Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
A Story of President Bush meets challenges of deadly attacks in Iraq; A Story on the New abortion Ban Law
Aired November 08, 2003 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of how the president meets the challenge of deadly attacks in Iraq.
MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN URBAN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in New York, on the story of how the president signed into law a new abortion ban and set off a new legal battle.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen in Atlanta, on the story of the fountain of youth, new efforts to stave off old age.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Christine Romans, on the story of troubles in the mutual fund industry, where 95 million Americans have invested for retirement.
Also coming up, we'll talk about why CBS pulled the plug on the Reagan miniseries. And we're on the story of how a New York courtroom is the latest stage for comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
Later, we'll listen the president's weekly radio address.
And we want to hear from you at onthestory@cnn.com.
Now, straight ahead to Suzanne and the president and Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We mourn every loss. We honor every name. We grieve with every family. And we will always be grateful that liberty has found such brave defenders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: President Bush, speaking Monday in Birmingham, Alabama, referring, of course, to the death of 16 U.S. soldiers in a weekend helicopter shoot-down. Since then, the death toll keeps rising.
This was a very, very difficult week for the Bush administration. The president and his aides, trying to explain what went wrong. And one of the things that the president, the administration, realizes that it has to do, at the same time it has to comfort and mourn those, of course, who have lost their loved ones, but express this resolve and try to convince the American people that American security is at stake here when it comes to the war on terror.
But obviously, it is a difficult case. The administration trying to make that, yes, we are going to stay; we're going to stay the long haul. There are many people who came out this week saying that either you need more U.S. troops or pull those troops out. It's too dangerous a mission.
It was just today that the Red Cross announced it was pulling out of Baghdad altogether. You have the United Nations, a skeletal group that's on the ground. The Bush administration really juggling a lot of different issues in balancing how to win the support of the American people, at the same time, recognizing that the international community, many in the international community are pulling out.
COHEN: Suzanne, there was news this week -- speaking of more troops -- that the president is going to be rotating in thousands of more troops with the new year. Was that a surprise that they would be needing that many more people to -- in the region?
MALVEAUX: You know what it was, Elizabeth? It was a disappointment, essentially, because what happened was -- you know this administration was talking about the fact that they were trying to generate enough international support to get a multinational force on the ground, that they already had two elements, two components. But they wanted a third force so they wouldn't have to go ahead and call up those troops.
What this reflects, what the administration realizes it reflects, is a failure to get those countries together, to get those allies' support, so you don't have to call up more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers, troops, even Reservists and Marines that are going to have to go in this fight.
HINOJOSA: You know, Suzanne, it was a rough week for the president. In fact, here in New York, New Yorkers are waking up to seeing this headline on "New York Newsday": "The Deadliest Week." And it was the deadliest week.
But I'm wondering, Suzanne, the president has not, according to "The Washington Post," attended any funerals, any memorials for these soldiers. They've now put a ban on coverage of these bodies coming into Dover Air Force Field. How is it -- and you also were talking about how he seems to be a little out of touch on the issue of these deaths and these casualties. Tell us about what happened when he made a statement, thinking that there were just men who were killed, but, in fact, they also included a woman soldier.
MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. The president did make remarks, and what he said was that he recognized there were servicemen who were killed. He did not realize that there was a service woman who had also been killed. It was in the papers.
What this reflects is the administration's strategy, essentially, to say, look, the administration, the president, is not going to react, is not going to make comments based on every single tragedy that happens. Every loss is important. But of course, they don't want to make too much out of this, because they never really know if the next weekend is going to be even worse than the one before.
They can't even set the threshold for this. It is deliberate that you don't see the president going out there to the funerals, talking to those families, because they know this is a long haul here. And they don't want to emphasize -- put too much emphasis on the bad news, on the negative here, because it's going to be a long time coming.
ROMANS: But Suzanne, is that at the risk of appearing -- I don't know, you know, cold, I guess, or insensitive to what's going on? I mean, there are people out there who maybe would want to see the president shed a tear, or stand there and salute, you know, coffins coming back.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely. It's a balancing act as well. And Maria, you brought up a very good point, which is the access, some of the pictures to seeing those soldiers, to seeing those caskets come home. And they don't necessarily want to dwell on that aspect of it, but it's a reality here that they're dealing with.
One of the things that happened over the week that was positive for the Bush administration, is the fact that they did get Congress to pass the $87.5 billion for reconstruction, for military operations. And the big victory with that was the fact that they were able to get all grants and no loans, as the president had lobbied personally, very aggressively, to Congress. Because it essential guarantees he's not going to have to go back to Congress within the year asking for more money during a campaign season.
COHEN: And Suzanne, the president also saw some success in elections in Kentucky and in other parts of the country as well.
MALVEAUX: Kentucky and Mississippi, those gubernatorial races very important. I mean, you were talking about the Republican Party that is dominating not only the House, not only the Senate, and now you're talking about these statewide offices. And this really was a litmus test.
The administration looking at those particular states and saying, if we can win these battleground states, if we can actually get the support, then this put us in a much better position. We'll have our machine in place for next year, when it really means -- when it really makes a difference to turn out the vote.
HINOJOSA: All right. Well, President Bush was at the center of another major debate this week over abortion and whether the law he signed will stand. I'm back on that story in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: There are warnings this weekend that al Qaeda could be using cargo planes here in the United States as weapons. CNN's Kathleen Koch is in Arlington, Virginia, at Ronald Reagan National Airport, braving the wind, as well as the noise.
Kathleen, tell us, what is the story?
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, this is something that many people have been concerned about since 9/11. But this is the first direct warning from both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. And it goes out to air cargo carriers, and also to state and local law enforcement. And what they're warning is that al Qaeda terrorists might consider using a cargo plane as a weapon.
CNN also spoke separately yesterday with a senior U.S. official who says that there has, indeed, been chatter from al Qaeda terrorists, suggesting that they might consider even bringing in a cargo plane from outside the U.S. and then crashing it into a strategic target here in the United States, such as a nuclear power plant, such as a dam, something like that.
The official did caution that that comes from just one source and it is so far uncorroborated. But I spoke just a few moments ago with a cargo pilot, Leon Lalagian (ph), and he speaks for an association of pilots that do fly cargo carriers. And he said this is just the sort of thing they've been worrying about.
He pointed out that about 50 to 60 percent of cargo planes don't even have cockpit doors. Those that do have cockpit doors, only 20 to 30 percent of those are reinforced. And he pointed out, they do also, from time to time, carry passengers, people who are couriers, managers for cargo associations, for air cargo carriers like FedEx, UPS.
And also, then there's this whole issue of cargo that goes into those planes -- it's never screened. Hence, take a look at the situation of that young man back in September, the New York man who flew himself -- put himself into a crate and flew himself to his parents' home in Dallas. So it points out a lot of vulnerabilities, a lot of weaknesses.
MALVEAUX: Well, Kathleen, thank you very much. And we are going to move on, on the story now, to the abortion debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. The spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HINOJOSA: President Bush on Wednesday signing the new law to ban one kind of abortion. Welcome back. We're on that story.
Now, interestingly enough, it was not just a couple of hours after he had signed this act, which was the first time since Roe v Wade has been named into law, that there has been any kind of restriction put on any kind of abortion. But immediately, you had a Nebraska judge putting a temporary restraining order on four doctors in their area who perform these late-term abortions. And in the courts, here in New York, in federal court, you had lawyers for the ACLU and for the government arguing in front a federal judge, also asking for a restraining order. And within the next 24 hours, in fact, this New York federal judge did say -- did grant this temporary restraining order against this ban going into effect. And that would pretty much affect about half of the doctors across the country who perform abortions.
