Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk; Interview with Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Nabiha Syed; Interview with Exiled Nicaraguan Novelist and Poet Gioconda Belli; Interview with Zora Neale Hurston/Richard Wright Foundation Co-Founder Marita Golden; Interview with Black Women Speak Unerased Creator and Campaign Director Gwen McKinney. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 30, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Poland blames Russia for firing a missile into its territory after deadly strikes across Ukraine. Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk gives us the details
from Kyiv.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM ALTMAN, CEO, OPENAI: We may have to pace the rate of A.I. development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around some of these
new capability levels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- is artificial intelligence eclipsing human control? As senior researchers sound the alarm, I asked an A.I. expert about regulating the
technology at this critical moment.
Then, after nearly 30 years in power, Nicaragua's president vows no more elections. Exiled writer Gioconda Belli tells me what this means for the
nation's political future and its people.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GWEN MCKINNEY, CREATOR AND CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, UNERASED, BLACK WOMEN SPEAK: We need to make sure that black women's stories by and about black women
can be effectively told.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- celebrating the lives and legacies of black women in America. Organizers of a new reading initiative, Marita Golden and Gwen McKinney
join Michelle Martin.
And finally, finding sleep in a stressful world. Hanako Montgomery reports on the new tech that says it can help you sleep anywhere.
And a very warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Ukraine reels from yet another night of deadly strikes from Russia, killing at least nine people, including children. In the Dnipro region, rescuers
have recovered six bodies from the rubble after a residential home was, quote, "blown to smithereens." That's according to President Zelenskyy.
Poland blames Moscow, meantime, for firing a missile into its territory, creating this massive crater after it landed and exploded in a field. Two
NATO fighter jets were activated and prepared to shoot it down. Now, this comes after the Ukrainian leader's recent visit to Washington, where he
says President Trump has agreed to move forward with licensing Ukraine to produce Patriot air defense missiles, ones his country so desperately
needs.
But will this change the tide in this ongoing war? I am joined by Ukrainian journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk. She joins us now from Kyiv. Good to have you
on the program. And again, we watched as it was such a harrowing night in Kyiv, but obviously throughout Ukraine as well.
So, listen, overnight, more than 70 missiles, more than 280 drones. It is one of the worst attacks, again, in Zelenskyy's hometown of Kryvyi Rih. He
described one missile attack that hit a house, saying it was an ordinary home, blown, as you just heard us, into smithereens by a ballistic missile.
Four children were apparently killed there.
And we have to note for viewers that this has been one of Ukraine's deadliest months for civilians since the full-scale invasion in 2022. So,
please give us some insight. What is the mood there on the ground right now? And how much longer can Ukraine realistically endure this?
NATALIYA GUMENYUK, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST: So, I think what makes this attack special, and you mentioned this village near Kryvyi Rih, Zelenskyy's
hometown, and why the country is looking into that. There is a whole family killed. There is a family which had seven children, and the parents were
killed as well. We knew about three of the kids. We know that the rest of the small kids were injured. So, you know, like the Ukrainian press is full
of their photos of this beautiful family, which is more or less wiped out by the ballistic missiles.
And now, my coming into the importance of understanding what is happening specifically with this weapon. You've already named that. Indeed, almost
360 aerial weapons were sent into Ukraine. But what is the most dangerous, 70 of them are missiles.
[13:05:00]
However, there are anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, and Shahed drones. Most of those things can be intercepted by today's Ukrainian air defense,
by different type of the weaponry. However, not the ballistic missiles. And Russia is using them this summer, specifically knowing that there is a
shortage.
There is a shortage in Ukraine. There is a shortage globally. Ukraine is asking the American president to provide more of this type of the missiles.
I think since Donald Trump is in the office, the problem is that just American Patriot system are capable to shut down the ballistic missiles.
All the rest we kind of capable. Europe is also -- you know, there are different kind of the systems, European system, which can help. But that is
a bit of the problem.
And we do understand that the Patriot missiles are elsewhere in different regions. But Russia is doing this exactly because they know that now there
is a moment. Ukraine is trying to build own anti-ballistic coalition to be capable. But it will take another year.
I should also say this impact of those attacks probably has no any real impact into the situation in the ground. The Ukrainian forces are fighting.
There is no progress. And that is exactly the issue that Moscow does. The only thing Moscow can is really terrorizing the Ukrainian civilian
population, kind of to kill people, but mainly to destroy the mood. But it has lesser impact on the battleground situation.
So, obviously, Ukraine can endure, will endure. You know, I should say, I am not cynical, but I should say, yes, if there would be a family destroyed
and wiped out from this Earth with expensive ballistic missile, Ukraine would endure, the world will continue. But it's extremely unfortunate. And,
of course, the whole priority is partially is to work with the air defense.
