Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Video of U.S. Air Strike in Fallujah Released; Bush, Kerry Trade Barbs Over War on Terror; Christopher Reeve Remembered

Aired October 11, 2004 - 22:00   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.


AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening, again.
Although no one asked me, here's a piece of advice for all you would-be politicians out there. Don't ever speak honestly and truthfully about complex problems. Your words will be used against you.

When the president told the "Today" show some weeks back that we can't win the war on terror, we can only eliminate those terrorists we can find and seek to change the conditions that breed this hate, he was being both honest and truthful.

There will always be, whether we like it or not, some nut out there willing to strap a bomb to his belly for a cause.

Today, the Kerry side began running an ad using the first part of the president's sentence against him.

And the president's side is no better. When Senator Kerry told "The New York Times" that over time, we need a policy that destroys so many terrorists that they no longer dominate our lives, that they have become a nuisance, the ads went up as some sort of evidence that Kerry is soft on terror.

What is remarkable, beyond the silliness of both ads, is this. Both the president and the senator are saying the same thing. Both are being honest. Both are being truthful. And both are being pummeled.

And we wonder why American politics has been reduced to dribble.

The whip begins with the real stuff, the war and a view of it, both edifying and a little terrifying.

CNN's Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon with the watch tonight. Jamie, a headline.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the Pentagon rarely releases videos of actual killing of enemy forces, and they still don't know how this video got out. But nevertheless, it does show what the Pentagon claims is a legitimate strike against insurgents in Fallujah back in April.

BROWN: Jamie, we'll get to the chilling details of that at the top tonight. Next to Baghdad, CNN's Brent Sadler. And Brent, a headline from you.

BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Aaron.

A surrender of weapons gets off to a slow start in a rebel stronghold on the outskirts of Baghdad, while U.S. Marines call in air strikes to beat back around 100 well-armed insurgents in western Iraq.

BROWN: Brent, thank you.

The campaign, politics, the president first. Our senior White House correspondent, John King. John, a headline.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, you call it silliness, perhaps dribble. The White House calls it an opening. It says Senator Kerry is soft on the war on terrorism. The president's lead in that category has been slipping, the president trying to reverse it.

BROWN: John, thank you.

And finally, the Kerry camp, with CNN's Candy Crowley. Candy, a headline from there.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Kerry campaign knew that the Bush campaign wanted to talk about that "New York Times" magazine article. But the Kerry campaign made a decision early on it wasn't going to play. And it didn't, Aaron.

BROWN: Candy, thank you.

We'll get back to you and John and the rest shortly.

Also on the program tonight, made in Canada. A special report starting tonight that examines an unexpected source of terrorism and terrorists and how the Canadian government is responding.

Also tonight, a superhero in movies, a super man in reality. The life of Christopher Reeve, in his own words.

And when you hear the rooster crow, it can only mean one thing, it's almost time for bed. Oh. The morning papers are here as well.

All that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin in Iraq with a rare look at a U.S. air strike as seen from inside a fighter jet. It is a piece of tape that tells us some things and leaves other things unanswered. It shows us in graphic detail, we warn, how deadly weapons of war are. It tells us with equal detail how accurate they can sometimes be.

What it does not tell us is whether it was a legitimate strike on people who would kill our sons and daughters in Iraq, or a mistake, the killing of innocents, as some claim.

From the Pentagon tonight, CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Saturday, April 10, capped a bloody week in Fallujah. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed by U.S. Marines, who were still pushing into the insurgent stronghold, even as members of Iraq's governing council were negotiating a cease-fire.

U.S. Air Force F-16s dropped more bombs in support of the Marine offensive that Saturday than on any day that week.

A cockpit video of one such engagement, never officially released, has circulated on the Internet for months. CNN has confirmed it's authentic. The 53-second clip provides a rare look at how the U.S. uses what it calls precision air strikes in urban areas to support ground operations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got numerous individuals on the road. You want me to take those out?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take them out.

MCINTYRE: According to a U.S. military account, the order to "Take them out" is from a forward air controller, on the ground with the Marines, whose job is to confirm the targets are hostile before calling in the bombs.

The original target was said to be a nearby building, where Marines had been trading fire with the insurgents before they allegedly fled into the street.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten seconds. Roger.

MCINTYRE: The U.S. says the ground controller could see the situation before he cleared the pilot to drop a 500-pound bomb.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Impact. Ho-ho, dude.

MCINTYRE: Experts who have reviewed the tape at CNN's request say whether the strike was legitimate hinges entirely on whether the controller was right.

JIM CARAFANO, MILITARY LAW EXPERT: And the challenge there is for the guy who has his eye on the target, it's his responsibility to identify the target to the aircraft.

LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD (RET.), U.S. ARMY, MILITARY ANALYST: My first reaction to it was, I wondered where the air controller was and whether he could identify that as a group of insurgents, or whether he was somewhere remote from that area and didn't know for sure.

MCINTYRE: In an interview with Channel 4 television in the U.K., a doctor who says he was at the hospital in Fallujah in April claimed the dead were innocent civilians. At the time, fierce fighting across Fallujah was filling the local hospital with numerous casualties, including women and children.

And some wonder whether it's logical for insurgents to move in a large group that would make them vulnerable to air strikes.

GARD: The only questionable thing is whether or not well- disciplined and competent insurgents would pour out of a building onto a wide street without any cover. On the other hand, we do know that there are a number of insurgents who are poorly trained, who out of anger or frustration have taken up arms, and it's quite possible that they were insurgents.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: Now, even the most precise air strike can result in unintended civilian casualties. But the Pentagon insists that this strike was conducted by the book, in strict accordance with the rules of engagement that are designed to minimize the risk of civilian casualties but not totally eliminate them, Aaron.

BROWN: Now, we, this tape actually has been out there for some weeks. It's been seen in large parts of the world. We've had our hands on it for a while. Talk for a moment about the process, I guess, that we went through to vet it and to make the decision to go to air.

MCINTYRE: Well, we, as you said, we got this tape some time ago. It has appeared to raise some questions about who was on the tape and how the pilot would have known who he was striking.

We got some initial indication that it was possibly a legitimate strike back in April, but we didn't have the full details on what had happened. It wasn't until British television aired the tape and suggested that this was a massacre of civilians that the U.S. military came forward with additional documentation and details to give their side of the story, that they believe that this was, as a result of action that took place after a fire strike.

So, after a considerable number of days of checking and rechecking, we're pretty confident that we've gotten the best information we can. But even then, these kinds of incidents are always inconclusive. It's always a chance that somebody made a mistake, that there were innocent civilians mixed in among the legitimate targets, or that somebody's even covering up something.

But at this point, all the evidence suggests that it was, in fact, as the U.S. describes it, a legitimate military strike. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we really can't draw any other conclusion.

BROWN: I agree with that. It, can you just in 15 seconds, do you have any idea how this tape got out?

MCINTYRE: Most likely scenario, a pilot saved it because it was, quote, "cool video," gave it to somebody, gave it to somebody, showed up on the Internet. That's sort of how it gets out.

BROWN: Unreal, the times in which we live. Thank you, Jamie. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon tonight.

The Arab television network, Al Jazeera, today reported two more beheadings in Iraq. The victims, a Turkish contractor and his Iraqi translator. Three U.S. troops were killed in two separate attacks today as well, a grim reminder of the prevailing task facing the U.S. military regaining control over insurgents.

To that end, a weapons exchange program is under way in Sadr City, the Baghdad slum and the center of Shi'ite resistance. It's not the first truce to be negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia, but with elections approaching in January, there is now, perhaps, more at stake than ever.

So from Baghdad tonight, CNN's Brent Sadler.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER (voice-over): A timid start to the surrender of weapons in Sadr City. But still, they came, armed and dangerous, an unknown number of Mehdi Army militiamen, loyal to radical Shi'a Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, turning in machine guns and ammunition, rocket- propelled grenades, and mortar shells.

"It's in response to our leadership," says this fighter, "to hand over weapons."

Masked and suspicious Iraqi security forces monitored this first tentative step to disarmament.

AYAD ALLAWI, IRAQI INTERIM PRIME MINISTER: We hope it will hold. We have made our opposition (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the government, I made the position very clear, that only the rule of law will prevail. Nothing else is accepted.

SADLER: But trust levels are low after weeks of deadly battles here. Sadr City's bullets and bombs have claimed both American and Iraqi lives.

LT. COL. GARY VOLESKY, U.S. ARMY: There has been no cease-fire agreement. There is no truce. This was an initiative started by the Sadr bureau.

