, Rebekah or Misty, to be Miss North Carolina?

CALLER: Rebekah. If, in fact, she was coerced give up her crown, then the pageant should be punished by not having the pageant next year, and letting Misty represent North Carolina.

NEVILLE: So, it should be Rebekah.

MADONNA: Yes, Rebekah.

NEVILLE: OK.

CALLER: Also, Rebekah is a Lumbee Indian, and a lot of us in North Carolina wonder if she's not being discriminated against.

NEVILLE: What did you say?

PUNNETT: She's an Indian, a Native American.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Oh, I see.

GEORGE: A Lumbee Indian.

NEVILLE: Oh, I hear you now. OK, I'm sorry. Somebody's cell phone was ringing in the audience. I'm not going to point out who it was.

PUNNETT: I don't know if there is any rule against letting them both compete. I mean, there may be, but I don't know they couldn't bend it. And as long as...

JONES: Yes, because it gives them twice the chance of all of the other states.

PUNNETT: Sure.

PUNNETT: As long as they don't have that French ice skating judge on the panel making these decisions, then it could be OK.

NEVILLE: The judge is on the panel. You haven't heard?

PUNNETT: No, I have not heard.

NEVILLE: It's a joke.

PUNNETT: Good.

NEVILLE: All right, listen, I've got Victoria in here from Florida. What do you say, Victoria?

VICTORIA: I think she showed really poor judgment in her choice of boyfriends. And I think that if you are going to change and there is a boyfriend around, you should lock your door, and he's on the other side of it. And I think that you should never pose for anyone, whether they're your boyfriend or your husband or anyone else, because things change. And if you choose to do that, you are guilty of bad judgment, and you should have to pay the consequences for that.

NEVILLE: Hey, Victoria -- Victoria Jones, is it about the boyfriend? Or did she just make poor choices in men?

JONES: Yes, she made a poor choice in men, but I don't think that the price for posing nude or for having someone photograph you should be this high. But I do think the call is right. It's a huge risk, I would think, having yourself photographed naked by anybody.

NEVILLE: George -- I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

GEORGE: I can't...

NEVILLE: ... by your last name -- Robert. I'm sorry.

GEORGE: It's OK, Neville.

NEVILLE: That's fine. That works.

GEORGE: That's works, too. Exactly.

Well, no, that's true. Either that it's a risk -- she probably shouldn't have resigned so quickly, but that's the way the game is played.

NEVILLE: Well, listen, you all, thank you for playing this little game of who is it going to be for Miss North Carolina. Victoria, Robert, and Ian...

JONES: Thank you.

NEVILLE: ... thank you very much for joining us here today.

GEORGE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Elizabeth Dole for Miss Carolina.

NEVILLE: OK, we got that. OK.

Listen, please join CNN tomorrow for our special coverage of the September 11 anniversary. That coverage gets under way at 6:00 a.m. Eastern, and I will be back more with TALKBACK LIVE on Thursday.

Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS."

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