PBS NewsHour full episode August 26, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode August 26, 2019
ArticlesBlog


JOHN YANG: Good evening. I’m John Yang. Judy Woodruff is away. On the “NewsHour” tonight: on the world stage. President Trump tests the limits of going
it alone at an annual meeting of global leaders. Then: follow the money. What campaign fund-raising says about the
race for the White House and how it is narrowing the crowded Democratic field. Plus: the rhythm of the canvas. Painter and sculptor Oliver Lee Jackson gives
us a whirlwind tour of his artistic inspiration. OLIVER LEE JACKSON, Artist: These colors never
stop showing themselves clearly and evenly throughout. The pink throughout doesn’t shift. So the harmonies are never lessened by the
play of the light. JOHN YANG: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JOHN YANG: President Trump is headed home
tonight with no apologies after a weekend at the G7 summit. He defended his policies and tactics today
and played down tensions with the world’s other economic powers. White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor
reports from Biarritz, France. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: At the G7, a public show
of harmony amid deep divisions. Presidents Trump and Macron ended the conference
with the same kind of affection they displayed all weekend. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
If there was any word for this particular meeting of seven very important countries,
it was unity. I think, most important of all, we got along
great. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But the takeaways from the
gathering itself were meager. The seven nations only agreed to a set of
statements that filled a single sheet of paper. On many of the most pressing issues he discussed
with the other leaders, President Trump pointedly disagreed. On Iran, Macron extended a last-minute invitation
to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The French president told Trump about the
invitation only hours before Zarif arrived. Macron urged Iran to return to the nuclear
negotiating table with the United States. The 2015 deal, which Mr. Trump pulled out
of last year, hangs in the balance EMMANUEL MACRON, French President (through
translator): There will have to be a meeting between the Iranian and American presidents. And I would wish that, in the coming weeks,
such a meeting would take place. I want this meeting to happen, and I want
there to be an agreement between the United States and Iran. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump said he
is open to a meeting, but only under the right conditions. DONALD TRUMP: If the circumstances were correct
or right, I would certainly agree to that, but, in the meantime, they have to be good
players. You understand what that means. And they can’t do what they’re saying they’re
going to do, because, if they do that, they’re going to be met with really very violent force. We have no choice. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president also defended
his trade war with China. He said increasing tariffs would encourage
Beijing to make a new trade deal. He also claimed that top Chinese officials
were eager to negotiate. DONALD TRUMP: I do. I think they want to make a deal very badly. Maybe they want to, maybe they don’t, but
I think they want to make a deal. I’m not sure they have a choice. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Sunday was filled with confusion
and communications chaos after the president said he had second thoughts about his strategy
with China. QUESTION: Any second thoughts on escalating
the trade war with China? DONALD TRUMP: Yes, sure. Why not? Might as well. Might as well. QUESTION: You have second thoughts about escalating
the war with China? DONALD TRUMP: I have second thoughts about
everything. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But his aides later said
he was only reflecting on whether he should be even tougher on China. He also said his style of praising and then
criticizing his opponents was a winning one. DONALD TRUMP: Sorry. It’s the way I negotiate. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump also defended
his controversial push to have Russia again attend the annual meeting, returning the summit
to the G8. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people say having Russia,
which is a power, having them inside the room is better than having them outside the room. By the way, there were numerous people during
the G7 that felt that way. And we didn’t take a vote on anything, but
we did discuss it. My inclination is to say, yes, they should
be in. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: He also repeated his incorrect
claim that Russia was kicked out of the group because Russia outsmarted former President
Barack Obama. He claimed an angry Obama engineered the ouster
because of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. DONALD TRUMP: President Putin outsmarted President
Obama. Wait a minute. And I can understand how President Obama would
feel. He wasn’t happy. And they’re not in for that reason. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Why do you keep using the
misleading statement that Russia outsmarted President Obama… DONALD TRUMP: Well, he did. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: … when other countries
have said that the reason why Russia was kicked out was very clearly because they annexed
Crimea? Why do you keep repeating what some people
would see as a clear lie? DONALD TRUMP: It was annexed during President
Obama’s term. If it was annexed during my term, I would
say, sorry, folks. It could have been stopped. But President Obama was unable to stop it,
and it’s too bad. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Russia’s foreign minister
said it has not discussed returning to the G7. Meanwhile, President Trump was the only G7
leader to skip a meeting on climate change, though, in his absence, leaders agreed on
a $20 million aid package to help stop the wildfires in the Amazon. On climate change, the president said he didn’t
want to sacrifice economic progress in the name of the environment. DONALD TRUMP: I’m not going to lose that wealth. I’m not going to lose it on dreams, on windmills,
which, frankly, aren’t working too well. I’m not going to lose it. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: With the end of this summit,
President Macron passed hosting responsibility to President Trump. And he wants to host the 2020 G7 at his resort
in Miami. DONALD TRUMP: With Doral, we have a series
of magnificent buildings, we call them bungalows. They each hold from 50 to 70 very luxurious
rooms with magnificent views. We have incredible conference rooms, incredible
restaurants. It’s like — it’s like such a natural. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Since 2015, Trump Doral’s
operating income has reportedly declined by almost 70 percent. But President Trump dismissed questions about
the ethics of profiting from his presidency. DONALD TRUMP: I’m not going to make any money. In my opinion, I’m not going to make any money. I don’t want to make money. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: It’s still unclear when
President Trump will make his final decision on where to hold the G7 in 2020, but certainly
many people will be watching, John. JOHN YANG: Yamiche, we heard you and saw you
in that news conference press the president about his version of events of why Russian
was kicked out of with a used to be the G8. Why does he stick with his story, the version
of events? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, President Trump is
insisting that Russia outsmarted his predecessor, President Obama, and he wants to stick to
that. Now, it goes with what President Trump has
done in the past, which is blame President Obama when he’s frustrated and when he feels
as though he’s getting unfair criticism. He’s blamed President Obama for child separation,
