Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

PAULA ZAHN NOW

President Bush to Address Nation on Illegal Immigration; TV Network For Babies?; More DNA Test Results Released in Duke Rape Investigation

Aired May 12, 2006 - 20:00   ET

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


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. Glad to have you with us tonight.
We have some breaking news at this moment in the rape case involving members of Duke University's lacrosse team. Tonight, the results of a brand-new round of DNA tests have just come in, are -- and are now in the hands of defense attorneys.

Right now, the attorneys are getting ready to make an announcement. We are going to be monitoring this room. And, as soon as one of the defense attorneys appears, we will dip in to that news conference.

Nice closeup of the mike there.

In the meantime, let's check in with Jason Carroll. He has been following this case from the very start. He has been standing by in our newsroom, and joins me now.

Jason, have you learned anything about what the defense might tell us tonight?

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Just a little bit.

We have been talking to some of the defense attorneys. And they say they're going to have a lot to say about this second round of DNA test results that have come in.

You will remember, Paula, that we have already had a first round of DNA test results. That was done by a state lab. And that -- those results showed no match between the alleged victim and any of the 46 lacrosse players.

But, even so, two lacrosse players were charged with rape in this particular case. Well, the prosecutor in this case, Michael Nifong, wanted a second round of DNA test results to be done. This second round of tests were done by a state lab, and those results are now in.

We have actually had an opportunity to speak with two defense attorneys over the phone. They tell us that the second round of results are inconclusive. They say that these results do not prove that a sexual assault took place, but, even so, they also say that this second round of DNA test results do, in fact, seem to point to a third lacrosse player. We are going to have to see what they mean by that when they have their press conference, which is set to get under way in just a few moments. The big question now, Paula, becomes, what will the DA, Michael Nifong, do with these second round of results? Will he try to proceed with a third indictment? And, as you know, on Monday, the grand jury will be meeting again -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jason, let me read to you something "The Durham Herald- Sun" has been reporting. And it pretty much consistent with what you said.

They're saying, because a complete DNA pattern was not obtained from the sample on the fingernail, it was impossible to match that sample with mere certainty to the third player. But we also have been told, have we not, that the newspaper, and as well as other sources, have confirmed that, in fact, the rape victim, the alleged victim, identified this third player in a lineup about three weeks after the rape.

CARROLL: Well, she said she was 90 percent sure about the third person who allegedly attacked her. She said she was 100 percent sure about the other two, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.

And let's talk about that fingernail for just a quick moment. As you know, she was wearing fake nails when she went to dance with these lacrosse players. The nails -- some of the nails allegedly came off during the course of the evening. And the DNA was taken from one of those fake nails.

That's where they got the material, from -- from one of the nails. And, apparently, that nail, according to defense attorneys, was in some sort of a trash can. And, so, I think what will happen is, you might hear defense attorneys argue that any material gathered from a nail in the trash is going to be tainted in some way -- Paula.

ZAHN: I guess that will be a pretty -- pretty predictable strategy.

Jason Carroll, please stand by, because, as soon as that news conference happens, you will be watching along with us.

And we now are going to move on, in the meantime -- now on to a crisis that's grown so big and so angry that President Bush wants to go on TV to address the nation.

Earlier today, the White House asked the broadcast networks to free up part of their prime-time schedules on Monday, putting off the race for ratings and millions of dollars, so the president can talk about illegal immigration. This is the kind of request no White House makes lightly. But with Congress deadlocked, the president feels he has no choice but to play the prime-time card.

Here is White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Bush is making immigration reform his top domestic priority. A senior aide says that's why he's addressing the nation from the Oval Office Monday during prime time, to signal to members of Congress they have got to come up with legislation he can sign.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First and foremost, the federal government has the role to enforce our border.

MALVEAUX: Mr. Bush has been facing increasing pressure from conservatives of his own party to get tougher or border security. So, Monday, the president will address that head on.

One plan Mr. Bush is considering, a senior administration official says, is enhancing the role of the National Guard in protecting the southern border. The official said the plan would not call for federalizing those troops, nor increase active duty assignments, nor would it jeopardize the Guard's missions overseas or preparations for hurricane season.

BUSH: I'm for a temporary-worker program that will...

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: ... that says to a person, here is a tamper-proof card that says you can come and do a job an American won't do.