SADLER: A controversial initiative, trading arms for cash, handed out by Iraqi government officials. Heavy machine guns reportedly fetch up to $1,000 U.S. each, rocket-propelled grenades, $175.

"It's not compensation for weapons," says this official. "It's a reward for their cooperation."

But black marketeers, it's feared, may also use the buyout to profit from arms, complicating efforts to gauge the real impact of bringing peace to this rebel stronghold.

But hopes are blooming among U.S. and Iraqi officials here that the Sadr City accord may be the beginning of the end to a more or less self-contained Shi'a revolt.

If so, it could afford U.S.-backed Iraqi forces greater scope to concentrate on defeating the wider Sunni Muslim insurgency, raging Monday in western Iraq. The U.S. military says war planes struck a Sunni mosque in the town of Hit (ph) about 100 miles west of Baghdad, where Marines battled about 100 insurgents in an hours-long firefight, a foretaste of even tougher battles that may lie ahead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER: Now, if the Sadr City accord succeeds, it could help stimulate government negotiations to reach a settlement with some insurgent groups in that rebel stronghold west of the Iraqi capital. But unlike Sadr City, Fallujah is a melting pot of disparate groups, including, it's suspected, some of the most ruthless foreign fighters in Iraq, Aaron.

BROWN: Everyone expects at some point soon an attack in Fallujah. We expect it before Ramadan, during Ramadan, after Ramadan? When do we expect it?

SADLER: According to what we're hearing from commanders on the ground and from the Pentagon in the United States, expect it after the U.S. presidential elections, but well before Iraq's own national elections at the end of January.

BROWN: Brent, thank you. Brent Sadler in Baghdad.

On to the presidential campaign. Twenty-two days left until election day, a statistical dead heat, according to a new CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll. The polls are out there these days are all very close one way or the other. Such a tight race has very little margin for error. It also leaves the candidates grasping for even the slightest edge, and, as we said at the top, leading both sides to turn sentence fragments into campaign issues.

We have two reports tonight. First, CNN's John King with the president.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Out West and on the attack, using his opponent's own words to draw a sharp contrast on terrorism.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, just this weekend, Senator Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to, quote, "nuisance," and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is all part of a pre-9/11 mindset...

KING: Back East, an echo from the vice president and the man who was New York City police commissioner when the Twin Towers fell.

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: A nuisance didn't kill the 23 people that worked for me, the 37 Port Authority cops, the 343 firefighters, the 2,400 civilians in the towers. A nuisance didn't do that.

KING: Mr. Bush's stops in Colorado and New Mexico were warmups for Wednesday's final debate, where the president will press his case that when it comes to domestic issues, Senator Kerry is a big-spending liberal.

BUSH: He's going to have to raise your taxes. See, he can run, but he cannot hide.

KING: Kerry aides say Republicans are taking this "New York Times" magazine interview out of context, but the Bush camp used the "nuisance" quote as a late campaign gift and rushed to seize on it.

BUSH: Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror, by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks.

KING: Mr. Bush carried Colorado comfortably four years ago but is in a tight race this time. And Senator Kerry isn't the only challenge on the ballot. Colorado voters are being asked to back a initiative that would award the state's electoral votes proportionately based on the popular vote instead of the current winner-take-all formula. Had such a system been in place four years ago, Al Gore would have won three of Colorado's electoral votes and the White House.

JULIE BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT: The people love this because they, they, they think their vote should count. And this is it to them, it's one person one vote. And they do not understand why we do not have that in the presidential election.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Now, as for that Kerry "nuisance" quote that the Bush campaign considers a gaffe, it is no surprise at all while -- why they are seizing on it.

The president leads in the polls when voters are asked who they trust more to handle terrorism, but the president's lead is not as big as it was just a few weeks ago, and the Bush campaign thinks with just three weeks to go, those making their decision late are going to put security issues first. And Aaron, they want to try to at least keep and perhaps try to rebuild that lead.

BROWN: Now I'm going to put you in a spot you're just not going to be happy with. Look, is there, in fact, much difference between what Senator Kerry said to "The New York Times" and what the president said some weeks back to Matt Lauer on the "Today" show about the ability to totally eradicate terror?

KING: No, there is not. That's a spot, if you put both quotes and you run all of the quotes out in their complete sentences, there's not a difference, a significant difference on that point, that you can never or perhaps never totally eradicate terrorism. The president did make that point in the NBC interview. Senator Kerry makes it in the "New York Times" interview. The Bush campaign would dispute that, of course. And what they would say is that philosophically, Senator Kerry's first instinct is to make this an intelligence matter, make it a law enforcement matter. And the president wants to immediately go and try to find the terrorists and to root them out.

But in terms of, can you ever totally eliminate terrorism, the president himself, more or less, conceded that in the NBC interview.

And what the Kerry campaign is doing tonight, and I hope I'm not stepping on Candy, is showing a quote from Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to this president's father who said exactly the same thing, try to reduce it to a nuisance level. That's probably the best you can ever do.

BROWN: Thank you, John. John King, our senior White House correspondent.

Twenty-two days to go.

Not that a presidential race should be turned into a sporting event, but both sides seem to be standing in the center of the ring these days, trading haymakers, punches, and counterpunches, not knowing which one will score a knockout. But clearly the time for body blows has ended.

So it was with the president's side today, and so it is with Senator Kerry's. The story from CNN's Candy Crowley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY (voice-over): John Kerry decided not to get into the nuance of his nuisance remark about terrorists, though his campaign did trot out a nuance-free ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, KERRY-EDWARDS AD)

ANNOUNCER: ... to expect containers, secure bridges, tunnels, and chemical plants, Bush says we can't afford it. And on the war on terror, Bush said, I don't think you can win it.

BUSH: I don't, I don't think you can win it.

ANNOUNCER: Not with his failed leadership.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Kerry's number two ignored the specifics of the nuisance remark in favor of the unambiguous approach.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To the terrorists, we will find you and kill you wherever you are. And to the American people, we will keep you safe. John Kerry has been absolutely clear about that.

CROWLEY: The candidate himself had other things on his mind. SEN. JOHN KERRY, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: And when it comes to developing a real energy policy, George Bush has run out of gas.

CROWLEY: Wooing middle-class votes, Kerry warmed over an old energy speech with the new numbers on the price of oil and everything that stems from it, tantamount, Kerry said, to a tax hike from Mr. Tax Cut.

KERRY: The 30 percent increase in gas prices means a lot more profit for this president's friends in the oil industry. But for most middle-class Americans, the Bush tax increase is a tax increase that they can't afford.

CROWLEY: New CNN poll numbers show the president holds a big lead on terrorism and a healthy one on Iraq. But Kerry strategists say other polls show they are making progress in both areas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY: A Kerry aide says the senator did not directly respond to President Bush because the president was simply trying to send Kerry off message. Still, given their choice, the Kerry campaign would rather focus on domestic issues because on those issues and every one except for tax cuts, Kerry holds a lead, Aaron.

BROWN: It's been a weekend since the last debate. Time for it all to sort of jell within the campaign. How do they privately feel about how things went on Friday, and as they look towards this week in Tempe?

CROWLEY: They -- look, the day after the debate, we were in Ohio, in Cleveland, and the senator came out and said, OK, two to nothing, on to Tempe. So the -- nothing has changed. They really -- they feel that he won them fair and square and very cleanly. They feel very good about this, because, again, this is a debate that's all domestic issues. They think that's their strong point. And they believe they go in with a very decided edge.

BROWN: It will be an interesting week. Thank you, Candy. Candy Crowley tonight.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, terror north of the border, Canada and the war on terror, the good and the bad. We begin a series of reports tonight.

And later, the disappearing line between media and politics.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The terror story takes us to Canada tonight, inspiration for what someone once called the dullest newspaper headline ever written, "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative," it read. Fair to say tonight's headline differs somewhat. It has to do with how Canada has many of the same problems we in the States do when it comes to security, al Qaeda, terrorism.

Here's CNN's Deborah Feyerick.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The report by Canada's auditor general found scathing lapses in national security, problems that included no routine background checks on thousands of airport workers, old, incomplete border watch lists, and customs agents unable to access critical information on any of the 25,000 Canadian passports lost or stolen each year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The RCMP basically didn't have enough people to keep inputting information into their system, and there wasn't a good way to link their system to the frontline customs agents.

FEYERICK: The RCMP, or Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other Canadian officials say many of these problems have now been fixed. A single agency, similar to the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S., was created last December prior to the March report. Officials say it's resulted in better sharing and analysis of intelligence.