which is falsely — a false accusation. He also blamed President Obama for not being
tough enough on China. What is clear is that Democrats are already
very frustrated with the stance of President Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer put out
a statement saying it’s appalling that President Trump wants to add Russia back into the G7. He also said that it would make President
Trump look weak. JOHN YANG: Tell us more about the French president’s
efforts to mediate between Iran and the United States. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: It’s clear French President
Emmanuel Macron wants to be a sort of middleman between Iran and the U.S. He said today that Iran is going to be having
to get some sort of economic incentive in order to come back to the negotiating table
and get something better than the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. But President Trump hedged a little. He said he doesn’t want to give Iran any sort
of monetary compensation. But he said something could be worked out
with some sort of oil credit or some sort of letter giving Iran some sort of other kind
of monetary incentive. So it’ll be interesting to see how that plays
out. But Macron definitely wants to play a big
role in that. JOHN YANG: And you also reported, Yamiche,
that the president says he’s losing money as president. What do other watchdog groups say about that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president says, by the
time he’s done being president, he will have lost between $3 billion and $5 billion. He hasn’t offered any proof that. And most watchdog groups say he and his family
are actually millions of dollars from him being president. An analysis by The Washington Post says that
he’s made at least $1.6 million for his properties because he’s been visiting them in Florida
and in New Jersey. And I spoke to a watchdog group, Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Their spokesperson said that they’re actually
looking at whether or not there’s any legal action they can take that will prevent President
Trump from holding the G7 at his Doral property. So we have to look out to see what watchdog
groups might do on that issue. JOHN YANG: Yamiche Alcindor in a very stormy
Biarritz, France, safe travels home, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks, John. JOHN YANG: In the day’s other news: A state
judge in Oklahoma issued a potentially landmark ruling, that Johnson & Johnson helped fuel
an epidemic of opioid addiction. He ordered the company to pay $570 million. The state had asked for up to $17 billion. Judge Thad Balkman found Johnson & Johnson
played up the benefits of opioid painkillers and played down the risks. THAD BALKMAN, Cleveland County District Judge:
Those actions compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans. Specifically, defendants caused an opioid
crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths, and neonatal
abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma. The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of
Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately. JOHN YANG: Johnson & Johnson immediately announced
plans to appeal. Some 2,000 other state and local lawsuits
are pending against opioid makers nationwide. We will look at all of this after the news
summary. Nineteen states sued today to block any rollback
of limits on detaining migrant children. The 1997 Flores agreement generally limits
that period to 20 days. Last week, the administration announced new
rules to hold entire families for longer. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
announced the legal challenge in Sacramento. XAVIER BECERRA (D), California Attorney General:
The Trump administration made the changes called for in this rule without regard to
the well-being of these children and without regard to the rule of law. Every time we go to court, for the most part,
we win. We’re proving that this administration is
trying to do things the wrong way, by breaking the rules. JOHN YANG: California also asked a federal
judge today to block the administration’s public charge rule. That would deny green cards to legal immigrants
who draw public benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. Fallen movie producer Harvey Weinstein has
pleaded not guilty to revised charges of sexually assaulting two women. He was back in a New York court today to face
the new indictment. It would allow a third woman to testify that
Weinstein raped her in 1993. The judge has now delayed the trial to early
next year. Officials in Hong Kong warned today that violent
protests are pushing the Chinese territory to the brink of great danger. New violence erupted over the weekend, as
protesters threw bricks and smashed toll booths. Riot police fired back with a water cannon
and tear gas. MAK CHIN-HO, Assistant Commissioner, Hong
Kong Police Force: These attacks are intentional and planned and organized. Not only do their acts put everyone on site
in extreme danger, but they also threaten the everyday life of ordinary citizens. JOHN YANG: Police arrested more than 80 activists
over the weekend, some as young as 12; 21 officers were injured. Tensions between Israel and Iran and its allies
are heating up across the Middle East. In Lebanon today, Prime Minister Saad Hariri
accused Israel of violating his country’s sovereignty in a series of airstrikes. The first came Sunday, when two drones crashed
into Beirut suburbs. Hezbollah militants allied with Iran held
funerals today for two fighters killed in the raid. They marched, and their leader vowed revenge. Israel didn’t confirm any attacks in Lebanon. It did acknowledge striking at Iranian forces
in Syria over the weekend. And claims of Israeli air raids in Iraq are
prompting calls for U.S. troops to withdraw immediately. Iraqi officials say Israeli drones attacked
Iranian-backed paramilitaries on Sunday, killing one fighter. Shiite Muslims, including lawmakers, marched
through Baghdad in a funeral procession today. They said the United States bears the blame. AHMED AL-ASADI, Iraqi Lawmaker (through translator):
The aggression was carried out by Israel and by the powers which support it. It took place in broad daylight with the presence
of the international coalition flight American aircrafts. This means these crimes are done under the
cover of America and colonialism. JOHN YANG: U.S. officials didn’t comment on
Sunday’s attack in Iraq, but they have said that Israel attacked Iranian forces there
in July. Tropical Storm Dorian moved into the Eastern
Caribbean tonight, bearing down on Barbados and its neighbors. The islands braced for the storm’s arrival
early Tuesday. From there, its projected path takes it toward
Puerto Rico. Even a weak hurricane could be a problem for
Puerto Rico, which is still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Maria two years
ago. Back in this country, Republican Congressman
Sean Duffy of Wisconsin announced he’s resigning his seat next month. The four-term lawmaker said he needs to spend
more time with his family. His wife is expecting in October, and tests
show the child has a heart condition. Duffy becomes the 14th House Republican not
seeking reelection in 2020. He represents a strongly Republican district. And on Wall Street, stocks rallied after President
Trump suggested China wants to talk seriously about a trade deal. The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly
270 points to close at 25893. The Nasdaq rose almost 102 points, and the
S&P 500 added 31. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: a major decision
in a case against a drugmaker, will this be a bellwether trial for the opioid epidemic?;
Amy Walter and Tamara Keith break down the 2020 candidates’ fund-raising scramble; a
new book highlights the difficult realities for female journalists in the Middle East;
and much more. Today’s $572 million judgment against Johnson
& Johnson is the first major legal decision against a drugmaker for its role in the opioid
