JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the "NewsHour" tonight:
parsing the president.
We break down Mr. Trump's
latest statements in a barrage
of interviews and tweets.
Then, we continue our series on
South Sudan's brutal civil war
with a look at the devastating
food shortage facing those
forced to flee their homes.
JANE FERGUSON: These are the
roots of the water lily flowers.
This is all people in this part
of South Sudan have to eat.
It's muddy.
It has very little nutritional
value and is deeply unpleasant.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And how one
county in California is cutting
the high costs of asthma with a
home care program focused
on keeping kids healthy
and out of the E.R.
LINDA NEUHAUSER, University
of California, Berkeley: In
Alameda County alone, we might
be able to save as much as
$16 million a year just on
hospitalizations of children.
JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more
on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: President
Trump and Russia's President
Vladimir Putin have been on the
phone again, and they agreed
to step up diplomacy in Syria.
The two men spoke today for
the first time since the U.S.
attacked a Syrian air base
last month.
Earlier, Putin met
with Chancellor Angela
Merkel in Sochi, Russia.
He claimed again that
Moscow didn't meddle
in the U.S. election.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian
President (through
translator): We never
interfere into political
lives and political processes
in other countries, and
we would very much like
that nobody interfered
into our political life and into
the political life in Russia.
These are just rumors used
in the internal political
struggle in the U.S.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile,
Hillary Clinton said today
that Putin certainly interfered
in order to help Donald
Trump and defeat her.
U.S. intelligence agencies and
the Congress are investigating
whether the Russians coordinated
with Trump aides
during the campaign.
The head of Thailand's military
junta says he is now expecting
much-improved relations
with the U.S.
They cooled sharply after he
seized power in a 2014 coup
and became prime minister.
But, today, he said President
Trump assured him in a weekend
phone call that -- quote
- - "Thai-U.S. relations will
now be closer than ever before."
The president also invited
him to visit the White House.
Mr. Trump gave out conflicting
messages today on the compromise
measure to fund the government
through the end of
this fiscal year.
First, in a tweet, he signaled
displeasure, and suggested
shutting the government down
in the next budget fight.
Later, though, as he honored
the Air Force Academy football
team, he praised the spending
deal, and said -- quote -- "This
is what winning looks like."
DONALD TRUMP, President of the
United States: This bill is
a clear win for the American
people.
We brought lawmakers together
from both sides of the aisle
to deliver a budget that funds
the rebuilding of the United
States military, makes historic
investments in border security,
and provides health care for
our miners and school choice
for our disadvantaged children.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Later,
White House Budget Director
Mick Mulvaney said Mr.
Trump is unhappy with
portrayals that Democrats
won the budget fight.
MICK MULVANEY, White House
Budget Director: The president
is frustrated with the fact
that he negotiated in good
faith with the Democrats and
they went out to try and spike
the football and
make him look bad.
It doesn't surprise me at
all that his frustrations
were manifested in that way.
We have got a lot to do
-- we have got a lot to
between now and September.
I don't anticipate a shutdown in
September, but, if negotiations
-- if the Democrats aren't
going to behave any better than
they have in the last couple
of days, it may be inevitable.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The leader of
Senate Democrats, Chuck Schumer,
said that shutting down the
government at any time
would be a bad idea.
A guilty plea today from
a white former policeman
who shot a black man
to death in Charleston,
South Carolina.
Michael Slager shot Walter
Scott five times as Scott
ran from his car in 2015.
A state court jury deadlocked
on murder charges, but, today,
Slager pleaded to federal civil
rights violations.
Under the deal, the state
agreed to drop its murder case.
No sentencing date was set.
There are two reports tonight
that the Justice Department
will not charge police officers
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
in the killing of Alton
Sterling last July.
He was shot dead after
being pinned on the ground.
But the incident was
videotaped and sparked tense
protests in that city.
A little over a week later,
a gunman killed three
Baton Rouge officers.
There's word today that
the overall death rate
among African-Americans
dropped sharply
from 1999 to 2015.
The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reports that it
fell 25 percent in that period.
However, the overall life
expectancy for African-Americans
is still four years less
than that for whites.
Black Americans are also
far more likely to die
of heart disease and
cancer than are whites.
Airline executives found
themselves in the hot seat at
a congressional hearing today
on the issue of
overbooking flights.
It followed United Airlines'
forced removal of a passenger
who refused to give up his
seat last month.
United CEO Oscar Munoz
was one of four airline
representatives at the hearing.
He called the incident a
turning point for his company.
OSCAR MUNOZ, CEO,
United Airlines: It will
accelerate, at least from
United's perspective,
and as you heard from others,
this will make us better.
Once you sit on our aircraft
and you are on a seat, other
than for safety or security
reasons, we will not
take you off that flight.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Republicans
and Democrats alike warned
the airlines to shape up.
Committee Chair Representative
Bill Shuster said customer
service had better improve,
or else.
REP.
BILL SHUSTER (R), Pennsylvania:
Get together collectively
and figure this out.
Seize this opportunity, because,
if you don't, we're going to
come, and you're not going
to like it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: United reached
a settlement with the ejected
passenger last week for an
undisclosed sum.
U.S. auto sales
tumbled last month.
Six major companies
today reported weaker
showings than a year ago.
And, on Wall Street, the Dow
Jones industrial average gained
36 points to close near 20950.
The Nasdaq rose more than
three points, and the S&P
500 added nearly three.
Still to come on the "NewsHour":
the ripple effects of what
President Trump says and tweets;
the world's newest country
devolving into war and famine;
does a Netflix hit push its
portrayal of teen suicide
too far?; and much more.
President Trump has given a
flurry of interviews in the past
week or so to commemorate his
first 100 days in office.
And he made a dizzying amount
of news, giving controversial
and, at times, contradictory
comments on topics
ranging from North Korea
to the U.S. Civil War.
To try to make sense of it all,
we are joined now by our own
Lisa Desjardins, by Yeganeh
Torbati.
She's a State Department
reporter for Reuters.
And Julie Davis, she
covers the White House
for The New York Times.
And we welcome all three
of you to the program.
Let's talk first about
the president's comments
about the health care
bill, this replacement
bill.
