tv Consider This Al Jazeera December 27, 2013 1:00am-2:01am EST
>> welcome back to al jazeera america. i'm thomas drayton with a look at the top stories. >> the u.s. is sending military aid to iraq to help them fight al qaeda. they are targetting forces in the anwar province. 18 troops were killed in an ambush on saturday. african leaders are in south sudan negotiating an end to the violence that gripped the country for two weeks. 1,000 people have died in the fighting. the u.n. is sending in peacekeeping troops and equipment. a russian investigation found no trace of poisoning in the death of palestine leader yasser arafat. >> experts found evidence of a
lethal substance polonium in arafat's remains. >> help is on the way for 74 passengers on board a ship caught in icy antarctic orders on tuesday. a professor travelling with the group heard from a chinese ice breaking vessel on round to free the ship. >> holiday sales up 2%. megadiscounts were considered one driving force behind the increase. those are the kheadlines. "consider this" is up next. >> surprising new details about the u.s. mission in iraq. the american military is now helping the fight against
extremists with everything from surveillance drones, rockets and missiles. so consider this, did the u.s. leave iraq too early? and what does that mine for america's mission in afghanistan? also, edward snowden sends a special holiday message back to the u.s. saying mission accomplished. but what is the real impact on the nsa? also, a plus sized barbie reigniting a firestorm of controversy over what childhood dolls should look like and their impact on body image. and a british invasion on tv. why are sherlock, downton abbey and other shows from the uk all the rage here on american tv sets? hello, everyone. i'm adam may sitting in for antonio mora. welcome to "consider this." we begin with two international hots spots where u.s. policy does not seem to be working write now. starting in iraq, more than two years after president obama declared the iraq war
was over, now the u.s. is sending hellfire missiles and surveillance drones to that country as the baghdad government battles a renewed al qaeda insurge incy. more than 7,000 civilians, close to a thousand iraqi security forces have died in attacks just this year alone. among the latest victims, at least 26 people that were killed in 38 more wounded in an attack on a baghdad catholic church wednesday right after christmas prayers had ended. and there is continuing uncertainty in afghanistan. president obama had said all forces would leave in 2014 but now that plan seems to be in jeopardy. president car xi needs to sign a bilateral security agreement no later than december 31st but is refusing to sign that without concessions from the u.s. now it appears that the u.s. deadline has softened. meanwhile, taliban forces
attacked the u.s. embassy kabul with rockets wednesday. no one was hurt in that attack. for more on iraq and afghanistan i'm joined by ambassador kurt everything. a director of the mccain institute for leadership. thank you for joining just us. >> i guess you look at the issues happening in both those countries. the first question i have for you are these never ending wars, is the u.s. always going to have involvement there? >> well, the first thing to say these are conflicts within societies. they are suni versus shia, taliban versus the mainstream. those are wars that are going on. and the u.s. role has been trying to create one of stability, integration and tolerance. or in the absence of that u.s. role, you see an increase in conflicts and violence. that is what we snowing iraq and we risk in afghanistan if we don't get the security
agreement sorted out and continuing u.s. mission sorted out as well. >> let's go back and talk about what is happening in iraq. american policy is trying to establish a stage iraq that can be a positive force in that region. and it is all trying to minimalize military involvement on the ground. how is that working out for us? >> i think we have seen it decline over the past several years. i any 2007 and 2008 when we had the surge in iraq we were at the same time working on the political side. and you had the shia, suni and kurds willing to take part in building a new iraq taking part in the government and politics. since the u.s. withdrawal, you have seen all the different parties go to corners. shia rally around the shia viewpoint and they control the government, you have seen the sunis feel alienated and the kurds defying their own region without too much reference to baghdad. that has led to an increase in violence and has been inflamed by a conflict in syria.