MALVEAUX: Mr. Bush will also argue that the country cannot enforce border control without a guest-worker program that allows some illegal immigrants to stay and work and others to earn eventual citizenship. Critics call that amnesty.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: I do not back down on the fundamental concept that the legislation before us today is basically an amnesty for the people who came here illegally, in violation of our law.

MALVEAUX: On Capitol Hill today, supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants squared off with the group calling themselves the Minutemen, who take it upon themselves to patrol the border.

(on camera): A senior administration official said that this issue is ripe, that this debate has been moving forward over the last couple of months. But that same official told me today that finding an immigration reform compromise will be a very heavy lift -- Paula.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, thanks so much.

And, as Suzanne just reported, one of the most controversial things the president may do next week would get the National Guard in efforts to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. It stretches for 2,000 miles. And people who live there and put up with everything from strangers hiding in the shrubbery to break-ins with guns think the idea of sending in troops is a no-brainer.

But senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has been checking with his sources. He reports, it's a much thornier issue than you would expect.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): The Pentagon has been asked to draw up options for the military to help beef up security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And Pentagon sources tell CNN, one idea under consideration is to have the federal government pick up the tab for several thousand additional National Guard troops, to be activated in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Under that option, the Guard troops would remain under the control of state governors, as they were during Hurricane Katrina, and would be limited to a supporting role, providing logistics, intelligence and surveillance help to civilian authorities.

That's already being done on a small scale by several hundred Guard troops. But the numbers could jump to several thousand.

FRANK GAFFNEY, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: This is a job that we can train our forces to perform. We can utilize the panoply of sensors and detection devices and -- and monitoring equipment and military hardware to ensure that we do not continue to be subjected to what amounts to an onslaught every single day.

MCINTYRE: Still, don't expect to see U.S. troops on the front lines patrolling the border, officials say. But, with additional helicopters, unmanned spy planes, and sophisticated computers and communications, the Guard can be what the Pentagon calls a force multiplier for the overburdened U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement.

Active-duty U.S. troops are barred from domestic law enforcement by a Civil War-era law known as Posse Comitatus. But National Guard troops under state control can perform some law enforcement functions, such as crowd control.

Still, the Pentagon is anxious to avoid the sort of controversy that erupted back in 1997, when a U.S. Marine supporting counter-drug agents shot and killed a goat herder along the Mexican border.

(on camera): The Pentagon says, in theory, it could sustain of force of up to 10,000 Guard troops along the Mexican border without affecting its other operations.

But officials say it's way too early to say how many troops might be deployed. And they insist, any additional military assistance will be temporary, until the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency can hire additional permanent personnel.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And for live coverage of the president's speech by the best political team in television, be sure to tune in to CNN Monday night.

We move on now to our countdown of the top 10 most popular stories on CNN.com today. More than 18 million of you logged on.

At number 10 -- wildlife officials in Broward County, Florida, are trapping and killing alligators, in an effort to find the one they believe killed a woman jogger. Her body was found in a canal on Wednesday.

Number nine -- in Minnesota, surgeons at the Mayo Clinic have begun an separation to separate 5-month-old twin girls joined at the chest and abdomen. The surgery is expected to take 10 to 12 hours -- numbers eight and seven just ahead, and a look behind at this week's most explosive controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): "Beyond the Headlines" -- they have got your number and millions and millions of others. But is that secret program tracking all those phone calls actually catching any terrorists?

And the urgent call, the wild chase, but this isn't the police. It's the paparazzi shooting stars. We're going behind the scenes with the very best -- all that and more when we come back.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Don't think there's something wrong with your TV set here. We're showing you this closeup picture of a conference table out of Durham, North Carolina, because we're awaiting a news conference by the defense attorneys in the Duke University lacrosse team rape investigation.

We are awaiting the results of a second round of DNA tests, some of which the local papers have already commented on. They are saying, although the test did not allow for a 100 percent match, it was consistent with the DNA of the third player. It will be interesting to see what defense attorneys have to say about that tonight.

And, once that news conference gets under way, we will be covering it live.

And we move on to the "Security Watch" now.

The president's choice to be CIA director was back on Capitol Hill today, trying to sell himself to lawmakers, just a day after the revelation that the agency he used to head is tracking tens of millions of Americans' phone calls. And the White House said it remains behind General Michael Hayden 100 percent. In a moment, I'm going to speak with a former National Security Agency analyst, who says that is only the tip of the iceberg, and that the NSA, under General Hayden's supervision, did much more. He claims he broke the law. But what we really don't know yet is whether tracking your phone calls will really do anything to stop terrorists.