But because al Qaeda plans years in advance, security officials realize terrorists may have a dangerous head start. Indeed, two of the seven people on an FBI watch list reissued in May are Canadians.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'd love to be able to tell Canadians that I am 100 percent sure that no one slipped into this country who was here as part of a plan to do us harm. I can't say that.

FEYERICK: Canadian security analyst Martin Rudner says the reason Canada may be attractive to would-be terrorists is Canada's long tradition of liberal immigration.

MARTIN RUDNER, CANADIAN SECURITY EXPERT: We do not have discriminatory immigration policies, as is appropriate.

FEYERICK (on camera): Canadian officials say they have a dual responsibility, one, put enough security in place to prevent an attack in their country, and two, make sure that Canada does not become a staging ground for terrorists to launch an attack across the border.

(voice-over): Over the last decade, the Canadian government has detained or deported at least 25 men with ties to Islamic terrorism. Tough new laws make it easier for prosecutors to go after terror suspects. The first criminal charges using the laws were brought in March against a computer programmer living in Ottawa.

Some analysts say part of the security challenge is, unlike most Americans, Canadians simply don't feel they're in the cross-hairs.

RUDNER: I think the Canadian approach would be, if you have Osama bin Laden prisoner, what you want to do is, you want to give him a lecture in both official languages of Canada about sustainable development, gender equity, our charter rights and freedoms...

FEYERICK: As for border security now, on a scale of one to 10...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're at about, maybe about a six prior to 9/11. And we're moving someplace up towards the eight zone now.

FEYERICK: Substantially improved, Canadian officials say, but still far from perfect.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, Ottawa.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Tomorrow night on the program, the factors that have made certain Canadian immigrants ripe for recruitment by al Qaeda. Their story in the second installment tomorrow here on NEWSNIGHT.

Coming up tonight, anti-John Kerry politics in the news media, and when the two stop being separate things.

And later, Christopher Reeve on life, independence, and how he wished to be remembered. A great first from New York.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: For those of you who believe that most media is hopelessly liberal, this will be the proof. You (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hear or believe that if the story in question were about an anti-Bush film, let's say "Fahrenheit 9/11," we would say exactly the same thing, do the segment exactly the same way, ask the same questions.

We would, but we're not naive enough to believe that you would believe.

So this segment is really for everyone else, for those who worry about fairness in media, who worry about power concentrated in a few hands. This is about a decision one company made to air a harsh political film in the days before the election on all of its dozens of TV stations, an indictment of John Kerry, a decision that says a fair amount about how the media rules have changed.

A discussion on this in a moment. First, CNN's Howard Kurtz.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "RELIABLE SOURCES" (voice-over): The closing days of a presidential campaign are a sensitive time, when media organizations try not to do anything that would look like tilting toward one side or the other. But Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't worry, doesn't really seem to care if critics say the company is openly conservative. Sinclair has ordered its 62 television stations to preempt regular programming days before the election and air an aggressively anti-Kerry movie. It's called "Stolen Honor," by former "Washington Times" reporter and decorated Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood.

The movie's argument is that when Lieutenant John Kerry testified about abuses in Vietnam after returning from combat, he was libeling all American soldiers there as, in Sherwood's words, "deranged, drug- addicted psychopaths, baby killers and war criminals."

So why would Sinclair insist on carrying such a loaded, one-sided film? Could it have anything to do with the fact that chief executive David Smith is a strong supporter of President Bush or that its executives have donated nearly $70,000 in this campaign, 97 percent of it to Republicans? This is the same company that refused to carry an edition of "Nightline" last spring, when Ted Koppel simply read without comment the names of all U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Sinclair accused Koppel of pursuing an anti-war agenda, but the publicity was a boon for "Nightline."

TED KOPPEL, HOST, ABC NEWS "NIGHTLINE": I mean, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group did more for our ratings that night than anything we could have done.

KURTZ: As for "Stolen Honor," a Kerry campaign spokesman calls the Sinclair move a smear and yellow journalism. And Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe said today he would file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging Sinclair with making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.

It's hard to think of a precedent for all this. Imagine if, in the campaign's final week, CBS or CNN ran Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11 to whip up the audience against Bush. Understandably, there would be an uproar.

A Sinclair vice president told "The Washington Post" that the film tells a powerful story and that the broadcast networks are acting like Holocaust deniers about Kerry's past. But Sinclair seems in denial about how partisan this looks on the eve of an election, and its local stations, from Baltimore to Sacramento, aren't being given a choice.

Howard Kurtz, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Mark Hyman is the executive Howard Kurtz mentioned. He's the vice president for corporate relations and an on-air commentator for Sinclair Broadcast Group, and he joins us from Washington. We're glad to have him with us.

This stuff, these accusations, these statements by POWs and others have been out there in ads for weeks, if not months. What makes this news?

MARK HYMAN, SINCLAIR BROADCASTING GROUP: Well, there are a couple things. First of all, Aaron, unfortunately, Howard Kurtz's piece was incorrect. We haven't even finalized a format on this. We haven't made any decision what we're going to air, what portions of this documentary will be aired. All we've done is made a placeholder. And there's been quite a bit of outcry in response to -- complaining about content about a program that doesn't even exist yet.

BROWN: Sounds to me...

HYMAN: We haven't even developed the project yet.

BROWN: Sounds to me like in the last three days, since this story was first reported by "The LA Times," you're backing away from it.

HYMAN: No, "The LA Times" actually got it wrong. They made some statements that flat-out were wrong. We have not decided on a format. We've invited one guest to appear, John Kerry. One person, that's all. We are working on a format, and it's dependent on how much John Kerry will participate in this process. If he spends two hours with us or two minutes will dictate part of how this program will develop.

But as far as newsworthy itself, and that was your question, is this deals with Vietnam POWs, including, in this case, two Medal of Honor winners who suffered horrific abuse and unspeakable tortures over many, many years. And they are replying to some claims made by John Kerry. They, more than anyone else in America, have earned the right to have their voices heard. And so far, the news gatekeepers have denied them this opportunity.

The notion of shuffling it off to political advertisements is exactly the sort of thing that broadcast television at the network and local level have received a lot of criticism for over the last decade or two, for ignoring legitimate news stories, and instead, hoping to sell advertising to people who want to push candidates or referendums or political questions. This...

BROWN: Well, you've been running -- I mean, your stations run the Swift Boat ads, don't they?

HYMAN: That's immaterial to the process. As far as a news organization is concerned, if we looked at a story and say, Well, here's a news story, but if we can make money off of it by selling it, we'll skip doing the news story itself, that's what organizations like Alliance for Better Campaigns has leveled at broadcasters, saying they're not doing enough, they're not airing political debate. They're not discussing political stories. They're not talking...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: So Mark...

HYMAN: And that's what we're doing.

BROWN: With due respect, in no sense, then, you would -- you would ask us to believe that in no sense is the decision to air some, all of this, political on the part of Sinclair?

HYMAN: Why would you say that? Because there's a story -- some element of the story is not favorable? The same example would be if there was a car bomb that took place in Iraq today, should I say, Well, I can't report that because that would reflect poorly on the president? Absolutely not. If there's a car bomb, if there are bad unemployment figures, we're going to report those, just like we report all news. This is newsworthy. The documentary was produced over a month ago. The broadcast networks all turned their nose up it, according to the filmmaker, said, We will not talk to you on this topic unless the John Kerry campaign signs off on it and tells us it's OK to talk to you. If that, in fact, is correct, that is what should be investigated. That's what should be looked at.

BROWN: Well, we can look at all of that, too, but you don't know that first-hand, correct?

HYMAN: No, I don't.

BROWN: OK.

HYMAN: All I know is that we have spent a few weeks checking out the stories of these POWs, verifying they, in fact, served, they were prisoners of war. They came back. They have a story they want to tell. I think they, more than anyone else, who ever served in Vietnam have a right to be heard. I think the fact that there are organizations who dismiss them and act as if they don't exist certainly ought to take a better look at themselves and their standards on how they report news.

BROWN: Thank you, Mark. We appreciate your time tonight.

HYMAN: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

Still to come, more on this intersection of media and politics. We'll be joined by Marvin Kalb and former FCC chairman Reed Hundt.

And speaking of media, that outdated form, "Morning Papers," still to come tonight. A break first around the world. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

More now on the Sinclair story, along with the larger issues, and there are larger issues surrounding it. We're joined by Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton administration, and Marvin Kalb, formerly of CBS News, currently a senior fellow at Harvard University's Shorenstein Center. Good to see you both.

Mr. Kalb, I guess my feeling is, it's their TV stations. They get to do what they want. The question is, should they?

MARVIN KALB, SHORENSTEIN CENTER, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Oh, I think they have a perfect right to do what they want to do. I just think it's wrong, what it is that they want to do.

BROWN: It's wrong because?

KALB: I think it's -- well, because if they want to do a piece like this -- this seems to me to be an extended piece of the short political ads that have been run by the swift boat veterans now since August. This is a longer version. The idea that this is a news story, in the sense that the veterans who were imprisoned by the North Vietnamese have not been heard from before, that is simply not true. They have been heard from, I think, amply -- perhaps not individually, but they have all been heard from. And the story has been heard from.

BROWN: I want to get...

KALB: So I don't think that this is news, as such.

BROWN: I want to get -- there's a larger question I want to get to, but just let me go to Mr. Hundt for a second. On the question of the FCC here -- you know, it used to be that fairness was required. Are we at a point now where -- where broadcasters -- not cable, where broadcasters are concerned, fairness simply isn't a question?

REED HUNDT, FORMER FCC CHAIRMAN: No, not at all. Fairness is the fundamental principle of the broadcasting industry in America today. The American people own the airwaves, and they give them to broadcasters for free. They sell them to cellular companies, but they give them to broadcasters for free. And the clear expectation -- it's tradition, it's also in a lot of rules. The clear expectation is that broadcasters will present, fairly, reports about political matters.

And particularly, in the last couple weeks of elections, there are lots of rules and regulations that apply that give real life and meaning to that fundamental concept of fairness.

BROWN: But...

HUNDT: But as Marvin said, it's not -- it's not this is not a close question. Fundamental fairness is something that everybody can recognize here, and it's not fundamentally fair to show a half hour of biased propaganda against one candidate. Doesn't matter who the candidate is, it's not fair.

BROWN: And just in a sentence, what the FCC could do is what, lift their license?

HUNDT: Well, you just saw the chairman of the FCC spend a number of months going after broadcasters on the Janet Jackson case and on the Howard Stern case. And in both those cases, the FCC chairman was saying this kind of content is not appropriate for America. Now, when we turn to politics, there are also standards there. And the fundamental standards are that broadcasters are supposed to be neutral and balanced and accurate when they're dealing with important political matters. Overwhelmingly, broadcasters behave consistently. As Marvin is telling you, nobody's ever heard of a case like this before.

BROWN: Yes. Mr. Kalb, I want to just take a step back from this because it's actually my belief that two things are going on in the country. One is that people don't want to hear things they don't agree with. And secondly, the media is becoming more partisan by the day. KALB: Well, "media" is becoming a bad word. It's almost like the use of the word now "liberal," which is a bad word. And this is something, Aaron, in my view, that is a reflection of the growing partisanship which we find throughout American politics, American society. The media is part of that. And there are a lot of people out there, since the Vietnam war and Watergate, who have felt that the mainstream press is partisan. It is anti a Republican president, and it was somehow responsible for the American loss of the Vietnam war. Neither is true, but that's not important.

Until Fox came along, a lot of these people felt that all of the media was left and liberal. And right now, with Fox, they have a place where they can go, and with talk radio, as well, where they feel comfortable, where the news is cozy, where it's compatible with their political views.

BROWN: And Sinclair, in its decision, is just fitting into that scenario.

KALB: I think it is simply part of a growing politicization of the media, and Sinclair fits right in, as you said.

BROWN: Gentlemen, thank you. Appreciate your time tonight.

KALB: Thank you.

HUNDT: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

Ahead on the program, a segment worth waiting for. We hope they all are. Christopher Reeve's life in his own words -- strong, at times heart-breaking. Mr. Reeve's quite incredible until his death yesterday. And "Morning Papers" will wrap the hour up, but we take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There are those who lead by example, and Christopher Reeve, who died yesterday, most certainly did. He wasn't the first celebrity to become an activist, but Mr. Reeve didn't choose the cause that came to define his life. In the nine years since an accident left him paralyzed, he was a tireless advocate of stem cell research. In interviews, he spoke frankly about hope and about hardships of being dependent on others. But in public, at least, he never lost his optimism that one day science would prevail. In movies, he was a superhero. In life, he was much more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR/ACTIVIST: Nothing is impossible because I was told when I was injured, like, That's it. You're finished. You'll never get any movement below your shoulders. But I kept exercising. Why? Basically, because I said, Who knows if that's true or not? And also, I wanted to stay out of the hospital, and exercise does a lot for cardiovascular and circulation, et cetera, et cetera, skin breakdowns, things that people with paralysis have to face, so...

Then all of a sudden, in September of 2000, I suddenly found that I could move my left index finger on command. That's totally bizarre. That made no sense whatsoever.

Risk is part of -- of just the fragile adventure of life. And for me to sit here in a wheelchair, or for anybody else that's disabled, for that matter, to sit here and know that there's a technology that has real promise to change my life, and it's being held up for political reasons, makes me absolutely furious.

I can't eat by myself. I cannot wash myself. I cannot dress myself. Can't go to the bathroom by myself. And I've never been alone, because I can't breathe on my own, for seven years. For seven years, I've not been able to be anywhere unaccompanied. And do you know what's that like for somebody who's been as independent as me? And I have a nice life. I shouldn't complain. I'm not stuck in a center someplace where nobody cares. I have a loving family. But I want to tell you, this is terrible.

And what's even more terrible is something could be done about it. Unless we are brave, unless we catch up, unless we're a courageous society, not worried about this slippery slope, you know, where critics think that if you start therapeutic cloning, there's no way to stop reproductive cloning. Yes, there is. You ban it, regulate it and enforce it.

I would just like people to look back and to know that I kept at it, and through good times and bad times, that they'll look back on the body of work that I did and know that I tried my best all the time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All sorts of different kinds of heroes in the world. And he was one of them.

"Morning Papers" after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Okeydoke, time to check "Morning Papers" from around the country and around the world.

We'll start with the "International Herald Tribune," published by "The New York Times" because "The New York Times" won't send us "The New York Times," otherwise, we'd start with "The New York Times." "Shi'ite rebels begin" -- it's a long story. "Shi'ite rebels begin handing over arms." Call me later, I'll tell you. "Buy-back plan brings rare cooperation.' And then just below that, "Zarqawi network hurt but still able to attack." Much of the top leadership, according to Pentagon officials, of the Zarqawi -- he's the terrorist over there -- have been killed. I hope that's so.

"The Christian Science" -- I never said that on TV before, but actually, I do. "The Christian Science Monitor" -- "Sadr fighters disarm again." That's an interesting one. And over here, "Sox versus Yanks." That's the big sports story of the week, the playoffs between the Red Sox and the Yankees. And of course, the Red Sox and the Braves are the official team of NEWSNIGHT, right? Yes.

"Bush hits Kerry's view on terror, says nuisance quote highlights his ignorance." Did the president call him ignorant? My goodness! Then they'll shake hands and be all buddy-buddy come the debate on Wednesday in Tempe. That's "The Washington Times."

"The Philadelphia Inquirer" -- "Stations ordered air film on Kerry. A broadcaster told his TV channels to show critical documentary. The DNC cries foul." Needless, to say, I think that's an unbelievable story. Their TV stations, though. I guess they can do what they want. Of course, they are your airwaves.

"Oil prices set records as traders take fright." That's a pretty good headline -- "Financial Times." I'm sort of surprised that oil prices haven't been a bigger story.

Christopher Reeve on "The Chicago Sun Times" cover as I'd like to remember him, too. The weather tomorrow in Chicago -- thank you -- is "Gentle," as this program often tries to be. We'll wrap it up in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's right about this time I start to think, What am I going to watch when I wake up in the morning? Here's Bill Hemmer with a look at tomorrow's "AMERICAN MORNING."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Aaron, thanks. Tomorrow on "American Morning": There are the traditional forces in politics and then there's hip-hop, musicians joining forces this year to try and get the young people to the polls. And the Hip-Hop Action Summit is leading the charge. We'll talk to Russell Simmons about how his organization is trying to guarantee a big turnout that has been so elusive in the past. He's using music and video games. And we'll talk to him about it tomorrow morning at 7:00 AM Eastern time here on "American morning." Hope to see you then -- Aaron.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Bill, thank you. Here's what I don't understand. Why don't people just vote? Why do they need to be encouraged to vote -- young, old, in between? Just vote. We'll see you tomorrow. We're all back here 10:00 o'clock Eastern time, and you will be, too, I hope. Until then, good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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


Aired October 11, 2004 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening, again.
Although no one asked me, here's a piece of advice for all you would-be politicians out there. Don't ever speak honestly and truthfully about complex problems. Your words will be used against you.