>> and the u.s. sending 75 hellfire missiles and going to deliver 10 ten unarmed surveillance drones coming up in march. does this seem to represent some sort of change in our policy there? >> well, i don't know that it is much of a change. i think the u.s. has tried to provide support to the iraqi government since the withdrawal of the u.s. forces. but i think there is a big difference between the fight against al qaeda when the u.s. was present there and the fight against al qaeda that we see now. when the u.s. is present there, of course you have to stop al qaeda. just the recent attacks against these christians going to church, they are horrific and need to be stopped. sometimes it takes hard force to do that. but it has to be coupled with a political strategy. when the u.s. was in iraq, we had the suni awakening when working with suni leaders leadeo enfranchise them and fight against the external al qaeda extremists.
right now, the perception is that the government and baghdad is largely shia and that is fighting against a suni population and that is leading to the reemergence of the fighting extremes on both the shia and suni sides. >> obviously there is many different levels of support. when i asked you back on the drone question. obviously we are not just sending over some drones. they are handing over the keys to iraqi forces. it means the u.s. will have a fairly active role there in surveillance. is that different from what we have seen, the u.s. is stepping up surveillance efforts in the country again? >> well, i think we had a continuing minimal effort. and this may be a step up from the minimal effort. this is not going to mean u.s. boots on the ground, u.s. troops in fighting formations inside iraq. but it is clearly lining the united states with the iraqi army and the iraqi military. and if in its efforts to fight against al qaeda. of course we want to defeat al qaeda, but just adding ours
into the mix without integrating shia, suni and kurds is a dangerous route to go down. >> want to bring up when michael knight with the washington institute for near east policy told the "new york times." here is what she had. >> there is one place in the world where al qaeda can run a major affiliate without any drone or air attack and that is in syria. statement? super bowl, first, iraq and syria are two places. but i would say it is worse than that. i think there is an al qaeda ability to operate without risk of u.s. drone strikes across in africa. yes, we do have u.s. drone strikes in pakistan and yemen. but we have seen a resurgence and expansion of al qaeda operations through a much wider area. i think what we are seeing, we have seen a withdrawal of the u.s. from iraq. a planned withdrawal from afghanistan. a a reluctance to engage in syria.
a minimal engagement in lybia that we pulled back from. and that has created an opening for the worst extremist groups to try to fill the vacuum rather than the sorts of forces that would be aiming at governance and moderation that we would like to see. >> i would like to talk about the issues in afghanistan. president obama seems to have backed off from the december 31st deadline. a senior official told the "new york times." we have never spoke one voice. one person says sign now, another tells car xi that he has time it is not clear what is going on. what does this lack of clarity say about our policy in afghanistan right now? >> well, i think it is quite good that we relaxed the deadline. that was a deadline that was going to hurt our own interests. our interests are in seeing afghanistan succeed as a stable country where the taliban doesn't come back to power. in order to see that take place, we need to work with the afghan government. we need to come to a responsible conclusion. so imposing a deadline like
that is not going to be in the afghan interest or ours. >> i think the real issue behind the scenes here is an afghan question about the commitment of the united states to that country. clearly, we want this security agreement because it provides immunities to u.s. forces operating in the country. but from the afghan point of view. the only reason to give up jurisdiction in that country and allow u.s. forces to operate or nato forces to operate without afghan jurisdiction applying be is if you can rely on the commitment of those countries to secure instability for that country. since our own commitment is not clear in terms of numbers or performance or what we are seeking to achieve, everyone is hedging their bets, including the afghan government. this week president car xi told reporters the conditions that we put forward with the signing of the security agreement are riding afghanistan -- are ridding afghanistan of instability in war. are karzia's conditions a
mission impossible for the u.s.? can something be accomplish? >> let's be clear. the involvement of the u.s. is not the cause of conflict or war in either afghanistan or iraq. the u.s. is playing a role to try to build stability, to try to create integration, to try to create something going forward. but the conflict is going on among parties in the region with the united states or without it. that is why when president obama says we are ending the iraq conflict, we can't end the iraq conflict if we pull out. that just ends u.s. involvement. conflict is going on. that is what we are seeing in afghanistan now as well. the taliban wants to take over the country and impose its own rule. many, many others in afghanistan don't want to see that happen and are trying to build governance and stability in afghanistan to withstand. the u.s. is working to support those forces in afghanistan against the taliban. but, frankly without a clear u.s. commitment they will be having questions about what
the outcome will be and a lot of people will be wondering if they need to make a reconciliation or peace with the taliban instead. thank you for joining us on consider this. my pleasure. >> now let's turn to egypt. the u.s. continues calling for dialogue and democracy. but wednesday the military backed government abandoned both. they designated the muslim brotherhood which won the last election a terrorist organization. what move followed a series of attacks on police that the government blamed on brotherhood supporters including one attack on tuesday that claimed at least 15 lives. for more, let's check in with jim walsh, research associate with mit's security studies program. from watertown, massachusetts. thank you for joining us. first, what is your reaction to the designation that the muslim brotherhood is now a terrorist organization. i wish i could say ways surprised. i'm not surprised. it is yet another step in the military government's movement towards finalizing this coup.