Investigative correspondent Drew Griffin takes us "Beyond the Headlines" tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Millions of phone call records, hundreds of millions, or even billions of digits, all loaded into massive computers at the National Security Administration outside Washington, no names, no addresses, no conversations, just the numbers of who called who. So, what good is that for finding a terrorist?

No good at all, says Internet security expert Bruce Schneier.

BRUCE SCHNEIER, SPYWARE EXPERT: The conceit is, there's some magical system by which terrorists communicate, so then you can pick it out if you saw everybody. You know, a simple one would be, all terrorists talk at 8:00 p.m. Now, of course, that's nonsense, but the idea is, there's something like that, that we can somehow pick the terrorists out of the crowds by looking at communication patterns. You know, that's really utterly ridiculous. The false alarms on that kind of system is just overwhelming.

GRIFFIN: What the NSA apparently is trying to do is find terrorists who might be buried deep in American society. By looking at all of the phone calls, maybe they could pick out patterns.

RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: This data might help the government identify a -- a -- a communication link between a known or suspected al Qaeda operative abroad and one at home that had multiple cutouts within it, meaning there was not a direct connection between terrorist A and terrorist B, but they work through a series of intermediaries, C, D, E, and F.

GRIFFIN: So, if terrorist A in the Middle East calls Mr. C in California, who calls D in Iowa, who calls E in Illinois, who calls F in New York, and F calls terrorist B in Florida, that pattern might be traced through the thousands of other calls made by C, D, E and F. That sounds good.

But the problem is, it focuses just on numbers, and not on the callers. Schneier says that makes it meaningless.

SCHNEIER: I can't imagine any use this would have picking terrorists out of the crowd. The crowd's way too big. You know, finding a terrorist is finding a needle in a haystack. And -- and dumping more hay onto the problem, which is kind of what the system is doing, isn't going to get you anywhere.

GRIFFIN: What bothers Schneier is where else the NSA might be searching. With so much information out there to analyze, phone records, e-mails, cell phones, bank transactions, education records, credit cards, library books, searching all of those would be a big waste of time and money, with no terrorists in sight.

SCHNEIER: At best, what the system will do is, it will drain resources that can be actually better used fighting terrorism.

GRIFFIN: Experts agree that it is the NSA's job to get information and, if the agency wants to find out something, it will. The only comfort for ordinary Americans, says Schneier, is that there is privacy in numbers, whether it's millions of people, or hundreds of millions of phone calls. The problem is, that is also comforting for terrorists.

SCHNEIER: You are in a sea of 300 million good guys. The odds of you being found through this are so small, you don't have to worry about it.

GRIFFIN: Add to that the probability that, every time we come up with a technological advance to use against terrorists, the terrorists look for ways to get around it. Small wonder, experts believe, al Qaeda now relies more on old-fashioned communication by word of mouth.

Drew Griffin, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And my next guest is a former NSA analyst, who, although he was fired a year ago, was a source for the story that revealed the warrantless wiretapping of some international communications. And, next week, he plans to make some serious allegations to Congress about what he says was illegal activity at the NSA.

Russell Tice spent 20 years at the NSA. He joins me now.

Do you have any evidence that, beyond the tracking of phone numbers, that the government is snooping on other activities of Americans?

RUSSELL TICE, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ANALYST: Well, there's information that I need to convey to Congress that's classified, that -- that I believe it was illegal and unconstitutional. And, ultimately, I can't go into detail. But I'm looking forward to finally being able to talk to -- to the Senate Armed Services Committee about these things.

ZAHN: Are these things that Americans should be worried about, because the polling would suggest today that the majority of Americans seem to be OK with having their phone numbers tracked?

TICE: Well, you know, at -- at what point do you say enough is enough in this whole process?

You know, a few months ago, we were told that it -- it was just terrorist overseas, possibly talking to someone in the United States that the -- that was being addressed, and ma and pa in Kansas making their telephone call to get their prescription wasn't a problem.

Now, with the article that we're seeing now, we're finding out that perhaps it is everyone's communications, at least to the extent of the logistics behind those telephone calls.

ZAHN: But the president maintained yesterday that -- that you're not talking about mining or trolling here, that you're simply looking for unusual patterns that might indicate some kind of terrorist activity. You don't buy that at all?