And part of the reason of the visit of the President Zelenskyy was also to, you know, work with this probably the only real capability, which only
depends on the American, on the White House.
NEWTON: Nataliya, and you've really put a fine point on the fact that Russia is doing this because it understands that in some quarters of this
war it is losing. Apparently, to perhaps escalate things, a missile from Russia landed deep in Polish territory. This could not have been a mistake
in terms of where it landed.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says all indications are that it was, in fact, a cruise missile. But there's no reason to believe that Poland was
the intended target. I'll point out NATO did have to scramble its jets. This isn't the first time this has happened. But I'm looking at the
location now and thinking, what do you believe this means? Certainly, Russia hasn't come out and said that this was some kind of mistake. So,
what does Ukraine want the proportional response to be from both NATO and its European allies?
GUMENYUK: I think that the Ukrainian concern, and this is not about the speculation, that for quite some time, especially using this moment-
difficult relation of the White House with the European partners, kind of some clarity in NATO, Russia is aiming this year to test how united NATO
is.
So, they would launch, and they are launching these numerous attacks, now in Poland, then probably into, you know, Estonia or Lithuania, just
literally to, you know, push a bit the line, the red line. So, you know, we try it with a drone. OK, nothing happens. Then we would try with that
missile, with that missile, and making kind of it normalizing. And then maybe to prove that, OK, it's possibly normal to attack some of the NATO
country and nothing would happen to us. There won't be retaliation.
I think that is more a political discussion about the red lines and more or less about the principle, because so far, every attack is judged of how
harmful it was. However, for the Kremlin, the whole idea is do we break the principle that NATO doesn't respond to our attack, and when it would be OK
for us to do that, but nobody would mention, and it would be more or less normalized.
So, for Ukraine, the response is kind of some practical response is probably would be the answer, because Russia is stopped when it's stopped,
not when you persuade them.
NEWTON: Nataliya, we will leave it there for now, but certainly really quite critical developments there in Ukraine overnight and, quite frankly,
over the entire last month. Nataliya Gumenyuk for us in Kyiv, appreciate it.
Now, fears over artificial intelligence are not new, but once again, top staffers from within the largest A.I. companies are sounding the alarm.
More than 1,000 senior employees signed a letter warning A.I. could spiral out of control. This comes after OpenAI's models went rogue during testing
and hacked inside an outside company.
[13:10:00]
Silicon Valley remains divided on the best way forward now, though, but one thing is clear, the technology is advancing at lightning speed.
For more on all of this, we want to bring in Nabiha Syed. She is executive director at the Mozilla Foundation. It's good to have you on the program.
NABIHA SYED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MOZILLA FOUNDATION: Thanks for having me.
NEWTON: Now, this week, as we were just saying, more than 1,000 staff at the world's leading A.I. labs signed an open letter. They are urging the
U.S. to slow the pace of A.I. development. You know, many signatories are from what we call those frontier organizations, OpenAI, Anthropic,
DeepMind, really at the cutting edge of what is going on right now.
And here is what they said. We just want to point out what was actually in the letter. We request that the U.S. government support an international
effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated A.I. development.
Now, these companies are racing forward in some way, shape or form. We're led to believe that they have to race forward. What are your concerns when
you see this and the fact that we have no promise of effective A.I. regulation in the future right now?
SYED: It's a great question. So, the good news is that we're in a moment where we're actually asking the question, just because we can do something,
should we advance technology in that way?
But the question about pacing ultimately boils down to what does that mean in practicality? If pacing means that we're going to have mandatory
independent reporting, that we're going to have transparency reports that are so detailed that cybersecurity defenders can actually figure out how to
defend an increased risk space, then that's great. If we have increased international coordination, wonderful.
But there's also a universe where this pacing conversation is actually just a form of regulatory capture. It is a way to say, hey, those open models
coming from China are getting pretty close and pretty competitive to U.S. industry. Let's create a moat. Let's become a safety cartel. Let's be the
only ones who can actually provide the solution and potentially the harms. And that's just not going to serve anyone in the world. It's certainly not
going to serve the American people.
NEWTON: Yes. It's interesting because you have competing models of what regulations should look like. I do want to get to that. Before that,
though, let's zoom in on this incident involving OpenAI's test models. It reportedly, we're saying, went rogue because it broke out of the sandbox.
Yes, it is supposed to play in the sandbox, just like you tell your children. It didn't.
SYED: Yes.