now the story is not done. we have see see what the constitution is going to be like. whether there will be free and fair elections. but from the eve of the coup on there have been a series of steps that looked like the battle days when in fact the egyptian military governments have banned the muslim brotherhood. and i'm not fan of the muslim brotherhood. but if you ban a group that has 30, 45% of support among egyptian population, that sends a message. and to those folks in the brotherhood it says look, we tried this political stuff. it doesn't work. i guess we will have to try violence. road. i know a lot of egyptian support it, but this is deeply troubling. >> yeah, a group that didn't win the last election. can you imagine that happening here in the u.s. if all of a sudden one party decided to designate another party a terrorist organization. that is a bold step to do, even for egypt, isn't it? >> absolutely.
and the egyptians -- and it is a country that parts of the democracy, they did great and have done well. lots of voting. street protests. participation. but, the thing that they haven't gotten is that you have to share power. and even when when you -- it is not winner take all. just because you have more folks on the street protesting or get one more vote at the ballot box doesn't mean you can turn around and make the other party call them terrorists and force them underground. you know, egypt is on this evolution in trying to learn, trying to take steps to walk, to run. but right now, i think that democracy is in real danger. had military rule in egypt for 60 years. we had one year of democracy and now the page seems to be turning back. again, something supported by a lot of egyptians. but i fear where this is going. no question there is some concern in washington right now.
on thursday, secretary of state john kerry expressed concern about the terrorist designation of the muslim brotherhood and the ongoing crack down by egypts government. has is anyone listening to washington. does the u.s. have real influence on the ground in egypt right now? >> that is is a great question. it is a question i have struggled with. i have good friends who say the answer is yes, including a former u.s. ambassador to egypt who was playing a critical role only years recently, a couple of years ago. you know, it seems to me that down. it is included over what, when and what's the context? for example, when, internal actors are fighting for their political life you will not influence. or other folks are willing to step in and provide the things you otherwise would provide, then that is going to hurt your influence. i think right now, our influence is fairly limited. you know, we provide -- our
relationship with egypt over the years to sort has sort of deinvolved into military aid. we don't have that much economic trade with them. we don't have that much interaction with them. and so i think that has limited us somewhat. >> my hope is that we can use whatever leverage we have. i think president obama has done such a bad job. and stay in the game. fry to nudge them. but at the end of the day, it is egyptians not americans who will determine egypt's future. you bring up a great point. there is not a lot of influence there now except for military aid. and it was last year they withheld some of it from going to cairo. is there anything that the u.s. can do to get egypt's government to stop start talking to the opposition and together? >> i think diplomacy. you should work with european allies, and work with allies in the region. unfortunately, some of our allies are undermining our position. for example, saudi arabia is a monarchy, not a democracy.