TICE: Not at all.

ZAHN: Or is -- is there any justification for tracking these phone numbers?

TICE: Well -- well, this is mining, is what it is, when you're talking about data.

If you were talking about an RF signal, it -- it would be traffic analysis. But, ultimately, this is mining. And a phone number is easily associated with a name, if -- if someone gets pinned down in -- in this process, as well as their address. That -- that is a -- a minor step.

So, it's not like, you know, the name and then -- and the address and other information isn't readily at hand.

ZAHN: But a lot of experts have argued that, given the vast volume of information that the government puts its hands on, that -- that it does increase the likelihood that you could spot some sort of odd pattern perhaps involving terrorists.

TICE: With -- like your former guest said, you know, I wouldn't say a haystack anymore. I would say it's like finding a needle in the ocean.

You are talking about a deluge of -- of information, bits and bytes. And, ultimately, trying to pick something out of that in a morass that large is -- is nearly impossible.

ZAHN: Russell Tice, we are going to have to leave it here right now, because we're going to go to some breaking news out of Durham, North Carolina. We will be watching the hearings next week, or I'm sure we will get some information out of those closed-door hearings at some point. Again, thanks for your time tonight.

Right now, we break in to our breaking story of the hour -- new DNA test results in the rape case involving members of Duke University's lacrosse team.

Let's listen in to some of the defense attorneys and what they have to say.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JOE CHESHIRE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ... sorry that -- first of all, that we are a little bit late. It's -- all of this has come on us mighty fast on a -- late on a Friday afternoon, which I will be talking about in a second.

But the people that are seated here with me, this is Bill Cotter. This is Wade Smith. And my name is Joe Cheshire. There are other lawyers back there that I will just let identify themselves, if -- if they would like to.

BRAD BANNON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: My name is Brad Bannon.

BUTCH WILLIAMS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Butch Williams.

KERRY SUTTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Kerry Sutton.

CHESHIRE: The ones (AUDIO GAP) that -- that know about this case know that I represent a player who is one of the captains named Dave Evans, who also was one of the young men who rented the house at which the party took place, that resulted in the false accusations that have been made against Duke lacrosse players.

Today, also, as you know, the state of North Carolina has released -- and I do not know whether you all have seen it -- there doesn't seem to be much in this case that the press doesn't get a chance to see -- but the district attorney's office has released to us their so-called second DNA report.

The first thing I would like to say about that report is that I think that it is very interesting, and interesting to note, for the ones of you that care to note these things, that this report was leaked by the district attorney's office, according to press people who have told me specifically that they leaked it to them, several days ago.

We only received this report at 5:00. I received it at 5:02 this afternoon by fax. I find it interesting that it was leaked that way and faxed to us in a way that was apparently done, so that we would not have the opportunity to respond to it.

That's the first thing.

The second thing is, it makes me sad, the way it was leaked, and the way it was reported by many people, that there was a match in the second DNA test to one of the Duke lacrosse players. Those types of reports that go out all over this nation create a false impression about this particular case and makes it very difficult for these young men to receive a fair trial.

And that is one of the reasons that we are speaking out tonight. We feel compelled by the actions of the district attorney's office to continue to speak out about this case.

Let me also emphasize to you all that none of the lawyers in this room are experts in DNA. So, we have now had approximately three hours to review a very complex scientific report. That is not a long time. But we can say to you, categorically, that this report shows no conclusive match between any genetic material taken on, about, in, or from the false accuser and any genetic material of any Duke lacrosse player.

It does show that there was DNA material from multiple different people on one plastic fingernail, and that in that material was some of the same characteristics as the genetic (AUDIO GAP) sum of the Duke lacrosse players, and, let me emphasize, none of the Duke lacrosse players that have been indicted.

What that says -- and you can talk to your experts on DNA -- is that there is no conclusive match of DNA.

Now, I also want to go back, if I can, briefly, with you and discuss what I said at the initial press conference about the DNA. This one plastic fingernail that was supposed to have been, according to this false accuser, ripped off during this horrific struggle, was taken from a trash can that was in the bathroom, used by two of the players who lived in that particular house.

