Return to Transcripts main page
Reliable Sources
More U.S. Strikes Hit ISIS Fighters in Iraq; Is Media Missing the Point on Hamas?; Ebola Coverage: Informing Vs. Overhyping?
Aired August 10, 2014 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. RELIABLE SOURCES will begin in just a few moments.
But, first, we have this breaking news out of Iraq. The U.S. carried out a new round of airstrikes just this morning. It is the third day in a row of U.S. strikes against the militant group ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Strikes are aimed at militants around the city of Irbil in Northern Iraq.
Our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr joins me live on the phone. We also have Anna Coren live in the city of Irbil.
Barbara, what do we know about these latest strikes? And what exactly U.S. war planes were targeting?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Good morning, Jim.
This was the heaviest round of strikes in a five-hour period. This morning, the U.S. struck five rounds, five rounds of targets in northern Iraq. They went against ISIS trucks, armored vehicles, mortar positions, a number of strikes there.
Very interesting that with a very heavy round of bombardment and in one case the planes, the fighter jets circled around and then came back and struck again when they saw a target not fully destroyed begin to move apparently.
The Pentagon is saying the strikes were carried out by both fighter jets and unmanned drones. We have seen that before. Clearly, continuing to take the military tact to try to be as precise as they can against these targets, use precision weapons and be able to strike these targets even as they move. Every indication this is going to go on for a while -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: And a reminder to our viewers, of course, the president said that this operation will last months, not weeks.
We have Anna Coren on the ground in Irbil.
Anna, there are reports of some of those stranded Yazidi refugees escaping, but also some of them being killed. What is the latest on the ground in terms of rescue efforts? ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We understand thousands of those
Yazidis who ISIS militants consider to be devil worshippers have managed to get off Mount Sinjar and that is thanks to those U.S. airstrikes that are being conducted, allowing the Kurdish forces in to create a safe passage to get those people off the mountain, but we must stress, there are still tens of thousands trapped on this mountain.
On one side -- the south side, it is a dire situation. They cannot get out and they are trapped there. That is really where the humanitarian crisis, some are calling it a catastrophe is unfolding. The humanitarian aid drops are happening. The United States has had three drops, the British one, the French foreign minister has arrived here in Irbil to oversee the French delivering aid.
So, it is happening. It is unfolding. It is getting to these people. But then we are getting reports that there are dozens if not hundreds possibly even 1,000 Yazidis who have perished over the last couple of days. You know, they've been without food, without water, without shelter and the heat here is excruciating.
So, the situation is dire. We just spoke to the chief of staff of the Kurdish president and he said what they're asking for is weapons. They need their forces armed with weapons from the international community. And they're also calling for the United States to continue those airstrikes. They believe that with the support of those airstrikes, their forces can get in and push back ISIS -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: A humanitarian catastrophe for sure underway.
Thanks very much to Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, and Anna Coren on the ground in Irbil, northern Iraq.
Back here in the U.S., a bizarre and tragic incident on the racetrack. NASCAR driver Tony Stewart is under investigation now for hitting and killing another driver. Stewart's spokesman is calling it a tragic accident. We have the video that we have frozen just before the impact -- but a warning, it may be too graphic for some to watch. You may want to look away now.
Here is that video. The incident happened last night at a sprint car race in Upstate New York. The three-time NASCAR champ apparently clipped Kevin Ward Jr.'s car, knocking it out of the race. Ward then jumped out of his car to confront Stewart and that's when he was hit.
The 20-year-old driver was rushed to a local hospital where unfortunately he was pronounced dead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF PHILIP POVERO, ONTARIO COUNTY, NEW YORK: This is right now being investigated as an on track crash and I don't want to infer that there are criminal charges pending. I would only say that the investigation when it's completed, we will sit down with the district attorney and review it. But I want to make it very clear, there are no criminal charges
pending at this time. This is an ongoing investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Tragic moment for sure.
CNN has just learned just minutes ago that Tony Stewart has made the decision not to race in this afternoon's NASCAR event at Watkins Glen.
Just a reminder to our viewers at the breaking news: more airstrikes today in northern Iraq on five targets we're told by our Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. The president said these operations will continue for months, not weeks.
I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
RELIABLE SOURCES with Brian Stelter starts right now on Iraq and the latest events in the Middle East.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST: Thank you, Jim.
It really has been a head spinning week of news. So, ahead here on RELIABLE SOURCES, I'll talk with Dr. Sanjay Gupta about the media's responsibility to educate people on Ebola without exaggerating the threat.
And I'll show more of my exclusive interview with conservative commentator and media mogul Glenn Beck.
But, first, back to those conflicts -- really, conflicts, plural -- in the Middle East. There's Iraq and there's Gaza and Israel. We have heard dueling accusations about bias and in recent weeks on this program, we've talked about what has been said by both sides.
But what about the bias that comes from what's not said. What about bias by omission? This was raised by "CROSSFIRE" co-host S.E. Cupp in a recent op-ed.
So, to start the show this morning, she joins me here, along with James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute.
Thank you both for being here.
S.E., let me start with you first. You say that when this conflict is covered, there's sometimes a giant glaring omission. So, what is it?
S.E. CUPP, "CROSSFIRE" CO-HOST: Yes, it's not sometimes, it's often. It's par for the course.
In discussing the demands that Hamas has in the negotiations with Israel, most reporters omit the fact that Hamas's stated main priority, its main objective is the total destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews. STELTER: See, I feel admittedly I've watched a lot of cable news
but I feel I've heard a lot about that charter and seen that line quoted many times. You don't think it's come through enough?
CUPP: No. I think it's something that should be said. Any time you are discussing what Hamas wants.
And most of the time, you hear Hamas wants a cease fire, Hamas wants a Palestinian state, Hamas wants the blockade in Gaza lifted, Hamas wants its tunnels left alone.
Any time, it is omitted that Hamas also wants the annihilation of the Jews and the destruction of Israel, that is an omission that has serious consequences. It has consequences in the political realm, it has global consequences, it's framing the story inaccurately. And, again, it creates a false sense of moral equivalency that is not there.