NEWTON: When I read the details of this, I was astounded. This model tried to hack several companies and the startup Hugging Face, which was hit
particularly hard. And we should assume this wasn't -- Hugging Face is not some startup, right? It is a sophisticated cybersecurity company that knows
what to do and then alerted OpenAI.
When you learned of this, and I want to say you are an accomplished lawyer from a legal perspective, what do you believe should be the next steps by
governments? Because this really could have caused real harm.
SYED: Absolutely. And we're still learning so much. But the first thing that struck me was we only know about the details because Hugging Face
decided voluntarily to disclose in great detail what happened. We didn't hear about it because there is a regulation that mandates mandatory, rapid,
detailed disclosure. And you would have that in many other industries. You would see that in the airline industry.
And we're at that stage in A.I. where if we're seeing these harms, we got to think -- pull back and say, what is the architecture that we need to
make sure that we know what's happening when it's happening, that there is a way to remediate, that we have independent researchers, right? You have
OpenAI now hiring a firm to audit what happened.
Well, I don't want to live in a universe, and we don't need to, where someone hires their own referee, right? And so, that's the responsibility
of a regulatory regime to set independent standards and make sure that we're all playing ball by the same rules. And the time is now for that.
NEWTON: The time is now. Are you getting any indication that anyone in the Trump administration or beyond in Europe, elsewhere, are actually looking
at this?
SYED: In Europe, there is a lot of consideration around A.I. regulation, and there has been for years. The cybersecurity frontier is also one that
has been of great collaboration and coordination. And so, you do have the emergence of, you know, auditing standards and transparency disclosures.
And I think everyone's looking to see whether those proposals would map onto this particular incident and situation.
In the United States, I think it's early days. Obviously, there's been attempts by states to try to regulate. The federal government has not shown
a lot of initiative there. But the stakes are getting higher in ways that are notable and present real danger.
[13:15:00]
I mean, we know about Hugging Face. Apparently, there were three other organizations. And, again, that's just what we know now. I think this is
enough to create a lot of concern in the federal government. So, we're hopeful that there will be some movement, again, in a way that serves the
people and doesn't just serve the business interests of a few large orgs, which is key to watch.
NEWTON: I would note that would be reactive, again, not proactive in any way, shape, or form. Given OpenAI and this rogue event, we do want to
return to that letter from the leading A.I. researchers. And it begins with the line -- begins with the line, A.I. could help create a dramatically
better future, but that outcome is not guaranteed.
You know, we hear a lot about the tradeoffs between the risks and the dividends of AI. And we're seeing some leaps in scientific medical
research. But I want to get away from the apocalypse right now with you. What do you see that can give our viewers the optimistic base case for A.I.
in society, especially if the regulations that you just spoke of are put into place?
SYED: Oh, there is so much room for optimism. If you look to people who are close to problems and are using A.I., not to replace their labor, but
actually to augment what they do.
So, we actually put out a call from Mozilla asking people around the world to submit project ideas that would help use A.I. to enhance democracy, not
diminish it. Democracy, top of mind for lots of people. We got proposals from 114 different countries with examples of people using A.I. to parse
through thousands of videos of human rights abuses and speed up the process of review and building a case.
We have proposals from people who are using A.I. to track government spending and identify patterns that could lead to corruption or other
anomalies that need to be reported. There's proposals using A.I. to supplement and help journalists do what used to take a team of 50 people.
Maybe you can do with two or three. And, of course, there's advances in health care and others that were outside of the scope of this proposal.
And really the key here is it's actually not about focusing on what the intelligence can do, but what institutions and courageous individuals
choose to use it for. If you have institutions that say, I don't want to replace human beings. I want to augment what we do. I want to have a better
David versus Goliath situation with some of the enormous problems of our day, whether it's climate, education, health care access, gender equity,
then the tools are really useful.
But then if you have people solely motivated by profit who look at this technology and say, how can I squeeze out a couple more dollars, then
obviously those institutions have very different incentives and it's not going to yield the benefit that could be possible here.
NEWTON: Yes. And interesting what you say because I'm not sure the world has been successful at democratizing the internet, let alone anything to do
with A.I. I do want to get to the fascinating point for our viewers that we understand, right, that you met with Pope Leo before he released his
encyclical on A.I.
SYED: Yes.
NEWTON: And in that he warned about the dangers that can arise from, as you say, placing profit over human well-being. Your organization, Mozilla,
is funding projects, as you just described, on A.I., civil rights, democracy. I'm wondering what that meeting with the pope was like. Was it a
back and forth? Was he -- you know, was he asking you questions or did you come away with this with different insights into what A.I. could do?