In that bathroom and in that trash can, where those fingernails were placed by the lacrosse players when they cleaned up their bathroom -- and I will talk to you about that in a second -- also had in it -- I'm talking about the trash can -- things such as Q-tips, Kleenex, where people blew their nose, toilet paper, and every other possible type of material that carries the people that used the trash can's DNA. So, it would be a real story, ladies and gentlemen, if there was no DNA that could...

ZAHN: All right.

You have been listening to Joe Cheshire, one of the attorneys representing a player named Dave Evans, who was on the lacrosse team at Duke.

He expressed great frustration with the DA's information -- DA's office for prematurely releasing information on the second round of DNA testing. He said, rather pointedly, that this latest report shows no conclusive match of the genetics on, about, in, or around the accuser, with any genetic material of any of the lacrosse players.

Let's check in with Jason Carroll, who is in our newsroom, who has been working this story for weeks.

Obviously, a man very upset with what he is calling unfair tactics used by the DA's office. He went so far to saying it is making it very difficult to receive a fair trial.

As you listen to him talk, what -- what was it that struck you?

CARROLL: Well, two things. I think, first, what you said, that it is their belief that this second round of DNA test results done by a private lab show no match, no conclusive match, between this alleged victim and any of the players. And two, which I think is going to be a really important argument for the defense, which is that the DNA material was taken from a fake fingernail, which was found, I think he said in the trash can, which we said earlier, in the bathroom that many players used.

And, so, I think they will also argue that whatever material DNA evidence was collected off of this fingernail is, in some way, tainted. And I think, from what you can hear from how angry they seemed to be, they -- they -- you know, they're really pointing fingers at the district attorney, Michael Nifong, saying, basically, this is -- that this is something that he should have known and that, basically, they're very upset with him, in terms of the way that this information was apparently leaked to the press.

But I will also say the defense has been leaking information in this as well. So, it's not just the DA who has been leaking important points in this case. It's been the defense as well. It's been both sides.

ZAHN: It's been interesting, though, because he used some pretty harsh language about the DA creating this false impression, and -- and that he only had three hours to absorb this information, when, in fact, it was leaked as long as two days ago to some members of the press.

Well, keep an eye on it for us, Jason. I know you are going to continue to listen to the rest of the news conference. If there's anything that warrants coverage, we will get back to you. Thanks.

We are going to switch gears now.

There are TV channels for news, entertainment, shopping, cooking, and even golf. So, why are some people so upset about a brand-new channel just for babies? And what would a 6-month-old watch anyway?

And, later, how much trouble would you go through just to take a picture of a celeb? Well, what if that picture could be worth $3 million? We are going to take you on the road with the paparazzi and show you how they do their work tonight.

First though, No. 8 on our CNN.com countdown, convicted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui today appealed a court order denying him a chance to withdraw his guilty plea and request a new trial. Moussaoui was sentenced last week to life in prison. And the interesting news today, the jury has told "The Washington Post" that a single holdout kept him from being executed.

No. 7, Iraq -- sorry about the voice here folks -- the military says four Marines riding in a M1A -- there we got it, similar to this one -- were killed when it rolled off a bridge in Anbar Province. The accident brings the U.S. military death toll in Iraq to 2,434. No. 6 and 5 when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. Here is what is happening at this moment. Tonight, sources tell CNN, that the search of a former CIA official's home is part of a broad corruption investigation linked to the bribery of a congressman. The home belonged to Kyle Foggo, who was the third most powerful man at the CIA, until he resigned this week.

Investigators are still waiting for this scene to cool after a raging fire at a refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma. The plant produces jet fuel. Fortunately, there were no reports of any injuries nor was any evacuation necessary.

Now, our nightly look at gas prices across the country, our crude awakenings. The states with today's highest gasoline prices are in red, the lowest prices in green. And the average today for unleaded regular $2.93, an increase of about three cents a gallon this week.

Now, if you have kids, you probably struggle with this question every day, how much TV is too much? Should they be able to watch at all? So what would you think if I told you there is a brand new television channel aimed at toddlers, even babies? Its premier is igniting a debate over how early is too early when it comes to kids and TV.

Brooke Anderson has tonight's "What Were They Thinking?"

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROOKE ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Baby First TV is putting baby first. The new television network is targeting audiences under the age of there.

Co-founder Sharon Rechter who has no kids of her own yet says she saw a clear need for programming that would allow parents to watch with their kids. So she worked for two years with a team of physicians and educators to develop the channel, which just yesterday became available in more than 15 million homes.