When the president told the "Today" show some weeks back that we can't win the war on terror, we can only eliminate those terrorists we can find and seek to change the conditions that breed this hate, he was being both honest and truthful.

There will always be, whether we like it or not, some nut out there willing to strap a bomb to his belly for a cause.

Today, the Kerry side began running an ad using the first part of the president's sentence against him.

And the president's side is no better. When Senator Kerry told "The New York Times" that over time, we need a policy that destroys so many terrorists that they no longer dominate our lives, that they have become a nuisance, the ads went up as some sort of evidence that Kerry is soft on terror.

What is remarkable, beyond the silliness of both ads, is this. Both the president and the senator are saying the same thing. Both are being honest. Both are being truthful. And both are being pummeled.

And we wonder why American politics has been reduced to dribble.

The whip begins with the real stuff, the war and a view of it, both edifying and a little terrifying.

CNN's Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon with the watch tonight. Jamie, a headline.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the Pentagon rarely releases videos of actual killing of enemy forces, and they still don't know how this video got out. But nevertheless, it does show what the Pentagon claims is a legitimate strike against insurgents in Fallujah back in April.

BROWN: Jamie, we'll get to the chilling details of that at the top tonight. Next to Baghdad, CNN's Brent Sadler. And Brent, a headline from you.

BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Aaron.

A surrender of weapons gets off to a slow start in a rebel stronghold on the outskirts of Baghdad, while U.S. Marines call in air strikes to beat back around 100 well-armed insurgents in western Iraq.

BROWN: Brent, thank you.

The campaign, politics, the president first. Our senior White House correspondent, John King. John, a headline.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, you call it silliness, perhaps dribble. The White House calls it an opening. It says Senator Kerry is soft on the war on terrorism. The president's lead in that category has been slipping, the president trying to reverse it.

BROWN: John, thank you.

And finally, the Kerry camp, with CNN's Candy Crowley. Candy, a headline from there.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Kerry campaign knew that the Bush campaign wanted to talk about that "New York Times" magazine article. But the Kerry campaign made a decision early on it wasn't going to play. And it didn't, Aaron.

BROWN: Candy, thank you.

We'll get back to you and John and the rest shortly.

Also on the program tonight, made in Canada. A special report starting tonight that examines an unexpected source of terrorism and terrorists and how the Canadian government is responding.

Also tonight, a superhero in movies, a super man in reality. The life of Christopher Reeve, in his own words.

And when you hear the rooster crow, it can only mean one thing, it's almost time for bed. Oh. The morning papers are here as well.

All that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin in Iraq with a rare look at a U.S. air strike as seen from inside a fighter jet. It is a piece of tape that tells us some things and leaves other things unanswered. It shows us in graphic detail, we warn, how deadly weapons of war are. It tells us with equal detail how accurate they can sometimes be.

What it does not tell us is whether it was a legitimate strike on people who would kill our sons and daughters in Iraq, or a mistake, the killing of innocents, as some claim.

From the Pentagon tonight, CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Saturday, April 10, capped a bloody week in Fallujah. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed by U.S. Marines, who were still pushing into the insurgent stronghold, even as members of Iraq's governing council were negotiating a cease-fire.

U.S. Air Force F-16s dropped more bombs in support of the Marine offensive that Saturday than on any day that week.

A cockpit video of one such engagement, never officially released, has circulated on the Internet for months. CNN has confirmed it's authentic. The 53-second clip provides a rare look at how the U.S. uses what it calls precision air strikes in urban areas to support ground operations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got numerous individuals on the road. You want me to take those out?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take them out.

MCINTYRE: According to a U.S. military account, the order to "Take them out" is from a forward air controller, on the ground with the Marines, whose job is to confirm the targets are hostile before calling in the bombs.

The original target was said to be a nearby building, where Marines had been trading fire with the insurgents before they allegedly fled into the street.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten seconds. Roger.

MCINTYRE: The U.S. says the ground controller could see the situation before he cleared the pilot to drop a 500-pound bomb.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Impact. Ho-ho, dude.

MCINTYRE: Experts who have reviewed the tape at CNN's request say whether the strike was legitimate hinges entirely on whether the controller was right.

JIM CARAFANO, MILITARY LAW EXPERT: And the challenge there is for the guy who has his eye on the target, it's his responsibility to identify the target to the aircraft.

LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD (RET.), U.S. ARMY, MILITARY ANALYST: My first reaction to it was, I wondered where the air controller was and whether he could identify that as a group of insurgents, or whether he was somewhere remote from that area and didn't know for sure.

MCINTYRE: In an interview with Channel 4 television in the U.K., a doctor who says he was at the hospital in Fallujah in April claimed the dead were innocent civilians. At the time, fierce fighting across Fallujah was filling the local hospital with numerous casualties, including women and children.

And some wonder whether it's logical for insurgents to move in a large group that would make them vulnerable to air strikes.

GARD: The only questionable thing is whether or not well- disciplined and competent insurgents would pour out of a building onto a wide street without any cover. On the other hand, we do know that there are a number of insurgents who are poorly trained, who out of anger or frustration have taken up arms, and it's quite possible that they were insurgents.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: Now, even the most precise air strike can result in unintended civilian casualties. But the Pentagon insists that this strike was conducted by the book, in strict accordance with the rules of engagement that are designed to minimize the risk of civilian casualties but not totally eliminate them, Aaron.

BROWN: Now, we, this tape actually has been out there for some weeks. It's been seen in large parts of the world. We've had our hands on it for a while. Talk for a moment about the process, I guess, that we went through to vet it and to make the decision to go to air.

MCINTYRE: Well, we, as you said, we got this tape some time ago. It has appeared to raise some questions about who was on the tape and how the pilot would have known who he was striking.

We got some initial indication that it was possibly a legitimate strike back in April, but we didn't have the full details on what had happened. It wasn't until British television aired the tape and suggested that this was a massacre of civilians that the U.S. military came forward with additional documentation and details to give their side of the story, that they believe that this was, as a result of action that took place after a fire strike.

So, after a considerable number of days of checking and rechecking, we're pretty confident that we've gotten the best information we can. But even then, these kinds of incidents are always inconclusive. It's always a chance that somebody made a mistake, that there were innocent civilians mixed in among the legitimate targets, or that somebody's even covering up something.

But at this point, all the evidence suggests that it was, in fact, as the U.S. describes it, a legitimate military strike. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we really can't draw any other conclusion.

BROWN: I agree with that. It, can you just in 15 seconds, do you have any idea how this tape got out?

MCINTYRE: Most likely scenario, a pilot saved it because it was, quote, "cool video," gave it to somebody, gave it to somebody, showed up on the Internet. That's sort of how it gets out.

BROWN: Unreal, the times in which we live. Thank you, Jamie. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon tonight.

The Arab television network, Al Jazeera, today reported two more beheadings in Iraq. The victims, a Turkish contractor and his Iraqi translator. Three U.S. troops were killed in two separate attacks today as well, a grim reminder of the prevailing task facing the U.S. military regaining control over insurgents.

To that end, a weapons exchange program is under way in Sadr City, the Baghdad slum and the center of Shi'ite resistance. It's not the first truce to be negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia, but with elections approaching in January, there is now, perhaps, more at stake than ever.

So from Baghdad tonight, CNN's Brent Sadler.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER (voice-over): A timid start to the surrender of weapons in Sadr City. But still, they came, armed and dangerous, an unknown number of Mehdi Army militiamen, loyal to radical Shi'a Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, turning in machine guns and ammunition, rocket- propelled grenades, and mortar shells.

"It's in response to our leadership," says this fighter, "to hand over weapons."

Masked and suspicious Iraqi security forces monitored this first tentative step to disarmament.

AYAD ALLAWI, IRAQI INTERIM PRIME MINISTER: We hope it will hold. We have made our opposition (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the government, I made the position very clear, that only the rule of law will prevail. Nothing else is accepted.

SADLER: But trust levels are low after weeks of deadly battles here. Sadr City's bullets and bombs have claimed both American and Iraqi lives.

LT. COL. GARY VOLESKY, U.S. ARMY: There has been no cease-fire agreement. There is no truce. This was an initiative started by the Sadr bureau.