JAMES ZOGBY, PRESIDENT, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: You know, that's one of the -- I'm sorry. I would like to be polite, but that's one of the most bizarre arguments I've heard.
Let me say that if we adopted that line of argumentation, then every time we mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu or his coalition partners, we'd have to include parenthetically what they believe. We'd have to say in the Likud charter, there is a total claim for the entire land of Israel without Palestinians present in that land of Israel.
We'd have to take, for example, the deputy speaker of the Knesset and say he's called for genocide against Palestinians, total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deporting them to places unknown.
CUPP: This is part of the founding of Hamas. It continues to be repeated, and to ignore it and treat Hamas just as if it has a set of political demands is not fairly setting the stage for this story.
ZOGBY: But the same is true about the story on the Israeli side, the Likud Party --
CUPP: Show me where in the Israeli charter or in the Israeli --
ZOGBY: Look at the Likud charter, my dear. Look at the Likud charter.
CUPP: -- it Israeli charter, it calls for the destruction of all Palestinians.
ZOGBY: No, there is no Palestine that it mentions. It talks about --
CUPP: Israel wants peace.
ZOGBY: No, actually, they say they want peace but the Likud party, as opposed to other political parties in Israel, has been very clear about maintaining from the very beginning that there was no Palestinian -- legitimate Palestinian or indigenous native presence in that land. They were strangers, foreigners, they were to be expelled.
The necessary part of the story is what is happening today? What is being done to people today? And that is what I think the press has not adequately covered.
CUPP: Well, listen, your condescension aside, I'm not suggesting we need to go back thousands of years, but to omit that --
ZOGBY: I'm not saying that. The deputy speaker of the Knesset is there now. He was appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He got 1/4 of the votes in the context for Likud leader. He is not an insignificant character.
CUPP: There is a desire --
ZOGBY: When he talks about total genocide --
CUPP: -- in the media to create a balance in this story between Hamas and Israel, and it's something we've seen play out not just in this conflict but in every time we discuss these two players and the balance simply does not exist. It doesn't exist on a number of levels, both practically and existentially.
And I don't know if that balance -- if the desire creates that balance is motivated by bias or simply a successful Hamas PR strategy, but it's dangerous both for the media and it's dangerous politically.
STELTER: Let me ask you, James, about something I noticed the other day. Outside CNN in New York on Thursday, there was an anti- Hamas rally, that at times also feel like an anti-media rally. I'll put up the picture I took there. One of the posters said, "The media fuels terror."
I wondered what that meant. From your perspective, what could that mean, that the media fuels terror?
ZOGBY: Even the fact that they've had people on the ground in Gaza has created ire among some supporters of Israel who simply don't want that story told. It's as if there's a parallel universe going on here. Israel wants to devastate Gaza, but they don't want the story told about it.
STELER: Let me turn from this topic to Iraq because by the end of the week we saw Iraq dominate cable news.
S.E., I wanted to ask you about what you said Thursday night. You said there will be boots on the ground in Iraq. Why do you have that prediction?
CUPP: Yes, and I said it -- I said it over a month ago.
STELTER: Right.
CUPP: When we first learned that is was creeping into Iraq and taking Iraq over because there just isn't -- you know, President Obama has this -- has this desire that I think informs all of its foreign policy. And that desire is simply not to be George W. Bush. He does that until that becomes completely untenable.
STELTER: Isn't he also reacting to what the American public wants though? Here's the headline from "The Washington Post" on Friday. "Iraq airstrikes will test a war-weary American public. Every poll seems to show the same thing, that this country has an awful hangover from the Iraq war.
ZOGBY: A real --
CUPP: Yes. It's the president's job to convey accurately and effectively to the American public and the international community the dangers and urgency, and I think actually he did a great job of this in talking about ISIS and the Yazidis and the humanitarian urgency for at least humanitarian aid and why airstrikes might be necessary. That's his job.
STELTER: James, I know you've been in touch with U.S. officials about this. What have you heard from them?
ZOGBY: Well, I think they are very aware of the dangers of going forward and this is a grave step that we're talking, but it's an important step. It's a step that is saving human lives, people stranded on that mountain are facing, you know, a life and death situation.
And this ISIS group is a menace. It's not only a menace in Iraq, it's a menace in Syria and in the broader region. It's already having reverberations in Lebanon and elsewhere.
So, the issue is it has to be done but it has to be done carefully. It has to be done in a way that can be sustained, and it has to be done in a way that actually takes us from where we are to where we want to be, as opposed to the rather cavalier way we got into the Iraq war in the first place, which was without an end game, without an exit strategy and without clear goals that were achievable.
STELTER: James Zogby and S.E. Cupp, thank you both for joining me.
ZOGBY: Thank you.
CUPP: Thanks.
STELTER: And, of course, it is the job of the press to hold this administration accountable and ask the tough questions that need to be asked about this new mission in Iraq. That is, of course, something the press did not do enough of back in 2002 and 2003.
I've got to fit in a break here. We have a lot more ahead for you on RELIABLE SOURCES today.
Ebola is being described by health care officials as a clear and present danger. But are reporters being clear in their coverage of the crisis? We will talk about how to inform without fear-mongering. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: If you've spent any time watching the news lately, you've surely heard some of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
ERIN BURNETT, CNN: Breaking news, an Ebola scare in New York City. Doctors now waiting the results of tests on a man at a major Manhattan hospital.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Chasing down Ebola as reports multiply about possible cases showing up in this country.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS: Breaking news on the Ebola outbreak. The CDC declaring a level 1 activation of its emergency operations center.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
STELTER: The head of the Centers for Disease Control calls the Ebola outbreak an unprecedented crisis. The World Health Organization calls it a public health emergency.
But at the same time, there's concern that fear and misinformation are making the crisis worse. One who official actually brought that up earlier this week.
And I can hardly think of a more important topic for RELIABLE SOURCES. So, let's examine the media's responsibility with CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Sanjay, you've been on the air seemingly nonstop. So, how do you get the balance right? How do you inform viewers without needlessly scaring them?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, there's the two extremes, right? There are people who are really, really sort of nurturing that hysteria and be very irresponsible especially on a story like this.