So the president has said that he's going to fight every -- take every legal battle that he can to make this ban go forward. So this is just the beginning, really, of another legal debate over abortion.
MALVEAUX: This was very important for the president personally, as well as politically. He satisfied the agenda of the social conservatives. And then, at the same time, he said he didn't think the country was ready for a ban on all abortions, really sending a signal to that same constituency that this is about as far as we're going to go here. But really setting up his base of support for the re-election season.
What made this situation unique? I know that this is a very unique procedure. But why did it galvanize so many people and so much support?
HINOJOSA: Well, there were lots and lots of hearings on Congress about this. And what this specific kind of ban is about is about a late term of abortion called an intact D&E. That's the medical term, which means intact dilation and evacuation.
Depending on who you speak to, those who support abortion rights say that this particular ban could be interpreted as to be so broad that perhaps any abortion being performed after 12 weeks might be effected. On the other hand, those who are against abortion say that this was a very specific kind of a ban, just on this kind of late-term abortion.
But it's important to note that it's a difficult -- it's a difficult procedure. I mean, Elizabeth, you're the medical reporter, you know this. It's the kind of procedure that happens very, very rarely. Mostly in the case of protecting a woman's health, or in the case of a fetus that is just so badly deformed that it may cause problems for the woman. But it depends on who you're talking to.
The abortion foes say this was just about this very particular kind of late-term abortion. But the abortion rights people are saying this is just the first step of the Bush administration incrementally rolling back the abortion rights that we have in this country.
ROMANS: Maria, it's interesting to me this is an issue that can still make people very, very hot-tempered on both sides of the debate. Semantics are so important. There are those who would say calling it a partial birth abortion is unfair in the first place, that that's sort of the anti-abortion way of making it sound really horrible, when in fact it is such a rare procedure.
HINOJOSA: Exactly. And that's why, you know, when you talk to a lot of people about, what does this mean? Look, it's an uncomfortable situation. Anybody who has been through an abortion knows that they're difficult.
And to think about a woman having to go through a late-term abortion like this, I mean, my god, it must just be extraordinarily painful. But what has happened -- and this is what the conservatives and Republicans have been able to do -- is that most people now refer to this as the partial-birth abortion, when, in fact, it really is, again, medically referred to in this very specific term of intact D&E. But the language has changed now, and we're all dealing with that in this country.
COHEN: Well, coming up on our show next, we'll go from abortion to aging. Coming up ON THE STORY, some people are working hard to stop the clock and hold on to their youth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's those habits that ultimately put you on some kind of path to fountain of youth. You most definitely can stall the clock or even reverse it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: $9,400? Wow. I'm going to spend almost $10,000 a year to look younger and I'm only 37?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But Elizabeth, you only have one face. Look at it as an investment in your beauty future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: That was me talking to a beauty consultant and hearing just how much cold, hard cash it takes for what she calls an investment in my beauty future. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY of "The Fountain of Youth," a "CNN Presents" special that will be shown tomorrow evening at 8:00.
And so what we did for the special is, I went to a beauty consultant and I said, "OK, I'm 37 years old. Do you think I should start worrying about aging at the age of 37?" And we were just shocked when she said, "Oh, yes, I think you should and you should spend nearly $10,000 a year" on things like botox and some other shots and some very high quality, expensive facials that she thought I should get to stave off aging.
And what this points to is this anti-aging boom that we've been seeing in this country, they're targeting people at younger and younger ages. And also, you don't have to spend all that much money.
We go into a strip mall in Atlanta where you can go get botox for as little as $200, and you do it on your lunch hour. You go get a slice of pizza, do a little shopping, get a little botox and you're done. As these prices come down, as it gets much more convenient, the thing that's sort of interesting about this is you sort of get a new normal.
Will everyone be walking around with foreheads that don't move and don't wrinkle? It gives a whole new standard.
HINOJOSA: Yes, but you know what, Elizabeth? Did anybody at all talk about the fact that people just are starting to look really weird and somehow, you know, it's like you used to think that, you know, looking, getting older had a certain kind of look. And now you're looking at people -- I mean, I just point to Paul McCartney and say, what happened to you? And now we're all having to judge ourselves against them and we're looking -- what used to be normal and they're weird, but that's considered normal?
COHEN: Exactly. We actually spoke to a woman who has studied -- a social historian who had studied aging in America. And she said aging is now sort of this disease that you're not supposed to get. You want to stay away from that.
She said, "When I walk around the upper east side of Manhattan, you don't -- women don't have wrinkles on their foreheads anymore because all those women have the money and apparently have the time to go get botox." And so that becomes the standard.
So, yes, that is a concern. And not everyone is taking it lightly. Some people are definitely shocked at this.
And it's also interesting. You say that some people look sort of strange. That's really in the eye of the beholder.
What's interesting, is the team here at CNN did this project. We would look at before and after picture and some of us would say, wow, these people look great and some people would say, wow, these people look really strange.
MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, is there anything that you can do naturally? Perhaps that you could compete with all of this technology, and this medicine? I mean, if you just take good care of yourself, maybe the wrinkles won't show up so soon, or are they really saying that this is an alternative here, that this is the better way to go?
COHEN: Well, certainly healthy living helps. And, in fact, we shot with a couple who are 56 and 58. And they spent a lot of time and a lot of money on eating well and exercising and doing all the right things. And they look a whole lot younger.
They also have had some cosmetic work done. Here you can see, he's 58 and his wife, who we just saw, is 56. And that's their grandchildren.
MALVEAUX: Wow.
COHEN: And they've really made this big effort to look younger, both by using cosmetic approaches and by doing it through exercise and diet. So it's interesting you ask about natural ways. This couple has decide to combine it. And I think that's probably going to be the wave of the future, is if all these things are out there, why not take advantage of all of them?
ROMANS: Unbelievable. How old are they, 58 and 56?
COHEN: He's 58 and she's 56. And I thought they looked at least ten years younger than that.
ROMANS: OK. Now that's not just a chemical peel. We're talking about some serious work here. I mean, that's not a -- that's not a facial and a -- you know, lots of fruits and vegetable, is it?
COHEN: Well, I have to tell you, I don't know, because they would just say they had cosmetic work done and they would not say exactly what they had done. But they were very clear that they were not embarrassed. And that was another trend that we saw as we worked on this project, that this is not an embarrassing thing anymore.
People don't sort of go into hiding when they have their work done. They say, I'm having work done, and they say it's not about vanity, it's about self-esteem. If you look better, you're going to feel better. You're going to be a better friend, you're going to be a better partner, you're going to be a better parent. So the whole discussion has moved away from vanity and moved towards self-esteem.
HINOJOSA: But it's also an issue, Elizabeth, about how people essentially have the time and the money to do these kinds of things. I mean, everybody would like to look like those people look. But you know, a lot of us have to work for a living, get up early, work late hours, breathe in bad air in big cities.
But, you know, I also wonder about, what about genetics? I mean, is there anything -- I mean, I think about my grandmother and, hmm, maybe not in terms of genetic. But what about those of us who have families that just have the ability to live longer? Maybe not looking great, but living longer?
COHEN: Right. Genetics plays an important role. And that's what we talk about the in the second half of our show, is not looking young, but living a long life and living it healthfully.