crisis. As William Brangham reports, the Oklahoma
trial has been closely watched by thousands of litigants in other states and jurisdictions. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That’s right, John. While this was a clear victory for Oklahoma,
the state had been seeking far more, over $12 billion, from the drugmaker. During the seven-week trial in Oklahoma, lawyers
for the state called Johnson & Johnson a drug kingpin, arguing its sales force downplayed
their painkillers’ addictive qualities, which then helped lead to thousands of deaths in
the state since 2000. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter heralded
the judge’s ruling this afternoon. MIKE HUNTER, Oklahoma Attorney General: Today,
Judge Balkman has affirmed our position that Johnson & Johnson, motivated by greed and
avarice, is responsible for the opioid epidemic in our state. Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable
for thousands of deaths and addiction caused by their activities. Well, there’s no question in my mind that
these companies knew what was going on at the highest level. They just couldn’t quit making money from
it. And that’s why they’re responsible. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For its part, Johnson & Johnson
argued its drugs accounted for less than 1 percent of the U.S. opioid market, and were
similarly a tiny fraction of prescriptions in Oklahoma. It also denied any deceptive sales practices. For the record, Johnson & Johnson is a funder
of the “NewsHour.” Jackie Fortier has been reporting on all this
for StateImpact Oklahoma, and National Public Radio. She was in the courtroom today. Jackie Fortier, thank you very much for being
here. Obviously, this is an enormous victory for
the state and really the first loss for one of the opioid manufacturers that we have seen
thus far. Everything else has been settlements. The judge today was particularly tough on
the company in its ruling, wasn’t he? JACKIE FORTIER, StateImpact Oklahoma: Yes. He was — Judge Balkman detailed in the judgment
that the $572 million that he ordered the company to pay immediately was to remediate
the public nuisance. He even brought up things that were — he
even brought up parts that were talked about during the trial, saying that there was a
fetal problem with children in the state who have — who are born with opioids in their
system. So, the judge really highlighted a lot of
the main arguments that the state made during the case. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can you tell us a little
bit about more — about what the state alleged? I mentioned that the state said that Johnson
& Johnson basically hid the fact that they knew that these drugs were highly addictive. What else did the state allege Johnson & Johnson
did wrong here? JACKIE FORTIER: Yes. Well, I mean, the big thing that the attorney
general, Mike Hunter, alleged was that — and he said it multiple times, including today
at the press conference — that Johnson & Johnson was the kingpin of the opioid crises. And when he says that, he’s referring to their
former ownership of two companies out of Tasmania and Australia that grew and developed a highly
potent opioid poppy, and that companies, those companies then sold that base ingredient,
that raw narcotic, to other opioid manufacturers, like Purdue Pharma, which produced OxyContin
with it. So, during the course of the trial, the state
argued, a rising tide lifts all boats. Johnson & Johnson knew that, even if it wasn’t
their opioids that were being sold, their deceptive marketing campaign resulted in more
sales of opioids and more sales for their bottom line. Something to remember, Johnson & Johnson sold
those two companies in 2016. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You mentioned initially
that the state had used a somewhat novel legal strategy to go after the company. They used what’s called a public nuisance
law. Can you explain what that legal strategy argued? JACKIE FORTIER: Yes, public nuisance is a
very broad law in Oklahoma. It really refers to any public nuisance that
in regards even to health outcome. Before this, it has been successfully litigated
in regard to lead paint, things along those lines. It usually has to do with property, which
is why today’s decision is very interesting. I mean, West Virginia, for example, filed
a very similar lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, citing public nuisance law last week. So now that we have seen, at least in one
court case, that it works, we may see more attorneys general decide to take up this public
nuisance claim and see if they can get money for their own state. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As we know, there’s these
2,000 or so other cases that we’re all gathered under one federal judge in Ohio, and those
are against other manufacturers, distributors and manufacturers of these drugs. Everyone there has got to have been watching
what was going on in Oklahoma today to see whether or not this was a bellwether. What do you think is the likely impact on
that much larger pool of cases? JACKIE FORTIER: Well, public nuisance is one
of the claims that’s been made in the consolidated Ohio case. I mean, it really just gives more leverage,
really, to the side of the communities who are suing, whether that be tribes or other
municipalities. They might be able to bring other drug companies
or distributors to the table and say, hey, it worked here. Maybe you’re willing to settle with us now,
rather than going for a trial, because, as of right now, Johnson & Johnson now has to
pay over $500 million. And we saw before, I mean, Purdue Pharma settled
with the state for $270 million. Teva, which makes generic opioids, settled
for $85 million. They were initially both parties to this litigation,
but they settled before it began. So Johnson & Johnson could be on the hook
for this full 570-some-odd million dollars. And, you know, other companies are going to
look at that and say, hey, maybe it’s worth it to just settle. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Absent an appeal, which
I believe Johnson & Johnson has said they’re going to do, what is Oklahoma going to do
with this 500-something million dollars? JACKIE FORTIER: There was an abatement plan
that was put forward during the trial. The state initially asked, by the way, for
$17.5 billion to fund their 30-year plan. So they got a fraction of what they really
asked for. At the press conference earlier today, Terri
White, who’s the commissioner for mental health and substance abuse in Oklahoma, said that
they would be able to really start funding projects and treatment. It’s really an open question of how that’s
going to work. There was also a law that was passed after
the Purdue settlement in Oklahoma. So the legislature may be able to allocate
these funds. So whether or not they get allocated towards
opioid treatment or prevention is just really a big question mark right now. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Jackie Fortier
of StateImpact Oklahoma, thank you very, very much. JACKIE FORTIER: Yes, I’m happy to. Thanks. JOHN YANG: The crowded race for the Democratic
presidential nomination has started to winnow, and this week we will learn which of the remaining
21 candidates will be on the debate stage next month. It’s likely just half of the field will meet
the polling and donor requirements. Lisa Desjardins reports that the 2020 hopefuls
are competing for attention and dollars. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
So, please, please go to JoeBiden.com and sign up and join our campaign. We need your help. LISA DESJARDINS: As the 2020 Democratic candidates
debate policy, at the heart of the crowded race is a fight for money. The race’s top five candidates in the polls
are also the top five fund-raisers. PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
I hope I can look to you to continue helping us grow this movement. LISA DESJARDINS: Leading the pack, the mayor