And the other side, the other extreme is people are completely dismissive of fears, very clinical, just presenting the science.
And as you might guess, I think the right way for television is somewhere in between, obviously making sure the science trumps it. So, I think it's important to acknowledge that people who are very thoughtful, considerate people, people who have given it a lot of thought can still have fears and not to just dismiss those fears outright because I think people sort of tune out if you do that.
So, acknowledge the fears, maybe acknowledge where some of these fears come from. It's in our collective consciousness through books like "Hot Zone" and movies like "Outbreak." And all that we've ever heard about Ebola has been bad. But then acknowledge it, but then really make sure you bolster it up with the science and make sure that science is actionable. Here's the science and here's what it means for you.
And, you know, it's a teachable moment, I think, if it's done properly.
STELTER: How do you think the media has performed overall so far? I think sometimes the words that come out of the mouths of anchors are very responsible. But sometimes the graphics, the packaging can make it seem more frightening than it should. How have you perceived the coverage so far?
GUPTA: I think that's a real concern, Brian, what you're saying sometimes a disconnect between what people are hearing from the people on TV and what they're reading in the banners. I think it's a disconnect, frankly, probably for all media organizations.
STELTER: Yes.
GUPTA: I see them all making mistakes. I see banners coming across very responsible news organizations saying Ebola going to spread like wildfire in the United States. It had nothing to do with even what the person was talking about.
So, that can be a problem. And I think when it comes to these medical stories, it's even more of a problem because people -- it's actionable. People read that stuff and then they have some particular opinion or they may take some action based on that.
So, we try to have conversations with the shows ahead of time, when I'm doing segments, to make sure that doesn't happen. It's a real concern.
STELTER: Let me play a clip from my friend Pat Kiernan. He's a morning anchor on New York 1 here in New York. Full disclosure, my wife works with him every morning.
And he was doing a priceless moment of media criticism. He showed all the New York papers right when there was a report of a possible patient with Ebola in New York. It turns out it was not a case of Ebola. But let's play that clip and discuss it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT KIERNAN, NY1: A-19, down below the fold the headline says, "Ebola symptoms a concern in city hospitals."
Let's compare this to the tabloids. Ebola! Ebola scare in the city!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STELTER: So, you've got "The New York Times" on the one side, the tabloids on the other. I kind of thought the press in general blew this way out of proportion because health officials in New York made it clear right away this was unlikely it was a case of Ebola. And a few days later, we found out, for sure, it was not.
What do you think of this case?
GUPTA: Let me give you another layer of that. And that even before that patient went to Mt. Sinai and we had all of that coverage, there had been six other patients tested around the country who went into their hospitals with concerns about Ebola. Their blood samples were sent to the CDC and they were all negative, but you didn't hear about them.
STELTER: Ah.
GUPTA: And the only reason I bring that up, I think it was interesting to observe this, is that the New York Hospital before the department of health came in and said, look, let's slow this down. This guy does not look like he is high risk by any means, the hospital already done a presser, they had already sort of put it out there.
So, I think this was a situation where in some ways because the hospital had started to put the message out there about this patient, the media's ears sort of perked up. Wait, we didn't hear about it with the other sick patients. All of a sudden the hospital is saying this. Is there something more here?
And, you know, I think that really made it take off. I will say one more thing, Brian. You do such a great job when you do your stories about adding these layers to the stories. I find them colorful, I find them important, and I find them something I wouldn't often hear.
I think the layers to this story are really essential, really. You can't do the story without adding the layers, like in the clip you just showed. Just the headline, that's a real problem. But adding one more layer over that is absolutely essential.
Tom Frieden, the CDC director, says Ebola is going to come to the United States. That's the headline. The second line he says after that, but it will not cause an outbreak.
STELTER: That's the more important line there, yes.
GUPTA: You can't have the first without the second.
STELTER: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks for joining me.
GUPTA: Any time, Brian. Thank you.
STELTER: I need to fit in another break here. But on the other side of it, my candid conversation with Glenn Beck. He says Walt Disney is his role model for building his media business, but is that fantasy land?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: Welcome back to RELIABLE SOURCES. We will get back to our top stories in just a few minutes. But, first, Glenn Beck and the future of media.
Last week, we showed you part one of my conversation with Beck, talking about his political views and how he says he has changed over the years. Now, here's part 2 and it's all about the future. Think of Beck as the face of Beck, Inc., a giant business that includes his daily radio show, books, live events and a popular Web site. "Forbes" says his company earned $90 million a year.
But Beck's biggest opportunity at all is actually right here on cable television. He is trying to do what so many other big media personalities have only dreamed of doing, that is, to have a cable channel of his own. It's called "The Blaze". And right now, it has about 12 hours of programming every day.
But you might not know about it. Right now, you might have "The Blaze" on your cable lineup, but you probably don't. It's only in a fraction of the 100 million homes with cable and satellite in our country.
The fact is it's very hard for independently owned channels to get carried but Beck has a plan and it involves not just talk shows like the one he hosts now but scripted dramas, too. Check out what he told me about where he's going.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: We're sitting here in Mercury Studios. This is a 72,000 square foot facility right outside of Dallas. What is all this space for?
GLENN BECK, THE BLAZE FOUNDER: That's what my business partners ask me when we bought it.
STELTER: I mean, this is a nice office, but not too big. You've got a studio for your show, another studio for other shows, but what's all the rest of it for?
BECK: My focus is on culture and I believe that we're working on a few projects that are mainstream television that are rooted in history, so to speak.
STELTER: Scripted projects?
BECK: Scripted. Scripted. And we're working on those. Working on the movie. Actually, we have a couple of them that we're actually working on. One is farther in the pipeline than the other. And so...
STELTER: When might we see the first Glenn Beck feature film?
BECK: I don't know. Maybe -- I don't know. I hate to speculate. Maybe -- my hope is 2015, but I don't know. That could be our first, so I don't know how long...
STELTER: For scripted television as well?
BECK: I hope 2015.
STELTER: You have been running TheBlaze, your cable channel, here for a while now. Originally, TheBlaze started online. It was subscription-only service. You had I think 300,000 subscribers in the first year, which means you were making a lot more than you could have made at FOX News. How many subscribers do you have now online?