SADLER: A controversial initiative, trading arms for cash, handed out by Iraqi government officials. Heavy machine guns reportedly fetch up to $1,000 U.S. each, rocket-propelled grenades, $175.

"It's not compensation for weapons," says this official. "It's a reward for their cooperation."

But black marketeers, it's feared, may also use the buyout to profit from arms, complicating efforts to gauge the real impact of bringing peace to this rebel stronghold.

But hopes are blooming among U.S. and Iraqi officials here that the Sadr City accord may be the beginning of the end to a more or less self-contained Shi'a revolt.

If so, it could afford U.S.-backed Iraqi forces greater scope to concentrate on defeating the wider Sunni Muslim insurgency, raging Monday in western Iraq. The U.S. military says war planes struck a Sunni mosque in the town of Hit (ph) about 100 miles west of Baghdad, where Marines battled about 100 insurgents in an hours-long firefight, a foretaste of even tougher battles that may lie ahead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER: Now, if the Sadr City accord succeeds, it could help stimulate government negotiations to reach a settlement with some insurgent groups in that rebel stronghold west of the Iraqi capital. But unlike Sadr City, Fallujah is a melting pot of disparate groups, including, it's suspected, some of the most ruthless foreign fighters in Iraq, Aaron.

BROWN: Everyone expects at some point soon an attack in Fallujah. We expect it before Ramadan, during Ramadan, after Ramadan? When do we expect it?

SADLER: According to what we're hearing from commanders on the ground and from the Pentagon in the United States, expect it after the U.S. presidential elections, but well before Iraq's own national elections at the end of January.

BROWN: Brent, thank you. Brent Sadler in Baghdad.

On to the presidential campaign. Twenty-two days left until election day, a statistical dead heat, according to a new CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll. The polls are out there these days are all very close one way or the other. Such a tight race has very little margin for error. It also leaves the candidates grasping for even the slightest edge, and, as we said at the top, leading both sides to turn sentence fragments into campaign issues.

We have two reports tonight. First, CNN's John King with the president.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Out West and on the attack, using his opponent's own words to draw a sharp contrast on terrorism.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, just this weekend, Senator Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to, quote, "nuisance," and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is all part of a pre-9/11 mindset...

KING: Back East, an echo from the vice president and the man who was New York City police commissioner when the Twin Towers fell.

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: A nuisance didn't kill the 23 people that worked for me, the 37 Port Authority cops, the 343 firefighters, the 2,400 civilians in the towers. A nuisance didn't do that.

KING: Mr. Bush's stops in Colorado and New Mexico were warmups for Wednesday's final debate, where the president will press his case that when it comes to domestic issues, Senator Kerry is a big-spending liberal.

BUSH: He's going to have to raise your taxes. See, he can run, but he cannot hide.

KING: Kerry aides say Republicans are taking this "New York Times" magazine interview out of context, but the Bush camp used the "nuisance" quote as a late campaign gift and rushed to seize on it.

BUSH: Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror, by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks.

KING: Mr. Bush carried Colorado comfortably four years ago but is in a tight race this time. And Senator Kerry isn't the only challenge on the ballot. Colorado voters are being asked to back a initiative that would award the state's electoral votes proportionately based on the popular vote instead of the current winner-take-all formula. Had such a system been in place four years ago, Al Gore would have won three of Colorado's electoral votes and the White House.

JULIE BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT: The people love this because they, they, they think their vote should count. And this is it to them, it's one person one vote. And they do not understand why we do not have that in the presidential election.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Now, as for that Kerry "nuisance" quote that the Bush campaign considers a gaffe, it is no surprise at all while -- why they are seizing on it.

The president leads in the polls when voters are asked who they trust more to handle terrorism, but the president's lead is not as big as it was just a few weeks ago, and the Bush campaign thinks with just three weeks to go, those making their decision late are going to put security issues first. And Aaron, they want to try to at least keep and perhaps try to rebuild that lead.

BROWN: Now I'm going to put you in a spot you're just not going to be happy with. Look, is there, in fact, much difference between what Senator Kerry said to "The New York Times" and what the president said some weeks back to Matt Lauer on the "Today" show about the ability to totally eradicate terror?

KING: No, there is not. That's a spot, if you put both quotes and you run all of the quotes out in their complete sentences, there's not a difference, a significant difference on that point, that you can never or perhaps never totally eradicate terrorism. The president did make that point in the NBC interview. Senator Kerry makes it in the "New York Times" interview. The Bush campaign would dispute that, of course. And what they would say is that philosophically, Senator Kerry's first instinct is to make this an intelligence matter, make it a law enforcement matter. And the president wants to immediately go and try to find the terrorists and to root them out.

But in terms of, can you ever totally eliminate terrorism, the president himself, more or less, conceded that in the NBC interview.

And what the Kerry campaign is doing tonight, and I hope I'm not stepping on Candy, is showing a quote from Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to this president's father who said exactly the same thing, try to reduce it to a nuisance level. That's probably the best you can ever do.

BROWN: Thank you, John. John King, our senior White House correspondent.

Twenty-two days to go.

Not that a presidential race should be turned into a sporting event, but both sides seem to be standing in the center of the ring these days, trading haymakers, punches, and counterpunches, not knowing which one will score a knockout. But clearly the time for body blows has ended.

So it was with the president's side today, and so it is with Senator Kerry's. The story from CNN's Candy Crowley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY (voice-over): John Kerry decided not to get into the nuance of his nuisance remark about terrorists, though his campaign did trot out a nuance-free ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, KERRY-EDWARDS AD)

ANNOUNCER: ... to expect containers, secure bridges, tunnels, and chemical plants, Bush says we can't afford it. And on the war on terror, Bush said, I don't think you can win it.

BUSH: I don't, I don't think you can win it.

ANNOUNCER: Not with his failed leadership.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Kerry's number two ignored the specifics of the nuisance remark in favor of the unambiguous approach.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To the terrorists, we will find you and kill you wherever you are. And to the American people, we will keep you safe. John Kerry has been absolutely clear about that.

CROWLEY: The candidate himself had other things on his mind. SEN. JOHN KERRY, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: And when it comes to developing a real energy policy, George Bush has run out of gas.

CROWLEY: Wooing middle-class votes, Kerry warmed over an old energy speech with the new numbers on the price of oil and everything that stems from it, tantamount, Kerry said, to a tax hike from Mr. Tax Cut.

KERRY: The 30 percent increase in gas prices means a lot more profit for this president's friends in the oil industry. But for most middle-class Americans, the Bush tax increase is a tax increase that they can't afford.

CROWLEY: New CNN poll numbers show the president holds a big lead on terrorism and a healthy one on Iraq. But Kerry strategists say other polls show they are making progress in both areas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY: A Kerry aide says the senator did not directly respond to President Bush because the president was simply trying to send Kerry off message. Still, given their choice, the Kerry campaign would rather focus on domestic issues because on those issues and every one except for tax cuts, Kerry holds a lead, Aaron.

BROWN: It's been a weekend since the last debate. Time for it all to sort of jell within the campaign. How do they privately feel about how things went on Friday, and as they look towards this week in Tempe?

CROWLEY: They -- look, the day after the debate, we were in Ohio, in Cleveland, and the senator came out and said, OK, two to nothing, on to Tempe. So the -- nothing has changed. They really -- they feel that he won them fair and square and very cleanly. They feel very good about this, because, again, this is a debate that's all domestic issues. They think that's their strong point. And they believe they go in with a very decided edge.

BROWN: It will be an interesting week. Thank you, Candy. Candy Crowley tonight.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, terror north of the border, Canada and the war on terror, the good and the bad. We begin a series of reports tonight.

And later, the disappearing line between media and politics.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The terror story takes us to Canada tonight, inspiration for what someone once called the dullest newspaper headline ever written, "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative," it read. Fair to say tonight's headline differs somewhat. It has to do with how Canada has many of the same problems we in the States do when it comes to security, al Qaeda, terrorism.

Here's CNN's Deborah Feyerick.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The report by Canada's auditor general found scathing lapses in national security, problems that included no routine background checks on thousands of airport workers, old, incomplete border watch lists, and customs agents unable to access critical information on any of the 25,000 Canadian passports lost or stolen each year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The RCMP basically didn't have enough people to keep inputting information into their system, and there wasn't a good way to link their system to the frontline customs agents.

FEYERICK: The RCMP, or Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other Canadian officials say many of these problems have now been fixed. A single agency, similar to the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S., was created last December prior to the March report. Officials say it's resulted in better sharing and analysis of intelligence.