of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. He raised nearly $25 million from April to
June of this year, according to financial filings. Former Vice President Joe Biden followed with
$22 million, then three senators, beginning with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren,
$19 million, then Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, $18 million, in fifth, California Senator
Kamala Harris, $11.8 million. REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), Presidential Candidate:
A dollar, $5, $10, whatever they can, to make sure that we’re able to get our message out
there. LISA DESJARDINS: After that, a stark gap in
the field, in both money raised and polling, with a brutal fight for funds among the remaining
candidates. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, The Washington Post:
It’s been a real slog trying to come out of the crowd the LISA DESJARDINS: Michelle Ye Hee Lee covers
money and politics for The Washington Post. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: The more and more that
the five do better, the gap just continues to grow. REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): I am running an insurgent
campaign. LISA DESJARDINS: Unable to close that distance,
Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton And Washington Governor Jay Inslee dropped out
of the race last week. Both had yet to meet fund-raising or polling
qualifications for the third Democratic debates in September. JULIAN CASTRO (D), Presidential Candidate:
People pitching in a dollar, $5, $10, $20. And that’s the spirit that I’m going to move
forward in, in this campaign. LISA DESJARDINS: Julian Castro last week became
only the 10th candidate to qualify for the debates. So far, that leaves 11 others off next month’s
stage. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
I am asking for your help. LISA DESJARDINS: But even the top five fund-raisers
have been struggling to pull in steady funds among the crowded field. And how they’re going about it varies greatly. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: You see Joe Biden really
coming out of the gate with a fund-raiser, a private fund-raiser held at the Comcast
executive’s home. And he is — this is kind of like old school SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential Candidate:
I’m not taking a dime of PAC money in this campaign. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: At the other end of the
spectrum is Elizabeth Warren, who has rejected that type of fund-raising overall completely. And she’s only raising money from grassroots
donors, and she’s doing really well. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I stand before you to officially launch my campaign for a second term as president of
the United States. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) LISA DESJARDINS: And then there is President
Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, which he kicked off right after his inauguration
in 2017. Mr. Trump’s reelection effort has so far outraised
all the Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee combined by about $100
million, with a mix of small donors and multimillion-dollar closed fund-raisers. That’s giving his campaign a decided advantage
at targeting voters. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: He’s been able to shape
the message online and on TV, run ads, really get to know the voter base very well, and
know how to reach these people, so that they could turn out on Election Day for him. LISA DESJARDINS: Democratic donors on the
other hand, especially the high-dollar ones, are largely still untapped. Many donors are still waiting for the race
to narrow before making their contributions, while smaller donors are spreading their money
across several different candidates. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: They know the money is
out there. The question is whether the money spigot is
going to really open up in time for the presidential nominee to be able to catch up to the lead
that President Trump has. MARIANNE WILLIAMSON (D), Presidential Candidate:
Please give at least a dollar, so I can get those donations up. LISA DESJARDINS: Candidates who don’t make
the third debate stage in less than three weeks will likely need to reevaluate whether
they have the cash or support to stay in the race. And that’s good news for anxious Democratic
donors, who say a final Democratic nominee can’t come soon enough. Also what can’t come soon enough is Politics
Monday. And reunited, we have in our studio back together
again the great Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and, of course, Tamara Keith of NPR,
also the “NPR Politics Podcast.” Thank you both. Good to see you back together. Let’s start with the dollar race, ladies. Tam, I’m going to ask you first. We talk about fund-raising every single election. Is it any different this presidential cycle? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: On the
Democratic side, there has been a decoupling of donor and voter. And what by that is, traditionally, campaigns,
they go out, they try to raise money, and when they raise money from someone, when someone
writes them a check, sends them $1, sends them $50, they can mark them down not just
as a supporter, but as a voter. And, this time, it’s not monogamous. You have can — you have voters, Democrats
giving money five candidates, 10 candidates. Every time there’s, please give me $1, so
that I can be on the stage and have my voice heard, people are like, oh, yes, sure I will
give you $1. So then, when it comes time to actually sort
of buckle down and get voters out, they aren’t going to be able to just go to their donor
file and say, well, I can assume that those people will be caucusing for me or voting
for me in New Hampshire or South Carolina or caucusing in Nevada. Instead, they will have to figure out which
of their donors are actually their voters. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: The
other big difference when you look back, especially thinking about the Republican — they have
had the most competitive primaries over the most recent era, right, 2012 and 2016. And the big thing in those campaigns were
the super PACs. Remember, individual candidates were associated
with super PACs, Jeb Bush probably the most famous. He personally didn’t raise as much money,
but his super PAC, because there are different rules for fund-raising super PACs, you can
give millions of dollars to a super PAC, had tons and tons of money. In 2012, super PACs were really influential
in that race especially helping in the early states like Iowa for candidates like Mitt
Romney and Newt Gingrich. Democrats, they have been moving away from
taking money from super PACs. There are no super PACs involved in this primary
election. All the Democratic candidates have said, don’t
build one for me. I don’t want your money. They’re staying away from corporate PAC money. They’re staying away from a lot of the sort
of traditional — I think in your piece, setup piece, you said sort of the old school fund-raising
of going and — going to these big high-dollar fund-raisers. LISA DESJARDINS: High-dollar. AMY WALTER: And they used to boast about that. (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: And even Democratic candidates
used to boast about they had bundlers, right, and they had people who would come. And, individually, Lisa would go and ask 20
of her friends to write $1,000 checks, and you would get lauded by the campaign for being
that big fund-raiser. They’re not doing that now. The focus is really on small-dollar donors. And it means that the way — it’s not just
that the way that the money is being raised is different, but now if you think about these
early states, who’s going to have influence in these races, it’s going to look a lot different
than it has in recent years. LISA DESJARDINS: One reason, of course, for