BECK: You would have to ask the accountants. I have...
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: You're looking off screen now.
Are you holding up pretty well?
BECK: Oh, yes. Yes.
STELTER: Because then you decided to get distribution on cable, and on cable and satellite. And people then wondered, oh, maybe you feel you're not reaching enough people online.
BECK: Yes, well, I think there's a difference between, you know, a million people online and 70 million households, you know? My goal is to hit as many touch points as we possibly can, and I don't know what's going to...
STELTER: Radio, TV, live events, everything else?
BECK: Everything. Everything.
STELTER: But it seems like you're having a hard time getting on to cable, though. A lot of smaller providers have picked up the channel. A lot of bigger ones haven't. Comcast hasn't. DirecTV haven't. What are they -- what kind of feedback are you getting when you try to get on to those systems?
BECK: I would probably let our attorneys handle that one.
STELTER: Why? Why?
BECK: Some are -- some are not as...
STELTER: One of the distribution executives, one of these big companies, said to me, the reason why we're reluctant to pick up TheBlaze is because what happens if -- forgive me this -- what happens if Beck gets hit by a bus? They're basically saying, there's no other must-see TV on the channel.
But you have been adding a lot of other programming. I guess that's the point, is that you don't want it to just be your channel.
BECK: That's why we changed it from GBTV. I was against GBTV at the very beginning and wanted it to be TheBlaze. And it's not about me.
And they won't be saying that in -- for very long, if that's your objection, but I have heard all kinds of objections, so we will see.
STELTER: Is some of it political?
BECK: I think some of it is political, but...
STELTER: But they would deny it, of course.
BECK: Of course they would.
STELTER: And you have opposed the Comcast/Time Warner cable merger. Why is that?
BECK: I'm actually -- I'm really torn on this, because I'm not -- I'm libertarian. And whatever you want to do, you do.
However, this is already a regulated business. And so I'm actually for deregulation of this, because nobody can go out and start their own cable company without the government being involved.
STELTER: Right.
BECK: And so, because it's deregulated, making something bigger, we would still have the old rotary phone if it was just AT&T, you know? And these companies are getting so massive that they have almost total control of a portal.
You know, when I left FOX, my thought was, can a man still have an idea and a dream and go up against the titans and still make it? So far, the answer is yes, but if you can't crack the cable code without having the big -- you know, some big corporation behind you...
STELTER: Right.
BECK: ... the answer is no. And I think that's a problem in America.
STELTER: Before we go, crystal ball with me. Where is talk radio going to be in 10 years? Is it a viable medium?
BECK: You know what? Everybody said that in 1992. It constantly evolves. Talk radio on the AM band, I don't know about the AM band. In Europe, they just dropped the AM band from the cars, in Europe, so I don't know what happens to that.
But there is a hunger, a real hunger for talk radio, whether it's left or right. And there always will be. Look at podcasts. Look at podcasts, audio podcasts. That's talk radio.
STELTER: What about FOX News? What about CNN? You have them both on here in your office.
BECK: I think that -- I think that they're all going to change. I think television itself is going to change dramatically.
STELTER: And become more like Blaze-style?
BECK: I don't know yet. I mean, we're still divining rod ourselves. I don't know.
But it will be -- it will be more personal. It will be more human. It will be more authentic. It will not be led by a panel of experts from, you know, this club or that club. It will be much closer to the user.
STELTER: And, Glenn Beck, who will he be in 10 years?
BECK: I hope a much better man.
STELTER: Still doing this? Still hosting television shows, stage shows, writing books?
BECK: Always -- always being -- always telling a story, always trying to find the story of the day and telling it in a -- in a most effective way.
STELTER: Glenn, thanks for your time.
BECK: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: Now, after we finished talking in his office there, Beck gave me a tour of his headquarters, and I had to ask him one more question about the media magnate that he's modeling his company after. It's not Rush Limbaugh. It's not even Oprah Winfrey.
And take a look at who it is.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: Didn't you give all of your staffers a copy of a Disney biography last year?
BECK: Yes.
STELTER: What was the reason for that?
BECK: The company was named after Orson Welles. And the two people that really have influenced me is Orson Welles and Walt Disney. And I gave it to them because I wanted them to see where I was headed.
And I'm not headed towards Edward R. Murrow. I'm headed towards Walt Disney.
STELTER: Does that mean theme parks or something different?
BECK: No, I don't -- I don't foresee...
STELTER: People only -- sometimes only associate Disney with that, when it's a lot more.
BECK: Yes.
No, Disney was an innovator on everything. We went to space because of Walt Disney. You know, Walt Disney brought his animator that did "The Seven Dwarves" and said, I have got this Nazi scientist that I need you to meet, Wernher von Braun.
And the year is 1954 or '55. And he said, he thinks we can put a man in space. I want you to tell that story. In 1955, just before he opens the park, he does -- and he starts his TV show, "Disneyland." He has a special called "Man in Space."
The story goes that Eisenhower calls him up and said, Walt, you son of a bitch, you did it. I have been trying to convince the people at the Pentagon we can do it. I don't need them. You just convinced the American people. And so Disney -- a world without Walt Disney, America without Walt Disney, not just the parks, is a very different place, a very different place. He affected our culture in a positive way.
STELTER: Is there a reason why you talk not about Rush Limbaugh or other figures like that, but about Disney instead? Is it an attempt to mainstream your brand?
BECK: No, I have always been a fan of Walt Disney, ever since I was a kid. I studied Walt Disney. I always wanted to be Walt Disney.
STELTER: Well, maybe separate from Disney, isn't there some effort to try to identity not as a conservative that some people might think as polarizing and has said stupid things in the past, and instead as a figure that anybody of any political persuasion might buy jeans from?
BECK: No.
Here, let me put it this way. I'm a conservative. I haven't changed any of my beliefs. I believe what I believe. Always have, always will. I might change if I find a pivot point. I am who I am.
STELTER: But to get carriage, to get carriage TheBlaze in 100 million homes, don't you have to broaden out?
BECK: Let me tell you something.