But because al Qaeda plans years in advance, security officials realize terrorists may have a dangerous head start. Indeed, two of the seven people on an FBI watch list reissued in May are Canadians.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'd love to be able to tell Canadians that I am 100 percent sure that no one slipped into this country who was here as part of a plan to do us harm. I can't say that.

FEYERICK: Canadian security analyst Martin Rudner says the reason Canada may be attractive to would-be terrorists is Canada's long tradition of liberal immigration.

MARTIN RUDNER, CANADIAN SECURITY EXPERT: We do not have discriminatory immigration policies, as is appropriate.

FEYERICK (on camera): Canadian officials say they have a dual responsibility, one, put enough security in place to prevent an attack in their country, and two, make sure that Canada does not become a staging ground for terrorists to launch an attack across the border.

(voice-over): Over the last decade, the Canadian government has detained or deported at least 25 men with ties to Islamic terrorism. Tough new laws make it easier for prosecutors to go after terror suspects. The first criminal charges using the laws were brought in March against a computer programmer living in Ottawa.

Some analysts say part of the security challenge is, unlike most Americans, Canadians simply don't feel they're in the cross-hairs.

RUDNER: I think the Canadian approach would be, if you have Osama bin Laden prisoner, what you want to do is, you want to give him a lecture in both official languages of Canada about sustainable development, gender equity, our charter rights and freedoms...

FEYERICK: As for border security now, on a scale of one to 10...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're at about, maybe about a six prior to 9/11. And we're moving someplace up towards the eight zone now.

FEYERICK: Substantially improved, Canadian officials say, but still far from perfect.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, Ottawa.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Tomorrow night on the program, the factors that have made certain Canadian immigrants ripe for recruitment by al Qaeda. Their story in the second installment tomorrow here on NEWSNIGHT.

Coming up tonight, anti-John Kerry politics in the news media, and when the two stop being separate things.

And later, Christopher Reeve on life, independence, and how he wished to be remembered. A great first from New York.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: For those of you who believe that most media is hopelessly liberal, this will be the proof. You (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hear or believe that if the story in question were about an anti-Bush film, let's say "Fahrenheit 9/11," we would say exactly the same thing, do the segment exactly the same way, ask the same questions.

We would, but we're not naive enough to believe that you would believe.

So this segment is really for everyone else, for those who worry about fairness in media, who worry about power concentrated in a few hands. This is about a decision one company made to air a harsh political film in the days before the election on all of its dozens of TV stations, an indictment of John Kerry, a decision that says a fair amount about how the media rules have changed.

A discussion on this in a moment. First, CNN's Howard Kurtz.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "RELIABLE SOURCES" (voice-over): The closing days of a presidential campaign are a sensitive time, when media organizations try not to do anything that would look like tilting toward one side or the other. But Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't worry, doesn't really seem to care if critics say the company is openly conservative. Sinclair has ordered its 62 television stations to preempt regular programming days before the election and air an aggressively anti-Kerry movie. It's called "Stolen Honor," by former "Washington Times" reporter and decorated Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood.

The movie's argument is that when Lieutenant John Kerry testified about abuses in Vietnam after returning from combat, he was libeling all American soldiers there as, in Sherwood's words, "deranged, drug- addicted psychopaths, baby killers and war criminals."

So why would Sinclair insist on carrying such a loaded, one-sided film? Could it have anything to do with the fact that chief executive David Smith is a strong supporter of President Bush or that its executives have donated nearly $70,000 in this campaign, 97 percent of it to Republicans? This is the same company that refused to carry an edition of "Nightline" last spring, when Ted Koppel simply read without comment the names of all U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Sinclair accused Koppel of pursuing an anti-war agenda, but the publicity was a boon for "Nightline."

TED KOPPEL, HOST, ABC NEWS "NIGHTLINE": I mean, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group did more for our ratings that night than anything we could have done.

KURTZ: As for "Stolen Honor," a Kerry campaign spokesman calls the Sinclair move a smear and yellow journalism. And Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe said today he would file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging Sinclair with making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.

It's hard to think of a precedent for all this. Imagine if, in the campaign's final week, CBS or CNN ran Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11 to whip up the audience against Bush. Understandably, there would be an uproar.

A Sinclair vice president told "The Washington Post" that the film tells a powerful story and that the broadcast networks are acting like Holocaust deniers about Kerry's past. But Sinclair seems in denial about how partisan this looks on the eve of an election, and its local stations, from Baltimore to Sacramento, aren't being given a choice.

Howard Kurtz, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Mark Hyman is the executive Howard Kurtz mentioned. He's the vice president for corporate relations and an on-air commentator for Sinclair Broadcast Group, and he joins us from Washington. We're glad to have him with us.

This stuff, these accusations, these statements by POWs and others have been out there in ads for weeks, if not months. What makes this news?

MARK HYMAN, SINCLAIR BROADCASTING GROUP: Well, there are a couple things. First of all, Aaron, unfortunately, Howard Kurtz's piece was incorrect. We haven't even finalized a format on this. We haven't made any decision what we're going to air, what portions of this documentary will be aired. All we've done is made a placeholder. And there's been quite a bit of outcry in response to -- complaining about content about a program that doesn't even exist yet.

BROWN: Sounds to me...

HYMAN: We haven't even developed the project yet.

BROWN: Sounds to me like in the last three days, since this story was first reported by "The LA Times," you're backing away from it.

HYMAN: No, "The LA Times" actually got it wrong. They made some statements that flat-out were wrong. We have not decided on a format. We've invited one guest to appear, John Kerry. One person, that's all. We are working on a format, and it's dependent on how much John Kerry will participate in this process. If he spends two hours with us or two minutes will dictate part of how this program will develop.

But as far as newsworthy itself, and that was your question, is this deals with Vietnam POWs, including, in this case, two Medal of Honor winners who suffered horrific abuse and unspeakable tortures over many, many years. And they are replying to some claims made by John Kerry. They, more than anyone else in America, have earned the right to have their voices heard. And so far, the news gatekeepers have denied them this opportunity.

The notion of shuffling it off to political advertisements is exactly the sort of thing that broadcast television at the network and local level have received a lot of criticism for over the last decade or two, for ignoring legitimate news stories, and instead, hoping to sell advertising to people who want to push candidates or referendums or political questions. This...

BROWN: Well, you've been running -- I mean, your stations run the Swift Boat ads, don't they?

HYMAN: That's immaterial to the process. As far as a news organization is concerned, if we looked at a story and say, Well, here's a news story, but if we can make money off of it by selling it, we'll skip doing the news story itself, that's what organizations like Alliance for Better Campaigns has leveled at broadcasters, saying they're not doing enough, they're not airing political debate. They're not discussing political stories. They're not talking...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: So Mark...

HYMAN: And that's what we're doing.

BROWN: With due respect, in no sense, then, you would -- you would ask us to believe that in no sense is the decision to air some, all of this, political on the part of Sinclair?

HYMAN: Why would you say that? Because there's a story -- some element of the story is not favorable? The same example would be if there was a car bomb that took place in Iraq today, should I say, Well, I can't report that because that would reflect poorly on the president? Absolutely not. If there's a car bomb, if there are bad unemployment figures, we're going to report those, just like we report all news. This is newsworthy. The documentary was produced over a month ago. The broadcast networks all turned their nose up it, according to the filmmaker, said, We will not talk to you on this topic unless the John Kerry campaign signs off on it and tells us it's OK to talk to you. If that, in fact, is correct, that is what should be investigated. That's what should be looked at.

BROWN: Well, we can look at all of that, too, but you don't know that first-hand, correct?

HYMAN: No, I don't.

BROWN: OK.

HYMAN: All I know is that we have spent a few weeks checking out the stories of these POWs, verifying they, in fact, served, they were prisoners of war. They came back. They have a story they want to tell. I think they, more than anyone else, who ever served in Vietnam have a right to be heard. I think the fact that there are organizations who dismiss them and act as if they don't exist certainly ought to take a better look at themselves and their standards on how they report news.

BROWN: Thank you, Mark. We appreciate your time tonight.

HYMAN: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

Still to come, more on this intersection of media and politics. We'll be joined by Marvin Kalb and former FCC chairman Reed Hundt.

And speaking of media, that outdated form, "Morning Papers," still to come tonight. A break first around the world. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

More now on the Sinclair story, along with the larger issues, and there are larger issues surrounding it. We're joined by Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton administration, and Marvin Kalb, formerly of CBS News, currently a senior fellow at Harvard University's Shorenstein Center. Good to see you both.