all these small donor numbers going up is the Democrats are forcing the issue. You have to get 130,000 small donors in 20
states to make the next debate. So far, I think we have 10 qualified, but
we still have 21 candidates, ladies. My question to you is, when we see this field
really cut down? Is it going to be after this next debate? What do you think? TAMARA KEITH: Well, I mean, in the last week,
I think there have been three fewer candidates. So there is a winnowing as we get toward these
fall debates. And there are a few candidates who think that
they won’t make it for the September debate, but they could make it for the October debate. And so they are hanging on for that. But I think that we will see a winnowing this
fall, but it’s still going to be a very big field, a historically large field. AMY WALTER: It is. It just gets harder and harder. We talked about fund-raising. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. AMY WALTER: It gets harder and harder to raise
money if you’re not publicly having a presence, whether it’s on the debate stage or getting
invited for interviews. So I think you will see a little more winnowing. And, look, I think what voters really want
to see — I know I want to see this personally, just as an analyst — is to see the top candidates
all on the same stage. Look, we have a field of 21 candidates, but
there are really only three candidates who have consistently polled in the double digits,
Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris sometimes touches up there. Buttigieg gets in the low single digits, and
that’s about it. Nobody else — after these other two debates
that we have already had, we haven’t seen much movement, except really among the top
three, four candidates. And so getting on stage in the debate, I know
it may help candidates’ ego, but it’s not necessarily helping their poll standing. LISA DESJARDINS: Someone who would like any
stage, I think, is Joe Walsh, who is a conservative former member of Congress, also radio talk
show host, Republican, who announced. There you see it here, his announcement that
he’s running against Donald Trump as a Republican, and he’s doing it in a couple interesting
ways. He issued basically a mea culpa, saying, in
the past, he believes his remarks may have been racist. He apologized for them. He said the president is not appropriate for
our children to watch. He’s going after the president on moral grounds. Is he a serious challenger? He’s challenging the president for his conservative
base. TAMARA KEITH: So what my reporting has shown
over time is that the president has consolidated the Republican Party, both if you look at
polling in terms of support for the president. There is not a lot of weakness among Republicans. But in terms of the actual party apparatus,
the Trump campaign and the Republican Party are one and the same. The Republican Party, the GOP, the RNC is
not going to allow a robust and competitive primary, because the president of the United
States is their candidate. And they have… (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: He’s a Republican. TAMARA KEITH: And he’s a Republican. And they have worked very hard to lay the
groundwork to box out any serious challenge to the president in the primary. AMY WALTER: Right. I mean, the first thing is, it’s hard to know
whether to take Joe Walsh’s apology seriously. To say that he was a firebrand is putting
it nicely, the things that he has said on Twitter, that he said during his campaign,
that he has been known to tweet about, pretty out there, all right, and, in some cases,
calling for violence. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: He’s apologized for that,
but… AMY WALTER: That’s right. And one of his most famous, infamous was saying
Obama is indeed a Muslim, you should believe this. So that’s one piece that we have to deal with. The second piece is, who are these folks who
are frustrated with Donald Trump, the Republican Party? We think of the never-Trumpers, right, these
folks who were once — considered themselves Republicans. Either they’re conservative or they’re moderate. They don’t find a place with Donald Trump. Remember where Joe Walsh is from. It’s actually my home district, suburban Chicago,
a district that traditionally voted for Mitt Romney, voted for a Republican for Congress
for many years, this last year voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat, voted for Hillary Clinton
in 2016. He’s representative — even though he personally
is not like that, where he’s from his representative of a Republican base in the suburbs that once
supported every Republican candidate. But in the era of Trump, they have moved away
from him. But let’s be clear. He in his past was not that kind of candidate. But his district that he used to represent
was. LISA DESJARDINS: I want to end — I will end
on you, Amy. And we have seen ups and downs on Wall Street
in the last couple of weeks. That’s an important metric, we know, for President
Trump. My question to you, do you think this president
is recession-proof, if we have a recession? AMY WALTER: Yes, it’s hard to believe that
any president could withstand like a major economic crisis or recession. The question is whether or not just having
a slowing down is enough. And I think that, for Trump, we have already
seen the fact that his approval ratings on the economy have been separate from his overall
approval ratings. The gap between those is pretty significant. People, for a long time, at least up until
now, said they approve of the job he’s doing on the economy, don’t approve of the job that
he’s doing as president. So that gap is pretty big. LISA DESJARDINS: All right, we will have to
end it there. So good to see both of you. Tamara Keith, Amy Walter, thank you. AMY WALTER: You’re welcome. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JOHN YANG: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: walking away
— a quarterback’s decision to leave the NFL in the prime of his career, rather than risk
another injury; and from Dutch masters to jazz music, a painter on the inspiration behind
his work. JOHN YANG: On our Bookshelf tonight, a new
look at female reporters in the Middle East. Amna Nawaz spoke to two women changing the
conversation by sharing some of those reporters’ unique stories. AMNA NAWAZ: For decades, stories about life
and war in the Middle East and Arab world have been filtered through the eyes of predominantly
male journalists. Sometimes, those narratives can obscure the
powerful work being done by female journalists, many of Middle Eastern descent. But a new book called “Our Women on the Ground”
seeks to change the conversation by spotlighting 20 Arab female journalists, each writing from
her own unique perspective. Here to discuss their new book is Zahra Hankir,
the editor, and NPR correspondent Hannah Allam, who wrote one of the chapters. Welcome to you both. ZAHRA HANKIR, Editor, “Our Women on the Ground”:
Thank you. HANNAH ALLAM, NPR: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: Congratulations on the book. It is out now. And, Zahra, I want to start with you, because
the idea of this book started with a Google doc, right, compiling a list of journalists
that you wanted to follow. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Tell me that story. ZAHRA HANKIR: Yes, I was working as a reporter
in Dubai for Bloomberg News, and I was covering the Arab Spring from the economic angle or
perspective. And I was also asked to monitor regional and
local media to help Bloomberg follow up on what was going on around the region from people
who were on the ground. And I realized at that point that there were
so many incredible Arab women who were doing incredible work and really risking their lives
at the front lines. It wasn’t always people who are on the front
lines. It might have been women who were writing
different sorts of stories. And I felt at the time that they were not
really heard of. A lot of them were not really heard of, at
least in the international media landscape. And I felt that their voices needed to be