I don't think anybody really, truly understands this. I don't really care. You know what makes -- you know what really gives somebody real power? That twitchy eye. Somebody who says, I don't care. I will lose it all. I will start all over again. I don't care. I'm not in it for money. I'm not in it for fame. I don't care.
Once you really say that and really believe it, you're not afraid of anything.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: Check out my story about Beck's business at CNNMoney.com/media.
Next, we will get back to our top story this morning, the two crises in the Middle East, with a woman who has reported from every spot we're talking about, Gaza, Israel, Iraq, Syria. You name it. She is standing by in Beirut right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: Welcome back to RELIABLE SOURCES. I'm Brian Stelter.
Let's get back to our top stories now, in fact, to a story that has been among the top stories for weeks, the conflict in the Middle East.
My next guest has been a reporter on the ground throughout the region, Anne Barnard. She is currently the Beirut bureau chief for "The New York Times." And she joins me from there this morning.
You and I used to being colleagues at "The New York Times." We both know sometimes the story on the ground is very different than the story that gets reported from thousands of miles away. So, when you were in Gaza, what were the biggest misconceptions you were seeing about what was going on there in the coverage from thousands of miles away?
ANNE BARNARD, BEIRUT BUREAU CHIEF, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": The most strange thing to me was the way that the coverage itself was discussed.
There seemed to be an impression that people in Gaza were reporting civilian casualties because somehow Hamas was making us do that or that's what Hamas wanted us to do. You know, covering civilian casualties is at the core of what we do as journalists, particularly, not just casualties, but covering the impact of war on ordinary people.
And that's part of our mission, and we do that consistently on all sides in all conflicts that cover around the world, to the extent that it's physically possible.
STELTER: You were the Baghdad bureau chief for "The Boston Globe" between 2003 and 2005. There have been questions lately about whether there was an American intelligence error to not collectively see the rise of ISIS, the spread of ISIS in Syria and into Iraq. Do you feel that there was a media failure as well, or is that an unfair critique?
BARNARD: I think the surprise was that it had the capability and the desire to push so far into Iraq so quickly.
That, of course, was aided by people on the ground in Iraq making what Syrians call the same mistake that they made, locals who thought maybe these guys can help us get rid of a government we don't like, but are likely to find in the end that they want to get rid of this group and may not be able to.
STELTER: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this feels like a singularly difficult, almost impossible story to be covering. Have you ever covered anything like it? BARNARD: No, I have to say covering Syria and all of the ripple
effects of Syria around the region is by far the most challenging thing I have had to do as a journalist, because you have access problems, both on the side of the Syrian government and in the insurgent-held areas, and you have an incredibly complex array of ripple effects throughout the region. And you just can't be in all these countries at once.
STELTER: I hate to end on a down note, but your colleague at "The Washington Post" -- well, your counterpart at "The Washington Post," the Beirut bureau chief there, Liz Sly, wrote this on Twitter this week.
Let me put it on screen, because to me it was -- it really caught my eye. She said: "I don't think there is anyone in the Middle East right now who is not, A, scared to death, B, massively confused, and, C, utterly depressed."
Do you share those three feelings?
BARNARD: I share them.
And, more importantly the people who live here share them. I mean, I live here, but I always can leave. The issue is people who have dedicated their lives to trying to build a life in their country here are feeling as they look around the region that there really isn't a place that looks completely safe or stable or with a clear path to the future.
So I think, unfortunately, Liz is hitting the nail on the head there. And I retweeted her. So, yes, I'm afraid it's true.
STELTER: Anne Barnard of "The New York Times," thank you for joining me.
BARNARD: Thank you, Brian.
STELTER: We will take a turn coming up and talk about the biggest media story of the week. That is Rupert Murdoch dropping his bid for Time Warner, the parent company for CNN. But does that mean all the takeover talk is over?
One of the smartest men covering this business will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: So what is the future of Time Warner? You are watching this program on CNN, which is a channel owned by Time Warner.
But a few weeks ago, CNN's fate and Time Warner's future were both thrown into question, thanks to this man, Rupert Murdoch. He's the chief executive of 21st Century Fox. He's the man who decided to launch FOX News. Some liberals loathe him. Some conservatives celebrate him. He is a polarizing guy.
And earlier this summer, he made an out-of-the-blue $80 billion bid for Time Warner. But Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes quickly rebuffed him. And this week, he seemed to throw in the towel. Murdoch told Time Warner he was walking away.
So, the question, should we believe him? What happens next?
Let me ask a man who has covered Murdoch's career for decades, "New Yorker" media writer extraordinaire Ken Auletta.
Ken, here on this program last month, I said I would eat a copy of the Murdoch-owned "New York Post" if Murdoch ended up owning CNN. So do I no longer have to worry about how to digest a tabloid souffle?
KEN AULETTA, "THE NEW YORKER": Not unless you're very hungry.
(LAUGHTER)
STELTER: Tell me where you think things go now, now that Murdoch says he's backing off.
AULETTA: Well, I do think, at some point, I suspect that Time Warner will be sold. They have been a seller. They sold off AOL. They got rid of Time Warner Cable. They got rid of Time Inc., the publication.
So I think they are a potential seller. But the question is, who is the buyer? I take Murdoch at his word that right now he doesn't plan to -- to buy it. He felt it hurt his stock. The stock price plummeted, which made it largely impossible for him to afford to raise that initial bid of $85 a share.
STELTER: Yes, at the very same time, the Time Warner stocks soared, making it even further out of reach.
AULETTA: And now what has happened is that, with Murdoch pulling back, Time Warner's stock deflates some and Murdoch's stock rises some.
But it's hard to imagine that if he tried to make a bid again, the same thing wouldn't happen, that his stock would not drop and Time Warner would become more expensive. And so, therefore, he has an impasse.
But I still think we're back to that same question. I believe that Time Warner's real game plan was, they don't want to sell now. But if they sold -- and I think they are prepared to sell in a year or two or three -- the question is, who would the bidders be? And that's a really big question.
STELTER: And all this matters, of course, because we're talking about one of the biggest media companies in the world. Time Warner not only controls CNN, but also TNT, TBS, HBO, Warner Bros. studio. So, who might other buyers be a year, or two three years from now?