SYED: It was a wonderful engagement with several people about moral leadership and the necessity of courage in this moment to not just speak
truth about the dynamics that we're seeing, which he did so beautifully in his encyclical, but actually the responsibility of people who are working
in this space to incentivize, to support, to build, to resource and fund those who are actually doing this work. And that's -- the good news is we
see the headlines of all the bad and it's real, right? The bad capabilities are absolutely real. We should not discount those.
But what moral courage and moral leadership requires is that we see the opportunity and we put our attention and resource there. And there are
people all around the world, whether it is governments, philanthropies, other institutions, again, courageous people who are saying there is a way
to use this technology for good and that's what we're going to spend our time and energy figuring out and try to outpace the people who would like
to use it for bad.
NEWTON: I want to go back to the conversation that you had started just in terms of the models and people understanding. Look, some of them are coming
out of China and many people in other quarters say we need to keep up with that.
Now, Mark Zuckerberg recently published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. He, perhaps unsurprisingly, was optimistic about A.I. You see the
meta commercials. They're running all over the world right now.
SYED: Yes.
NEWTON: And yet, so much development behind those leading A.I. models right now, as you pointed out, is private. I mean, how do you get to what
he is saying?
[13:20:00]
Because he's saying that, look, these should be open models. And yet, so many others are telling us, oh, wait, hold up. Those open models are
actually dangerous. So, which is it?
SYED: You know, I think it's not about what is bad and what's good, it's how it's being used. And the Hugging Face example we've just lived through
is a great example that flips the narrative that actually it was the open models that Hugging Face used to detect and defend against the
cybersecurity threat that was brought upon them by a closed model in a test from OpenAI.
And so, you see that open models allow you to bypass safeguards in ways that could be bad, but also in ways to defend yourself if someone happens
to make a mistake. And I think entrusting just a few companies in the United States with all of both the protective and offensive capabilities is
centralizing risk in a way that's really terrifying.
And so, it's not often that I find myself agreeing with Mark Zuckerberg, but on this one I got to say that, like, I see where he's coming from. And
I do agree. If we want a future where this intelligence can be used by institutions and individuals in ways that are innovative, actually applied
to problems, not just oriented around profit, we're going to need to make it sustainable for people to do that.
And one thing I think is very interesting is a disparity in global perspective on this. Stanford actually did a study just last year where
they found that the United States had the lowest confidence level in A.I. actually being good for their well-being. But countries like China,
countries in Southeast Asia had quite high optimism that their governments and their institutions would be using this to lower their health care
costs, provide to them more access, build better jobs, remove jobs that are dangerous and automate them and leave us time for leisure and our loved
ones and care.
So, that is not the mental model that many in the United States are operating with, but it's not impossible that we can get there. It's just
going to require different institutions, not only motivated by profit, actually doing the work to make that happen.
NEWTON: Well, Nabiha, I am much more encouraged after speaking with you. We learned a lot. And I will say two things about something you posted
online. You talked about A.I. being trustworthy. You went through trust. You went through worthy. I suggest those are human traits. We shouldn't
attribute either to A.I. But it is fascinating that people in other parts of the world are more optimistic. Again, we learned a lot. Thanks so much
for being on the program.
SYED: Thank you so much for having me.
NEWTON: OK. Still to come for us, democracy in Nicaragua falls further into the abyss as President Daniel Ortega vows to cancel elections. We hear
from an exiled Nicaraguan activist and poet.
And also, ahead, what can one of the world's most sleep deprived countries teach us about how to get a good night's rest? I will be listening as we
take a look at Japan's booming sleep tech industry. Those stories after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Next to Nicaragua, where democracy is slipping further out of reach. For 19 years, President Daniel Ortega has steadily tightened his
authoritarian grip. He recently vowed to end future elections and is seeking to extend the presidential term from six to seven years and perhaps
beyond.
Meanwhile, Ortega's regime has grown increasingly brutal, crushing dissent and driving many human rights activists and opposition figures into exile.
[13:25:00]
Among them is the renowned novelist and poet Giaconda Belli. She joins the program now from Spain to discuss what hope remains for Nicaraguans. And we
welcome you to the program.
GIOCONDA BELLI, EXILED NICARAGUAN NOVELIST AND POET: Thank you. Thank you, Patricia. Nice to see you.
NEWTON: So, in terms of Daniel Ortega and his announcement, Nicaragua would no longer hold elections. No pretense of democracy here. What is your
reaction? Were you surprised?
BELLI: Well, I think this is a succession problem. You know, it's a -- this couple has a codependent arrangement. She is the one who administers
the state, actually. And she's the head of propaganda. She needs him to give her legitimacy. And she he needs her to do all those things that he
doesn't like to do.
NEWTON: I just want to clarify. So, who we're talking about is his wife, which is basically a co-leader. She is co-president. Rosario Murillo. Yes.
Go ahead.
BELLI: Yes, they changed the constitution in 2025 and made her co- president, which is the only case I know of. And so, they said this couple are not popular. And they know that. They know that since 2018, when people
wanted them to leave and rose up. And, you know, the whole country went on this protest, huge protest, the whole country. And they wanted them to
leave. So, they know that they are not popular anymore. And they don't want to submit themselves to the popular vote.
So, what they are doing is, you know, they know that even in a rigged election, they wouldn't win. And so, what they are doing is trying to find
a way to remain in power without having to go through an election. And so, they have invented this kind of, you know, very weird idea that they would
have an election not in 2027, like they were supposed to do, but in 2028. And then this, whatever -- whoever comes as a president or vice president,
this election will be renewable. The power will be renewable for seven more years. They would have these periods of seven years that could be renewed,
prorogated, you know.
And so, that sounds very strange because we don't know how they would do that. Who would approve of whoever is in power to be renewed? And we know
that Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega will probably run together again in the next election. So -- and they would, you know, rig the elections to be
elected if they were to have an election for real, and then they would be in power until 2040. After they are dead, they will still be present.
NEWTON: Essentially. Gioconda, we were looking at video of his announcement, but now I want you and our viewers to listen for a moment to
that announcement earlier this month. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL ORTEGA, NICARAGUAN PRESIDENT (through translator): They are crouching, waiting to attack. They would love to win elections to make
their wishes come true, but they can forget about it. There will be no more elections here. There will be no more elections so that they cannot try to
seize the government or take power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: So, during that, he was speaking at an event and we saw fireworks at the event celebrating the 47th anniversary of the Sandinista revolution,
something that was supposed to depose dictators forever in perpetuity in Nicaragua. In terms of doing it on the anniversary and the fact that you
saw him, he's not often seen in public, what message do you believe that sent?
BELLI: Well, it's a cruel message in a way, because he's announcing the perpetuation of another dictatorship in the day that we celebrated getting
rid of a 43-year-old dictatorship. So, I think, you know, they don't think about these things. You know, he just wants -- he knows he's going to have
the attention of the press that day, and he's just doing that because he wants to have the attention of the press. And then they freaked out because
when he came out with that announcement, you know, everybody protested.
And governments called their ambassadors back home, and there was a whole, you know, reaction of the International Community. And Ortega and Rosario
were very worried, and they called the ambassadors the next day. And now, they say they will have elections, but they will have this kind of election
that will be ruled by them on their own rules, because they say it's for the sovereignty of Nicaragua.
[13:30:00]
The sovereignty of Nicaragua is more important to them than the sovereignty of the people of Nicaragua, because they decide what is the sovereignty of
Nicaragua.
NEWTON: Well, as if they have ownership over Nicaragua, the country in totality.
BELLI: Exactly.
NEWTON: We have to point out to our viewers that in the 1970s, you fought for this movement, risking life and limb. You were alongside Daniel Ortega
to try and take down the right-wing dictator, Anastasio Somoza. Did you ever think that Ortega himself would rival this dictatorship that you have
sacrificed so much to really uproot some 47 years ago?
BELLI: No, I never thought that this would happen, because I didn't know Ortega very well until the revolution triumphed. And he was not the big
leader that he seems, you know, that he became, because the other comandantes, the other eight people who were the collective leadership of
the revolution, decided that he would take that role.
But he was not really a huge leader. And I -- you know, for me, it's always a little bit -- it bothers me that he comes out like the big leader of the
revolution, because he wasn't. And he never shot a gun, you know. He was not in this -- in the combat and struggle. But he's a guy who was able,
because he was not so colorful and not -- the other ones thought he didn't have such a large ego. They trusted him to be a figure that could be a
conciliatory figure between all of them who had big egos. And he became the symbol of the revolution.
But I never thought that our dreams, everybody who died. You know, I was part of a group of 10, and only two of us survived. I saw so many people
die and so many people give all their lives to this cause and to this dream of freedom. And no more dictatorships in Nicaragua.
So, it's very shocking to find this situation again and to see them doing all of this and to see what they did in 2018. And the fear that people have
now in Nicaragua. People are so afraid. And they would not be in power if they didn't have the army and the police and they weren't clamping down on
all the rights of Nicaraguans.
NEWTON: It is --
BELLI: We have 452 people. I'm sorry.
NEWTON: No, you go ahead.
BELLI: Yes. No, 450 people were deprived of their citizenship in 2023. And, you know, people are not allowed to come back into Nicaragua if they
are related to somebody who was called traitor by them. And there is a very hard line towards the exiles. You know, they took away everything we owned,
our houses. And now, they keep doing that to other people and they don't give passports. You know, it's -- they leave people in a situation of
statelessness, which is very hard. 200 journalists are in exile in Nicaragua. There is no longer any independent press.
NEWTON: And you, obviously, as a poet, as a novelist, again, in exile there in Spain yourself, given the fact that you fought so hard to make
sure that there was democracy in Nicaragua. So, I want to ask you, what can reverse this situation now? What hope do you have that those in Nicaragua
can try and get it back onto firm democratic footing? Are you feeling helpless at this point or do you believe there is some optimism?
BELLI: Well, I have hopes because hope is the last thing you lose. And besides, I believe that the people of Nicaragua are strong and brave. But
right now, we are under so much surveillance. So, many situations that people are just taken off the streets, disappeared. The fear is such that I
don't see the situation within Nicaragua getting different.
I think the OAS has called for a special meeting. And I hope that in that meeting they tell Ortega, you know, you haven't in 2027, like it was agreed
in the 2025 Constitution to do elections or otherwise we call on to a transitional period. I mean, it sounds a little bit, a little bit dreamy on
my part, but I have seen dreams come true because the revolution happened.
[13:35:00]
So, I -- but, you know, right now, to tell you the truth and be honest, within Nicaragua, I don't think there is any chance of any kind of movement
like, you know, we did during the Somoza times.
NEWTON: Right.
BELLI: Yes. But outside of Nicaragua, we have all these people who were the leadership of the democratic Nicaragua, who were all expelled and are
all in exile.
NEWTON: Understood. Yes.
BELLI: And they are all acting.
NEWTON: Gioconda Belli, we have to leave it there for now, but we will certainly continue to follow this and see if the International Community
can do anything about it. Gioconda Belli for us from Spain, appreciate it.
BELLI: Thank you so much.
NEWTON: Now, stay with CNN. We'll be right back after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: So, when the U.S. National Endowment for the Arts unveiled its America 250 Big Read program, our next guest realized there were no black
women on the list of authors. So, literary activists Marita Golden and Gwen McKinney created something of their own. The new Power Read 25, a national
reading initiative celebrating the lives and legacies of black women through 25 biographies and community reading programs following America's
250th birthday. Here they are with Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Paula. Gwen McKinney, Marita Golden, thank you both so much for joining us.
MARITA GOLDEN: Thank you for the invitation.
GWEN MCKINNEY, CREATOR AND CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, UNERASED, BLACK WOMEN SPEAK: Appreciate being here.
MARTIN: Gwen, let me start with you. How did you notice that the National Endowment list of Big Reads, the reads that they were suggesting as a way
to celebrate America's 250 didn't have any black women authors on it? Do you remember?
MCKINNEY: Well, actually, you know, Michel, we backed into it. March 8th is International Women's Day. And we were preparing an event with the D.C.
Public Library, really celebrating black women voices. One of my colleagues was doing the research on different titles and stumbled on it. And when she
did, she did a piece for our website about the Big Read. And like maybe midway almost towards the end, she mentioned the titles and noted that none
of the 24 titles were authored by a black woman.
And actually, Michel, if I can just say, of the 24, 14 were white men, five were white women, three were black men, one was a Native American woman,
and one was a Latino woman. And that seemed not only amazing, but it was unsurprising. And we said, now this for us, rather than to protest, we need
to produce. We need to make sure that black women's stories by and about black women can be effectively told. And when I say we, I should say
Unerased, Black Women Speak.
And it was basically -- that was it, Michel. It was pretty much the foundational premise of our work to unerase black women.
[13:40:00]
MARTIN: One said that it was -- I guess, she didn't say this word, I'll say this word, disappointing but not surprising. Marita, did you feel that
same way?
MARITA GOLDEN, CO-FOUNDER, ZORA NEALE HURSTON/RICHARD WRIGHT FOUNDATION: It was shocking, disappointing, but not surprising because I saw the non-
inclusion of black women's voices and stories on the list as a continuation of what appears to be a direct strategy to erase not just African American
culture from our historical story, but in a particularly hurtful and unique way, the voices of black women.
So, I think for both of us it was surprising, but given the political temperature right now, we said this is par for the course.
MARTIN: Why do you say that though? Why not surprising? Because some people would find that surprising. I mean, like the Nobel Prize winner,
Toni Morrison. I mean, people that black women have had such an important role in the literature of the 20th century and beyond.
GOLDEN: Well, we're having this conversation a week after signage has been posted on the American History Museum at the Smithsonian, discrediting much
of what that museum shows as the multicultural story of American history.
And so, we can look at the political social landscape and see this as even an effort to move into the realm of culture, literature, and continue what
appears to be and what can perceive to be by some of us as a policy that is wide-ranging.
MARTIN: How did you come up with this idea that there would be sort of an alternate list, as it were?
MCKINNEY: Well, I think that collectively, and I want to give Tracy McGee, who's the project director, some credit for this because she's the one who
surfaced this list. I think that, Michel, part of it is a mission. It's a continuation of the work that we do to tell our story.
And as Marita said, the erasure of Black women, I mean, it's baked in in this moment across politics, culture, public policy. You look at the
Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, the Fed Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, all Black women who were
soundly targeted.
We're not paranoid, Michel. We see the reality. It's not just the assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion. It's a rounded assault on black women
to erase and to deny us what we refuse to be denied.
MARTIN: So, Marita, why biography?
GOLDEN: Yes, I think that people are pretty much familiar with writers ranging from Toni Morrison to Terry McMillan. Fiction has really grabbed
the imagination of the American reading public in the last 30 or 40 years. And there are many prominent African American fiction writers that are
pretty well known. The beauty, I think, of this list is that biography holds a particular place in the culture.
What a biography does is that it takes a significant, distinguished person and places that person within a very large, wide, and sweeping political
context. So, for example, I've written several memoirs, but a memoir doesn't place a person in the broad sweep of history. It doesn't place a
character in terms of their general and abiding influence.
And so, these biographies do something very special in terms of introducing readers to distinguished, ground-legging black women who they may not be
familiar with, so that we have people on the list, everybody from Harriet Tubman to some of the people who were erased, who were unknown, but who
should be known.
MARTIN: Let's go into some of the lists. I mean, as you mentioned, Marita, the list includes names that a lot of people would know. Harriet Tubman,
Ida B. Wells, Toni Morrison, Zora Neale Hurston. But it also introduces readers to women, to names that they may not know. So, why don't we just
take turns and go through some of those names? When do you want to start?
[13:45:00]
MCKINNEY: One that really jumps out at me is the story of Callie House. Not a household name, but believe it or not, the original mother of
American reparations. And the author, Mary Frances Berry, who's a very noted historian, was just fascinated by this story and stumbled on Callie
House, who was from her home state of Tennessee. The title of the book is "My Face is Black is True."
And she was born just before emancipation in 1861. And she launched towards the end of the 19th century, a campaign for pensions. She was a
washerwoman, for washerwomen and formerly enslaved people. What did they do? They threw her in jail. But Callie House's story, as we know, the
reparations movement has continued. She laid the basis for what we now know as reparations. That was one of my favorites.
MARTIN: OK. OK. Marita, what about you?
GOLDEN: Well, I'm a novelist as well as a memoirist, and so one of my favorites is the book, "Driven Toward Madness," by Nikki Taylor, who is a
scholar at Howard University. And of course, we know that Toni Morrison's book Beloved is now recognized as a masterpiece. And it was inspired by an
actual incident where an enslaved woman, Margaret Garner, fled her enslavement. And rather than have her infant daughter be taken back into
slavery, she chose to kill that child.
Now, Morrison, of course, takes this incident and brilliantly meditates on it in a way that only she can do fiction. And it's a powerful story. But
"Driven Toward Madness" is a great companion to "Beloved" because here we have the actual woman, Margaret Garner. We have her actual life, the
details of her actual life. But more importantly, we have a very deep study of the psychological trauma that she as an enslaved woman would have
suffered, which would have ultimately led her to take a profoundly tragic act of resistance on behalf of herself and her child. So, it's a great
companion to a book that we now recognize as required reading.
One of my favorites also is the book that Joy Ann Reid wrote, a book about Myrlie Evers and Medgar Evers. And the wonderful thing about the book is
it's a love story. And we don't get many love stories featuring black people. But it's a story of how Myrlie Evers was basically a team player
with Medgar before he was assassinated in the civil rights struggle, and how in the years after his assassination, she continued that work. So, she
is a heroic figure, a very inspiring figure. But it's a bonus because, as I say, it's a love story and a biography of a seminal African-American woman.
MARTIN: There are a couple of the books on this list that I have a particular fondness of. I mean, one is you mentioned the biography of Madam
C.J. Walker by A'Lelia Bundles, somebody we've interviewed on the program.
And of course, here's another book that a lot of people will know because of the movie, "Hidden Figures," by Margot Lee Shetterly, which, you know --
so all of these books are not obscured.
MCKINNEY: And I need to stress the context of this also, Michel, which I did not mention. That big read that got us prompted into this was to
celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence. And from our perspective, black women's stories and contributions to this nation's
unfolding is undeniable, not just 250, but you know, you could go back more than 400 years.
So, the point of the storytelling, that's why we call it Power Read, is to pretty much reflect that black women's stories are grounded in the American
history story and are part of that.
MARTIN: Well, let's go back to --
[13:45:00]
GOLDEN: I think it's also important to say that we see this list as a starting point for recommending people to use these books in their book
clubs. There's going to be a companion list of books for children that are biographies that can be used so that adults can read these biographies as
well as their children.
MARTIN: So, when the NEA announced the Big Read initiative, they released a press release saying, and I'm going to quote here, "The goals of the NEA
Big Read are to inspire meaningful conversations, celebrate local creativity, elevate a wide variety of voices and perspectives, and build
stronger connections in each community." And they go on to say that these books celebrate the country's culture, history, and resilience through the
eyes of its citizens. How does each of you respond to that statement?
MCKINNEY: Well, first of all, the resilience, the resistance, the innovation, the power of black women is integral to the American story.
Whether we're talking about independence or we're talking about the American story through the ages, black women's contribution and voices and
lived experience are part of that.
MARTIN: Marita, what about you? How do you respond to that?
GOLDEN: Well, that statement makes the non-inclusion of black women on the list even harder to bear because the hypocrisy of it I find stunning.
MCKINNEY: Michel, I have to say this really quickly. My team would kill me if I didn't say, visit our website. We've got a fantastic page with the
stories, with a video about the stories, and to learn a little bit more about activation because we just don't want to talk about the books. We
want people to read the books. We want libraries to host book events for the titles. We want book clubs to feature, not maybe one or two or as many
as they want, schools and clubs to really embrace it, church groups. I mean, we really are trying to make this a culturally curated event.
MARTIN: Marita Golden, Gwen McKinney, thank you both so much for speaking with us.
MCKINNEY: Thank you for having us.
GOLDEN: We enjoyed this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Now, we all know about the importance of sleep for our health, right? But how far would you go to get a really good night's sleep? I'm not
going to answer that. Japan is one of the world's most sleep-deprived countries, and it's estimated to cost the government more than $100 billion
a year. Now, the country's own prime minister famously says she sleeps less than three hours a night. I'm not sure that's anything to brag about.
Now, Japanese researchers are using science to create weird and wonderful gadgets they hope will let people sleep in. Here's what Correspondent
Hanako Montgomery discovered in this report from Tokyo.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This isn't your average jacket. It's one specifically designed to help you fall asleep anytime and
anywhere.
MONTGOMERY: So, I'm going to try to take a 10-minute nap in this chair and let you know how my sleep was. Good night.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): The flashing red light inside the hood is meant to help me drift off, while this ring tracks my heart rate and body
temperature. If my pulse stays too high, the jacket plays a lullaby.
MONTGOMERY: So, I don't think I slept, but I feel very refreshed, and I actually feel a little bit more relaxed than I did when I first put on this
jacket.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): Placebo effect? Maybe. Either way, Teppei Ogata says the goal is to tackle a national issue, sleep deprivation.
TEPPEI OGATA, SLEEP TECH DESIGNER, NTT DXPN: In Japan, it's really cool to work hard. It's like a badge of honor. That unhealthy culture still hasn't
gone away. It's become a major social problem in Japan.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): Japan sleeps less than any other developed country. Research has linked too little sleep to an increased risk of heart
disease, obesity, and stroke. But it's also costing Japan an estimated 3 percent of its GDP each year.
Now, to help the nation catch more Zs, the government is betting on Sleep Tech, a market expected to top $98 million by 2027. Gadgets include a box
you can sleep in standing up, a bed that lies flat when you doze off, even a hotel that tracks your night's sleep. In here, an infrared camera checks
if you snore.
MONTGOMERY: Then there's this machine in the back here, also to measure how much you're snoring. And they tell me that this mattress also helps you
improve your sleep because it can tell how much you're moving in your sleep.
[13:55:00]
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): But do these products actually help, or are they just expensive bedtime accessories?
MASASHI YANAGIHARA, SLEEP MEDICINE EXPERT: Many of them don't have a very solid evidence for the effect, unfortunately.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): Yanagihara says Japan's sleep problem starts young.
YANAGIHARA: Japanese kids are already very much sleep deprived, partly because they have this not only a regular school, you know, most of them
actually go to after school school. Almost the nation is teaching them that sleepiness during the daytime is a normal thing, which is not true.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): So, the biggest sleep aid might not be another gadget, but changing the culture around rest.
MONTGOMERY: Good night and good luck on getting a good night's sleep.
Hanako Montgomery, CNN, Tokyo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: OK. That's it for our program. I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