Lisa, he was asked some pointed
questions over the weekend,
CBS' John Dickerson, in
an interview for
"Face the Nation."
Here is some of that interview.
Let's watch.
JOHN DICKERSON, Host, "Face
The Nation": They are worried.
Are they going to have the
guarantee of coverage if
they have a preexisting
condition, or if
they live in a state where the
governor decides that's not a
part of the health care, or that
the prices are going to go up?
That's the worry.
The American Medical
Association says...
DONALD TRUMP, President of the
United States: We actually...
JOHN DICKERSON: ... it
could effectively make
coverage completely
unaffordable for people.
DONALD TRUMP: Yes, we
actually have -- well,
forget about unaffordable.
What's unaffordable
is Obamacare, John.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHN DICKERSON: So, I'm
not hearing you, Mr.
President, say there's a
guarantee of preexisting
conditions.
DONALD TRUMP: We actually
have -- we actually have
a clause that guarantees.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Lisa, today,
there are Republicans saying
this newly reworked legislation
doesn't guarantee preexisting
conditions will be covered.
What's going on here?
LISA DESJARDINS: And it's
changed one major vote, Judy.
That's Fred Upton of Michigan.
Our viewers might be familiar
with him because he used to
chair the committee that wrote
health care policy.
He says he's now a no vote on
the Republican plan as it stands
now, because he says preexisting
conditions are not protected
in this latest version.
It seemed that either President
Trump didn't exactly understand
the latest version, or
he was talking about not
the preexisting waivers
that states could get,
but perhaps the high-risk
pools that they're hoping
states use to protect those
folks who have preexisting
medical conditions.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And at one
point in that interview,
Julie Davis, the president
did refer to pools.
What do you think
was going on there?
JULIE DAVIS, The New York Times:
Well, I think what we're hearing
is a president who doesn't
like to get very steeped in
the details of policy, and
what he wants to emphasize is
his message, which is that he
wants everyone to be covered
as effectively and as fulsomely
as they are under the
Affordable Care Act.
The problem is, members of
Congress have to vote on an
actual piece of legislation, and
they're looking at a bill that
doesn't do what he says it does.
So, that's why we're seeing this
initiative stall yet again, and
it sounds like the president's
rhetoric is out of step with
what is actually happening.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, as we
mentioned, this is to all three
of you, we mentioned a minute
ago in our news summary,
there is also conflicting
language coming out of
the White House today
about the spending plan that
was agreed to in the last few
days between Democrats and
Republicans.
Democrats are saying, we won.
The Republicans, some of
them are acknowledging
that Democrats got
the better of this.
The president tweeted this
morning -- and, Julie, I'm going
to come back to you on this
- - he said, "The reason for
the plan negotiated between the
Republicans and the Democrats
is, we need 60 votes in the
Senate, which are not there.
We," he said, "either elect
more Republican senators in
2018 or we change the rules now
to 51 percent.
Our country needs a good
shutdown in September
to fix this mess."
He sounds frustrated, Julie.
JULIE DAVIS: He is frustrated.
And we heard from his
OMB director, his budget
director, Mick Mulvaney,
this afternoon, that
he thought that those tweets
were because of the president's
frustration, not that he
didn't want -- get what he
wanted in the deal, according to
the White House, but that they
were acting, that Democrats
were acting like they had won,
when, in fact, you know, the
president had been
negotiating in good
faith, Mr. Mulvaney said.
The fact is, the president did
have to come to the table and
Republicans in Congress did
and compromise to get a
spending agreement through.
And while most presidents
would be spending this time
saying, we got a lot of what we
wanted, it was a good
compromise, I showed that
I was willing to come
to the table, instead,
the president started the
day really emphasizing
how willing he is to
sort of spark a partisan
conflict in the next go-round.
So, rather than enjoying
the fact that he was able to
broker a compromise that most
people thought it was going
to be difficult for him to do,
he is now looking forward to
the next negotiation and
saying, well, I'm ready
to torpedo that one.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And how is that
received on the hill, Lisa?
LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, that
was a big lead balloon on the
Hill, Republicans shaking their
heads, openly saying, no,
none of this makes sense.
We don't want a
shutdown, actually.
It achieves nothing, with
very exceptions, they were
saying, and also saying, on the
Senate side, Senate Republican
Leader Mitch McConnell was
adamant with reporters today,
saying the vast majority
of the Senate does not
want to change the rules.
We heard from top to bottom
they feel that those rules do
protect the minority in a way
that both parties
agree on right now.
So he's out of step.
And there was a lot of
head-shaking, a lot of
question marks about
exactly what the president
is trying to achieve here.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So,
Yeganeh, I want to bring
you in now, because I
want to share this clip.
This is the president's
interview yesterday
with Bloomberg News
in which he was asked
about North Korea, and, of
course, its young dictator,
Kim Jong-un, came up.
Let's listen to this.
This is an audio interview.
DONALD TRUMP: We have
a potentially very bad
situation that we will
meet in the toughest
of all manners if
we have to do that.
If it would be appropriate
for me to meet with him, I
would absolutely -- I would be
honored to do it.
If it's under the -- again,
under the right circumstances.
But I would -- I would do that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, he's
honored to meet with the
dictator of North Korea.
How is that being received at
the State Department and abroad?
YEGANEH TORBATI, Reuters: Right.
I think the question
here is that it's not
so much a fundamental
shift in U.S. policy.
As you will remember during
the 2008 presidential campaign,
former President Obama said that
there's no reason why
we shouldn't meet with
rogue nations in order to
advance U.S. interests.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That's true.
YEGANEH TORBATI: It's really
the wording of saying that he
would be honored to meet with
Kim Jong-un, who is someone
that, you know, U.S. officials
have said violates his own
people's rights and
is ruling really North
Korea with an iron grip.
And so I think that sort of
language, especially coming on
the heels of his interview last
week, one in which he said
that there's a potential for
a major, major conflict with
North Korea, causes a
little bit of whiplash
within the bureaucracy,
especially the national
security bureaucracy
here in Washington.
The State Department, the
Pentagon, the Treasury
Department, they're
all looking for signals
from the president as to sort
of what their talking points
and what their policy should
be.