AULETTA: Well, you could imagine that Comcast if it digests Time Warner Cable might well want to be a buyer. Whether the government would want to allow that is another question. You can imagine that AT&T, if it successfully digests DirecTV,
the satellite television provider, might well want to buy it and have content, because they're buying another platform.
And then you look at the -- you know, CBS would love to buy it, but they can't afford it. Disney could afford to buy it, but why would they, when they have been very successful and particularly successful with smaller purchases?
Then you say, well, about the digital companies? Well, Google and Amazon and Apple could afford to do it. But why would they want to do it? They are neutral Switzerland platforms where they buy content from everyone in order to display on their platforms. Why would they want to be identified with a particular content provider, and therefore risk not being able to buy -- purchase content from other providers?
STELTER: Let's wrap up where we started, with Rupert Murdoch.
Is this a defeat for him, a rare defeat in his long career? Should we look at it this way?
AULETTA: Well, it's certainly different for him. What he's done now twice in the last year-and-a-half is listen to the shareholders, which is something he never did before.
He acted arbitrarily and brilliantly in most cases to build his successful company. But now what he said by breaking up News Corp. into two different companies, he said, why did I do it? In order to get shareholder -- enhance shareholder value. And why did he step away from his acquisition, attempted acquisition of Time Warner? To enhance shareholder value.
That's very much not like the Rupert Murdoch we have become accustomed to.
STELTER: Ken Auletta, thank you so much for joining me.
AULETTA: My pleasure.
STELTER: For the foreseeable future, this is over. But don't be surprised if it's back in the headlines months or years down the road.
And let me know what you think about this topic and the rest of today's show. Send me a message on Twitter or Facebook. My username is Brian Stelter. And I think your feedback is constantly making our program better.
Up next here, an important update about American journalists imprisoned in Iran. Why are they still in jail?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: And welcome back.
And one final note before I say goodbye this morning about the "Washington Post" correspondent who remains behind bars in Iran.
We first talked about Jason Rezaian on this program two weeks ago after he and his wife were detained in Tehran without explanation. CNN's own Anthony Bourdain actually spent some time with the couple back in June. He was there taping for a future episode of "PARTS UNKNOWN." And he's as baffled as the rest of us are about what's going on.
So, let me close today's program with something that Bourdain wrote for the "Washington Post" Web site: "This wonderful couple is a danger to no one. They are nobody's enemy. They are without blame or malice. Why are they in jail?"
All of us await the answer to that. And all of us await their release.
That's all for this televised edition of RELIABLE SOURCES. But you can see and read and watch our media coverage all the time on CNN.com. And set your DVR for next week's show Sunday at 1100 Eastern time.
I will see you right back here then.
And we're working on -- we're working on those, working on a movie. Actually, we have a couple of them that we're actually working on. One is farther in the pipeline than the other. And so...
STELTER: When might we see the first Glenn Beck feature film?
BECK: I don't know. Maybe -- I don't know. I hate to speculate. Maybe -- my hope is 2015, but I don't know. That could be our first, so I don't know how long...
STELTER: For scripted television as well?
BECK: I hope 2015.
STELTER: You have been running TheBlaze, your cable channel, here for a while now. Originally, TheBlaze started online. It was subscription-only service. You had I think 300,000 subscribers in the first year, which means you were making a lot more than you could have made at FOX News. How many subscribers do you have now online?
BECK: You would have to ask the accountants. I have...
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: You're looking off screen now.
Are you holding up pretty well?
BECK: Oh, yes. Yes.
STELTER: Because then you decided to get distribution on cable, and on cable and satellite. And people then wondered, oh, maybe you feel you're not reaching enough people online. BECK: Yes, well, I think there's a difference between, you know,
a million people online and 70 million households, you know? My goal is to hit as many touch points as we possibly can, and I don't know what's going to...
STELTER: Radio, TV, live events, everything else?
BECK: Everything. Everything.
STELTER: But it seems like you're having a hard time getting on to cable, though. A lot of smaller providers have picked up the channel. A lot of bigger ones haven't. Comcast hasn't. DirecTV haven't. What are they -- what kind of feedback are you getting when you try to get on to those systems?
BECK: I would probably let our attorneys handle that one.
STELTER: Why? Why?
BECK: Some are -- some are not as...
STELTER: One of the distribution executives, one of these big companies, said to me, the reason why we're reluctant to pick up TheBlaze is because what happens if -- forgive me this -- what happens if Beck gets hit by a bus? They're basically saying, there's no other must-see TV on the channel.
But you have been adding a lot of other programming. I guess that's the point, is that you don't want it to just be your channel.
BECK: That's why we changed it from GBTV. I was against GBTV at the very beginning and wanted it to be TheBlaze. And it's not about me.
And they won't be saying that in -- for very long, if that's your objection, but I have heard all kinds of objections, so we will see.
STELTER: Is some of it political?
BECK: I think some of it is political, but...
STELTER: But they would deny it, of course.
BECK: Of course they would.
STELTER: And you have opposed the Comcast/Time Warner cable merger. Why is that?
BECK: I'm actually -- I'm really torn on this, because I'm not -- I'm libertarian. And whatever you want to do, you do.
However, this is already a regulated business. And so I'm actually for deregulation of this, because nobody can go out and start their own cable company without the government being involved.
STELTER: Right. BECK: And so, because it's deregulated, making something bigger,
we would still have the old rotary phone if it was just AT&T, you know? And these companies are getting so massive that they have almost total control of a portal.
You know, when I left FOX, my thought was, can a man still have an idea and a dream and go up against the titans and still make it? So far, the answer is yes, but if you can't crack the cable code without having the big -- you know, some big corporation behind you...
STELTER: Right.
BECK: ... the answer is no. And I think that's a problem in America.
STELTER: Before we go, crystal ball with me. Where is talk radio going to be in 10 years? Is it a viable medium?
BECK: You know what? Everybody said that in 1992. It constantly evolves. Talk radio on the AM band, I don't know about the AM band. In Europe, they just dropped the AM band from the cars, in Europe, so I don't know what happens to that.
But there is a hunger, a real hunger for talk radio, whether it's left or right. And there always will be. Look at podcasts. Look at podcasts, audio podcasts. That's talk radio.
STELTER: What about FOX News? What about CNN? You have them both on here in your office.
BECK: I think that -- I think that they're all going to change. I think television itself is going to change dramatically.
STELTER: And become more like Blaze-style?
BECK: I don't know yet. I mean, we're still divining rod ourselves. I don't know.
But it will be -- it will be more personal. It will be more human. It will be more authentic. It will not be led by a panel of experts from, you know, this club or that club. It will be much closer to the user.
STELTER: And, Glenn Beck, who will he be in 10 years?
BECK: I hope a much better man.
STELTER: Still doing this? Still hosting television shows, stage shows, writing books?
BECK: Always -- always being -- always telling a story, always trying to find the story of the day and telling it in a -- in a most effective way.
STELTER: Glenn, thanks for your time.
BECK: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: Now, after we finished talking in his office there, Beck gave me a tour of his headquarters, and I had to ask him one more question about the media magnate that he's modeling his company after. It's not Rush Limbaugh. It's not even Oprah Winfrey.
And take a look at who it is.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: Didn't you give all of your staffers a copy of a Disney biography last year?
BECK: Yes.
STELTER: What was the reason for that?
BECK: The company was named after Orson Welles. And the two people that really have influenced me is Orson Welles and Walt Disney. And I gave it to them because I wanted them to see where I was headed.
And I'm not headed towards Edward R. Murrow. I'm headed towards Walt Disney.
STELTER: Does that mean theme parks or something different?
BECK: No, I don't -- I don't foresee...
STELTER: People only -- sometimes only associate Disney with that, when it's a lot more.
BECK: Yes.
No, Disney was an innovator on everything. We went to space because of Walt Disney. You know, Walt Disney brought his animator that did "The Seven Dwarves" and said, I have got this Nazi scientist that I need you to meet, Wernher von Braun.
And the year is 1954 or '55. And he said, he thinks we can put a man in space. I want you to tell that story. In 1955, just before he opens the park, he does -- and he starts his TV show, "Disneyland." He has a special called "Man in Space."
The story goes that Eisenhower calls him up and said, Walt, you son of a bitch, you did it. I have been trying to convince the people at the Pentagon we can do it. I don't need them. You just convinced the American people. And so Disney -- a world without Walt Disney, America without Walt Disney, not just the parks, is a very different place, a very different place. He affected our culture in a positive way.
STELTER: Is there a reason why you talk not about Rush Limbaugh or other figures like that, but about Disney instead? Is it an attempt to mainstream your brand? BECK: No, I have always been a fan of Walt Disney, ever since I
was a kid. I studied Walt Disney. I always wanted to be Walt Disney.
STELTER: Well, maybe separate from Disney, isn't there some effort to try to identity not as a conservative that some people might think as polarizing and has said stupid things in the past, and instead as a figure that anybody of any political persuasion might buy jeans from?
BECK: No.
Here, let me put it this way. I'm a conservative. I haven't changed any of my beliefs. I believe what I believe. Always have, always will. I might change if I find a pivot point. I am who I am.
STELTER: But to get carriage, to get carriage TheBlaze in 100 million homes, don't you have to broaden out?
BECK: Let me tell you something.
I don't think anybody really, truly understands this. I don't really care. You know what makes -- you know what really gives somebody real power? That twitchy eye. Somebody who says, I don't care. I will lose it all. I will start all over again. I don't care. I'm not in it for money. I'm not in it for fame. I don't care.
Once you really say that and really believe it, you're not afraid of anything.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STELTER: Check out my story about Beck's business at CNNMoney.com/media.
Next, we will get back to our top story this morning, the two crises in the Middle East, with a woman who has reported from every spot we're talking about, Gaza, Israel, Iraq, Syria. You name it. She is standing by in Beirut right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: Welcome back to RELIABLE SOURCES. I'm Brian Stelter.
Let's get back to our top stories now, in fact, to a story that has been among the top stories for weeks, the conflict in the Middle East.
My next guest has been a reporter on the ground throughout the region, Anne Barnard. She is currently the Beirut bureau chief for "The New York Times." And she joins me from there this morning.
You and I used to being colleagues at "The New York Times." We both know sometimes the story on the ground is very different than the story that gets reported from thousands of miles away. So, when you were in Gaza, what were the biggest misconceptions you were seeing about what was going on there in the coverage from thousands of miles away?
ANNE BARNARD, BEIRUT BUREAU CHIEF, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": The most strange thing to me was the way that the coverage itself was discussed.
There seemed to be an impression that people in Gaza were reporting civilian casualties because somehow Hamas was making us do that or that's what Hamas wanted us to do. You know, covering civilian casualties is at the core of what we do as journalists, particularly, not just casualties, but covering the impact of war on ordinary people.
And that's part of our mission, and we do that consistently on all sides in all conflicts that cover around the world, to the extent that it's physically possible.
STELTER: You were the Baghdad bureau chief for "The Boston Globe" between 2003 and 2005. There have been questions lately about whether there was an American intelligence error to not collectively see the rise of ISIS, the spread of ISIS in Syria and into Iraq. Do you feel that there was a media failure as well, or is that an unfair critique?
BARNARD: I think the surprise was that it had the capability and the desire to push so far into Iraq so quickly.
That, of course, was aided by people on the ground in Iraq making what Syrians call the same mistake that they made, locals who thought maybe these guys can help us get rid of a government we don't like, but are likely to find in the end that they want to get rid of this group and may not be able to.
STELTER: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this feels like a singularly difficult, almost impossible story to be covering. Have you ever covered anything like it?
BARNARD: No, I have to say covering Syria and all of the ripple effects of Syria around the region is by far the most challenging thing I have had to do as a journalist, because you have access problems, both on the side of the Syrian government and in the insurgent-held areas, and you have an incredibly complex array of ripple effects throughout the region. And you just can't be in all these countries at once.