And so we went to a place called the New England Centenarian Study, where they study people who have reached 100 years old. And believe it or not, they led me, actually, to my own great, great grandmother.
She's 101 years old. She does yoga; she does aerobics. She flies all around the country and she actually lives on her own.
And she had something very interesting, very funny to say that shows her resilience. I think we have her sound bite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to be in my own home as long as I can. And I said, if I can't do that, and I can't enjoy living, she should call Kevorkian. She said, "He's in jail." I said, "Well, get him out. He won't mind."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: So that was my wonderful -- my great, great aunt saying that when she can't live independently, she wants her daughter to call Dr. Kevorkian and just end it. And that is something that they've seen when they look at these centenarians, look at people 100 or older, that their minds are so with it and they're so independent and they're so resilient.
They -- the person -- the doctor who leads this study said, "I have never seen a curmudgeonly centenarian."
ROMANS: Elizabeth, it's so interesting as well, because I will see my grandfather today who is 90. So hopefully that's good genes for me, too. Great. Thanks so much.
How do you pay for your search for the fountain of youth, especially with all the negative reports about mutual fund investments? I'm back on that story in a moment after this and a check of what's making news this hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: These are not just one or two individuals who are unfortunately tarnishing the reputation of others. The cost to investors has been huge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Eliot Spitzer, New York attorney general, one of the people leading the charge against parts of the mutual fund industry. Welcome back. I'm ON THE STORY.
Eliot Spitzer saying you can turn over a rock and vermin crawl out in the mutual fund industry. And then the SEC chief, Bill Donaldson, saying that it's like a disease that has afflicted far too many people in the mutual fund arena.
Really tough stuff this week. In particular, because you're talking about 95 million Americans who are invested in mutual funds; $7 trillion in there. And all these allegations of wrongdoing from the people -- very rich people who run the funds in some cases who are trading for themselves. Lots of different ways that people like you and me, Suzanne, are getting ripped off.
MALVEAUX: So what does that mean? Are we going to get our money back or what?
ROMANS: Well, that's the big question. I mean, everyone's promising restitution. Discorgement (ph) is the big legal term for it.
And the officials are promising that there will be new rules, there will be reforms, there will likely be a very, very big settlement, a la the Wall Street settlement we saw earlier this year. But beware, take a look at what your mutual funds are, where you have them. You'll probably start getting letters in the mail from your brokers and the mutual fund companies, telling you how you can apply for money back.
But essentially, people saying that you could have been effected very minimally, depending on what kind of funds you were in. But if you were in international funds, you have a much better risk of having been ripped off.
COHEN: And Christine, when you say having been ripped off, can you explain exactly -- how did it happen? They -- how did -- sort of, what, this alleged malfeasance lead to us as investors being ripped off?
ROMANS: Well, you know, we've seen a lot of different kinds of scandals. And some people are actually saying this is a good thing, because this is the end of the whole cleansing process for scandals.
First we saw accounting scandals, then we saw CEO scandals. And now we're seeing -- you know, this was supposed to be the place where we were safe. You know, the plain vanilla mom and pop could go in and somebody was managing your money very safely. So you didn't have to be exposed to, you know, the trials and tribulations of daily being in the stock market.
This is a case where some of the mutual fund managers were trading very quickly in and out, or they were letting big influential investors have, you know, better pricing, different pricing, or the ability to move in and out very quickly, while you and I weren't allowed to do that. That's not fair. That allows them to make money at the expense of us.
HINOJOSA: Hey Christine, let's talk a little bit -- turning the corner for those of us who don't look at our mutual fund statements every month because then we just go crazy. There was some good news about the economy, increases in some job areas.
When we were talking about the jobs that were increased, you were talking about bartenders, waitresses. And I thought, well, how good is that? Those are not really, you know, high -- high-earning jobs. You tell us. What does that all mean?
ROMANS: All right. Well, the good news is this is essentially the best week for the economy in about three years. You had jobs grow. And now we've got three months in a row of jobs growth.
That's a good sign. It shows the labor market's on the mend.
You look within the numbers and you see the manufacturing jobs still fell, although not at the pace we were seeing earlier. So there's still that outflow of manufacturing jobs, which is troublesome. And you saw temporary jobs soar; 17,000 temporary jobs added in the month. Six months of temporary job gains.
That's kind of a signal that, you know, CEOs and hiring managers don't want to hire new people yet, but they need people to do work. That can foreshadow real jobs growth later on. But there was also good jobs growth in the service sectors.
Retail, you know, bartenders, waitresses, those sorts of job. But that's also a good thing, because it can be indicative of consumer demand. And that's really a big, important part of the economy. So if you've got those kinds of jobs being added, that shows some strength in the consumer.
MALVEAUX: So what does this mean in the big picture, Christine? Because I know the president likes to say -- and he did this week. He looked at the good numbers and said, well, we've got unemployment down, jobs up, so everybody's going to be doing well, the economy's on the mends here. But what about -- you said manufacturing jobs are down.
And also, what does that mean to the federal deficit? Are we looking at something long term to help the economy, that it is actually improving, or is this just something that's kind of temporary?
ROMANS: Well, some people are quick to say that maybe this isn't an improvement, this is more of a stabilization. And, you know, you have another -- you have to go at this pace for another year before you'd make up a significant number of the jobs that have already been lost. So before everybody will say it's a blockbuster report, they'll say, you know, well, we've still got a lot of work to do.
It takes sort of some of the ammunition away from the Democrats, which is interesting, think, because somebody earlier this week told me that the Democrats were going to hang their hat again this time around in the elections on, "It's the economy, stupid." And now they're saying "It's the stupid economy," because it's getting better, and that takes away one of the legs of their arguments, I guess.
HINOJOSA: All right, Christine. Well, from the economy to where the entertainment world collides with politics, I'm back ON THE STORY of the CBS decision on the Ronald Reagan miniseries when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: It smells of intimidation to me. It sounds to me like they were intimidated and making decisions that reversed earlier ones, and I'm disappointed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HINOJOSA: Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, like many others this week, making CBS a punching bag. The issue, the Ronald Reagan miniseries few have seen, but many have dissected. Welcome back. We're on that story now.
Well, it really depends on who you believe on this story. Was this a case of censorship? Was this a case of conservative and Republican groups putting enough pressure on prestigious network to cave?
Was this a case, instead, of maybe a network deciding that they wanted to show some respect to a president who is still alive, who's vulnerable? He has Alzheimer's; he can't defend himself. Or was about a network just saying, look, once we saw the finished product, it wasn't good enough, it wasn't balanced enough, and we're pulling it? It really depends on who you believe.
COHEN: Now Maria, there's been different -- as you said, different kinds of opinions on this. Was the problem that the documentary was -- or drama, I should say -- it was not a documentary -- was unbalanced? Or were there actually inaccuracies in it? Did it show things that didn't really happen?
HINOJOSA: You know, again, it depends on who you believe. According to the producers, they say that they have sources for every statement that was made in the movie. No, it's not a documentary, it is a drama. But they say that they did go back and source all of this.
But one of the things that really was central to the debate was this particularly statement that allegedly Ronald Reagan said, which is regarding to those people who have AIDS, "Those who live by the sin may die by the sin." Whether or not he actually said that, they weren't able to prove that.
Gay and lesbian groups came back and said, whether or not he said that, the record shows that the Ronald Reagan presidency was not doing good work in terms of AIDS. They say that Ronald Reagan didn't say the word "AIDS" until six years into his presidency. So a lot of the debate was around the whole issue of what the president did or didn't do regarding AIDS.