And it's a little bit
contradictory at the moment.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lisa, on
the Hill, again, you have so
many members looking to see how
the president speaks about these
very sensitive international,
national security question.
LISA DESJARDINS: There is
no lack of reaction to this.
And, of course, as
expected, Democrats said
this was a problem, but
many Republicans did
as well.
Senate Foreign Relations
Chairman Bob Corker
told reporters the
president's iPhone needs
to be taken away.
John McCain, Armed Services
chairman, went farther.
He said that he thought
this was disturbing.
So it is both serious, and
to some degree people aren't
taking the president seriously
as well.
And that's a problem for him.
I did speak to one source in
Trump world who spent a lot
of time with the president who
said he's a disrupter, and
that people should realize he's
trying to find solutions, so
he is both hot and
cold at the same time.
Washington doesn't know how
to deal with that, and that's
what we're seeing right now.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The last excerpt
I want to share with the
audience brings up the Civil
War, and I'm going to come back
to you, Julie, on this one.
The president was talking.
This is in an interview
he did a couple of days
ago with Sirius radio.
He was being interviewed by
the reporter Salena Zito, and
Andrew Jackson, president Andrew
Jackson''s name came up.
Let's listen to that.
DONALD TRUMP: I mean, had
Andrew Jackson been a little
later, you wouldn't have had the
Civil War.
He was -- he was a very tough
person, but he had a big heart.
And he was really angry that
he saw what was happening
with regard to the Civil War.
He said, there's
reason for this.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Julie Davis,
we know President Andrew Jackson
died 16 years before the Civil
War started.
The president was trying to
clean this up a little bit
on Twitter this morning.
What are they saying
at the White House?
JULIE DAVIS: Well, I think, as
with many of his tweets, they
weren't professing to know
exactly what he meant
when he made that comment.
I think one of the more
charitable explanations
was that the was talking
about the nullification
crisis, when the Southern
states wanted to secede,
and he was against that.
But, really, I mean, historians
point out that this is a
president who is really not
steeped in the details of
history, even sort of the broad
outlines of history, the way
that many presidents have been.
Again, he's not interested in
the details, so much as he's
making the point, Andrew Jackson
is a populist who he has said
he very much admires and sort
of wants to fashion himself
after.
The question, though, is, Andrew
Jackson was also a slave owner.
And to the degree that he might
have been suggesting that there
might have been a solution
short of the Civil War that
would have ended the conflict,
but preserved slavery or some
element of it, that had
people really concerned,
and that had both historians
and other analysts
just sort of scratching
their heads, like, why would
you make a point like that?
It's just one of those comments
that left I think a little
bit more of a mess than he
intended.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yeganeh
Torbati, obviously, the
Civil War, they don't
have to worry about
that any more at the
State Department.
(LAUGHTER)
JUDY WOODRUFF: But they do
obviously consider the way the
president uses language and the
way he speaks about and his
knowledge of American history.
What do the diplomats you speak
with, those who pay attention
to the sensitivities of
all this, say?
YEGANEH TORBATI: There is some
concern that our allies and
our rivals abroad, U.S. allies
and rivals abroad, are somewhat
behind closed doors a little
bit mocking of some of the
things that President Trump
says, and U.S. diplomats sort
of just have to kind of grin
and bear it.
There's not much they can really
say either in defense or sort
of an explanation, because
they're not really sure
themselves what the president
might be getting at.
There's a broader question of,
when he makes these kind of
contradictory remarks or remarks
where he's sort of whipsawing
from sort of statement to
statement, you know, do the rank
and file, do the bureaucrats
within the National
Security Agency, do they
know which direction
to follow when they're
trying to sort of set
the agenda for meetings?
They're not quite sure right
now, because they usually get
their signal, their policy
signal from the president.
And it's not really
clear right now.
Even if Secretary of State
Tillerson or Secretary
of Defense Mattis are
very consistent in their
own messaging, the State
Department and the Pentagon may
not sort of -- the right hand
may know what the left hand
is doing, and so that's sort
of the concern that diplomats
at least have right now.
JUDY WOODRUFF: It's a
reminder that every word
out of the president's
mouth has repercussions
on Capitol Hill, elsewhere
around the executive
branch, Julie and Yeganeh,
completely, around
the world, not just in the
diplomatic community here, but
literally around the globe.
Yeganeh Torbati, Julie Davis,
Lisa Desjardins, we thank you.
YEGANEH TORBATI: Thank you.
LISA DESJARDINS: Thank you.
JULIE DAVIS: Thanks, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Last night,
we brought you a look at the
brutal civil war ravaging South
Sudan and the lives
it has scarred.
Tonight, another
calamity afflicting South
Sudan, a famine, caused
by drought and man.
The United Nations estimates
40 percent of the country's
people are at risk.
Again in partnership with
the Pulitzer Center on Crisis
Reporting, special correspondent
Jane Ferguson reports.
JANE FERGUSON: She studies
with focus and poise.
Rebecca looks like a typical
student next to her classmates
in Thoahnom (ph) school,
in a remote area of South
Sudan, but few of them have been
through what she has endured.
Her family fled for their
lives when government
soldiers raided their village.
They survived by hiding
in swamps for two weeks.
REBECCA RIAK CHOL, South
Sudan (through translator):
When we fled our village,
we were 28 people.
When we got here, we were 24.
Two were shot and
two died of hunger.
JANE FERGUSON: One of those who
died was her 13-year-old sister.
Rebecca watched her grow
weak and starve to death.
REBECCA RIAK CHOL
(through translator):
We didn't have anything
to dig with to bury her,
so we just put grass on
the body and left it there.
JANE FERGUSON: Marco
Nuer is 16 years old and
also goes to school here.
Two months ago, he made it
to this village with what
remained of his family.
MARCO NUER, South Sudan (through
translator): When we fled
the fighting, I saw at least
20 people killed.
Along the road later,
people died of hunger.
JANE FERGUSON: His brother,
sister and father were among
those who died of starvation.
The trauma of their
loss haunts him.
Both Rebecca and Marco have
found safety in this village
controlled by rebel gunmen.
Rebecca's family have been
given this small hut to
shelter in by local people.