STELTER: I hate to end on a down note, but your colleague at "The Washington Post" -- well, your counterpart at "The Washington Post," the Beirut bureau chief there, Liz Sly, wrote this on Twitter this week.
Let me put it on screen, because to me it was -- it really caught my eye. She said: "I don't think there is anyone in the Middle East right now who is not, A, scared to death, B, massively confused, and, C, utterly depressed."
Do you share those three feelings?
BARNARD: I share them.
And, more importantly the people who live here share them. I mean, I live here, but I always can leave. The issue is people who have dedicated their lives to trying to build a life in their country here are feeling as they look around the region that there really isn't a place that looks completely safe or stable or with a clear path to the future.
So I think, unfortunately, Liz is hitting the nail on the head there. And I retweeted her. So, yes, I'm afraid it's true.
STELTER: Anne Barnard of "The New York Times," thank you for joining me.
BARNARD: Thank you, Brian.
STELTER: We will take a turn coming up and talk about the biggest media story of the week. That is Rupert Murdoch dropping his bid for Time Warner, the parent company for CNN. But does that mean all the takeover talk is over?
One of the smartest men covering this business will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: So what is the future of Time Warner? You are watching this program on CNN, which is a channel owned by Time Warner.
But a few weeks ago, CNN's fate and Time Warner's future were both thrown into question, thanks to this man, Rupert Murdoch. He's the chief executive of 21st Century Fox. He's the man who decided to launch FOX News. Some liberals loathe him. Some conservatives celebrate him. He is a polarizing guy.
And earlier this summer, he made an out-of-the-blue $80 billion bid for Time Warner. But Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes quickly rebuffed him. And this week, he seemed to throw in the towel. Murdoch told Time Warner he was walking away.
So, the question, should we believe him? What happens next?
Let me ask a man who has covered Murdoch's career for decades, "New Yorker" media writer extraordinaire Ken Auletta.
Ken, here on this program last month, I said I would eat a copy of the Murdoch-owned "New York Post" if Murdoch ended up owning CNN. So do I no longer have to worry about how to digest a tabloid souffle?
KEN AULETTA, "THE NEW YORKER": Not unless you're very hungry.
(LAUGHTER)
STELTER: Tell me where you think things go now, now that Murdoch says he's backing off.
AULETTA: Well, I do think, at some point, I suspect that Time Warner will be sold. They have been a seller. They sold off AOL. They got rid of Time Warner Cable. They got rid of Time Inc., the publication.
So I think they are a potential seller. But the question is, who is the buyer? I take Murdoch at his word that right now he doesn't plan to -- to buy it. He felt it hurt his stock. The stock price plummeted, which made it largely impossible for him to afford to raise that initial bid of $85 a share.
STELTER: Yes, at the very same time, the Time Warner stocks soared, making it even further out of reach.
AULETTA: And now what has happened is that, with Murdoch pulling back, Time Warner's stock deflates some and Murdoch's stock rises some.
But it's hard to imagine that if he tried to make a bid again, the same thing wouldn't happen, that his stock would not drop and Time Warner would become more expensive. And so, therefore, he has an impasse.
But I still think we're back to that same question. I believe that Time Warner's real game plan was, they don't want to sell now. But if they sold -- and I think they are prepared to sell in a year or two or three -- the question is, who would the bidders be? And that's a really big question.
STELTER: And all this matters, of course, because we're talking about one of the biggest media companies in the world. Time Warner not only controls CNN, but also TNT, TBS, HBO, Warner Bros. studio. So, who might other buyers be a year, or two three years from now?
AULETTA: Well, you could imagine that Comcast if it digests Time Warner Cable might well want to be a buyer. Whether the government would want to allow that is another question.
You can imagine that AT&T, if it successfully digests DirecTV, the satellite television provider, might well want to buy it and have content, because they're buying another platform.
And then you look at the -- you know, CBS would love to buy it, but they can't afford it. Disney could afford to buy it, but why would they, when they have been very successful and particularly successful with smaller purchases?
Then you say, well, about the digital companies? Well, Google and Amazon and Apple could afford to do it. But why would they want to do it? They are neutral Switzerland platforms where they buy content from everyone in order to display on their platforms. Why would they want to be identified with a particular content provider, and therefore risk not being able to buy -- purchase content from other providers?
STELTER: Let's wrap up where we started, with Rupert Murdoch.
Is this a defeat for him, a rare defeat in his long career? Should we look at it this way?
AULETTA: Well, it's certainly different for him. What he's done now twice in the last year-and-a-half is listen to the shareholders, which is something he never did before.
He acted arbitrarily and brilliantly in most cases to build his successful company. But now what he said by breaking up News Corp. into two different companies, he said, why did I do it? In order to get shareholder -- enhance shareholder value. And why did he step away from his acquisition, attempted acquisition of Time Warner? To enhance shareholder value.
That's very much not like the Rupert Murdoch we have become accustomed to.
STELTER: Ken Auletta, thank you so much for joining me.
AULETTA: My pleasure.
STELTER: For the foreseeable future, this is over. But don't be surprised if it's back in the headlines months or years down the road.
And let me know what you think about this topic and the rest of today's show. Send me a message on Twitter or Facebook. My username is Brian Stelter. And I think your feedback is constantly making our program better.
Up next here, an important update about American journalists imprisoned in Iran. Why are they still in jail?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STELTER: And welcome back.
And one final note before I say goodbye this morning about the "Washington Post" correspondent who remains behind bars in Iran.
We first talked about Jason Rezaian on this program two weeks ago after he and his wife were detained in Tehran without explanation. CNN's own Anthony Bourdain actually spent some time with the couple back in June. He was there taping for a future episode of "PARTS UNKNOWN." And he's as baffled as the rest of us are about what's going on.
So, let me close today's program with something that Bourdain wrote for the "Washington Post" Web site: "This wonderful couple is a danger to no one. They are nobody's enemy. They are without blame or malice. Why are they in jail?"
All of us await the answer to that. And all of us await their release.
That's all for this televised edition of RELIABLE SOURCES. But you can see and read and watch our media coverage all the time on CNN.com. And set your DVR for next week's show Sunday at 1100 Eastern time. I will see you right back here then.