SHARON RECHTER, CO-FOUNDER/EVP: We are transforming the TV set from a passive activity to an active that can help babies and parents bond together.

ANDERSON: Colors, shapes, sign language classes, even baby yoga are available around the clock for infant fueling. The concept is a pleasing one for some but a concern for others.

(on-camera): A 1999 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics linked TV viewing by children of all ages to a number of negative health issues, including aggressive behavior and childhood obesity. In that same report they made a recommendation discouraging any tube time for children under the age of two.

(voice over): But Rechter believes Baby First TV addresses those concerns appropriately.

RECHTER: All the research and the statement the AAP issued does not distinguish between different kinds of content. It talks about television in general. You cannot compare, for example, "Sopranos" to baby etiquette programming.

ANDERSON: Programming that Baby First TV believes will actually improve the health of children by also educating their parents.

RECHTER: We have a parenting show airing in June that is designed to give parents the basis of nutrition for babies, simple recipes for the mom that holds the baby in one hand and stirs in the other.

ANDERSON: Ultimately, Rechter hopes that Baby First TV will serve as a tool parents use to teach their little ones.

Brooke Anderson, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Well, right now the story has reached the boiling point.

Joining me now Dr. Edward McCabe, a pediatrician and physician in chief at UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital, he's on the Baby First TV advisory board, and Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston's Children Hospital, he is a real opponent of Baby TV. Good to have both of you.

Dr. McCabe, we noted that you were on the advisory board of this television channel. Are you paid to represent them?

DR. EDWARD MCCABE, MATTEL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: I'm paid for my time. But the rules of my department at the University of California, Los Angeles are that money, the money for consulting will go to UCLA.

ZAHN: So you're profiting or at least your organization is profiting on this. So a lot of people out there -- well, of course you'll say good things about baby TV because your university benefits from it.

MCCABE: But I was skeptical. When I had my first meeting with Sharon Rechter and the others from Baby First TV, I thought this is crazy. TV for babies, what are we thinking about here?

ZAHN: Well, the Pediatric Association has told us that children under the age of two shouldn't watch TV.

MCCABE: But kids are watching TV. Fifty-nine percent of kids two years old and younger are watching TV. We feel it's appropriate to give developmentally appropriate content, and that's what really caught me. If we're going to have kids watching TV, then let's have the appropriate content for kids.

ZAHN: Dr. Rich, do you think kids can learn from this -- what Dr. McCabe just described, as appropriate developmental material?

DR. MICHAEL RICH, DIR. CTR. ON MEDIA & CHILD HEALTH: Well, the problem with what he's just described is all of the research we have to date shows that children under the age of 30 months probably aren't able to decode the two-dimensional image of the screen and actually learn anything from television.

It is not content related. It is medium related, and that there is no evidence out there of what is developmentally appropriate or not. So this is all speculation on his part, and I, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as serious researchers in this realm, hesitate to risk the future development of our children based on what they think is appropriate.

ZAHN: Well, if there are no definitive studies on this, what are you afraid of will happen? How could it possibly hurt a child?

RICH: Well, there are studies that show that children who watch television early are more predisposed to obesity, that they develop language later and more poorly, that they read later and less, that many of the positive developmental affects that are brought on during this incredibly rapid period of brain develop from contact with human beings, from creative problem-solving play and from manipulating their physical environment are not presented at all by television.

So the concern is that this television watching actually results in poor brain development due to these neurons, which may be necessary, being pruned away.

ZAHN: Dr. McCabe, your reaction to that? Any parent hearing that will be terrified by that obviously. We want to give our kids every chance we can.

MCCABE: Parents want to be the best parents they can be. It's a struggle with the complex worlds that we live in today, and parents are having their children watch TV.

ZAHN: But do you deny that it could affect the development of the neurons in the brain?

MCCABE: I don't think the evidence is definitive, and I would argue that decoding the two-dimensional to the three-dimensional world, we haven't had the technology. If a child could be doing a puzzle and doing the three-dimensional movement, and then see the puzzle being worked on, on the screen, maybe technology has limited our ability to decode in previous times.

This is a new technology and new content, and I would hope the American Academy of Pediatrics would give it a chance.

ZAHN: And Dr. Rich is saying no way, they know what they need to know so far.

And we appreciate both of your perspectives tonight. I think parents listening to you are going to have to decide for themselves. Appreciate it.