it is happy to cut a check. and bail out egypt. but, at the end of the day, egypt is going to need the u.s. we are a global economic power. we are global military power. maybe not today. maybe not tomorrow. but at some point, egypt is going to need the u.s. as the u.s. needs egypt, a and so we are going to have to find some accomodations. so, i think, you know, as yow mentioned, we reviewed the military aid. i thought that was smart. don't cut it off right away and sort of lose all your influence. but don't give them a blank check that says it doesn't matter what you do we will support you. we have to stay with the middle ground where we are talking, still trying to influence. but also just not saying whatever you do goes. being a critical voice but a friendly voice behind the scenes. well, there certainly is the attention right now. speaking to someone who just returned from egypt, teaching out there at a university and they said that there definitely is a feeling there of some isolation.
a member of the muslim brotherhood's freedom and justice part bring. had this to say about the crack down. all of this has not changed the will of the people. the edidsition has no value for us and is only worth the paper it is written on. and that goes to the point that you said that they were elected, they have got support from people in the country there. do you expect the group will try to maintain some sort of a public presence now despite this designation or will they go back underground kind of how they originally started? i think we are own the road to them going underground. we had the terrorist attacks. were they sponsored by the brotherhood, were they not? i don't know. either answer is plausible. but you start to get into this cycle where they are accused of them, and that becomes a justification to crack down and then you get in a cycle of representation and violence. and that is where we are starting to go.
>> and this is not new, right? this has been egypt's history. with military governments and representation of the brother. >> and a let me be clear, the brotherhood was not a good president. i can criticize him all day long. but there is no escaping the fact and you quoted the person about it i don't think it is a majority, but a large chunk of egyptian public opinion supports him. >> and if i could jump in here real quick. officials are in egypt and blame the attacks like the bombing on the police station on tuesday on the muslim brotherhood. but you said there are questions about that. the muslim brotherhood condemned the t attack and the militant groups took credit for one attack on security forces there. there is so much confusion there right now as to who is really responsible for all that. my final question for you, the international community should they demand an independent investigation to find out who is behind these
attacks more involvement internationally to get to the bottom of this? >> as a general principle principal i would say yes. as a practical matter that will be tough. this is increasingly politicized. the egyptians control this. it is hard for independent investigators to get involved in a sovereign state. but i think your core point is the correct one. at the end of the day, the europeans, u.s. and international community has to continue to press egypt, moving forward on this constitution. free and fair elections. even though i'm doubtful about them we need to continue to press them. hold them to their word and try to insist they treat the muslim brotherhood with human rights. not with torture and violence. with some sort of accountability. well that constitutional referendum is coming up. we will have to see what happens out there. jim walsh, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> coming up next, eric snow deniro's gift.
an online message that claims a win of sorts. if he is right, what is his real effect on the nsa? our social media producer hermela aregawi is tracking the top stories on the web. i'll the conversation it started is gaining ground. i'll tell you more coming up. and what do you think? join the conversation. >> start with one issue ad guests on all sides of the debate. and a host willing to ask the tough questions and you'll get... the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5pm et / 2pm pt only on al jazeera america
>> it is a tradition that goes back decades. on english day the queen counters the cheery christmas message. the message this year came from edward snowden. >> hi. merry christmas. i'm honored to have a chance to speak with you and your family this year. george orwell warned us of the cager of this kind of information. the types of collision the book, microphones and video
cameras, toad tvs that watch us are nothing compared oto what we have available today. >> it was a very intriguing statement he made. but while he continues to warn the world of the dangers of overreaching government surveillance. snowden says his goal was never to defeat the nsa but to give the public the public the knowledge they needed to make their own decisions. now he declares his mission has been accomplished. we are joined now from baltimore, maryland, thomas an nsa whistle blower. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having my. >> i know you with were indicted on charges yourself. eventually you pled guilty to aers are charge. i want to ask what parallels you see in your story and eric snow deniro? >> i have been reliving the last 12 years since the disclosure of snowden.