Mr. Kalb, I guess my feeling is, it's their TV stations. They get to do what they want. The question is, should they?

MARVIN KALB, SHORENSTEIN CENTER, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Oh, I think they have a perfect right to do what they want to do. I just think it's wrong, what it is that they want to do.

BROWN: It's wrong because?

KALB: I think it's -- well, because if they want to do a piece like this -- this seems to me to be an extended piece of the short political ads that have been run by the swift boat veterans now since August. This is a longer version. The idea that this is a news story, in the sense that the veterans who were imprisoned by the North Vietnamese have not been heard from before, that is simply not true. They have been heard from, I think, amply -- perhaps not individually, but they have all been heard from. And the story has been heard from.

BROWN: I want to get...

KALB: So I don't think that this is news, as such.

BROWN: I want to get -- there's a larger question I want to get to, but just let me go to Mr. Hundt for a second. On the question of the FCC here -- you know, it used to be that fairness was required. Are we at a point now where -- where broadcasters -- not cable, where broadcasters are concerned, fairness simply isn't a question?

REED HUNDT, FORMER FCC CHAIRMAN: No, not at all. Fairness is the fundamental principle of the broadcasting industry in America today. The American people own the airwaves, and they give them to broadcasters for free. They sell them to cellular companies, but they give them to broadcasters for free. And the clear expectation -- it's tradition, it's also in a lot of rules. The clear expectation is that broadcasters will present, fairly, reports about political matters.

And particularly, in the last couple weeks of elections, there are lots of rules and regulations that apply that give real life and meaning to that fundamental concept of fairness.

BROWN: But...

HUNDT: But as Marvin said, it's not -- it's not this is not a close question. Fundamental fairness is something that everybody can recognize here, and it's not fundamentally fair to show a half hour of biased propaganda against one candidate. Doesn't matter who the candidate is, it's not fair.

BROWN: And just in a sentence, what the FCC could do is what, lift their license?

HUNDT: Well, you just saw the chairman of the FCC spend a number of months going after broadcasters on the Janet Jackson case and on the Howard Stern case. And in both those cases, the FCC chairman was saying this kind of content is not appropriate for America. Now, when we turn to politics, there are also standards there. And the fundamental standards are that broadcasters are supposed to be neutral and balanced and accurate when they're dealing with important political matters. Overwhelmingly, broadcasters behave consistently. As Marvin is telling you, nobody's ever heard of a case like this before.

BROWN: Yes. Mr. Kalb, I want to just take a step back from this because it's actually my belief that two things are going on in the country. One is that people don't want to hear things they don't agree with. And secondly, the media is becoming more partisan by the day. KALB: Well, "media" is becoming a bad word. It's almost like the use of the word now "liberal," which is a bad word. And this is something, Aaron, in my view, that is a reflection of the growing partisanship which we find throughout American politics, American society. The media is part of that. And there are a lot of people out there, since the Vietnam war and Watergate, who have felt that the mainstream press is partisan. It is anti a Republican president, and it was somehow responsible for the American loss of the Vietnam war. Neither is true, but that's not important.

Until Fox came along, a lot of these people felt that all of the media was left and liberal. And right now, with Fox, they have a place where they can go, and with talk radio, as well, where they feel comfortable, where the news is cozy, where it's compatible with their political views.

BROWN: And Sinclair, in its decision, is just fitting into that scenario.

KALB: I think it is simply part of a growing politicization of the media, and Sinclair fits right in, as you said.

BROWN: Gentlemen, thank you. Appreciate your time tonight.

KALB: Thank you.

HUNDT: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

Ahead on the program, a segment worth waiting for. We hope they all are. Christopher Reeve's life in his own words -- strong, at times heart-breaking. Mr. Reeve's quite incredible until his death yesterday. And "Morning Papers" will wrap the hour up, but we take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There are those who lead by example, and Christopher Reeve, who died yesterday, most certainly did. He wasn't the first celebrity to become an activist, but Mr. Reeve didn't choose the cause that came to define his life. In the nine years since an accident left him paralyzed, he was a tireless advocate of stem cell research. In interviews, he spoke frankly about hope and about hardships of being dependent on others. But in public, at least, he never lost his optimism that one day science would prevail. In movies, he was a superhero. In life, he was much more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR/ACTIVIST: Nothing is impossible because I was told when I was injured, like, That's it. You're finished. You'll never get any movement below your shoulders. But I kept exercising. Why? Basically, because I said, Who knows if that's true or not? And also, I wanted to stay out of the hospital, and exercise does a lot for cardiovascular and circulation, et cetera, et cetera, skin breakdowns, things that people with paralysis have to face, so...

Then all of a sudden, in September of 2000, I suddenly found that I could move my left index finger on command. That's totally bizarre. That made no sense whatsoever.

Risk is part of -- of just the fragile adventure of life. And for me to sit here in a wheelchair, or for anybody else that's disabled, for that matter, to sit here and know that there's a technology that has real promise to change my life, and it's being held up for political reasons, makes me absolutely furious.

I can't eat by myself. I cannot wash myself. I cannot dress myself. Can't go to the bathroom by myself. And I've never been alone, because I can't breathe on my own, for seven years. For seven years, I've not been able to be anywhere unaccompanied. And do you know what's that like for somebody who's been as independent as me? And I have a nice life. I shouldn't complain. I'm not stuck in a center someplace where nobody cares. I have a loving family. But I want to tell you, this is terrible.

And what's even more terrible is something could be done about it. Unless we are brave, unless we catch up, unless we're a courageous society, not worried about this slippery slope, you know, where critics think that if you start therapeutic cloning, there's no way to stop reproductive cloning. Yes, there is. You ban it, regulate it and enforce it.

I would just like people to look back and to know that I kept at it, and through good times and bad times, that they'll look back on the body of work that I did and know that I tried my best all the time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All sorts of different kinds of heroes in the world. And he was one of them.

"Morning Papers" after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Okeydoke, time to check "Morning Papers" from around the country and around the world.

We'll start with the "International Herald Tribune," published by "The New York Times" because "The New York Times" won't send us "The New York Times," otherwise, we'd start with "The New York Times." "Shi'ite rebels begin" -- it's a long story. "Shi'ite rebels begin handing over arms." Call me later, I'll tell you. "Buy-back plan brings rare cooperation.' And then just below that, "Zarqawi network hurt but still able to attack." Much of the top leadership, according to Pentagon officials, of the Zarqawi -- he's the terrorist over there -- have been killed. I hope that's so.

"The Christian Science" -- I never said that on TV before, but actually, I do. "The Christian Science Monitor" -- "Sadr fighters disarm again." That's an interesting one. And over here, "Sox versus Yanks." That's the big sports story of the week, the playoffs between the Red Sox and the Yankees. And of course, the Red Sox and the Braves are the official team of NEWSNIGHT, right? Yes.

"Bush hits Kerry's view on terror, says nuisance quote highlights his ignorance." Did the president call him ignorant? My goodness! Then they'll shake hands and be all buddy-buddy come the debate on Wednesday in Tempe. That's "The Washington Times."

"The Philadelphia Inquirer" -- "Stations ordered air film on Kerry. A broadcaster told his TV channels to show critical documentary. The DNC cries foul." Needless, to say, I think that's an unbelievable story. Their TV stations, though. I guess they can do what they want. Of course, they are your airwaves.

"Oil prices set records as traders take fright." That's a pretty good headline -- "Financial Times." I'm sort of surprised that oil prices haven't been a bigger story.

Christopher Reeve on "The Chicago Sun Times" cover as I'd like to remember him, too. The weather tomorrow in Chicago -- thank you -- is "Gentle," as this program often tries to be. We'll wrap it up in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's right about this time I start to think, What am I going to watch when I wake up in the morning? Here's Bill Hemmer with a look at tomorrow's "AMERICAN MORNING."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Aaron, thanks. Tomorrow on "American Morning": There are the traditional forces in politics and then there's hip-hop, musicians joining forces this year to try and get the young people to the polls. And the Hip-Hop Action Summit is leading the charge. We'll talk to Russell Simmons about how his organization is trying to guarantee a big turnout that has been so elusive in the past. He's using music and video games. And we'll talk to him about it tomorrow morning at 7:00 AM Eastern time here on "American morning." Hope to see you then -- Aaron.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Bill, thank you. Here's what I don't understand. Why don't people just vote? Why do they need to be encouraged to vote -- young, old, in between? Just vote. We'll see you tomorrow. We're all back here 10:00 o'clock Eastern time, and you will be, too, I hope. Until then, good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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