MALVEAUX: So Maria, is the stand of CBS now saying, whatever we show on our programming, whether it's entertainment or otherwise, has to be historically accurate? Is that the bar they're now setting?
HINOJOSA: You know, they've opened themselves up to that criticism at this point. They are the ones who have basically said -- I think it's hard to know where we go from here. The media analyst I spoke to said exactly that.
They have, you know what? They have raised a bar now and this is going to be very difficult.
One thing that I did get, though, because they're going to air this Ronald Reagan on Showtime, which is also owned by Viacom, like CBS. But this is what the producers, who were big-time producers -- I mean, they produced the movie "Chicago." And they said, "Although we're disappointed that CBS will not be airing the movie that we produced for them with a script that they approved, we're excited that Showtime is going to show this."
So they were kind of jabbing at them and saying, you know what CBS, you saw this script. You knew it was out there. And it was only when it became controversial, when it was covered in the entertainment media and "The New York Times," that suddenly you pulled back.
ROMANS: I guess I'm kind of surprised that CBS thought that, you know, people actually believe everything they see on television and they don't think that there are creative liberties taken when any story is told. You know, I think of the Jessica Lynch story that will be on television, the Martha Stewart story on television. And people who are in the public light, people who are public figures, there are often very many different interpretations of just how important their role was or things they said or did. I mean, I'm just surprised that people were expecting that it had to be true to life.
HINOJOSA: Well, again, the media analysts that I was speaking to were saying, you know, what's interesting here is how the Republican Party, how those conservative groups that align themselves with the Republican Party were basically able to put enough pressure on this network to rethink this all. And whether or not -- what does the other side do?
I mean, for people who are saying, oh my god, this is horrible, this is censorship, we want to see it, let us judge for ourselves, where do they speak out? I mean, who do they organize around with?
You didn't see the ACLU suddenly saying that they're going to put a lawsuit against CBS. So it kind of is, well, on the one hand, there's this organized force that was able to do this, but what does the rest of the country do in response to this? And there hasn't been an answer to that.
ROMANS: Meanwhile, a lot of publicity which, you know, is never a bad thing from a network point of view.
From drama to courtroom comedy, at least the occasional laugh when comedian Rosie O'Donnell was in court this week battling the publisher of her magazine. I'm back with that story after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROSIE O'DONNELL, FMR. TALK SHOW HOST: My name is Rosie O'Donnell. I know what I stand for. I own the name. I created it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: A deadly serious moment for Rosie O'Donnell this week outside the New York courtroom, where she's fighting a bitter legal battle over the failed magazine "Rosie."
Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.
This is a $100 million dispute heading to court. Rosie O'Donnell says the magazine bore her name and that she was being robbed of some creative control and important other control. It's almost a food fight in terms of the accusations going back and forth. And a pretty interesting trial to cover in this day and age of all this corporate corruption.
This is a good old-fashioned media fight. It's interesting; Maria Hinojosa has been covering this trial. This is a court reporter's dream.
You've got Rosie O'Donnell, the celebrity, coming down the stairs, talking to reporters. Her lawyers having to move her along because she's almost talking too much about this. Plenty of sound to go around.
HINOJOSA: You know what, Christine? I've got to tell you. I've covered a lot of trials, but I have never been in a courtroom that breaks into applause -- I mean, laughter and applause. I mean, laughter, OK.
So she's on the stand yesterday, and at some point there's a question about an e-mail that she wrote that said "If I were the boss of this magazine, and I know I'm not..." And her then her lawyer said, "Well, why did you say that?" And she said, "Well, you know, when we were kids, my brothers and sisters used to joke around, 'I'm not the boss of you, you're not the boss of me, I'm not the boss of you.'"
She kind of went on for awhile. The lawyers object, which was kind of like, what are you objecting about? And then there was silence. And then Rosie turns to the judge and says, "You're the boss of me." And the whole courtroom erupts into laughter and applause.
But what I find interesting here is that, even though Rosie O'Donnell of course is going to say that this is a contractual dispute, what I find interesting is more kind of the ideological battle. Here's this Rosie O'Donnell, kind of brash, publicly gay, very liberal, interested in issues like gun control. What she wanted on her magazine was people looking normal. She said, I don't want these quaffed, size four airbrushed models.
She didn't want to go kind of the perfectionist Martha Stewart way, or the overindulgent Oprah way. She knew what she wanted. And she's had this control over her TV show.
And suddenly she goes into this deal with this German company that says, you know what? We know what sells, we want it to sell, and kind of, stand by because we're taking control. And she's like, hey, it's my brand. So it's been fascinating.
MALVEAUX: It's very confusing, though, too, what she wants. Because I guess I was reading reports that she was upset the way she was portrayed on her cover. She also wanted Mike Tyson and his little baby on the cover. Well, what was that about?
HINOJOSA: Well, look, I mean, what Rosie O'Donnell says is that it's not about her. That she didn't make her career -- this is what she said in court yesterday -- she didn't make her fortune off celebrating herself, but off of celebrating other people.
So what does she want? I think that part of what's interesting here is Rosie O'Donnell kind of finding her way in all of this. You know, she's a woman who has come into a lot of -- a lot of fame. And she continues to kind of say, I'm for the little person, I'm for those issues that, perhaps, aren't hot. You know, I mean, she was very much involved in the issue of gay adoption.
So I think she's kind of trying to find out what she wants. She knew she wanted to do a magazine. She thought she wanted to do it with this particular corporation.
But now I think it's like, well, what does Rosie do next? I mean, interestingly, there were people out there with their saverosie.com T-shirts. What a circus.
COHEN: But you know what, Maria? Enough about Rosie. I want to talk about Suzanne Malveaux.
Suzanne, you did something incredible recently. You ran the Marine Corp marathon. And there you are. How did it go? Smiling, no less.
MALVEAUX: Well, that was a rare moment, I have to tell you. That doesn't really capture the race there. Well, I did it in five hours and 36 minutes.
COHEN: Oh, my god.
MALVEAUX: A long five hours and 36 minutes. That means -- who beat my time? Oprah Winfrey beat my time by an hour. P. Diddy beat my time by at least an hour. And a couple of old ladies I saw passing me by. I mean, it was like unbelievable.
ROMANS: At what point in the race did you want to start crying? I mean, that's got to be incredible.
MALVEAUX: You know, I was crying, actually. I'm not exaggerating. I was crying.
I guess it was the last six miles or so, mile 20. And the 14th Street Bridge was amazing, because you did see people peeling off. And there were the ambulances and this.
And this big bus that follows you. And if you don't get past the 14th Street Bridge at a certain time, the bus comes and scoops you up. So the idea is to beat the bus because the bus is behind you. But it was really extraordinary. It was a lot of fun.
ROMANS: Did you take the day off or anything? The next day? I mean...
MALVEAUX: I couldn't get the day off. I asked for the next day off. I said, if I sound like an idiot, it's your fault. But it was really fun. ROMANS: All right. Speaking of the White House, President Bush gets his say in his weekly radio address. That's when we come back ON THE STORY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: Well, thanks to my colleagues. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.
Still ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS" focusing this week on movie star Russell Crowe and country singer Tim McGraw. And at 12:00 noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, "CNN LIVE SATURDAY." And at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, 10:00 a.m. Pacific, CNN's "IN THE MONEY."
Coming up at the top of the hour a check of the top stories. But first, the president's weekly radio address.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
attacks in Iraq; A Story on the New abortion Ban Law>
Aired November 8, 2003 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of how the president meets the challenge of deadly attacks in Iraq.
MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN URBAN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in New York, on the story of how the president signed into law a new abortion ban and set off a new legal battle.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen in Atlanta, on the story of the fountain of youth, new efforts to stave off old age.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Christine Romans, on the story of troubles in the mutual fund industry, where 95 million Americans have invested for retirement.
Also coming up, we'll talk about why CBS pulled the plug on the Reagan miniseries. And we're on the story of how a New York courtroom is the latest stage for comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
Later, we'll listen the president's weekly radio address.
And we want to hear from you at onthestory@cnn.com.
Now, straight ahead to Suzanne and the president and Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We mourn every loss. We honor every name. We grieve with every family. And we will always be grateful that liberty has found such brave defenders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: President Bush, speaking Monday in Birmingham, Alabama, referring, of course, to the death of 16 U.S. soldiers in a weekend helicopter shoot-down. Since then, the death toll keeps rising.
This was a very, very difficult week for the Bush administration. The president and his aides, trying to explain what went wrong. And one of the things that the president, the administration, realizes that it has to do, at the same time it has to comfort and mourn those, of course, who have lost their loved ones, but express this resolve and try to convince the American people that American security is at stake here when it comes to the war on terror.
But obviously, it is a difficult case. The administration trying to make that, yes, we are going to stay; we're going to stay the long haul. There are many people who came out this week saying that either you need more U.S. troops or pull those troops out. It's too dangerous a mission.
It was just today that the Red Cross announced it was pulling out of Baghdad altogether. You have the United Nations, a skeletal group that's on the ground. The Bush administration really juggling a lot of different issues in balancing how to win the support of the American people, at the same time, recognizing that the international community, many in the international community are pulling out.
COHEN: Suzanne, there was news this week -- speaking of more troops -- that the president is going to be rotating in thousands of more troops with the new year. Was that a surprise that they would be needing that many more people to -- in the region?
MALVEAUX: You know what it was, Elizabeth? It was a disappointment, essentially, because what happened was -- you know this administration was talking about the fact that they were trying to generate enough international support to get a multinational force on the ground, that they already had two elements, two components. But they wanted a third force so they wouldn't have to go ahead and call up those troops.
What this reflects, what the administration realizes it reflects, is a failure to get those countries together, to get those allies' support, so you don't have to call up more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers, troops, even Reservists and Marines that are going to have to go in this fight.
HINOJOSA: You know, Suzanne, it was a rough week for the president. In fact, here in New York, New Yorkers are waking up to seeing this headline on "New York Newsday": "The Deadliest Week." And it was the deadliest week.
But I'm wondering, Suzanne, the president has not, according to "The Washington Post," attended any funerals, any memorials for these soldiers. They've now put a ban on coverage of these bodies coming into Dover Air Force Field. How is it -- and you also were talking about how he seems to be a little out of touch on the issue of these deaths and these casualties. Tell us about what happened when he made a statement, thinking that there were just men who were killed, but, in fact, they also included a woman soldier.
MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. The president did make remarks, and what he said was that he recognized there were servicemen who were killed. He did not realize that there was a service woman who had also been killed. It was in the papers.
What this reflects is the administration's strategy, essentially, to say, look, the administration, the president, is not going to react, is not going to make comments based on every single tragedy that happens. Every loss is important. But of course, they don't want to make too much out of this, because they never really know if the next weekend is going to be even worse than the one before.
They can't even set the threshold for this. It is deliberate that you don't see the president going out there to the funerals, talking to those families, because they know this is a long haul here. And they don't want to emphasize -- put too much emphasis on the bad news, on the negative here, because it's going to be a long time coming.
ROMANS: But Suzanne, is that at the risk of appearing -- I don't know, you know, cold, I guess, or insensitive to what's going on? I mean, there are people out there who maybe would want to see the president shed a tear, or stand there and salute, you know, coffins coming back.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely. It's a balancing act as well. And Maria, you brought up a very good point, which is the access, some of the pictures to seeing those soldiers, to seeing those caskets come home. And they don't necessarily want to dwell on that aspect of it, but it's a reality here that they're dealing with.
One of the things that happened over the week that was positive for the Bush administration, is the fact that they did get Congress to pass the $87.5 billion for reconstruction, for military operations. And the big victory with that was the fact that they were able to get all grants and no loans, as the president had lobbied personally, very aggressively, to Congress. Because it essential guarantees he's not going to have to go back to Congress within the year asking for more money during a campaign season.
COHEN: And Suzanne, the president also saw some success in elections in Kentucky and in other parts of the country as well.
MALVEAUX: Kentucky and Mississippi, those gubernatorial races very important. I mean, you were talking about the Republican Party that is dominating not only the House, not only the Senate, and now you're talking about these statewide offices. And this really was a litmus test.
The administration looking at those particular states and saying, if we can win these battleground states, if we can actually get the support, then this put us in a much better position. We'll have our machine in place for next year, when it really means -- when it really makes a difference to turn out the vote.
HINOJOSA: All right. Well, President Bush was at the center of another major debate this week over abortion and whether the law he signed will stand. I'm back on that story in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: There are warnings this weekend that al Qaeda could be using cargo planes here in the United States as weapons. CNN's Kathleen Koch is in Arlington, Virginia, at Ronald Reagan National Airport, braving the wind, as well as the noise.
Kathleen, tell us, what is the story?
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, this is something that many people have been concerned about since 9/11. But this is the first direct warning from both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. And it goes out to air cargo carriers, and also to state and local law enforcement. And what they're warning is that al Qaeda terrorists might consider using a cargo plane as a weapon.
CNN also spoke separately yesterday with a senior U.S. official who says that there has, indeed, been chatter from al Qaeda terrorists, suggesting that they might consider even bringing in a cargo plane from outside the U.S. and then crashing it into a strategic target here in the United States, such as a nuclear power plant, such as a dam, something like that.
The official did caution that that comes from just one source and it is so far uncorroborated. But I spoke just a few moments ago with a cargo pilot, Leon Lalagian (ph), and he speaks for an association of pilots that do fly cargo carriers. And he said this is just the sort of thing they've been worrying about.
He pointed out that about 50 to 60 percent of cargo planes don't even have cockpit doors. Those that do have cockpit doors, only 20 to 30 percent of those are reinforced. And he pointed out, they do also, from time to time, carry passengers, people who are couriers, managers for cargo associations, for air cargo carriers like FedEx, UPS.
And also, then there's this whole issue of cargo that goes into those planes -- it's never screened. Hence, take a look at the situation of that young man back in September, the New York man who flew himself -- put himself into a crate and flew himself to his parents' home in Dallas. So it points out a lot of vulnerabilities, a lot of weaknesses.
MALVEAUX: Well, Kathleen, thank you very much. And we are going to move on, on the story now, to the abortion debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. The spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HINOJOSA: President Bush on Wednesday signing the new law to ban one kind of abortion. Welcome back. We're on that story.
Now, interestingly enough, it was not just a couple of hours after he had signed this act, which was the first time since Roe v Wade has been named into law, that there has been any kind of restriction put on any kind of abortion. But immediately, you had a Nebraska judge putting a temporary restraining order on four doctors in their area who perform these late-term abortions. And in the courts, here in New York, in federal court, you had lawyers for the ACLU and for the government arguing in front a federal judge, also asking for a restraining order. And within the next 24 hours, in fact, this New York federal judge did say -- did grant this temporary restraining order against this ban going into effect. And that would pretty much affect about half of the doctors across the country who perform abortions.
So the president has said that he's going to fight every -- take every legal battle that he can to make this ban go forward. So this is just the beginning, really, of another legal debate over abortion.
MALVEAUX: This was very important for the president personally, as well as politically. He satisfied the agenda of the social conservatives. And then, at the same time, he said he didn't think the country was ready for a ban on all abortions, really sending a signal to that same constituency that this is about as far as we're going to go here. But really setting up his base of support for the re-election season.
What made this situation unique? I know that this is a very unique procedure. But why did it galvanize so many people and so much support?
HINOJOSA: Well, there were lots and lots of hearings on Congress about this. And what this specific kind of ban is about is about a late term of abortion called an intact D&E. That's the medical term, which means intact dilation and evacuation.
Depending on who you speak to, those who support abortion rights say that this particular ban could be interpreted as to be so broad that perhaps any abortion being performed after 12 weeks might be effected. On the other hand, those who are against abortion say that this was a very specific kind of a ban, just on this kind of late-term abortion.
But it's important to note that it's a difficult -- it's a difficult procedure. I mean, Elizabeth, you're the medical reporter, you know this. It's the kind of procedure that happens very, very rarely. Mostly in the case of protecting a woman's health, or in the case of a fetus that is just so badly deformed that it may cause problems for the woman. But it depends on who you're talking to.
The abortion foes say this was just about this very particular kind of late-term abortion. But the abortion rights people are saying this is just the first step of the Bush administration incrementally rolling back the abortion rights that we have in this country.
ROMANS: Maria, it's interesting to me this is an issue that can still make people very, very hot-tempered on both sides of the debate. Semantics are so important. There are those who would say calling it a partial birth abortion is unfair in the first place, that that's sort of the anti-abortion way of making it sound really horrible, when in fact it is such a rare procedure.
HINOJOSA: Exactly. And that's why, you know, when you talk to a lot of people about, what does this mean? Look, it's an uncomfortable situation. Anybody who has been through an abortion knows that they're difficult.
And to think about a woman having to go through a late-term abortion like this, I mean, my god, it must just be extraordinarily painful. But what has happened -- and this is what the conservatives and Republicans have been able to do -- is that most people now refer to this as the partial-birth abortion, when, in fact, it really is, again, medically referred to in this very specific term of intact D&E. But the language has changed now, and we're all dealing with that in this country.
COHEN: Well, coming up on our show next, we'll go from abortion to aging. Coming up ON THE STORY, some people are working hard to stop the clock and hold on to their youth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's those habits that ultimately put you on some kind of path to fountain of youth. You most definitely can stall the clock or even reverse it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: $9,400? Wow. I'm going to spend almost $10,000 a year to look younger and I'm only 37?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But Elizabeth, you only have one face. Look at it as an investment in your beauty future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: That was me talking to a beauty consultant and hearing just how much cold, hard cash it takes for what she calls an investment in my beauty future. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY of "The Fountain of Youth," a "CNN Presents" special that will be shown tomorrow evening at 8:00.
And so what we did for the special is, I went to a beauty consultant and I said, "OK, I'm 37 years old. Do you think I should start worrying about aging at the age of 37?" And we were just shocked when she said, "Oh, yes, I think you should and you should spend nearly $10,000 a year" on things like botox and some other shots and some very high quality, expensive facials that she thought I should get to stave off aging.
And what this points to is this anti-aging boom that we've been seeing in this country, they're targeting people at younger and younger ages. And also, you don't have to spend all that much money.
We go into a strip mall in Atlanta where you can go get botox for as little as $200, and you do it on your lunch hour. You go get a slice of pizza, do a little shopping, get a little botox and you're done. As these prices come down, as it gets much more convenient, the thing that's sort of interesting about this is you sort of get a new normal.
Will everyone be walking around with foreheads that don't move and don't wrinkle? It gives a whole new standard.
HINOJOSA: Yes, but you know what, Elizabeth? Did anybody at all talk about the fact that people just are starting to look really weird and somehow, you know, it's like you used to think that, you know, looking, getting older had a certain kind of look. And now you're looking at people -- I mean, I just point to Paul McCartney and say, what happened to you? And now we're all having to judge ourselves against them and we're looking -- what used to be normal and they're weird, but that's considered normal?
COHEN: Exactly. We actually spoke to a woman who has studied -- a social historian who had studied aging in America. And she said aging is now sort of this disease that you're not supposed to get. You want to stay away from that.
She said, "When I walk around the upper east side of Manhattan, you don't -- women don't have wrinkles on their foreheads anymore because all those women have the money and apparently have the time to go get botox." And so that becomes the standard.
So, yes, that is a concern. And not everyone is taking it lightly. Some people are definitely shocked at this.
And it's also interesting. You say that some people look sort of strange. That's really in the eye of the beholder.
What's interesting, is the team here at CNN did this project. We would look at before and after picture and some of us would say, wow, these people look great and some people would say, wow, these people look really strange.
MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, is there anything that you can do naturally? Perhaps that you could compete with all of this technology, and this medicine? I mean, if you just take good care of yourself, maybe the wrinkles won't show up so soon, or are they really saying that this is an alternative here, that this is the better way to go?
COHEN: Well, certainly healthy living helps. And, in fact, we shot with a couple who are 56 and 58. And they spent a lot of time and a lot of money on eating well and exercising and doing all the right things. And they look a whole lot younger.
They also have had some cosmetic work done. Here you can see, he's 58 and his wife, who we just saw, is 56. And that's their grandchildren.
MALVEAUX: Wow.
COHEN: And they've really made this big effort to look younger, both by using cosmetic approaches and by doing it through exercise and diet. So it's interesting you ask about natural ways. This couple has decide to combine it. And I think that's probably going to be the wave of the future, is if all these things are out there, why not take advantage of all of them?
ROMANS: Unbelievable. How old are they, 58 and 56?
COHEN: He's 58 and she's 56. And I thought they looked at least ten years younger than that.
ROMANS: OK. Now that's not just a chemical peel. We're talking about some serious work here. I mean, that's not a -- that's not a facial and a -- you know, lots of fruits and vegetable, is it?
COHEN: Well, I have to tell you, I don't know, because they would just say they had cosmetic work done and they would not say exactly what they had done. But they were very clear that they were not embarrassed. And that was another trend that we saw as we worked on this project, that this is not an embarrassing thing anymore.
People don't sort of go into hiding when they have their work done. They say, I'm having work done, and they say it's not about vanity, it's about self-esteem. If you look better, you're going to feel better. You're going to be a better friend, you're going to be a better partner, you're going to be a better parent. So the whole discussion has moved away from vanity and moved towards self-esteem.
HINOJOSA: But it's also an issue, Elizabeth, about how people essentially have the time and the money to do these kinds of things. I mean, everybody would like to look like those people look. But you know, a lot of us have to work for a living, get up early, work late hours, breathe in bad air in big cities.
But, you know, I also wonder about, what about genetics? I mean, is there anything -- I mean, I think about my grandmother and, hmm, maybe not in terms of genetic. But what about those of us who have families that just have the ability to live longer? Maybe not looking great, but living longer?
COHEN: Right. Genetics plays an important role. And that's what we talk about the in the second half of our show, is not looking young, but living a long life and living it healthfully.
And so we went to a place called the New England Centenarian Study, where they study people who have reached 100 years old. And believe it or not, they led me, actually, to my own great, great grandmother.
She's 101 years old. She does yoga; she does aerobics. She flies all around the country and she actually lives on her own.
And she had something very interesting, very funny to say that shows her resilience. I think we have her sound bite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to be in my own home as long as I can. And I said, if I can't do that, and I can't enjoy living, she should call Kevorkian. She said, "He's in jail." I said, "Well, get him out. He won't mind."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: So that was my wonderful -- my great, great aunt saying that when she can't live independently, she wants her daughter to call Dr. Kevorkian and just end it. And that is something that they've seen when they look at these centenarians, look at people 100 or older, that their minds are so with it and they're so independent and they're so resilient.
They -- the person -- the doctor who leads this study said, "I have never seen a curmudgeonly centenarian."
ROMANS: Elizabeth, it's so interesting as well, because I will see my grandfather today who is 90. So hopefully that's good genes for me, too. Great. Thanks so much.
How do you pay for your search for the fountain of youth, especially with all the negative reports about mutual fund investments? I'm back on that story in a moment after this and a check of what's making news this hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: These are not just one or two individuals who are unfortunately tarnishing the reputation of others. The cost to investors has been huge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Eliot Spitzer, New York attorney general, one of the people leading the charge against parts of the mutual fund industry. Welcome back. I'm ON THE STORY.
Eliot Spitzer saying you can turn over a rock and vermin crawl out in the mutual fund industry. And then the SEC chief, Bill Donaldson, saying that it's like a disease that has afflicted far too many people in the mutual fund arena.
Really tough stuff this week. In particular, because you're talking about 95 million Americans who are invested in mutual funds; $7 trillion in there. And all these allegations of wrongdoing from the people -- very rich people who run the funds in some cases who are trading for themselves. Lots of different ways that people like you and me, Suzanne, are getting ripped off.
MALVEAUX: So what does that mean? Are we going to get our money back or what?
ROMANS: Well, that's the big question. I mean, everyone's promising restitution. Discorgement (ph) is the big legal term for it.
And the officials are promising that there will be new rules, there will be reforms, there will likely be a very, very big settlement, a la the Wall Street settlement we saw earlier this year. But beware, take a look at what your mutual funds are, where you have them. You'll probably start getting letters in the mail from your brokers and the mutual fund companies, telling you how you can apply for money back.
But essentially, people saying that you could have been effected very minimally, depending on what kind of funds you were in. But if you were in international funds, you have a much better risk of having been ripped off.
COHEN: And Christine, when you say having been ripped off, can you explain exactly -- how did it happen? They -- how did -- sort of, what, this alleged malfeasance lead to us as investors being ripped off?
ROMANS: Well, you know, we've seen a lot of different kinds of scandals. And some people are actually saying this is a good thing, because this is the end of the whole cleansing process for scandals.
First we saw accounting scandals, then we saw CEO scandals. And now we're seeing -- you know, this was supposed to be the place where we were safe. You know, the plain vanilla mom and pop could go in and somebody was managing your money very safely. So you didn't have to be exposed to, you know, the trials and tribulations of daily being in the stock market.
This is a case where some of the mutual fund managers were trading very quickly in and out, or they were letting big influential investors have, you know, better pricing, different pricing, or the ability to move in and out very quickly, while you and I weren't allowed to do that. That's not fair. That allows them to make money at the expense of us.
HINOJOSA: Hey Christine, let's talk a little bit -- turning the corner for those of us who don't look at our mutual fund statements every month because then we just go crazy. There was some good news about the economy, increases in some job areas.
When we were talking about the jobs that were increased, you were talking about bartenders, waitresses. And I thought, well, how good is that? Those are not really, you know, high -- high-earning jobs. You tell us. What does that all mean?
ROMANS: All right. Well, the good news is this is essentially the best week for the economy in about three years. You had jobs grow. And now we've got three months in a row of jobs growth.
That's a good sign. It shows the labor market's on the mend.
You look within the numbers and you see the manufacturing jobs still fell, although not at the pace we were seeing earlier. So there's still that outflow of manufacturing jobs, which is troublesome. And you saw temporary jobs soar; 17,000 temporary jobs added in the month. Six months of temporary job gains.
That's kind of a signal that, you know, CEOs and hiring managers don't want to hire new people yet, but they need people to do work. That can foreshadow real jobs growth later on. But there was also good jobs growth in the service sectors.
Retail, you know, bartenders, waitresses, those sorts of job. But that's also a good thing, because it can be indicative of consumer demand. And that's really a big, important part of the economy. So if you've got those kinds of jobs being added, that shows some strength in the consumer.
MALVEAUX: So what does this mean in the big picture, Christine? Because I know the president likes to say -- and he did this week. He looked at the good numbers and said, well, we've got unemployment down, jobs up, so everybody's going to be doing well, the economy's on the mends here. But what about -- you said manufacturing jobs are down.
And also, what does that mean to the federal deficit? Are we looking at something long term to help the economy, that it is actually improving, or is this just something that's kind of temporary?
ROMANS: Well, some people are quick to say that maybe this isn't an improvement, this is more of a stabilization. And, you know, you have another -- you have to go at this pace for another year before you'd make up a significant number of the jobs that have already been lost. So before everybody will say it's a blockbuster report, they'll say, you know, well, we've still got a lot of work to do.
It takes sort of some of the ammunition away from the Democrats, which is interesting, think, because somebody earlier this week told me that the Democrats were going to hang their hat again this time around in the elections on, "It's the economy, stupid." And now they're saying "It's the stupid economy," because it's getting better, and that takes away one of the legs of their arguments, I guess.
HINOJOSA: All right, Christine. Well, from the economy to where the entertainment world collides with politics, I'm back ON THE STORY of the CBS decision on the Ronald Reagan miniseries when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: It smells of intimidation to me. It sounds to me like they were intimidated and making decisions that reversed earlier ones, and I'm disappointed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HINOJOSA: Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, like many others this week, making CBS a punching bag. The issue, the Ronald Reagan miniseries few have seen, but many have dissected. Welcome back. We're on that story now.
Well, it really depends on who you believe on this story. Was this a case of censorship? Was this a case of conservative and Republican groups putting enough pressure on prestigious network to cave?
Was this a case, instead, of maybe a network deciding that they wanted to show some respect to a president who is still alive, who's vulnerable? He has Alzheimer's; he can't defend himself. Or was about a network just saying, look, once we saw the finished product, it wasn't good enough, it wasn't balanced enough, and we're pulling it? It really depends on who you believe.
COHEN: Now Maria, there's been different -- as you said, different kinds of opinions on this. Was the problem that the documentary was -- or drama, I should say -- it was not a documentary -- was unbalanced? Or were there actually inaccuracies in it? Did it show things that didn't really happen?
HINOJOSA: You know, again, it depends on who you believe. According to the producers, they say that they have sources for every statement that was made in the movie. No, it's not a documentary, it is a drama. But they say that they did go back and source all of this.
But one of the things that really was central to the debate was this particularly statement that allegedly Ronald Reagan said, which is regarding to those people who have AIDS, "Those who live by the sin may die by the sin." Whether or not he actually said that, they weren't able to prove that.
Gay and lesbian groups came back and said, whether or not he said that, the record shows that the Ronald Reagan presidency was not doing good work in terms of AIDS. They say that Ronald Reagan didn't say the word "AIDS" until six years into his presidency. So a lot of the debate was around the whole issue of what the president did or didn't do regarding AIDS.