amplified. But it was also a little bit selfish. I felt that I wanted to learn the stories
behind that coverage. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, you have got a lot of voices
in there. Hannah is one of them, of course. And, you know, we talk about Western voices
and voices from the region. You have, like many people, sort of dual identities,
right, multiple identities. Tell me about how where you grew up and how
you grew up made you want to cover the Iraq War, which is the essay that you write about
in here? HANNAH ALLAM: Sure. I’m an Egyptian American, and grew up in — partly
in Oklahoma, but also in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. And so this was a region that’s dear to my
heart. The people, the culture, the food, the language,
everything was, you know, just part and parcel of my childhood and my upbringing. And I think that — that it’s useful as a
barrier breaker. I mean, there are so many trust issues when
you’re reporting on people in conflict, when they’re seeing their lives change around them,
they’re seeing death. And then here comes a stranger knocking on
the door saying, tell me all about it. If that stranger looks like you, if they know
the cultural cues, if you are sensitive with their story, and you consider them — you
think about, what if this was your relative that was being interviewed, and, you know,
to handle it sensitively like that. AMNA NAWAZ: And, Zahra, you mentioned this
too. With all the women who are included in this
book, many of them are covering their own homelands, right? And they’re often working in patriarchal societies,
right, where men control the public spaces. How did that inform — like, what kind of
common threads did you find in the essays they were contributing along those ideas? ZAHRA HANKIR: Many of the women, particularly
in Egypt and in Yemen, also in Sudan, have to contend with deeply patriarchal societies
in which their movement is limited, what they wear on a daily basis is constrained, the
way that their families respond to their career ambitions, it’s all part of their struggles
on a daily basis. And all of that filters into how they approach
journalism. There is one particular contributor, Zaina
Erhaim. She writes about when the uprising started
in Syria, and increasingly the country descended into utter chaos, she was faced with a situation
in which she was told repeatedly to cover her hair. She wasn’t able to move from one place to
another unless she had a male chaperone. That’s also a common theme in several of the
essays. And she felt that one way to navigate this
was to actually embrace the fact that she could enter spaces which were inaccessible
to anyone who wasn’t a local and who wasn’t a woman. AMNA NAWAZ: In other words, she could have
unique access that other people wouldn’t. (CROSSTALK) ZAHRA HANKIR: So she was going into a Syrian
gynecological clinic and she was taking the cameras in there with her. AMNA NAWAZ: Yes. ZAHRA HANKIR: You couldn’t conceive of that
story being told by someone else. AMNA NAWAZ: And, Hannah, you touch on this
too in your essay about the woman question, right? The idea being that, when you are covering
war zones or conflict zones or places where there is conflict of some kind, when you start
touching on things that are under the label of women’s issues, they’re seen as illegitimate
in some way or not worthy of our attention. Tell me about that. HANNAH ALLAM: That’s right. I think that, you know, if you’re not doing
the battle of the day, and you know, you’re not on the front lines, or you’re not covering
what’s sometimes called the bang-bang of war correspondents, of war journalism, then, you
know, you’re — somehow, you’re soft. It’s not, you know, the meat of the war. And I think that’s completely inaccurate. And in order to fully and thoroughly and accurately
cover a conflict like Iraq, for example, you cannot leave out half the population, and
in fact more than half in the case of Iraq. And even if — it’s just all these assumptions
that come into that question: What’s it like to be a woman there? I mean, the assumption is, you can’t do anything,
it’s very restrictive, it’s very oppressive. And there is some truth to that, depending
on where you are in the region. But it’s also true that power looks different. There is a quiet power. Sometimes, there is a behind-the-scenes power. Sometimes — you can’t be 60 percent of the
population in Iraq and not have some kind of power in your family, in your household
that might be exercised in different ways or look different — differently. And so, my essay, I really saw it as a love
letter, almost like a valentine to the Iraqi women who gave me a glimpse of their lives,
who allowed me to come to their country and to see so much of it, and who, frankly, on
many — many more than one occasion kept me alive. AMNA NAWAZ: The Iraq War is certainly one
of the biggest stories, one of the biggest conflicts of our times. Zahra, the women in this book cover a lot
of these stories, right, the Syrian refugee crisis, conflict in other countries. You said you wanted to amplify them by including
them in this book. What is it that you think is unique about
the way that they tell their stories and the stories that they choose to tell? ZAHRA HANKIR: I tend to say, actually, they’re
just women covering what’s happening in their — in their countries. You know, the stakes are that high, where
I feel that whatever they say is going to be intimate, it’s going to be on a different
level when they’re reflecting on that coverage. And it’s those little raw details. For example, we go on a trip with a Sudanese
journalist who, because she’s thought of as non-threatening because she’s a woman, they
allow her to go and interview the head of a militia, the Janjaweed at the time, Musa
Hilal. And she goes and she interviews him, and she
writes this bombshell story. And no one expected that from her. AMNA NAWAZ: We have more women, more women
from the region, more women with ties to the region covering some of these big stories
of our time. Do you think that plays a role in changing
the narrative? ZAHRA HANKIR: I definitely do, because I do
think that the global media narrative on the Arab world has been commanded by Westerners. I do think that there is a special place for
women like Hannah, who have had one foot in the West and one foot in the Arab world or
the Middle East and North Africa, who have that special insight and who are well-positioned
to do that. And there have been improvements. I do think that more and more women in this
space are being heard. But I think more needs to be done, and I think
that the locals need and deserve more protections and should be treated on the same level as
their Western counterparts. AMNA NAWAZ: Their stories are being heard
in your book. It’s “Our Women on the Ground.” Zahra Hankir and Hannah Allam, thank you very
much. ZAHRA HANKIR: Thank you. HANNAH ALLAM: Thank you so much. JOHN YANG: The physical and mental toll of
the nation’s most watched sport is being highlighted by the surprise retirement of the NFL’s Andrew
Luck. The 29-year-old quarterback of the Indianapolis
Colts called it quits just two weeks before the season begins. ANDREW LUCK, Former Indianapolis Colts Player:
For the last four years I have been in this cycle of injury, pain, rehab, injury — injury,
pain, rehab. And it’s been unceasing and relenting — unrelenting,
both in season, both in — and off-season. And I have felt stuck in it. And the only way I see out is to no longer
play football. It’s taken my joy of this game away. JOHN YANG: In seven years in the league, the
former first-round draft choice has had a lacerated kidney, injured ribs, at least one
concussion, torn cartilage in his throwing shoulder and, most recently, a calf and ankle
injury. Sportswriter John Feinstein profiled Luck
for his book “Quarterback: Inside the Most Important Position in Professional Sports.” The paperback edition of that book comes out