Coming up, the $3 million question, what does a photographer have to do for a chance at a big money shot at one of the most beautiful women in the world? We are going to show you.

Before that, though, No. 6 on our CNN.com countdown, the Dixie Chicks's Natalie Maines says one death threat she got after criticizing President Bush three years ago was particularly frightening because the sender, quote, "actually had a plan." She also says death threats have forced the band to install metal detectors at their concerts.

No. 5, a gasoline pipeline explosion in Nigeria has killed at least 150 people, maybe as many as 200. Government officials say people trying to steal fuel caused that explosion. Nigeria is the eighth largest oil exporter in the world.

Numbers four and three still ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: No. 4 on our CNN.com countdown, the first Q and A session between new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and the press corps. The informal off-camera briefing known as the gaggle was a bit rocky by most accounts. Snow says he will give his first formal on-camera briefing Tuesday.

No.3, a Florida high school teacher whose online photos have some parents in an uproar. A web site for the USA National Bikini team shows images of the teacher modeling bathing suits and lingerie. School district officials today decided not to punish her.

No. 2 on our list straight ahead.

But right now, I want to go back to this hour's breaking news story, just now a defense attorney in the rape case involving members of Duke University's lacrosse team told reporters that a new round of DNA tests shows no conclusive match of any genetic material. We told you that if he said anything else newsworthy we'd get back to it, he did.

And Jason Carroll has more from our news room right now -- Jason.

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Newsworthy and problematic for the prosecution. According to one of the defense attorneys, Joe Cheshire, he says the second round of DNA test results show that the alleged victim in this particular case appears to have had sex with a man, that is according to some of the material that was collected.

But he says that material that was collected shows no match between any of the players.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE CHESHIRE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Even though they said earlier that there was no semen taken from the vaginal swabs of this woman, we now find that they did retrieve male genetic material from a single source, a single male source from vaginal swabs, and that that source has been named in this report as a person known to the Durham Police Department, but is not any of the Duke lacrosse players.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CARROLL: So again, right there, you see that this person that this young woman who she allegedly had sex with is someone known to the Durham Police Department, that person named in the report. This is something that could be problematic for the prosecution, as this case continues -- Paula.

ZAHN: Of course, we don't know what the D.A. has to say about any of this tonight because his office isn't talking with us, is it?

CARROLL: Not yet, but we'll have to see what he says on Monday.

ZAHN: All right. Jason Carroll -- and that's the day the grand jury convenes so that could be a very important day. Thank you so much for staying on top of the story. And he'll continue to monitor what's coming out of any of the talks that come after that news conference.

Our CNN.com countdown now, the first documented case of a hybrid grizzly polar bear in the wild. Scientists say the animal was found in Canada's northwest territory.

Up next, one of these guys offing the guy who was just voted off "American Idol," find out when we reveal the top story on our countdown straight out of the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Do you want to hear a pretty wild number? The first exclusive photo of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's baby could be worth $3 million. So tonight as the world awaits the birth of the Brangelina baby, Kyra Phillips takes us inside the world of the paparazzi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Frank got a tip that there is this kind of store opening and Jennifer Aniston is supposed to be there. And if she shows up with Vince, that is all the more better for us.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Before tracking down Angelina, our photographer, Ben, is hot on the trail of Brad's ex, Jen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So far nothing. is happening. No guests have arrived yet.

PHILLIPS: Paparazzi are willing to wait hours, even days for the perfect shot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can park and wait in our car on La Brea, and one can sit in the back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. PETER HOWE, AUTHOR, "PAPARAZZI": It is a bit like police work. It is a lot of boredom, which is then interspersed with some intense activity.

FRANK GRIFFIN, BAUER-GRIFFIN: Every day there's a $10,000 picture, and it's just a question of knowing where it is and being there.

PHILLIPS: But no $10,000 picture for Ben tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So Anniston didn't show up, whether it was a case of the information wasn't good or just the subject decided not to go, we'll never know.

GRIFFIN: Hello,. You bumped into Jude Law. The fellow is at the Bel Air is he? Doing what?

PHILLIPS: While Ben gives up his hunt for Jen, his boss, Frank Griffin, works the phones for tips.

GRIFFIN: Brad and Angelina did not fly into Niece today. I think they're going to fly into England on the 24th.