i was there at the very beginning in which there was no patriot act, until october 2001 and 12 years later it fully meas the sized has become an institutionalized system where snowden had extraordinary documentation on where he escaped the united states to disclose through several journalists. in his christmas message he said similar to things you said in the past, some dire predictions about the future of privacy in our world. here is what he had to say. >> a child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. he will never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves. and unrecorded unanalyzed thought. and that is a problem. because privacy matters. privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be. >>
so, these are these illusions warranted? do you think it is as bad as snowden wants it to seem? >> yes, i do. history is not kind to surveillance states using technology to monitor their own people and monitor their societies. it is a dystopian future. what he speaks of is the fear i had after 9/11 that tons averting the constitution and we are just going to take all the data as if that was the answer to why 9/11 happened. it is a surveillance mentality. and what you end up doing is you erode the very sovereignty of the individual and the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution when i would argue under the declaration of independence extend to all new man beings. >> i would like to get into snowden's brain a bit and your experience. was there a moment where you decided you were going to blow the whistle? >> well, that moment happened
shortly after 9/11 when i realized the government unchained itself from the constitution effectively engaging in a virtual coup. in the deepest of secrecy. abandoning the cons fusion for the sake of security. and eroding tremendous number of our liberties that are supposed to be protected by the government. and so, my moment of truth is when i confronted the stark reality that the white house has approved a secret surveillance program giving nsa executive agency authority to execute and turn the united states into the equivalent of a foreign nation for surveillance on an extraordinary vast scale. 12 years later snowden had his moment of truth seeing -- having access to the documentation showing how far this surveillance system had gone. he made a faithful decision to escape the united states and disclose that to reporters. i made the decision to go to
the press in 2006 with what i knew. not just about the secret surveillance programs but massive fraud and mismanagement at nsa. >> on the note you hit on earlier, one of the attacks on snowden is that he went public rather than following internal channels. but he claims he was trying to bring his concerns to internal authorities. in your experience, would anybody have come from him speaking up within the agency or is going upon public is only option? >> given what i experienced, he clearly had studied my case closely and even had spoken of his inspiration of what i had done, standing on my shoulders the way i put it. he realized that if he had attempted to use any of the internal channels, he would have been shut down immediately. and in fact, i believe we wouldn't know about snowden if he had attempted to use proper channels like i did. i experienced severe retaliation over several years for having gone through proper channels as a whistle-blower. >> so, snowden says in the
"washington post" the other day that his mission has been accomplished. that he has done what he set out to do from the very begin. in fact, he said "i didn't want to change society. i wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself. all i wanted for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed. but the polls on this issue are quite different. one of the most recent polls show that a majority of americans think that snowden caused harm to intelligence, to national security. do you think he is delusionsal about the impact or the response to the that he took? >> well, other than taking wish polls, you have be careful about polls and how they are written and how the questions are asked for those who are surveyed. no, not delusionsal. this is the stark reality that i certainly was faced with in over 12 years ago. the concern is how far do we go in trading off liberty for security?
and then what do we get in return? the ironic thing -- the review board set of recommendations, presidential review board on surveillance programs couldn't find one instant in which the surveillance programs themselves were critical to any of the of stopping any terrorist act. what do you do, trade it all away for nothing. our fundamental system is built on the rights of individuals and you cannot violate those without probable cause. that is abandoning the fourth amendment in the constitution. >> on that note, yeah, i mean, the panel that was appointed by president obama did recommend that the nsa's capabilities be severely restricted and in fact, just a few weeks ago a federal judge said that the nsa's methods are "probably unconstitutional. " what is your reaction against these blows against the nsa? >> well nsa has never had the white hot heat of publicity and public interest disclosure
bearing down on them for an extended time you have to go back to the 1970s and the frank church committee when i grew up as a young teenager. but they had any questions about whether we could pull ourselves out of the abyss with the advancement of technology where the technology could monitor entire populations. we are confronted with that today. this is the classic whistle-blower definition. snowden fits it. he is providing information in the publickent. it is up to us to determine whether or not we want that kind of society and how far do we let the government go. >> so as 2013 is coming to a close. how do you look back at the nsa scandal. where will it go in 2014. snowden? >> i think you will see additional snowdens. but he has ignited a worldwide debate and government discussion that we never had. there was a bit of a blip
after 2005. about the wiretapping program. this is far beyond that and has sustained itself over six months. and if the pending bills and legislation introduced in the u.s. congress is any indication, upwards of a dozen plus bills, the leading one is probably the freedom act co-sponsored by sensenbrenner and wyden, there is going to be some sort of legislation even during election year. >> well, it has sparked a conversation and many debates around dinner tables this holiday see john. thomas drake, thank you for your tom and joining us from baltimore. >> thanks for having me. time to see what is trending on al jazeera's web site and check back in with hermela. >> two years after occupy wall street ended, the topic of income and equality is gaining traction. the
google searches topped. the top turned search wa inequilt in income, inequilt of income and income distribution. the conversation went beyond internet. pope francis spoke against the trickle-down theory. president obama ramped up the rhetoric on incoming equality calling it the defining issue of our time and thousands of workers protested low wages outside of wal-mart and fast food restaurants. on twitter, hopefully 2013 is the year of doing something about it. and the problem is not capitalism, the problem is abuse of capitalism. you can read more at the web site. >> that could be a real touchive issue around the holidays when you are sitting around with a diverse group of relatives. >> not good holiday dinner talk. >> keep the politics off the dinner table. thank you so much. straight ahead, a bigger
barbie. stirring up a new round of internet arguments about the impact on little girls and their body image. also, if you got a gift card, there is a pretty good chance you are not going to use it. we will explain. and later, leonardo di caray prio getting a slew of oscar buzz for the wolf of wall street while he made the move from child actor to adulthood. what is happening behind the i'm phil torres. coming up this week on techknow. it's roll-call for the santa cruz police. their locked, loaded, armed with a computer program that could change everything. >> we found that the model was just incredibly accurate at predicting the times and locations where these crimes were likely to occur. >> alright, where are we going? >> put your hands behind your back. >> can science predict crime before it happens?
here is more. >> beneath the fluorescentsun in a former meat packing plant is the latest trim in farming. they call it "vertical farming." these fields grow on floors on at industrial park and farmer john adel and his staff agrees user. >> my shipping proceed did you say 1500, 2,000 miles to get are. >> the plant of the indoor -- as the indoor formers call it doesn't grow corn or soybeans but mustard, high end micro greens on the plates of white-napkin restaurants. these fish supply the vert liser that number issues the
every sunday night join us for exclusive, revealing and surprising talks with the most interesting people of our time. this sunday. >> we try to be funny in serious stories which is very, very rare. >> he made radio cool with his sense of humor, insight and curiosity. he opened a new window into american life. >> before they know it we're actually able to present something new that they haven't heard about. >> talk to al jazeera with ira glass.
many clamoring for these tv imports. there are a lot of jokes to like and it is a well made imaginative series. through the lens of economics, there are so many cable channels out there. you have netflix and hulu getting in on this. it is an enormous marketplace for good shows. if you remember, seinfeld, 30 million people watched seinfeld on an average thursday night. these shows are not getting near those numbers. it is a much bod broader audience and going for a smaller niche audiences and that is great for you and me who like quality tv. >> i was going to ask you
that. who is getting the credit. how much of a role is net flicks kind of making the overseas shows more popular in the u.s.? >> again, they are looking for content, right? and it is funny, because consumer. it is bad for the producers. it drives up the price of it. and at the same time it give us better collection and things like that. now let's remember that for every sherlock and for every downton abbey and -- there are many more. we live in a world where there are multiple shows about couponing and little people and the like. so it is all part of a great spectrum that we have available to the entertainment consumer. tighter cable channels. wouldn't you say? >> there is a lot of them. there is a lot of them out there right now. >> a lot of people probably didn't know all in the family, sanford anderson, house of
cards, homeland, all based on older shows from overseas. why all these adaptations? night is really interesting because it has always happened. it just go back to the 70s, but then it seemed that there was american tv go back. and american television seemed to be taking over. dallas, one of the biggest shows in the history of entertainment because it penetrated into so many markets. but then we pulled bang. but then about 10 years ago survivor, big brother, fear factor all the game shows, who wants to be a millionaire. a guy in the netherlands had four 0 or 50 hours of programming around the world. it didn't always work. there was a lot of p.r. about 10 years ago and then they all flopped. so things kind of pulled back. and then the office made an impact. but now, when you have all the big companies looking for content. we will see more of it coming
in the years to come. it is not going away. >> you think of hollywood as the exporter of entertainment to the world. we have seen everybody loves raymond, nanny, who's the boss. they were adapted overseas. breaking bad into a spanish language series. it is still happening as much as it used to happen? >> i think so. america has a tendency to get worried every time they see competition. but the american cultural landscape is dominant around the world. and of course, we have to run remember that china has a very warped cultural industry because of the nature of its government. at one time the cultural world in china, will it be interesting to see if they start stealing american ideas. but i don't think hollywood has to worry. big studios are busy building new studios. there are three new studios being built in the southern california area alone so i
don't think hollywood is worried really. let's switch gears. i want to talk about the wolf of wall street, leonardo dicaprio getting buzz. is it all warranted? >> it is kind of funny. the academy doesn't like him that much. he has gotten a few nominations but was ignored for titanic most notably and in recent roles he hasn't gotten it. he might get a nomination this year. he has been around, he is very young actor and has been around for more than two decades. he is the model of the child star grown into the adult actor. he is a critical and commercial success. >> why is that, you have a form irv child actor. the film is getting all of these mentions right now. but on the other hand, you have lindsey low hahn's film, the hit on the list of possibly the worst films of the year. so why do some like dicaprio
do so well and others like lohan just melt down? >> it reminds us that celebrities and stars are icebergs. we see a bit on top but there is a vast interest under them. there are agents, managers, studios, directors and people who handle their advertising, marketing and sponsorships. and you also have parents. you could be talented and not have the temperament to be star. you could be talented but not have the parents to guide you appropriately and that has to be the most difficult thing in the world. and just what we are talking about the las vegas little, there is so much tv out there right now. so many channels. so many shows. reality shows. everything you can imagine is creating more of these stars and we like the melt down so we so more and more meltdowns. >> now americans do like to watch them rise and occasionally watch them fall. what about justin bee borscht. did he announce his
reteariment at the age of 19. is he backing -- backing off? >> a lot of these people are offering what they call the tabloid culture and are making a spectacle out of themselves. that works against these stars. because when you in the business and making a spectacle of yourself you can get a short return but it is bad in the long term. remember five years ago every other day you heard about paris hilton and we haven't heard from her recently. what he says on twitter, let's be frank that doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things and will be forgotten. but do i know the way he behaves and his image is not the one of someone who looks like he will have longevity. which is too bad because he seems like a talented young man. real quick. jodie foster praised for being raised out of the public eye. how much is it a teenager who
is rarely told no. her family do it right? >> yeah. and again, let's not forget how difficult it is. you know, people like tom cruise. he nearly destroyed his career. this is a guy who is basically $100 million a year industry and 10 years ago he fired his publicist, hired his sister and really teetered on the edge of letting all that vaporize. we can't fault these people if they are not that successful. all right. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> well, the show may be over, but the conversation continues on our web site. al jazeera countycom slash consider this. check out our face book page or our google plus pages. we have a great show planned for tomorrow. talking about living wages.
check check check >> strong holiday sales fuelled by deep discounts, but is it enough to send the economy rebounding in time for the new year. >> a desperate plea from pakistan - a kidnapped american seeking freedom begs the american government not to forget his plight. >> child bribes still married in kenya, despite the practice being outlawed. >> the olympic skier whose dreams is not to win in socchi, but to promote his sport in his homeland.
Uploaded by TV Archive on