Her mom, Tipasa, tries to sell
tea to make extra money for
food, but it's never enough,
so she forages in the marshes.
These are the roots of
the water lily flowers.
This is all people in this part
of South Sudan have to eat.
It's muddy.
It has very little nutritional
value and is deeply unpleasant.
This is what they ate when
they were hiding in the bush,
too, and how countless numbers
of people in South Sudan are
trying to survive, on the run
from government troops targeting
them because of their tribe.
A split between president Salva
Kiir and his vice president,
Riek Machar, in 2013 tore
apart the country,
sparking a civil war.
Both sides have been
accused of war crimes.
Most recently, government
soldiers have been
attacking communities of
tribes seen as supportive
of Machar's rebel fighters,
killing civilians and forcing
large groups of people to flee.
They run into these
massive swamps.
It is a good hiding place from
soldiers hunting them, but
there is nothing to eat here, so
famine has come to both
Marco and Rebecca's homes.
This is a cruel
manmade disaster.
There is food in South Sudan,
but many have had to leave
it behind when they flee.
Food is being dropped by aid
agencies to the most desperate.
Those with the strength
come out of hiding to
get lifesaving supplies.
This is Leer, the famine
area where Marco is from.
People here used to grow their
own vegetables and farm cattle.
When they ran for their lives
into the bush, they left behind
any way of feeding themselves.
The International Committee
of the Red Cross is giving
them tools and seeds.
If they plant maize now, they
can harvest it by August,
if they live that long.
In many ways, this area is
symbolic of the link between
war and hunger in South Sudan.
An area where aid agencies
are giving out food to local
people, they say this once was
a vibrant marketplace, until
government troops came in
and burned it to the ground.
And now the only thing
left of that market is
just ash on the ground.
The numbers of those in
need here are staggering;
100,000 people are right
now starving to death
across the country.
Millions more are on the brink.
DEEPMALA MAHLA, Mercy Corps:
Before I came here, I thought,
I know the drill, I have
been there.
I have never seen anything more
complicated, more saddening
as compared to South Sudan;
4.8 million people do
not have enough food.
It really shocks me.
JANE FERGUSON: Deepmala
Mahla runs the U.S.-based
charity Mercy Corps'
operation in South Sudan.
She is not optimistic
for the future.
DEEPMALA MAHLA: I have
to say the gap between
being brink of starvation
and actually starving,
there isn't a whole
lot of time left.
It happens -- the deterioration
happens pretty fast.
JANE FERGUSON: South Sudan
is the most dangerous
place in the world for
aid workers, yet people
here desperately
needs their help.
Over 80 have been killed since
the war started, a fifth of
those in this year so far alone.
Aid agencies often
struggle to reach people
starving in the wilderness.
Flying for hundreds of miles
over this vast country, you
rarely see even a dirt road.
It's in these remote areas
where people are dying,
far from the world's view.
People in urban areas like the
capital, Juba, can get help.
International Medical
Corps runs this hospital.
In the intensive care ward
for children, Dr. Sadia
Azam shows us how she
diagnoses malnutrition.
So, she is in danger?
DR.
SADIA AZAM, International
Medical Corps: Yes,
she is in danger.
She is really
acute malnourished.
JANE FERGUSON: What's
causing that for her?
DR.
SADIA AZAM: The
children are like this.
Their bodies are very fragile.
They are very weak.
JANE FERGUSON: And weak bodies
can't fight off deadly diseases.
One-and-a-half-year-old
Nyagoah also has pneumonia.
This hospital exists
largely because of U.S.
government funding.
American money is responsible
for much of the aid relief
in South Sudan, whether it's
food drops from planes
or the seeds and tools
distributed in famine areas.
Cuts to foreign aid proposed
by the Trump administration
could mean less money makes
it here.
And charities are nervous.
Jason Straziuso is the
regional spokesperson
for the International
Committee of the Red
Cross.
JASON STRAZIUSO, International
Committee of the Red Cross: The
United States is the largest
single supporter of the ICRC, a
substantial part of our budget.
And we view this
American generosity and
goodwill as vital to our
operations, as vital to our
humanitarian assistance
around the world.
JANE FERGUSON: Rebecca
escaped the horrors of
widespread killings,
only to face starvation
in the wilderness.
Famine will continue to stalk
families like hers in this
country for as long as people
cannot peacefully farm their
cattle and grow food at home.
And the war that drives
hunger here is far from over.
For the "PBS NewsHour,"
I'm Jane Ferguson in
Unity State, South Sudan.
JUDY WOODRUFF: In her final
report tomorrow, Jane brings us
the stories of women in South
Sudan who have survived rape
used as a weapon of war.
Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour":
home visits that cut back on
the risks and cost of asthma;
and from our "NewsHour"
Bookshelf, a new perspective
on a polarizing president.
But first: Can a dramatic
depiction of suicide go too far?
A new series on Netflix about
a teenage girl's tragic death
has some school districts and
mental health experts worried
that the show has gone beyond
just entertainment, and could
pose a threat to young students.
William Brangham
explores the controversy.
It's part of our weekly
series Making the Grade.
And a warning: The story
contains graphic content.
KATHERINE LANGFORD,
Actress: Some of you cared.
None of you cared enough.
Neither did I.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: "13 Reasons
Why" tells the fictional story
of Hannah Baker, a 17-year-old
high school student
who takes her own life.
Hannah leaves behind 13 cassette
tapes, where she narrates
the events leading up to her
suicide.
KATHERINE LANGFORD:
Hey, it's Hannah.
Hannah Baker.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Each tape
centers around one person, and,
in it, Hannah tries to explain
why that person was or wasn't
to blame for her death.
KATHERINE LANGFORD: Don't
adjust your -- whatever
device you're hearing this on.
It's me, live and in stereo.
Get a snack, settle in, because
I'm about to tell you the story
of my life, more specifically
why my life ended.
And if you're listening
to this tape, you're
one of the reasons why.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The
show, which was released
in its entirety a month
ago, brutally depicts
some very tough topics: hazing,
cyber-bullying, and rape.
Hannah's own rape by one of her
classmates is unsparingly shown.
The series is based on a
2007 young adult novel by Jay
Asher, and it was produced by
singer Selena Gomez.
Since its release, school boards
around the country have sent
warning letters to parents,
alerting them to the show,
offering ways to talk about its
content with their kids, but
also suggesting that some kids
probably shouldn't watch it.
Among the concerns cited is
the very explicit way Hannah's
suicide is shown in the final
episode.
KATHERINE LANGFORD: Pardon me,
but you really hurt my feelings.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Some
psychologists say it
glorifies suicide.
Others worry it could
lead to copycat behavior.
The National Association
of School Psychologists
advised teenagers who
suffer from suicidal
thoughts not to watch
at all, saying it "may
lead impressionable
viewers to romanticize
the choices made
by the characters."
Both groups found fault with
the notion of Hannah sending
these taped messages from beyond
the grave, and criticized the
depiction of a school counselor
on the show who, they argue,
fails to follow up on
Hannah's obvious distress.
Following the outcry, Netflix
says it will add a warning
at the beginning the series,
in addition to the
warnings in front of the
most graphic episodes.
And from the beginning, the
show's creators say they
consulted mental health experts,
and tried hard not
to glamorize suicide.
Brian Yorkey is one of
the show's creators.
BRIAN YORKEY, Co-Creator, "13
Reasons Why": We did want it
to be painful to watch, because
we wanted it to be very clear
that there is nothing in any
way worthwhile about suicide.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We asked
the "NewsHour"'s own Student
Reporting Labs to ask some high
schoolers for their
take on the series.
Some applauded the show.
JULIA, Student: I thought the
series would help students that
were grappling with suicide,
just because the show promoted
awareness for students who deal
with suicide and depression,
and they wanted it to
start conversations.
So, it became so popular and
so many people were talking
about it, that I felt like it
did.
STUDENT: I really think
that it's important for
adults to know how much
social media impacts
us now.
It's a different time,
and social media is one
of the biggest reasons
why suicide happens
nowadays.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Others were
concerned about how the show
dealt with suicide and mental
health.
ZOIE, Student: I feel like
there is a lot of younger
audiences who watch it, and that
they watch it and they get the
wrong idea that maybe suicide
is OK or suicide is romantic,
or maybe, if I kill myself,
there will be a boy somewhere
who turns out to be in love
with me.
It shows the pain that others
are suffering, but it doesn't
really address the fact that
Hannah is dead.
MUNA, Student: The
message behind it was to
be kind to everyone so,
like, they don't commit
suicide.
But, in the show,
no one helped her.
The counselor didn't help her.
Like, all the students
didn't help her.
Like, she reached out to
people, but none of them,
like, tried to help her,.
And that, like, it brings a bad
message to people who actually
have depression and stuff,
like they can't talk to
someone about it, like
no one's going to listen.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, is "13
Reasons Why" just a powerful,
provocative drama, or something
more troubling?
I'm joined now by Dr.
Christina Conolly, who
oversees psychological
services for all the
public schools in Montgomery
County, Maryland, and
by Sonia Saraiya, a TV
critic for "Variety."
Welcome to you both.
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY, Montgomery
County Public Schools:
Thank you for having us.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Dr.
Conolly, I would like
to start with you first.
Before we get to some of the
concerns about this show, I
know your job is to oversee 100
school psychologists.
You look out for the welfare
of young people, but, as a
person, as a viewer that watched
this show, what was your
reaction when you saw it?
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: Initially,
the show is very provocative.
I first watched like an episode
a day, and I was watching
at night after work, and I
was like, like, oh, my goodness.
And it really draws you in.
And then, at the end, like,
over the weekend, I was like,
OK, I have to finish it.
So, I watched like four
or five episodes at once.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So you did a
little binge-watching yourself.
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: I did a
little binge-watching myself.
And it was very emotional.
I had trouble sleeping
after watching it.
I even cried after the
episode tape -- Clay's tape.
And it was just very
heart-wrenching to see
everything that was
occurring, all the negative
experiences that
Hannah went through.
And all I kept thinking,
OK, oh, my goodness.
I can only imagine
teenagers watching this,
especially vulnerable
teenagers, and wondering,
how are they feeling with this?
Because I'm an adult.
I'm a mental health
professional.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I'm
just going to stop you.
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: OK, stop me.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Just
be careful about banging
on your microphone there.
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: Oh, OK.
Sorry.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tell
me a little bit more
about those concerns.
What is it that you worry
about a kid who might be having
some -- suffer from some sort
of psychological
trouble, what's the fear?
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: The biggest
fear is that there will be
copycat behavior, that they
will watch Hannah's death,
watch her die by suicide,
because it graphically shows her
with the razor cutting her
wrists, and say, is this
how I can die by suicide?
Is this how -- kind of like a
recipe for how I can die, how
-- a way of coping with what's
happened.
And that is not -- as educators,
as mental health professionals,
we do not want students
and other adolescents
following along in --
with what Hannah has done.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Does
that actually happen?
Is there evidence that copycat
suicides really do occur?
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: Yes, there
is research out there showing
that suicide can be contagious.
It can be copycat, especially
-- even in schools.
Even in the series itself, there
is Hannah who dies by suicide.
In the last episode, there is
another student, Alex, who was
involved in the tapes and then
he attempts suicide.
So, absolutely, this
can happen in schools.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Sonia Saraiya,
I would like to turn to you.
Again, before we get to the
concerns that have been raised
about the series, as a TV
critic, as someone who analyzes
this as a piece of art, what
was your reaction to the
series?
SONIA SARAIYA, "Variety":
You know, I found it
extremely compelling.
I think that Christina's
experience of watching
it was one I felt, too.
I wasn't expecting to be so
taken in by a show that was
aimed at teenagers, and I really
ended up bingeing
it in the same way.
And part of it is because, you
know, more than being about
teenagers and being about
their feelings, the show is
constructed really brilliantly.
Brian Yorkey, who adapted the
show from Jay Asher's novel,
it's adapted so well as a TV
series, with each
tape being an episode.
You feel like you're in a
mystery story, even though you
know what's going to happen.
And there's something
very moody, almost noirish
about the way that the
atmosphere of the school
was constructed.
That's a very
compelling atmosphere.
And it was really easy to sink
into it and to watch this whole
story with these characters
who were really
going through a lot.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Sonia,
how would you respond
to that concern, though,
that it in some ways
could be seen as a guidebook,
a textbook, that a young
woman goes through some very
troubling things?
This is not to discount
the things that happen
to her in the series.
It's really awful things that
she experiences, but that we
see the resolution of that is
her suicide, and then this very
long sort of -- what some have
argued is a sort of revenge
fantasy played out on all of
her classmates, how do you
respond to that, that that's not
really a great thing
to be showing kids?
SONIA SARAIYA: Stories
are not always about
recreating what's happening.
They're about showing us the
-- showing us what happens
with these characters in this
story, in this world, so that we
can take away something from it.
If you were someone who was
thinking about this, you would
understand what it might do
to the people around you, what
it -- how difficult it might be
for your parents to find you in
that situation.
And you might also feel that,
if someone else had gone through
this experience, that you
were not so alone in
your experience of it,
especially because one
of the main takeaways
of "13 Reasons Why," I think,
is that you know Hannah's
going to do this, but you also
see how much of a mistake
it is, as you see the entire
texture of her life and how many
people love her and care about
her, even though they weren't
able to express it in the right
ways throughout her life
when she needed those crises.
At the end, you don't
think it was a good idea.
You know, that certainly wasn't
the takeaway that I think a
lot of people are taking away
from the show anyway.
To me, it seems like
she -- it was a mistake.
She really had a
lot to live for.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well,
Christina, what do
you think about that,
the idea that, in some
ways, this really does show
the emotional wreckage, not
only that cyber-bullying and
rape and the assaults and all
of those things do to her,
but also her own death and the
aftermath of that?
Could that be -- from your
experience as a mental health
professional, could that be
cathartic for a lot of kids?
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: I think that,
for kids, showing -- giving
information about what can
be part of the high
school experience, these
negative experiences
that can occur, these
do happen in real life.
And, as educators, we
have to be aware of that.
We have to help to promote
to our parents that these
things are happening.
Our goal is to make sure that
our parents and our teachers
and other staff members at
schools know that the show is
happening, kids are watching it.
They're in lunchroom talking
about it, on the bus.
What can we do to help them?
And, as they talked about,
one of the big things was the
counselor, and parents were
not shown or teachers were not
shown in a way as a helper.
We want people to know
that that's not the case.
And, in school, we want students
to know that they should
have a trusted adult in their
life that they can go to when
things are going wrong, and
that educators and their parents
are people that they can go
to when these things happen,
unlike Hannah, who went to
this counselor.
The majority of mental health
professionals are not like
that, and we just want people
to understand that.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Could the
series still have retained its
power and changed it a little
bit that would make it
more -- that you would
be more comfortable
with its depiction of
all of this?
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY: They go
through and they talk about
these horrible things that have
happened.
And then they -- in the
end, they show Hannah's
death by suicide.
But they don't show, where
can you go to get help?
What are things that
adolescents can do when
these things are happening?
They show the substance use,
binge-drinking, drinking and
driving, the rape, the stalking,
all these things, but never
does the show go into, where
can you go and how do you get
help?
How does your
friend help others?
When you see your friend
who is going through this,
where can they get help?
But also that Hannah
more than likely has a
mental health disorder.
Over 90 percent of individuals
who die by suicide have a
mental health disorder, and
the show doesn't
discuss that at all.
And mental health disorders
are treatable, and so that,
if we help to treat the mental
health disorder, that helps
to us prevent suicide.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right,
Dr. Christina Conolly, Sonia
Saraiya, thank you both very
much.
DR.
CHRISTINA CONOLLY:
Thank you for having me.
SONIA SARAIYA:
Thank you, William.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Roughly
25 million people in the
U.S. have active asthma.
For most, it can be controlled
with the right medications
and by avoiding environmental
triggers.
And yet nearly half
of all adults and 40
percent of children have
uncontrolled asthma, which
can lead to expensive
medical interventions.
Total annual costs
for the disease are
estimated at $60 billion.
Today is World Asthma Day, which
makes it a good moment for this
report by special correspondent
Cat Wise about a California
program that's drawing attention
for its way of keeping kids
healthy.
CAT WISE: Three-year-old Jesus
Cresto (ph) has been to the
emergency room twice in the
past 12 months for
asthma attacks.
His mom, Angelica (ph),
says she isn't getting
much sleep these days.
ANGELICA CRESTO, Mother: I
will just be checking on him.
Is he OK?
It's really hard, because
they change your life.
I just want to take
care of my kids better.
CAT WISE: The Cresto
family lives in East
Oakland, a predominately
low-income community
in Alameda County ,which has
some of the highest rates
of asthma in California.
Children with uncontrolled
asthma, especially those from
low-income families, who often
have government-funded health
care insurance, account
for a disproportionate
number of costly
E.R. visits and hospital stays.
So, keeping Jesus and the more
than one million other kids with
asthma in California healthy
is a big priority.
And Alameda County has
been leading an effort
to do just that, focusing
on the place where
kids spend the most
time, their home.
On a recent morning, a team
of cleaners specializing
in asthma trigger
remediation, arrive at the
Cresto home.
They cleaned up pest droppings
behind the fridge, removed
mold spots on a bedroom window,
and put a dust mite
cover on a mattress.
The cleaning visit was
arranged by Sandra Rodriguez, a
community outreach worker from
the county's Healthy
Homes Department.
She is part of a unique
collaboration between housing
and public health agencies.
SANDRA RODRIGUEZ, Alameda
County Healthy Homes Department:
Where does Jesus spend a lot of
the time?
ANGELICA CRESTO: He usually
likes to be on the floor.
So, how I clean the
house, I use Clorox a lot.
SANDRA RODRIGUEZ: OK.
ANGELICA CRESTO: Because I think
I want to keep the floors clean.
SANDRA RODRIGUEZ: Using harsh
chemicals like Clorox can really
exacerbate a child's asthma.
And so we recommend that you try
natural products, just soap and
water, soap and water, and one
of the additional
is baking soda.
ANGELICA CRESTO: OK.
CAT WISE: The program, which
began in 2001 and was among
the first of its kind in the
country, is open to all
children in the county who have
been diagnosed with asthma.
Allergen-reducing products
like HEPA filter vacuums are
offered to families who can't
afford them, and the
program will even pay
for minor home repairs.
BRENDA RUEDA-YAMASHITA,
Alameda County Public
Health Department: We
saw these very high
rates in our county, and we
didn't want to have residents
who were dealing with issues
like that.
CAT WISE: Brenda Rueda-Yamashita
manages the Public Health
Department's side of the program
called Asthma Start.
She says the up-front costs,
which average about $2,500
per family, depending on the
needs, are worth spending to
prevent the back-end costs.
BRENDA RUEDA-YAMASHITA: It's
around $23,000 for a child to
have an asthma hospitalization,
and around $3,500 for an E.R.
visit, so that's the highest
impact, mom losing money, dad
losing money, because they have
to stay home with a child or
take the child to the E.R.,
and their employer
doesn't pay for sick time.
There's a cost to cities
and/or counties for their fire,
because fire departments show
up to 911 calls.
CAT WISE: The other key priority
for the program is educating
families about the importance
of taking prescribed
asthma medications.
That's where medical social
worker Amy Sholinbeck comes in.
On this day, she is back for
a second visit with 2-year-old
Romani Webb (ph) and his mom,
Artency (ph).
Romani has had several hospital
stays for asthma attacks,
but after an initial two-hour
visit a month ago, the
family has been on top
of his medications.
AMY SHOLINBECK, Medical Social
worker: Have you noticed that
he's been having less symptoms
since you have been doing this?
ARTENCY WEBB, Mother: At
the nighttime, definitely.
He sleeps a lot better too.
AMY SHOLINBECK: Oh, I'm
so happy to hear that.
It's all about his health.
We want to keep you out
of the hospital, baby.
Sometimes, the family ends up
confusing the inhalers, or it
wasn't explained to them in
enough detail.
So, we're in a calm environment
in their home, and we take a
lot of time to make sure they
understand what the
medications do in the body.
And we have special stickers
we put on the medicines, and
we just make sure they really
get it.
WOMAN: I just want to give
you an update on our numbers.
CAT WISE: The program has served
about 250 families each year.
It's been funded through
a combination of sources,
including grants, taxes, tobacco
settlement money, and a local
Medicaid managed-care program.
A data review by that
organization in 2012
found health care costs
for pediatric patients
ages 0 to 5 were cut in half
during the 12 months after
they went through the program.
Those results and the program's
long track record are generating
new interest in Alameda
County's preventative approach.
LINDA NEUHAUSER, University of
California, Berkeley: I have
studied a lot of programs,
but when I got introduced
to this program, what I
saw was a very seasoned,
careful intervention
that draws on the best
practices that we get
from research to date.
CAT WISE: U.C., Berkeley,
Professor Linda Neuhauser is
leading an in-depth study of
the program.
Her research is ongoing, but
she believes policy-makers
around the country should pay
attention.
LINDA NEUHAUSER: It's hard
to estimate the cost savings,
but I think, in Alameda County
alone, we might be able to
save as much as $16 million a
year just on hospitalizations
of children.
This is an amazing saving
of health care costs.
CAT WISE: Eight-year-old Mihlen
Michael (ph) is one of those
children who is happy to be
out of the hospital.
A year ago, she was in
intensive care after an
especially bad asthma attack.
Her mom, Nebiyat Hagos (ph),
says some big changes have
happened since the asthma teams
visited their home.
NEBIYAT HAGOS, Mother: Now
she's doing a lot better.
She hasn't been to
the E.R. in a year.
They made a great difference.
We were living close to a
freeway, and they mentioned
to me how that affects asthma.
So, we moved away
from the freeway now,
and that also helped.
CAT WISE: Hagos is now working
for the program, and using the
training she received to help
other families with asthma.
The home-based asthma program
recently got a temporary boost
in funding from a national
nonprofit and the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors.
That money is being used in
part to help an additional
250 families this year.
For the "PBS NewsHour,"
I'm Cat Wise in Alameda
County, California.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight,
a new look at one of the
most controversial American
presidents in modern history and
a man of many contradictions.
Jeffrey Brown has this
latest addition to the
"NewsHour" Bookshelf.
JEFFREY BROWN: Few presidents,
we read early is a new
biography of Richard Nixon, came
so far, so fast, so alone,
and, we can add, few fell
so far, so fast, so alone.
More than that, as "Richard
Nixon: The Life" makes clear,
so much of his political legacy
continues to permeate today.
Author John A.
Farrell joins me now.
And welcome to you.
JOHN A. FARRELL,
Author, "Richard Nixon:
The Life": Thank you.
JEFFREY BROWN: Let me start
there for some broad context.
In what fundamental way is
Richard Nixon still with us
in our political culture?
JOHN A. FARRELL: Nixon
practiced what I call the
politics of grievance.
He came from a very unfortunate
background, almost a Dickensian
childhood, with a mean
father, a very frosty
mother, poverty and
sickness in the household.
And he had that ability
to identify in his
audiences, in the electorate
their own resentments,
and to tap them.
And he didn't realize until the
end, the famous speech where
he talks about hate destroying
yourself, how
dangerous that was.
And, by then, this sort
of politics of deliberate
polarization that he
pioneered had taken root.
JEFFREY BROWN: It was so
interesting to me to see the
younger Nixon, even in his first
time running, where you get
the mix of the kind of sincere
ambition to serve, but already
a lot of the tricks, the
bad side of Nixon, it was
there from the beginning.
JOHN A. FARRELL: Yes, it's one
of the things I found was that
Nixon, throughout his life,
was always using yellow pads
and making lists, and then
crossing out as he went.
So, he comes home from war
in 1946, and like lots of the
younger veterans, having seen
the sacrifices that
were made, they wanted
to improve their world.
They wanted to make sure those
sacrifices weren't in vain.
And that's where that idealism
that you talked about came from.
But, young congressional
candidate, there was also
this dark side already.
And he was running
against a fellow named
Jerry Voorhis in 1946.
And in one of these
yellow lists, as I went
down ticking them off,
you know, get volunteers,
put ads in newspapers,
and there at the bottom
was the instruction,
put spies in Voorhis
camp.
JEFFREY BROWN: Put spies...
JOHN A. FARRELL: Put
spies in his camp.
So, right from the
beginning, he had that
inclination towards intrigue.
JEFFREY BROWN: One bit
of news that you make in
this book is confirming
his role in sabotaging
the Paris peace talks,
right, the attempt to
end the Vietnam War.
JOHN A. FARRELL: Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: He didn't want
his Democratic opponents to
get credit for ending the war.
JOHN A. FARRELL: That's right.
Lyndon Johnson desperately
wanted to end the war
before he left office.
And in October 1968,
he announced a bombing
halt to bring the North
Vietnamese and the
South Vietnamese to the table.
And Nixon got wind of it, and
dispatched a woman named Anna
Chennault, who was one of
his aides in his campaign, to
approach the South Vietnamese
and say, drag your heels,
scuttle the talks, and
you will get a better
deal when I'm elected.
And he denied it all his life.
He denied it in one of the taped
conversations that you can hear
at the Lyndon Johnson Library.
He denied it directly.
But I was able to find the
little, tiny jigsaw piece that,
again, one of those yellow legal
pad notes, this time from his
chief of staff, Bob Haldeman.
JEFFREY BROWN: You end
up calling this his
most reprehensible act.
JOHN A. FARRELL: I think it was.
Because of the number of lives
that were at stake, for a
presidential candidate to do
this, I thought, was really
awful, whereas, in Watergate,
like the bumper stickers always
said, nobody died in Watergate.
Certainly, our political
system was tarnished.
But so many lives in the next
four years, next five years,
if you count Cambodia and
the Vietnamese boat people,
almost genocide in Cambodia,
and if the war could have been
ended in '68, what a
difference it would have been.
JEFFREY BROWN: Here's a man
who's been written a lot about.
How do you go about
writing a new biography,
and making it fresh?
Where do you look?
JOHN A. FARRELL: Yes.
There's a great advantage of
being there 40 years later,
because a lot of people have
died.
And , privacy
restrictions are lifted.
A lot of the national security
restrictions on documents are
worked through, and the stuff
is released.
JEFFREY BROWN: You know,
throughout, it is this strange
mix of insecure, very human man,
with a very ruthless politician.
There is sincerity on
the one hand, mixed with
this kind of cunning.
You humanized him, right?
JOHN A. FARRELL: A bit.
JEFFREY BROWN: You lived
with him a long time.
How did you come to see him?
JOHN A. FARRELL: Yes.
I developed sympathy for him.
I was a young teenager
during the 1960s and early
'70s, when he was in office.
And he was a villain.
But when -- your biography,
inevitably, you open windows
into souls of people, and you
explore how awful his childhood
was, and you begin to get
this empathy for the person.
And then you have to balance
it with a cool analysis of how
Nixon behaved as a politician.
So, there's a lot of really bad
stuff in the book about Nixon,
but I also hope that there's
a more humane approach
to him as this sort of
tortured individual.
JEFFREY BROWN: So,
thin-skinned, media-hating.
Soon as your book came
out, there were some
obvious comparisons...
JOHN A. FARRELL:
Yes, us as the enemy.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY BROWN: Yes,
to our current, our
new president, right?
JOHN A. FARRELL: Yes.
Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: But how far
do you make the comparison?
Where does it end?
JOHN A. FARRELL: While they
both seem to have resentments
growing out of their childhood
and a need for public acclaim,
the difference is of the two
men's personalities is very
stark.
Nixon was an intellectual.
He not only read books.
He actually wrote books and he
was -- had a basic reverence,
despite what he did in
Watergate, for the
institution of the presidency.
When he lied, he expected that
you would believe him, whereas,
Trump, I get the idea sometimes
it's the actual blatant lie that
he doesn't want you to believe.
He's just sort of
rubbing it in your face.
So, those are, I think,
major differences
between the two of them.
But they did both practice
what I was talking
about, that politics of
identifying in individuals
or identifying in the voters
resentments of race and class,
and capitalizing on them.
JEFFREY BROWN: The new book
is "Richard Nixon: The Life."
John Farrell, thank
you very much.
JOHN A. FARRELL: My pleasure.
Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tune
in later tonight.
"Frontline" examines what
happens when teenagers
convicted of murder are
permitted to reenter
society.
"Second Chance Kids" focuses
on two men, among the first to
be released following a 2012
Supreme Court decision
that found sentences of
mandatory life without
parole for juveniles
unconstitutional.
Anthony Rolon was a teenager
when he was convicted
in the death of Bobby
Botelho in New Bedford,
Massachusetts.
WOMAN: Twenty-year-old Bobby
Botelho was stabbed to death
nearly two decades ago.
Tonight, his family speaks to
Eyewitness News as they wait
to hear if his killer will stay
behind bars.
WOMAN: It's unfair.
It shouldn't even be happening.
And we will fight until
we have to, and we will
do whatever it takes.
ANTHONY ROLON, Convicted
Murderer: I knew that
the victim's family
believed I shouldn't
even be having this
hearing, shouldn't be
having this opportunity
to give this individual
a second chance.
MAN: Good morning, Mr. Rolon.
I'm chairman of
the parole board.
We are here today to consider
your petition for parole from
a first-degree murder sentence
for stabbing and killing
Robert Botelho on January 21.
ANTHONY ROLON: I wanted to
have respect for the family,
so I didn't want to look over
there, but I went there
with the purpose of
having that opportunity
to just say, I'm sorry.
It's time to speak the truth.
It's time to say what happened.
It's time to own up.
After being convicted of taking
Mr. Botelho's life, I told
his mother that I didn't kill
her son.
For the past 18 years and six
months, Mr. Botelho's mother
has deserved for me to speak
the truth, by saying that it
was me who killed her son, and
that I'm sorry for creating the
pain that is in her heart.
JUDY WOODRUFF: "Frontline" airs
tonight on most PBS stations.
And that's the
"NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
For all of us at the "PBS
NewsHour," thank you,
and we will see you soon.