tomorrow. John, thanks joining us. JOHN FEINSTEIN, Sportswriter/Author: My pleasure,
John. JOHN YANG: You spent a lot of time with Andrew
Luck. Did you sense or did you see any of the toll
of that cycle he talked about of pain — injury, pain, recovery? JOHN FEINSTEIN: Very much so. And more probably in a mental, an emotional
sense than a physical sense. Every football player understands that it
hurts to play the game. It’s a brutal game. Even those who aren’t injured are hurt by
the end of the season because of the pounding they take. But when he missed the entire 2017 season
with a shoulder injury that you mentioned, it tore him up emotionally. He felt like he had failed his teammates because
he couldn’t be on the field. The quarterbacks who tried to replace him
were shadows of him. They went 4-12 that year without him. And he felt guilty. He was depressed. He finally went away to Europe to get away
from everything, all the constant pressure being, when are you coming back, when are
you coming back, and rehabbed over there for two months. And he talked about understanding the finite
nature of playing football. And the difference to me between Andrew Luck
and 99 percent of the athletes I have ever known is he loved his sport, loved it since
he was a kid, but he doesn’t need it. He’s so bright and so talented in other areas,
that he can go on with his life without sort of reaching out and trying to hold on to football
forever. JOHN YANG: You used the word brutal when you
talked about the sport. He got booed as he left the field Saturday
night. What would you say to those fans who booed
him, knowing that the — when the story broke that he was retiring? JOHN FEINSTEIN: First of all, I would say,
shame on you, because Andrew Luck gave literally heart and soul and body to that franchise
for seven years and helped keep them a playoff team. They were a playoff team four of the six years
that he was healthy. That’s number one. But, number two, I would say, you don’t understand. You don’t know. I don’t think, unless you play football at
the highest level, you can understand what every football player goes through. I spent an entire season watching games from
the sideline. And, John, I’m telling you, if you watched
the routine play, you would say, how did anybody get up from the collisions that take place? These are big, strong, fast men colliding
with each other play after play. Several commentators who didn’t play football
publicly criticized Luck after the retirement. And I would say — and two of them are friends
of mine. And I would say to them, you can’t understand
because you were basketball players. It doesn’t hurt to play basketball unless
you miss a lot of shots. But football hurts. And Andrew Luck, with all the injuries that
he’s been through, finally got to a point where, as he said, the joy was gone for him,
and all he could think about was this recurring cycle of injury, rehab, injury, rehab, feeling
like he was letting his teammates down. So, I under — I think I understand completely
why he felt the way he did. And most of those people, I suspect, did not. JOHN YANG: We’re also hearing more and more
about retired players, about this — their health problems. Is there a sense that more players, current
players, are weighing this balance of their careers and their long-term well-being? JOHN FEINSTEIN: I don’t think there’s any
doubt about it. I mean, first of all, CTE scares people, as
it should. And we are finding out more and more that
players who have concussions during the course of their careers will probably have CTE when
they get older. And we have seen — with more and more players
donating their brains when they passed away, we’re finding that many of them have CTE in
them. But there’s also the factor of that you do
get so beat up. And because the players are making more money
now, they don’t necessarily have to hang on and let their bodies get beat up. The other thing that’s really significant,
I think, with all these scares, is that the number of players playing high school football
has gone down significantly in the last few years. And I think what’s changed is, when I was
a kid, my mom didn’t want me to play football. Now I think dads and moms aren’t very eager
to see their sons play football. They say, play another sport. JOHN YANG: John Feinstein. The book is “Quarterback: Inside the Most
Important Position in Professional Sports,” the paperback edition out tomorrow. JOHN FEINSTEIN: Thank you, John. JOHN YANG: John, thanks so much. JOHN FEINSTEIN: My pleasure. JOHN YANG: The work of American artist Oliver
Lee Jackson explores, among many things, themes of music in American and African cultures. It is currently on display at the National
Gallery of Art in Washington. Born in 1935, Jackson sometimes collaborates
with musicians, and some of the music in this piece was written for him. We asked Jackson which artist has influenced
his work. He took us to the old masters wing of the
National Gallery to see Girl With a Red Hat painted in the Netherlands by Johannes Vermeer
3.5 centuries ago. Jackson’s story is part of Canvas, our ongoing
arts and culture series. OLIVER LEE JACKSON, Artist: He’s a maker. The effect is supposed to take you into a
dream world. That’s what it does. My name is Oliver Lee Jackson. I make things, paintings, sculptures, et cetera. This is all about light. Ain’t no light in the painting. The light’s out here. But you believe it. This is intense. This is not casual stuff. It’s not art. This is making. Our canvas is not a three-dimensional world. It is a flat plain, so we have got to make
a world. How do you do it? You make the architecture. How will it stand? What will push here so that you can get something
to happen that evokes in other people a feeling? The piece is really about joy that creates
an interior intimacy. Try to express that by just duplicating it
again and again, intimate relationships and images everywhere. These colors never stop showing themselves
clearly and evenly throughout. The pink throughout doesn’t shift. So the harmonies are never lessened by the
play of the light. This one was very, very physical in a specific
kind of roughness here and the building up of the paint here, kind of sickness here and
there that evoke feelings in you. As you move across this visually, you can’t
help but in the inside shift. It’s impossible that you cannot. When it’s happening in you, it’s like a kind
of symphony that is directed. He has to make the effects. He makes them with slanting that thing, forcing
you to feel space. This is what pulls you. It’s not the red hat. It’s the red. There ain’t no hat in there. That’s an excuse for the red, this big slash
of red against all that cool blue and those tertiaries and this slash of white. To be able to pull that off is to make a punch,
just a punch. It’s like getting in somebody’s face. When anybody looks at this, apart from the
subject matter, is that. I chose gestures that tell everything I want
to say. In this arena, which is the whole world, everything
seems to be connected to everything else. And there’s actually three of this, three
of this. In the space, it’s closed. They’re all closed in. They don’t shift outside. That means this is a potent area in which
these forms interact. I understand these marks, the scraping, everything,
every bone. You do this, what does this require in relation
to that? What is it — what are the requirements? There’s relationships. They never stop until it’s complete. My aesthetics put it together. Hopefully, it does some work as a machine
to you. And that’s personal between you and it. JOHN YANG: And on the “NewsHour” online: Nearly
60,000 fires have burned through the Brazilian Amazon so far this year. We take a look at some of the numbers to help
us understand why these natural disasters are capturing international attention. All that and more is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m John Yang. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thanks. See you soon.