MALVEAUX: So Maria, is the stand of CBS now saying, whatever we show on our programming, whether it's entertainment or otherwise, has to be historically accurate? Is that the bar they're now setting?
HINOJOSA: You know, they've opened themselves up to that criticism at this point. They are the ones who have basically said -- I think it's hard to know where we go from here. The media analyst I spoke to said exactly that.
They have, you know what? They have raised a bar now and this is going to be very difficult.
One thing that I did get, though, because they're going to air this Ronald Reagan on Showtime, which is also owned by Viacom, like CBS. But this is what the producers, who were big-time producers -- I mean, they produced the movie "Chicago." And they said, "Although we're disappointed that CBS will not be airing the movie that we produced for them with a script that they approved, we're excited that Showtime is going to show this."
So they were kind of jabbing at them and saying, you know what CBS, you saw this script. You knew it was out there. And it was only when it became controversial, when it was covered in the entertainment media and "The New York Times," that suddenly you pulled back.
ROMANS: I guess I'm kind of surprised that CBS thought that, you know, people actually believe everything they see on television and they don't think that there are creative liberties taken when any story is told. You know, I think of the Jessica Lynch story that will be on television, the Martha Stewart story on television. And people who are in the public light, people who are public figures, there are often very many different interpretations of just how important their role was or things they said or did. I mean, I'm just surprised that people were expecting that it had to be true to life.
HINOJOSA: Well, again, the media analysts that I was speaking to were saying, you know, what's interesting here is how the Republican Party, how those conservative groups that align themselves with the Republican Party were basically able to put enough pressure on this network to rethink this all. And whether or not -- what does the other side do?
I mean, for people who are saying, oh my god, this is horrible, this is censorship, we want to see it, let us judge for ourselves, where do they speak out? I mean, who do they organize around with?
You didn't see the ACLU suddenly saying that they're going to put a lawsuit against CBS. So it kind of is, well, on the one hand, there's this organized force that was able to do this, but what does the rest of the country do in response to this? And there hasn't been an answer to that.
ROMANS: Meanwhile, a lot of publicity which, you know, is never a bad thing from a network point of view.
From drama to courtroom comedy, at least the occasional laugh when comedian Rosie O'Donnell was in court this week battling the publisher of her magazine. I'm back with that story after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROSIE O'DONNELL, FMR. TALK SHOW HOST: My name is Rosie O'Donnell. I know what I stand for. I own the name. I created it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: A deadly serious moment for Rosie O'Donnell this week outside the New York courtroom, where she's fighting a bitter legal battle over the failed magazine "Rosie."
Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.
This is a $100 million dispute heading to court. Rosie O'Donnell says the magazine bore her name and that she was being robbed of some creative control and important other control. It's almost a food fight in terms of the accusations going back and forth. And a pretty interesting trial to cover in this day and age of all this corporate corruption.
This is a good old-fashioned media fight. It's interesting; Maria Hinojosa has been covering this trial. This is a court reporter's dream.
You've got Rosie O'Donnell, the celebrity, coming down the stairs, talking to reporters. Her lawyers having to move her along because she's almost talking too much about this. Plenty of sound to go around.
HINOJOSA: You know what, Christine? I've got to tell you. I've covered a lot of trials, but I have never been in a courtroom that breaks into applause -- I mean, laughter and applause. I mean, laughter, OK.
So she's on the stand yesterday, and at some point there's a question about an e-mail that she wrote that said "If I were the boss of this magazine, and I know I'm not..." And her then her lawyer said, "Well, why did you say that?" And she said, "Well, you know, when we were kids, my brothers and sisters used to joke around, 'I'm not the boss of you, you're not the boss of me, I'm not the boss of you.'"
She kind of went on for awhile. The lawyers object, which was kind of like, what are you objecting about? And then there was silence. And then Rosie turns to the judge and says, "You're the boss of me." And the whole courtroom erupts into laughter and applause.
But what I find interesting here is that, even though Rosie O'Donnell of course is going to say that this is a contractual dispute, what I find interesting is more kind of the ideological battle. Here's this Rosie O'Donnell, kind of brash, publicly gay, very liberal, interested in issues like gun control. What she wanted on her magazine was people looking normal. She said, I don't want these quaffed, size four airbrushed models.
She didn't want to go kind of the perfectionist Martha Stewart way, or the overindulgent Oprah way. She knew what she wanted. And she's had this control over her TV show.
And suddenly she goes into this deal with this German company that says, you know what? We know what sells, we want it to sell, and kind of, stand by because we're taking control. And she's like, hey, it's my brand. So it's been fascinating.
MALVEAUX: It's very confusing, though, too, what she wants. Because I guess I was reading reports that she was upset the way she was portrayed on her cover. She also wanted Mike Tyson and his little baby on the cover. Well, what was that about?
HINOJOSA: Well, look, I mean, what Rosie O'Donnell says is that it's not about her. That she didn't make her career -- this is what she said in court yesterday -- she didn't make her fortune off celebrating herself, but off of celebrating other people.
So what does she want? I think that part of what's interesting here is Rosie O'Donnell kind of finding her way in all of this. You know, she's a woman who has come into a lot of -- a lot of fame. And she continues to kind of say, I'm for the little person, I'm for those issues that, perhaps, aren't hot. You know, I mean, she was very much involved in the issue of gay adoption.
So I think she's kind of trying to find out what she wants. She knew she wanted to do a magazine. She thought she wanted to do it with this particular corporation.
But now I think it's like, well, what does Rosie do next? I mean, interestingly, there were people out there with their saverosie.com T-shirts. What a circus.
COHEN: But you know what, Maria? Enough about Rosie. I want to talk about Suzanne Malveaux.
Suzanne, you did something incredible recently. You ran the Marine Corp marathon. And there you are. How did it go? Smiling, no less.
MALVEAUX: Well, that was a rare moment, I have to tell you. That doesn't really capture the race there. Well, I did it in five hours and 36 minutes.
COHEN: Oh, my god.
MALVEAUX: A long five hours and 36 minutes. That means -- who beat my time? Oprah Winfrey beat my time by an hour. P. Diddy beat my time by at least an hour. And a couple of old ladies I saw passing me by. I mean, it was like unbelievable.
ROMANS: At what point in the race did you want to start crying? I mean, that's got to be incredible.
MALVEAUX: You know, I was crying, actually. I'm not exaggerating. I was crying.
I guess it was the last six miles or so, mile 20. And the 14th Street Bridge was amazing, because you did see people peeling off. And there were the ambulances and this.
And this big bus that follows you. And if you don't get past the 14th Street Bridge at a certain time, the bus comes and scoops you up. So the idea is to beat the bus because the bus is behind you. But it was really extraordinary. It was a lot of fun.
ROMANS: Did you take the day off or anything? The next day? I mean...
MALVEAUX: I couldn't get the day off. I asked for the next day off. I said, if I sound like an idiot, it's your fault. But it was really fun. ROMANS: All right. Speaking of the White House, President Bush gets his say in his weekly radio address. That's when we come back ON THE STORY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: Well, thanks to my colleagues. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.
Still ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS" focusing this week on movie star Russell Crowe and country singer Tim McGraw. And at 12:00 noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, "CNN LIVE SATURDAY." And at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, 10:00 a.m. Pacific, CNN's "IN THE MONEY."
Coming up at the top of the hour a check of the top stories. But first, the president's weekly radio address.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
attacks in Iraq; A Story on the New abortion Ban Law>