PHILLIPS: Griffin's been snapping pics of rock stars and celebrities since the early 80s. He now co-owns one of the world's most prominent paparazzi agencies, Bauer-Griffin. Just last year Griffin's team went to incredible lengths trying to get a shot of the rock star Seal's wedding in Mexico.

GRIFFIN: The boat we charted would only do five knots. The guy spent seven hours on that boat to get to the place where he got married. He arrived five minutes late. All we got was the empty canopy with the wind blowing the flowers away, you know.

PHILLIPS: Kevin Mazur would never hunt down a celebrity.

KEVIN MAZUR, WIREIMAGE: I don't consider myself a paparazzi. Those guys are behind the line. I'm on the carpet. I am the one running around with the talent. I'm in the dressing room with the talent. I go on tour with talent. I'm different than those guys.

PHILLIPS: Mazur is a photographer with an all access pass here at the Billboard Music Awards Show in Las Vegas. The stars never dodge him.

ASHLEE SIMPSON, SINGER: Kevin is amazing. You know, you can say simply, you know, holding out right now or, you know, whatever it may be, and I think that's amazing because then you feel comfortable with somebody taking pictures of you.

MARIAH CAREY, SINGER: I would definitely call Kevin, and I have called Kevin many times. And any time I see him I want him to take my picture because I know he'll do his best to capture a good moment.

PHILLIPS: While celebrity photographers like Mazur are given VIP status, the paparazzi fight for shots behind the velvet rope. The word paparazzi was coined from the name of the photographer who chased the rich and famous in Federico Fellini's 1960 classic "La Dolce Vita." The paparazzi these days use high-tech measures to track down celebrities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The company keeps a database of both license plates and addresses as well as tail numbers of airplanes.

PHILLIPS: And on the paparazzi payroll? Well-placed sources, including valets, waiters, coat checks and hotel clerks.

HOWE: They also pay people you would never even think of, like people in the California Department of Motor Vehicles, people in the airline industry. I mean, I would have thought it was pretty hard to get a passenger manifest after September 11, but if you know the right people and you pay the right money, you can get it.

PHILLIPS: A series of tips helped Bauer-Griffin land big-money shots of Jennifer Aniston with actor Vince Vaughn. The exclusive set of photos was the first confirmation that the two were an item.

GRIFFIN: Luck sometimes plays a part, and sure enough our photographer when he was looking down from all of the high-rises surrounding the hotel, they happened to walk out on the deck at the very minute that he was looking down.

PHILLIPS: Kevin Mazur doesn't rely on tips for his photos. In fact, many times he lets the stars call the shots.

MAZUR: I've had celebrities call up, hey, you know, I really don't like that picture. And, you know, it's like, hey, you know, fine. You know, I'll kill the picture. I don't care. You know, just remember me next time.

PHILLIPS: And the stars do remember Mazur. He started out as a fan sneaking backstage at rock shows with his camera. Later, he snapped the iconic photo of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love with their new baby. Mazur now helps run WireImage, one of the top celebrity photo agencies in the business.

Mazur knew early on he was not paparazzi material. He made his decision while on a movie set with actor Robert DeNiro.

MAZUR: He comes walking my way, and I lift up my camera. And I start taking pictures of him, and he walks right up to me with his bodyguard and pushes me up against the trailer like this and said don't ever, ever take an f-ing picture without asking and walked away.

PHILLIPS: Now Mazur always asks before he points and shoots.

MAZUR: Thanks so much.

PHILLIPS: But some paparazzi call Mazur a sellout, catering to the stars and their handlers.

MAZUR: All of the photographers out there hate me, and they think that I am in bed with the publicists, that I'll do anything for a publicist, that I'm a kiss ass and all of that. But, you know what? It's a business, you know, and I have a job to do.

PHILLIPS: Backstage at the Billboard Awards, Mazur's assistant uploads his digital photos to the WireImage site, where they'll be available within minutes to all media at the same price.

Frank Griffin has other ideas for his photos. With glossies battling it out weekly for the best pics, paparazzi sell their shots to magazines that ante up the cash.

GRIFFIN: The big sets, like the Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn, they don't sell themselves. It's almost an auction. You put them out to the highest bidder.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And on to CNN.com, No. 1 after getting the boot from "American Idol," Chris Daughtry got a job offer as a lead singer in a band. That's it for all of us here. Thanks so much for joining us. Have a really good weekend. Hope to see you back with us Monday night. Good night.

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

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines