movement. should msnbc worked on a statement for the group without telling the viewers? herman cain confounds almost everyone by surging to the top of the republican polls. is the press finally giving him the scrutiny he deserves. and with the presidential debates dominating, we talk to the man that moderated more faceoffs than anyone else an ad mitts to a few mistakes along the way. a conversation with jim lehrer. >> you don't have any help, don't have time to make the decisions. you have to do them right then with the whole world watching. >> i am howard kurtz. this is reliable sources. when president obama announced nato bombing missions last march in an effort to protect libyan civilians against the gadhafi regime, reaction ranged from skeptical to strikingly negative. some commentators said too little too late. others asking why the u.s. was involved at all in another war. >> he doesn't believe america's role ought to be the leadership role. really have no intention of enforcing a threat that gadhafi will be removed. >> it is about making sure gadhafi goes, except it is not about making sure he goes. we're not clear why we are fighting, who exactly we are fighting with, who the rebels are that we're fighting for, what a no fly zone accomplishes. >> now that the rebels won and moammar gadhafi has been killed, is the press giving credit for pulling it off? here is a story. for obama, some indication of his much criticized approach to war is on the bottom of the pamg. joining us in washington, amy holmes, and bill novak, and terence smith, former media correspondent for pbs news hour. terry, the media wallowed for months in criticism of the libya policy. why don't they stop now, give some credit to the president when a brutal regime is toppled and the policy is successful. >> they should and i suspect they will. wallow is your verb. much of it reflected the public and wider view beyond the media. there were big questions about what we were doing there, how it would succeed. however, the policy has succeeded in its narrowly stated goals. and so now, yes, he deserves credit for sticking with a policy that took longer than expected, months, not weeks, but is ultimately successful. >> seems to be a one day story. the new yorker reported obama saying the president was leaving from behind, maybe so, would the press prefer he land on an aircraft carrier and brag? >> interesting when he came out, with that announcement of the success of the policy, you heard the shouted question, is it vindication from leading from behind. even that was a way to stick it to him in the end. i don't think he will get credit in the press. certainly not getting from his republican critics, aren't giving credit for anything, and liberals aren't going to defend it because they didn't like the policy in the first place. but his numbers are pretty good on foreign policy. i think people are looking beyond what all of us chatter about. >> that's my question. the other media theme, obama turned out to be a pretty successful foreign policy president, killed bin laden, other leaders -- >> i respectfully disagree that president obama should quote, unquote get credit even if the policy succeeded because his own measure of success was protecting civilians. when they were asked specifically the goal to kill gadhafi, they said no. >> they also want regime change. >> the politician moves the goalpost, tries to convince. here the press is moving the goalpost and ascribing to president obama a goal achieved that he never set out to achieve. >> he did call for -- >> he did not call for regime killing. and i think it is fascinating, chalk todd, political director of nbc and chief political correspondent compared the iraq war to the libyan operation. iraq, hundreds of billions spent. >> why is that unfair comparison. >> dictator killed, libya 1 billion, dictator killed. this is not what they set out. and is it appropriate for the chief correspondent to do this sort of offhand foreign policy analysis. >> i don't think this is an obama problem uniquely. this is what happened with clinton in bosnia. everybody said it is not going to work, not going to work, oh, yeah, it worked. >> i think the press gets very engaged in failure, and when success happens, it is like succeeded, yes. >> do you know this succeeded? >> success is a little early here. success, what is success? >> in general we don't like to -- we don't say 300 planes landed successfully at national airport yesterday. >> i also want to talk about shortest attention spans in the media. there were several republicans out there when obama went with nato intervention, sarah palin and others that questioned the decision to go into libya. i don't see stories going back saying hey, you were wrong. >> and those questions should be put to them and this inevitable series of debates perhaps they will. >> on thursday, the day gadhafi was killed, i was watching cable all day, many networks, and you kept seeing, and we're going to show you something, a picture that's disturbing, rather gruesome photos of the former colonel gadhafi after he had been killed. yet the next day, very if you newspapers ran this on the front page. did it bother you at all how often this image was shown? >> it bothered me they put it out because it seemed unnecessary. once they put it out, i don't think we should in the media be in the position of protecting sensitivities of readers or viewers from it. it is out there, people will see it anyway. maybe you don't put it on the front page so the kid doesn't see it at breakfast, but you have to cover it. >> i disagree with that. i think we should have. it was graphic coverage. it is graphic coverage. it is hard to watch, but it is what happened. and for once, we showed what happened. you don't see that when an american soldier in afghanistan or iraq comes to a bad end. we, the media, tend to be squeamish about that, or through some misguided notion of patriotism decide we won't show it and so we sanitize it. i think it is a mistake. this is real. >> i think when it comes to showing this kind of violence, we know the media will show consequences, what happens with a suicide bomber, but one half of the torso on one half of the street, the legs on the other. it seems to be on a case by case basis. with 9/11, for example, the big networks got together and said we're not showing the images any more, particularly people jumping out of the window. you never saw the limbs and dismemberment after 9/11. osama bin laden, the media goes along with president obama's refusal to show the pictures, yet they go with this photo. >> war is ugly, and let's show it for what it is. and it is a disservice to do otherwise. >> and with all of the conspiracy theorists. >> of course it should have been shown, i don't like it became wallpaper and we saw it every ten minutes on cable. also friday, obama announcing remaining u.s. troops will come home from iraq by end of the year. that was a deadline negotiated in the bush administration, and the associated press had reported u.s. abandoning plan to keep troops in iraq past the deadline. treat it like fresh news by most of the news business and i wonder why. >> had a huge impact on me. how long we have been in it, and the cost, and the fact that even up until the very last, there was some possibility that a deal would be negotiated to keep 5,000 or 10,000 troops there. >> so was it justified? you put an exclamation point on the end of this long, bloody conflict. when we come back, press starts demanding answers from herman cain. why does it take so long. later, in depth conversation with jim lehrer. ♪ for spacious skies ♪ ♪ for amber waves of grain ♪ ♪ for purple mountain ♪ majesties ♪ ♪ oh, above the fruited plain ♪ well, now, wait a minute ♪ i'm talkin' about ♪ america ♪ sweet ♪ america ♪ god done shed his grace on thee ♪ [ male announcer ] for the first 100 years and for generations to come, thanks for making us a part of your life. ♪ yes, he did ♪ hey, with brotherhood all the pundits that predicted herman cain, former pizza executive with no previous political experience would become a front runner, raise your hands. just like i thought. >> my question had to do, however, with the reality of this plan, the wealthiest americans would pay less, poorest americans and middle class would pay more. you don't dispute that? >> i do dispute that. >> you say your remark over the wchbd about building a fence that would be electrified so anyone trying to sneak across the border would be electrokutd, you say it was a joke. >> mr. cain, many say your 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on middle income voters and lower income voters. >> where were the tough questions before cain started to rise in the polls pedaling this plan which easy to pick apart? >> he is charming, he is funny, he is engaging. people like him. that's why he's risen to the point he has. that's why the questioning has been soft. but even today -- he charmd people and journalists included, but even this morning, a tough piece on the front page of "the new york times" about his background as a lobbyist. >> i thought you were a hard hitting -- that couldn't be charmed by the politicians. now, questions on abortion where he seemed to be edging towards pro-choice. 9-9-9 plan, electrified fence, they are trying to take him down. >> i think the questions are appropriate and politics ain't bean bags. it is a republican primary. >> are the questions overdue? >> no. i think when it seems he is a more serious candidate. yes, he is charming, but there are only so many hours of the day, and a lot of republican candidates are standing on stage and each of them certainly deserves scrutiny for gop voters to make decisions. but national media is not going to get into it. >> i have been in the tank for the herm andator, but i think there are a lot of journalists that enjoy the side show and enjoy the candidates that way, but this is another case where the press follow the polls. we followed ron paul so little, he is complaining. we need more coverage, ask more questions. it is like according to the polls, he is viable, we better ask tough questions. >> i think there is still an ideal logical angle in the sense of going into the issues if you contrast with president obama when he was campaigning, he was vast lating, ambiguous on position against gay marriage. he said marriage was sankity fied union between a man and woman. came to this belief in his christian faith and tradition, but his positions are -- >> didn't get the scrutiny his opponents did. >> herman cain was not taken seriously as a candidate at the beginning, so the questions weren't very serious. then he rose in the polls, and the questions got more penetrating. >> i understand, i take them seriously from the beginning and not playing hard game when suddenly is rising in opinion polls. he does a lot of interviews where rick perry except for that round of morning shows a week ago did, and mitt romney almost never subjects himself to questions. speaking of rick perry, anita perry had an eye catching quote. we, meepg her husband, have been brutalized, eaten up, chewed up in the press and attributed it in part to her husband's faith. >> i am sure it is difficult to be in a national campaign and in particular to see your husband -- >> he is running for president. >> she's the wife of the gop hopeful, but when i hear that, again, to bore into the spouse's remarks rather than say look, she is a spouse, she is not running, has a personal vested interest. michelle obama -- >> i am not criticizing anita perry, i am saying does she have a legitimate beef. >> there is a bias against rick perry in the press, that's clear. i think it is a personality. >> style? >> it is his style and he obviously has contempt for the press. that probably makes it mutual. others are better at -- >> you say reporters, particularly of eastern establishment variety, not sympathetic to kind of a cowboy shoots at the lip texan? >> not george w. bush, but it is a matter of him being seen as alien creature. >> they don't like candidates that drop their gs. most i would ago, rick perry's criticisms and problems are self inflicted. >> speaking of perry, there was a cnn debate in las vegas when perry and mitt romney went at it. got a lot of attention. show you one of the sequences that ends with former governor romney asking for help from the moderator. >> rick, again -- rick, i am speaking. >> time are you to -- >> you get 30 seconds. the way the rules work, i get 60 seconds, then you get 30 seconds to respond, right? anderson? >> that got so much attention, but the fact is rick perry was trampling the rules, not letting him get a sentence out. he asked anderson to enforce the rules. should anderson have said give him a chance to respond? >> the moderator is supposed to do that. it is better in television when people don't talk over one another. many producers say that's good tv. i think it is horrible tv. sort of gives me a headache. beyond that, i'm not surprised by it. >> they were fighting over an old story in the boston globe back in 2006 about whether romney used illegal immigrants to cut his lawn. he said he didn't know about the lawn company. why is so much attention paid not just to the bickering but to the moment, the shot of it, when romney dared put his hand on perry's shoulder. people looked at this like he sluged the guy. >> i think the coverage is justified and right. that picture, that told us a great deal about the men more than you would some simple recitation on policies on immigration. you saw this overcalf nated rick perry being a little too aggressive and finally saw romney has a pulse. it was like wait a second. >> it is always eye catching when the politicians invade one another's personal space. >> i agree. >> ha-ha-ha! remember hillary clinton and al gore with george bush. and bush gave him a look to brush him off. the physical moments. >> back on the earlier moments, did ander sop cooper put romney in a difficult spot by not stepping in? >> that's a tough one when there's a melee, try to pull them apart. i saw how comfortable he is on a first name basis with anderson. hey, anderson. >> i thought republicans followed the rules. >> we're all on a first name basis with anderson. one more break. up next, talk about the media unpolarized over wall street protests. are we getting the full picture? my doctor told me calcium is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal. for the efficient absorption my body needs. ♪ we're centurylink... a new kind of broadband company committed to providing honest, personal service from real people... 5-year price-lock guarantees... consistently fast speeds... and more ways to customize your technology. ♪ the media coverage has intensified since the occupy wall street protests have gone global. there have been more clashes with police. more people were arrested in chicago. makes you wonder whether they're looking at the same demonstrators. >> these people still not winning and they're not going to win. >> my education tells me the 99% movement is twice as popular as the nut jobs in the tea party. >> the communist nut job -- sex addicted morons. >> keep it on this high level, shall we? you went to the protests in d.c. you look at those clips, are the lefty and righty pundits projecting their views on the occupy wall street. >> i am shocked you came to me immediately after sex addicted morons. yes, look, we're seeing a mirror image of the complaint from the left about the tea party and sort of the fueling by fox news. now we're seeing the exact same thing happen on the other side. the complaints, they're not saying it is astroturf, they say they have other insults for it, and we're seeing the same behaviors at msnbc. >> and you went to the demonstrations in new york. the they treating occupy wall street more sympathetically than the tea party? >> and we have been following who is behind it, who is funding it, where do these beautifully produced faux newspapers come from. i notice that haven't gotten coverage, you see a hodge podge and posters, but you don't see representative from -- no wage gap ceiling, women as bankers, wall street would be a friend leer place. now the occupy wall street advise people not to go to the police. >> there's a good story in "the washington post" about interviewing both wall street protesters and tea party protesters. i think the challenge for journalists, figuring out what the protesters want. there's no established leadership. it is easy to focus on a few crazy people with signs or people engaging in appropriate behavior. hard to make judgments on the movement as a whole. >> i think that's right. and actually i think main street media were slow to pick up on this story. it is a phenomenon that has gone global. i went down to the demonstration in washington and looked, rather benign scene to tell you the truth. but this is a phenomenon. and if it is unformed and if the issues are ill defined, it is still worthy of substantial reporting. commentary will come from two directions. it is a phenomenon that will get more attention, not less. >> and some people had some involvement with occupy wall street protesters, one is the host of a show called "the world of opera," npr is now dropping distribution. had no documentary show she was fired from because lisa simeon was a occupy wall street spokesperson. >> two key points here. when i read about her getting fired. she was fired from the show, not by npr. npr distributes the show. the key point was because a programming director complained and as someone from the radio world, you listen to the programming directors, they're the ones making decision whether or not you'll be on the air. secondly, npr is in the middle of a fund-raising drive. they don't want this when they're asking listeners for money. >> on the opera show, she had a great quote. what are they afraid i will do? put a comment into synopsis of madam butterfly? >> people at the "the washington post" did the same. may have been a similar reaction. >> with a music critic? >> yes, because that's the policy. npr has a big target on it because of mistakes they made in the past. they overreacted to juan williams, they're going to overreact because of the target. >> you know it is worth pointing out she was also an anchor on the weekend edition before on npr. if you're on an organization that presents news, whether you do it that moment or not, steer clear of this sort of thing. >> setting up for the next question about dill and rat began who has spoken with some sympathy for the wall street protesters. show you the clip. >> i was there after the 700 arrests on the brooklyn bridge, and the energy that night at the general assembly that tim was talking about was loving and warm and more courageous, more resolute. >> dylan ratigan, talking about simple shared principles. here it is, a statement the group is going to put out with him suggesting the ending needs smoothed out. is that troubling? >> totally inappropriate. absolutely wrong. journalists have fallen into the trap of telling politicians how to shape their message, now protesters how to shape their message. it is a big mistake. they shouldn't do it. it is crossing the line. >> it is one thing to go on the air and say i have been talking to people, here is my advice, this is behind the scenes, not something msnbc would know anything about. >> but this is the world we live in now. so i don't think, you may not like it, nobody should be surprised by it. this sort of thing goes on. the line has been blurred between activism and between journalism. i mean, if we look at gradations and shades of gray here, it is perhaps better for the movement like occupy wall street than getting in and helping a political candidate. >> i think it is very problematic, fox had a flareup where one of the executives advised the bush campaign. that was inspired. i believe they were going back and forth. we see a blurring and here at cnn, james karg i will and paul were having phone conversation wes rahm emanuel. >> but look, the people that are outside contributors help them raise money. >> you can say that about the host simeon. she said she was an independent person with independent show distributed by npr. >> with dylan, he is a host on everyday at 4:00 in the afternoon, part of msnbc corporate family, involved in e-mails with a group he was covering. we're running short on time, would it have been different if he was host at fox news and having e-mails with the tea party? >> the defense is that he is commentator and entertainer, not news. >> when you have a politician, someone running for office -- >> i think it is a mistake. thanks for stopping by this morning. coming up in the second part of "reliable sources" he moderated more presidential debates than anyone in history and has the scars to show it. we go to videotape with jim lehrer. fore! no matter what small business you are in, managing expenses seems to... get in the way. not anymore. ink, the small business card from chase introduces jot an on-the-go expense app made exclusively for ink customers. custom categorize your expenses anywhere. save time and get back to what you love. the latest innovation. only for ink customers. learn more at chase.com/ink morning in the history of presidential debates is written one journalist will get as much as any of the candidates, jim lehrer did 11 of these. does he try to get the contenders to move beyond scripted responses? i spoke with the anchor here in studio. jim lehrer, welcome. >> thank you, thank you. >> i watched you in the studio and before the presidential debates. i was at one of the mccain, obama debates last time. you seem like the calmest guy in the world, and you write you get anxious before the debates. >> absolutely. anybody that doesn't is a liar or an idiot. in the book as you know, i compare it to walking down the blade of a sharp knife, moderate one of these things, because stakes are impossibly high. >> you don't want to screw up. >> you don't want to screw up. >> you say you get in a zone, even your wife is not supposed to disturb that zone. what goes on in that zone. >> it is a comfort level where i feel i know enough, have enough in my head not to write -- anybody writes quick questions, but be comfortable enough to be able to listen to the answers and say yeah, hmm, that's new, that's fresh. follow up. or that isn't, forget it. move on. and that takes -- you don't have any help, you don't have time to make the decisions, you have to make them with the whole world watching. that comfort zone is supposed to be relaxed to listen. otherwise, you become the prisoner of your prepared questions. >> thinking of what comes next. >> what time, cue, all that stuff. and you lose sight of what the mission is which is to pay attention to what's being said and help the audience. remember, this isn't about anybody other than the audience, especially for the debates. they're for people trying to makeup their minds between billy bob and sammy sue. >> let's look at some of the television moments. i made a list. we'll play it. 1996, bob dole and bill clinton. you asked this question of the former senator. >> senator dole, we talked mostly now about differences between the two of you that relate to policy issues and that sort of thing. are there also significant differences in the more personal area that are relevant to this election? >> i don't like to get into personal matters. as far as i'm concerned, this is a campaign about issues. >> what were you getting at? >> the woman issue. the elephant in the room. and i had decided that here again, i made a decision ahead of time that if it didn't come up naturally, i would bring it up eventually. >> you didn't bring it up explicitly, ask about paula jones or jennifer flowers. you served it up in a code. >> absolutely. if dole wanted to make an issue, he was going to have to. i was not going to be the one that made it an issue. and dole chose not to. and i followed up with kemp at the next presidential debate. he made a decision not to do it. >> this came back to you when you were at news hour a little more than a year later, "the washington post" had a huge story, ken star investigating the relationship with monica lewinsky. the president of the united states on the program and this is how you hand tell. >> mr. president, is that true? >> that is not true. that is not true. i did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. there is no improper relationship and i intend to cooperate with this inquiry. but that is not true. >> the only improper relationship, define what you mean by that. >> i think you know what it means. it means there is not a sexual relationship, improper sexual relationship or any kind of improper relationship. >> you had no sexual relationship with this young woman? >> there is not a sexual relationship, that is accurate. >> and what did you miss in that interview? >> oh, man, i missed what he was saying, i mean, thank you for running that. >> it is in the book. >> it is in the book. it is the single worst professional mistake i ever made. there again, i was nervous, no question about it, you have to be nervous in a situation like that, the first interview after the story broke, and i let my nervousness get the best of me, and i was speaking in a past tense. he was speaking in the present tense. >> you followed up. >> i did. >> saying there is no improper relationship. >> and i didn't realize what had happened until i got back to my office afterwards and i was talking to my wife. we had allowed unprecedented thing. we were doing this interview for the news hour and all the networks wanted it and wanted it live. so we did the good thing. >> you gave it away. >> gave it away. literally gave it away. so the whole world watched that. i got to the office, and my wife kate said on the phone, that was terrific, but by the way, one of the girls, we have three daughters, one of the girls said that you didn't pick up on the fact he was using the present tense and you were using the past tense, he was using the present tense. i thought oh, my god. fortunately i escaped because there was so much stuff about it, and nobody, no howard kurtz came along and handed me my head over it, but i felt like an idiot and deservedly so. it was a perfect example of the kind of thing that i preach against all the time, you know, which is pay attention to what people are saying, listen, follow up. and i missed it. >> let's go to one more in 2000, george w. bush against al gore. you were challenging then governor bush with these words. >> folks are saying some awful things. >> hopefully not awful things. >> what i mean is that the economy -- >> i don't believe i used those words. >> the campaign officials have. >> i understand. >> you took a lot of heat for saying that. >> i said it in in commercial and it wasn't in his commercial, it was his press secretary that said it, a press secretary said it. and they called my hand on it. here again, i was moderating the debates. i had the next debate to do. and i decided it was, you know, wrong. i was wrong, technically wrong. theoretically, in a general way, i was right on the money, but technically i was wrong. i admitted the mistake on the air beginning of the next debate, and everybody laughed because they couldn't figure out what's wrong with that? well, i knew what was wrong. >> there was a time you did get a lot of criticism as a moderator. you recount, a "the new york times" headline critics accuse moderator of letting the debate wander. you also say i don't handle criticism well. did you feel stung by the reaction? >> i did. first of all, criticism is something i don't like at all, period. but criticism that i think is unfair, now, criticism that is fair, i still don't like it, but i don't react to it and i can handle it. and over a period of time, i have been able to discern the difference between fair criticism and unfair criticism. criticism, if somebody else has, in other words, in this case after it was all said and done, i fully understood what was going on. the gore people, not gore, but the gore people wanted to get me on the defensive. >> working the rap. >> exactly. working every angle because that's what it's all about. you know that and i know that. all they care about is winning. if you can rough up, get the moderator nervous going excuse me, that's a great thing. that's what they were doing. >> one more in 2008. you were trying to get barack obama and john mccain to engage. >> do you have something directly to say, senator obama, to senator mccain about what he just said in. >> ten days ago john said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. i do not think we're there. >> say it directly to him. i am determined to get you all to talk to each other. >> why was it so hard? >> the reason i was determined, it was the first time it specifically allowed this in the debate rules. those rules are made through the representatives of the candidates. they agreed specifically for the first time they could speak to each other and ask each other questions. i was determined as the moderator to -- because it was a new thing, thought it would make for better debate. >> mccain in particular wouldn't do it. >> mccain wouldn't do it. why he wouldn't do it, i don't know. but it wouldn't, and it hurt him, no question it hurt him. he came over as, i don't know, it came over to some people at least, a criticism that he was dissing obama, because obama, when i told him to look, he looked, he was cool and he called john mccain john, and mccain would not do that. and for his own reasons. in a moment, jim lehrer on the difficult decision to step down from the news hour. the postal service is critical to our economy-- delivering mail, medicine and packages. yet they're closing thousands of offices, slashing service, and want to lay off over 100,000 workers. the postal service is recording financial losses, but not for reasons you might think. the problem ? a burden no other agency or company bears. a 2006 law that drains 5 billion a year from post-office revenue while the postal service is forced to overpay billions more into federal accounts. congress created this problem, and congress can fix it. ♪ ♪ ♪ when your chain of supply ♪ goes from here to shanghai, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ chips from here, boards from there ♪ ♪ track it all through the air, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ clearing customs like that ♪ hurry up no time flat that's logistics. ♪ ♪ all new technology ups brings to me, ♪ ♪ that's logistics. ♪ i tell you what i can spend. i do my best to make it work. i'm back on the road safely. and i saved you money on brakes. that's personal pricing. my sitdown with jim lehrer. some of the recent debates in this presidential soon, fox responsibili sponsored, one with google, the tea party, more difficult with nine candidates on the stage, but do you think some of these additions are good or distracting for the process? >> you know, i think they're fine. and i think particularly in the primary debates, try anything. that's where you want to try it. my only problem with the debate -- the debates during the primaries is when they don't treat the candidates exactly the same. this idea of putting the front-runners in the middle and beginning to let them do a two-way and let it run for 10 or 15 minutes and the other people just stand there, i don't think that's the way it ought to be. >> you say you are out of the business of moderating presidential debates. >> absolutely. >> next season, the commission comes to you, jim, you have to do this for your country. >> i will say i've done it for my country. that's one of the reasons i wrote this book. when i made the decision to write the book, it was part of the decision i wasn't going to do any more debates. i've done 11 of them. i feel good about it. you know, i've survived. i've got some psychic scars in me. but i'm reasonably proud of what i have done and i'm delighted and felt honored to be asked to do it. but it's time for others. >> you started "the news hour" with robert mcneil, of course, in 1975. >> right. >> four months ago you stepped awy from your full-time role coming op fridays. how hard a decision was it to move away from that program that had been part of your life for so long? >> difficult. extremely difficult. for all kinds of reasons. one of them is just on a personal level, i've been in data journalism for 50 years. i don't know have to tell you, you live with deadlines. and deadlines can scare people to death and make them very young or make them very old, whatever. and in my case, deadlines never scared me. and they're part of -- they make my blood -- they make the blood rush to my brain. and it's a very exciting kind of thing. it's a little boy, little girl work. data journalism is listening to the sirens and, oh, my god, is that a fire truck, is that a police car? and you want to know what it is and where it's going. >> it sounds to me like you miss it. >> oh, sure i miss it. but i miss it on my terms. in other words, the decision, as you know, because you wrote about it at the time, it was my decision to kind of glide away and see, first of all, whether or not all our change rr going to work and also seeing how i could have handled it. i discovered to my delight that i'm very much at ease about it and i couldn't be happier. and i'm not -- it's not -- i'm not -- i'm replacing the deadlines, the deadline ment mentali mentality, the deadline way of thinking of life, and i can create my own deadlines. as a writer, you have to create your own deadlines. as you know, no one cares whether you write another book or not. you create your own deadlines. i've gotten used to that and i couldn't be happier. >> life after journalism. >> absolutely. >> still to come, fox news hires a former governor famous for something other than governor. and bryant gumbel's black and white slam against the nba. my doctor told me calcium is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal. for the efficient absorption my body needs. confidence. available in color. depend for women is now peach. looks and fits like underwear. same great protection. depend. good morning. great day. time now for the immedia"me monitor." "the new york times" moved beyond the cheap shots about mitt romney's religion with a deeply reported story on his role as a bishop and senior official in the mormon church, including interviews of people he counseled. the "fox and friends" story seemed wild. president obama was going to apologize to japan for the u.s. dropping two atomic bombs during world war ii but japanese officials said thanks but no thanks? the story was bogus, as the co-host acknowledged last week. >> the story was about a possible apology from president obama to the country of japan for the united states dropping atomic bombs on that country during world war ii. well, we want to make sure this is very clear. there was never a plan for president obama to apologize to japan. should have been clearer about this, and we are sorry for any confusion. >> speaking of fox news, the network has added yet another republican politician to its payroll, but i don't think we'll see this one running for president. mark sanford is the former south carolina governor who gained notoriety for carrying on with the woman he called his argentine soulmate. comedian harry scherer tweeted -- maybe he'd become the appalachian trail candidate. the scandal sure did boost his name recognition. with a bitter labor dispute already claiming the opening weeks of the nba season, hbo's bryant gumbel said this about commissioner david stern, who runs the league in which most of the players are black. >> the commissioner who has always seemed eager to be viewed as some kind of modern plantation overseer, treating nba men as if they were his boys. >> now, gumbel is obviously entitled to bash stern for this infuriating impasse, but to me, that racially charged remark seems out of bounds. that's it for this edition of "reliable