62 thoughts on “PBS NewsHour full episode August 26, 2019

  1. and what exactly would Trump have done about Russia annexing the Crimea? Start a huge war? That was the choice. We have hurt them financially with sanctions, are we prepared for war? Not to mention of course, Trump kisses Russian a$$ and would have given him the rest of Ukraine rather than telling him to give Crimea back.

  2. You can bet your arse the market is going down . Trumps lying about the chinese wanting to talk .
    PAINTS ON FIRE !

  3. I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO SOUND CRAZY BUT HEAR ME OUT. I’m not into conspiracies or unfounded facts but I have a very strong suspicion of TULSI GABBARD. I didn’t know who she was until she started running for president and then I started watching as many of her interviews as possible and the things she has said left me very puzzled and angry. For instance, immediately after Barr was discovered lying about Mueller’s report, she said it didn’t matter and that we should just move on. Something she said recently about Russia AND SYRIA made it click for me. THEN I LOOKED INTO HER HISTORY OF A SECRET MEETING BETWEEN HER AND AL BASHIR OF SYRIA, and how SHE KEPT THIS A SECRET FROM THE REST OF CONGRESS. She MIGHT BE BEING COURTED AND GROOMED BY RUSSIA, just like trump. But she would be for a further future—younger, more attractive, a different tact than trump by having more self-control. I know how this sounds and I hate to spread misinformation and paranoia about other fellow Americans, but I do not put Putin past thinking longer term into the future when Trump has played so handsomely for him. Just watch what she says, see if she denigrates Putin and his actions at all. HER STATEMENTS DONT MAKE ANY SENSE! At the very least, she is not worthy of a seat in congress or any committees and I hope she gets voted out, not more popular for a future race of any kind. AT THE WORST, SHE IS WORKING AGAINST THE U.S. I hope I’m being paranoid and that it’s not true.

  4. Oklahoma gets one-twenty-fourth of its claim. Perhaps even that was too much: prescribing doctors should be following protocols that have long pre-existed the OxyContin fraud which was committed 23 years ago by another company. The idea that any manufacturer (other than OxyContin maker Perdue Pharma) mislead doctors or patients as to the very long-known addictiveness of opioids is like suing Jim Beam for not advising its customers that they’d get drunk if they drank too much bourbon.

  5. America loves violence and it shows in its favorite sport. Watch Australian rules rugby or soccer . Very athletic games but no where near the violent collisions. Why would anyone let their children start American football.

  6. It's about time we recognized the role of women, over half of the human population, in history, news, health, politics, etc.

  7. A++ reporting today pbs, love judy, but john was great and you even hit the johnson and johnson trial even though their a contributor! Makes me proud to be a 'pbser' :'))

  8. I'm starting to believe that Trump does not like Obama. When is it OK to criticize an EX president in a G7 conference. Which other head of state has ever done that. This is a dangerous presedent. We cannot explain this to non Americans.

  9. Good for Andrew Luck. Agree with all John Feinstein said. So admirable for Andrew Luck to value and take care of himself, and now he has an identity and life much larger, more meaningful and CTE free well beyond football.

  10. The American Dictator trump wants to hold the next G8 meeting at his hotel.. how much hotel money is that???

  11. POTUS uses press conferences as an excuse to advertise his mouth hole for blow jobs. There are many high rollers who pay astounding amounts of money for a presidentiall blow job & Trump is showing them his lip work.

  12. Of course Trump want to be more concern of his wealth than fixing the environment. Ok…..planet Earth will starts to slowly destroy itself and won't be able sustain life anymore. His wealth will not matter when you begin to start dying Mr. Trump🤯.

  13. Yamiche you are an excellent journalist.. I saw your professionalism and calm as well as the ability to state the facts at the G7 press conference. Keep up the good work

  14. Thanks PBS and the reporter from Biariz France doing it in the rain. Love PBS and Aloha to all from the blue state.

  15. It becomes more obvious that Alcindor misses no opportunity to favor left wing propaganda in place of factual reporting. Obviously PBS wants no interference with their increasingly bias agenda and silences dissent by disabling comments on most of their videos. PBS apparently is ignorant of the fact that this growing bias alienates half of the population and therefor half of the potential PBS supporters. It may be time for PBS videos, and particularly Alcindor's bias 'reporting', to be reposted with comments ENABLED so that opposing voices are not silenced and the 'P' in PBS once again stands for 'Public' instead of 'Propaganda'.

  16. Alcindor, next time do your homework before accusing a US president of telling a LIE in front of an international conference. Obama proved himself feckless by backing out at the last second in enforcing his OWN boast of a 'Red Line'. In exchange for not punishing Syria, Obama was OUTSMARTED by Putin into accepting instead a mere promise to remove chemical weapons from Syria. A few months later Putin moved into Crimea KNOWING that Obama would do nothing to stop it. And those 'removed' chemical weapons magically re appeared in time for another Syrian attack on civilians right after Trump took over.

    Please do your homework or move over to CNN where your clearly BIAS agendas are the norm.

  17. Punish Russia? Go excuse the US backed coup in Ukraine to your leftists.
    Longstanding complaints about the US revolve around the same ridiculous policies the 44th President of the United States of America, the One True Potentate of the Kingdom of Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama, the defender of the faith.
    The results of the election in Ukraine were overturned by the US and Putin acted in response. Obama had no 'right' to foment a coup there or anywhere. Sanctions on Russia are idiotic for all the same reasons you would apply to past agression of the US.

    I laugh at Pinkos that fail to understand this. I especially love it when they brand Trump as the villain reminiscent of past US aggression. Laughably stupid.

  18. Well, states have to get money from somewhere now that they're struggling w/lack of funds. And they also can't pay promised pensions plus MSA (Master Settlement Agreement) money has almost ended. 
    Now let's watch to see how little of the pharma money actually goes towards the so-called opioid epidemic. 
    Is sex, gambling, or alcohol addictive? It depends on the person, does it not? So it's BS to say it's the drug that's the problem. But demonizing a substance is worth a lot of $$$.

  19. Have A Great Vacation Yamiche!!! Thank U For Correcting The Liar-In-Chief On Insulting Pres.Obama!! U were Spot On Abt. Russia Being Kicked Out Of The G-7!!! Trump Is An Asset To Putin!!!

  20. Yamiche, I’ve been watching PBS Newshour on YouTube for a year or two now, and glad that comments are now allowed so that I can say BRAVO to you. You are consistently: brave, professional, clear, articulate, organised, and just all around TOP journalist. I applaud all that you have achieved and are achieving. And… tonight’s report is your highpoint, when all can see how you did not get flustered, frustrated, or cowed by the president of the US. The LYING president of the US. You were right to call him out, and not back down. Again: BRAVO. Well done

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *