Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  July 11, 2022 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT

3:00 pm
♪ judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight. violence in america -- families of mass shooting victims join president biden to recognize the significance of a new gun law and demand that more be done. we look at calls to release more images of the deadly attacks and why many families are opposed. then. aging together -- inflation and high housing costs spur more baby boomers to find roommates. >> i like saving money. i like having another person to talk to to have a relationship , with. it's nice to have some companionship when you're at home. judy: and. the uber files -- thousands of leaked documents show how
3:01 pm
ride-sharing company uber skirted laws and regulations as it expanded worldwide. all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> it's a little beings. -- the little things, the reminders of what is important. it's why fidelity dedicated advisors are here to help you create a wealth plan. a plan with tax sensitive investing strategies, planning focused on tomorrow while you focus on today. that's the planning effect from fidelity.
3:02 pm
and with the ongoing support of these individuals and instiothe william and flora hewt foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world, at ♪ this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.
3:03 pm
thank you. judy: a federal judge has said no to delaying steve bannon's trial -- for contempt of congress. it's set to begin next monday. the former trump white house adviser had refused to cooperate with the january 6th investigation -- then, he reversed course over the weekend. bannon's lawyers would not say if today's ruling changes his decision to testify. president biden hailed a new federal law aimed at gun violence today -- but he also called for more. he said it's time to hold gun owners accountable for weapons used in shootings. the president spoke 16 days after signing the new law -- and one week after the attack on a july fourth parade outside chicago. we'll return to this, after the news summary. police in south africa are still hunting for 5 gunmen who killed 15 people in a crowded bar early sunday.
3:04 pm
the attack in soweto was the worst of 3 such incidents that killed 21 people in all. gunmen burst into taverns and fired scores of rounds. investigators suspect regional and ethnic ralries or fights between crime gangs. in ukraine, the death toll rose to 31 in a russian missile strike saturday on an apartment block in the donetsk region. farther north, rockets hit ukraine's second-largest city -- kharkiv -- today, killing at least 6 people and wounding dozens. survivors said they had no warning. >> i woke up in bed, and i was all covered in dust. i went to the bathroom, and there, more rubble and dust fell on me. finally, when i saw lights, i started screaming i am alive, please get me out. then, the rescuers knocked down the door and took me out. judy: also today -- the white house warned that russia is asking iran for hundreds of armed drones for use
3:05 pm
in ukraine. u.s. national security adviser jake sullivan said it appears iran is ready to provide the weapons, and training. new covid-19 outbreaks are being reported in china -- including the gambling mecca of macao. casinos and streets across the territory were empty. businesses were ordered to close and residents were told to stay indoors. meanwhile, yet another highly contagious mutation gained momentum in india. scientists say the ba-2.75 sub-variant may be able to defeat vaccines and other immunity. the political crisis in sri lanka took a new turn today. officials on the indian ocean island said parliament will vote on a new president next week. that's after mass protests in the capital forced the president and prime minister to offer their resignations. peter smith of independent television news is in colombo, and filed this report.
3:06 pm
peter: in sri lanka the queue for petrol no longer last for hour the wait is now measured in days. this is what it looks like when the country runs out of fuel and money. protesters have stormed the gates of the presidential palace and, from what we saw today, they have now taken over. >> we will win, because people are united. peter: this president is not coming back here? >> no never come, if he comes here, our people will kick out him. peter: the writing is now on the wall for the sri lankan regime, the black flag of the protesters now flies here. the new occupants experience the luxury of a presidential bed. and there have been queues to take a dip in the president's pool. the fact we along with these people can walk around the palace at our leisure, tells us power in sri lanka no longer lies in the hands of the president, but it's not yet in the hands of the people. because the military still surrounds this place and heavily armed guards are still overseeing this delicate revolution.
3:07 pm
police have already fired tear gas on protesters. the guns haven't gone away, but people here tell me ey are simply no longer scared. with no gas for stoves, people now buy wood to cook in the streets. community kitchens feed those without fuel and food. disala rodrigo has been camped outside this palace since in april, now she's inside the president's old gym. >> we don't have gasoline to cook, even if we had induction electric cookers, we don't have electricity, there's a power cut going on everyday. so that's the main reason why i'm here. peter: sri lanka's president has been in hiding and has briefed that he will resign on wednesday, the people say they'll believe it when they see it. until then they stay put and hold on to hope. judy: that report from peter
3:08 pm
smith, of independent television news. monsoon rains in pakistan have now claimed at least 150 lives in less than a month -- with new flooding in the country's largt city. entire neighborhoods in karachi were under water today, after 5 inches of rain in 3 hours. many of the port city's roads were flooded. the rainfall has been almost twice as heavy as it usually is this time of year. back in this country, the biden administration's told hospitals they must provide abortion services when the mother's life is at risk. the department of health and human services said the existing federal law and that point overrides any state ban that provides no exceptions. the announcement is aimed at the handful of states with exceptions that are legally vague. a french drug company is seeking the first u.s. approval of an over-the-counter birth control pill, hra farm allied -- applied
3:09 pm
to the fda and said the timing is unrelated to new battles over abortion rights. birth control pills can repurchased without a prescription and much of the world. and in wall street, stocks gained ground again over inflation and recession jitters. the dow jones industrial average closed at 31,173. the nasdaq fell 2%, the s&p 500 dropped 1%. still to come on the newshour, we explore what's behind president biden's low approval ratings. more baby boomers move in together to offset rising housing costs. new document show how far cooper executives were willing to go to grow their business worldwide. and much more. >> this is the pbs newshour,
3:10 pm
from w eta studios in washington, from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: president biden hailed the new bipartisan gun safety law at a white house ceremony earlier today. it's the first significant legislation on this past in decades. it would expand background checks on younger adults who are trying to buy guns. it also close to loophole in efforts to deny firearms to dating partners of convicted thomistic abuse. pres. biden: that is what we owe those families in buffalo, where a grocery store became a killing field. it's what we owe those families in uvalde, where an elementary school became a killing field. that is what we owe families in highland park, where on july 4 a parade became a killing field, that is what we owe all those families represented here today and all over this country. we will not save every life from the epidemic of gun violence, but if this law had been in
3:11 pm
place years ago even this last year, lives would have been saved, it matters, it matters, but it is not enough, and we all know that. judy: president biden said he wanted to see much more done, including a ban on assault weapons. but as he was delivering his remarks, he was heckled by a father whose son died in the parkland, florida, shooting in 2018. manuel oliver shouted at the president that he wanted to see more done. in response, mr. biden initially told him to sit down to hear what he had to say, then said he should speak. but oliver was soon escorted out. that frustration about the limits of this law has been echoed around the country, by those asking what more can be done. alongside this legislative push is another conversation about what role journalism might play in helping address this crisis. william brangham looks at that. william: judy, that discussion
3:12 pm
centers around whether the media should show graphic images of precisely what gun violence does to its victims. for example, some of the children who were shot in uvalde texas were so disfigured that they could only be identified by their sneakers, or by dna samples. should images of that kind of violence ever be shown? what purpose would it serve? and who gets to decide? there are strong opinions on all sides of this debate -- we wrestle with it here at the newshour -- and we want to hear from two voices tonight. first, someone who believes that, on balance, the public does need to see these tragedies explicitly. ed wasserman teaches journalism and was the dean of the graduate school of journalism at u.c. berkeley. i spoke with him earlier today. ed wasserman, very good to have you on the newshour. i know you didn't come to this position easily, but can you make the case? why should these images be shown? ed: it is true that it is not an
3:13 pm
easy judgment to make, and it is unquestionably true that there are powerful ethical arguments against the position that i'm going to put forth, which is, i think what the media concerns with the media ought to be doing is certainly showing images of this kind of carnage is tremendously traumatic for the public. these are images that haunt and that stalk people after they've seen them. and it's a tremendous disrespect and indignity to the people who have lost loved ones. so there's no question but that the kinds of images that i'm talking about putting into wider circulation are going to come at a cost. my concern is that we are a powerfully visual culture, and we believe things when we see them. and the dominant images that the public takes away from these
3:14 pm
killings are somber, respectful. images of candlelight vigil and quietly mourning parents. and that is doing a gross injustice to the actual carnage that's being perpetrated. and i don't think i think that until in the same way that black lives matter came to light when the images of people being killed by police became publicly available. i think we're not going to we're not going to respond to these incidents of massacres with the anger and disgust that they demand until we have a chance to see just what has been done. william: so you think that those memorials, the stories about the victims, the statistics and the data that have been repeated so often about homicides and mass shootings and suicides isn't enough that it's journalistically negligent to not go this one step further? ed: i think it borders on
3:15 pm
concealment. and i think that the question of how much do you have to see before the experience and the reality becomes clear to you is an open question. it varies with individuals. and i'm not talking about -- i'm not counseling editors to begin to begin a cascade, of horrendous and gruesome images of dead children. that's not the point. the point is that we see nothing of the dead in the images that the media provide us with which they are off screen. they are simple set ups for the mourning and for the prayer sessions and all the rest of it. we don't see what's going on, and i think that what has happened is sufficiently horrendous that it would change attitudes. it would awaken people to just what it is that goes on. and the media, by not showing us the aftermath of that, are pandering to that and they're enabling that to be perpetuated. and i fear that it's almost a dare.
3:16 pm
it almost goes the more pathologically twisted of us to have a go themselves. william: one question is the is access. i mean, a lot of these photographs are not readily available. these are crime scenes. do you think the journalistic organizations should press for more access to forensic images, to police photographs just to get this out? ed: well, i do. i question how unavailable these images are, certainly at the point at which people come to trial. and let me just make a different somewhat related to the reason why they don't. it is a good question to kind of raise. and i think that it's important for the public to understand the extreme reluctance that editors have presenting these images to them and the idea that they that that news organizations will look for cheap and tawdry and obscene and gruesome images because they believe the public likes that and it'll sell newspapers or enhance audience
3:17 pm
size is totally false. audiences hate this stuff, and news editors present it to audiences with only the greatest reluctance. so this represents from the part of the media, and that, in my view of courage, they've goto show these images, not because it's tasteful, not because it's something that will advance their own interests as media organizations, but because the public needs to see these things to fully understand the horror that's being routinely perpetrated on us. william: what about the argument that is made that about who gets to decide this? because i know that there are certainly lots of families of victims who believe that this is a terrible idea, that no matter what benefit that this might yield, that those families will be forever traumatized if those images are out there, that the darker culture that exists on the internet and in this world will be constantly bombarding those people with those images of their loved ones in the worst
3:18 pm
possible moment of their lives, and that they will never be able to get past that. ed: i don't have a good answer for that. that is true. this is not being done to benefit the families who've lost. children are lost and lost family members to these kinds of things. this is not in their interest. it may be in the interest of the other families who perhaps are spared this because of the greater public anger and disgted with these images portray. but this is not in these families interests. it's a -- it's a tremendous indignity and an it deepens their loss. and so i have nothing but compassion for them. but i am saying that it is a -- it is a classic dilemma. it's a wrong versus a wrong. and my belief is that the wrong that's done by concealment outweighs the wrong that's done by exposure. william: ed wasserman, former dean of the graduate school of journalism at uc berkeley, thank you so much for being here. ed: thank you, william. william: ok, that's one argument in favor.
3:19 pm
for a different take, i'm joined now by a parent who lost her own daughter in the mass shooting at a movie theater ten years ago in aurora, colorado. sandy phillips is a proponent of stronger gun safety measures, and she was at the white house ceremony with president biden today. sandy phillips, great to have you back on the newshour. you heard what ed wasserman was saying here, that the way in which we show our culture these tragedies is sanitized and that we need to do differently. what do you think about that idea? >> i think it is a horrible idea, as the parent of a child who was murdered. my child was shot six times within ar-15. i speak clearly about what happened to her at the theater and the wounds that she sustained. when we went torial, the
3:20 pm
medical examiner was discussing her wounds, he wept on the stand. he just started crying. we were not at the courtroom, but we were in the courtroom when that happened. and after he finished his descriptions of what had happened to my daughter, when the press walked out and the rest of the people that were in the courtroom that day, walked out they were all either crying or ashen or shocked. so i understand what he's saying. you almost have to see it to believe it. the problem is our society doesn't believe what they see anymore anyway. and what you are asking -- >> you mean the images would be challenged as fake >> oh, yeah, exactly. i mean, sandy hook is challenged as not ever happening. highland park already has in this happens after every mass shooting. there's immediate conspiracy theories that this never happened. so would that make it stop? nope.
3:21 pm
and they just challenged the pictures. a few years ago, there were some doctors that went on capitol hill to lobby and they took the pictures of bodies who had been shot by ar-15's and other weapons. and it didn't make a difference at all. so why should we as parents be asked to carry that burden for society? it's too much to ask of us. it truly is one of those things that -- how much more trauma do we have to endure? and just by him talking about how that might might make a difference is traumatizing. for a lot of us survivors out here. >> well, we certainly that's the last thing we want to share to you all and we appreciate you being open to talking about this with us. but i want to circle back to this point that you're making about the experience that people had in the courtroom when they did see the horror that was
3:22 pm
visited on your daughter who is here with us on your shirt today. you don't think that there's any possible benefit for the rest of the country? the good hearted people in this country to see what high powered weapons actually do to children. >> you know, they can go online and see what ar 15 is due to a watermelon and how it explodes a watermelon. they can go online and see that damage that it does to a mannequin. they can see the damage that it does to a deer they don't need and they aren't privileged to see what that did to my ughter. and i don't want that image ever to be out there for anyone else to see. i certainly don't want it there for my son to have to see. and then i think of my cousins, my nephews, right. it goes on and on. exactly the ripple effect and , they will live forever on the internet.
3:23 pm
so is that something that we as a society will really want to do to the families that have already lost so much had so much , taken from them? i hope not. >> if the images were anonymized, how would you feel about that? >> well, that's perfectly okay. and i'm perfectly okay with a family member saying i'm okay with doing this. because they understand what that's going to mean to them. and if they're okay, if it's a very personal choice, and if they're okay with that i say more power to them, much like emmett till's and being able to change society. the mother in sandy hook one of the mothers there, had the governor come in to see the damage that was done to her son. i think all of those things are important, but i don't think we should make it a blind. yoknow, every time there's a mass shooting, let's show that the carnage because those those
3:24 pm
pictures last forever in the people that are affected by it have to witness that over and over again. we have a dear friend whose daughter was killed on camera and he has been trying to get that taken down from youtube for over five or six years now. because he's out there and he never knows when he's going to open up an email and it might be there. he never knows when his wife might open an email, and it's there. so this is really an unfair burden to ask of any of us. it's an okay burden to ask of our elected leaders, and we should be asking them to witness what actually happens. they should be made to go down and go into those classrooms, where children have been literally decapitated by bullets. and can only be identified through dna. they should be the ones that go down there and witness it.
3:25 pm
we shouldn't have to. william: sandy phillips, always great to see you. thank you so much for talking with us. >> thank you, william. ♪ judy: the congressional committee investigating the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow focused on the role extremist groups played that day. this as the senate gears up for a busy, high-stakes july. our political correspondent, lisa desjardins, has more on the latest developments. lisa, tell us, where are we in terms of these hearings? what are they going to be focusing on? and where are we overall in terms of the subject matter?
3:26 pm
lisa: these are the good questions we are all asking. tomorrow is the seventh hearing of the january 6 select committee. we did at one point expect this to be the final week for a while. however, that is changing, even as we speak. first, let's talk about tomorrow and what we will hear from the committee. the focus so far has been on trump and his direct actions. we will hear more about white nationalist groups and their ties to those around former president trump when he was in the white house. in particular, a meeting in december that preceded former president trump tweeting out that invitation to come to the rally on january 6. we will hear about advisors like roger stone and their ties that the committee was trying to make to white nationalist groups like the proud boys who we know were at the capitol and have now been arrested for their role in the riot there. we are waiting to see what happens with pat cipollone, the former attorney and counsel for
3:27 pm
president trump when he was in the white house. he testified behind those doors for eight hours on friday. my reporting is that he does not want to participate in a public hearing. we do not expect to see him this week, but we may hear some of this hearing tomorrow. i think the committee is going to wait to have more of that hearing further ahead. that's why we will probably have more hearings next week. the committee says it is getting more information and my sources say that is why the committee is going to have another hearing next week. we don't know exactly when these hearings will end. judy: lisa, what is known about former president trump's close ally steve bannon? do we think he's going to be testifying lisa: as you reported at the beginning of the show, we know that steve bannon is set for trial on contempt of congress in one week. those in congress and on the committee say it is no coincidence that all of a
3:28 pm
sudden, now he wants to cooperate. they believe it's a sign the committee is doing its work, president trump and his allies want to respond more publicly. we don't know yet because the committee has not decided exactly how they're going to handle this. here's what one of the committee members said on sunday about questioning steve bannon. >> we got the letter around midnight from his lawyer saying that he would testify, and we wanted him to testify. so the committee, of course, has not yet had a chance to discuss it, but i expect that we will be hearing from him. and there are many questions that we have for him. lisa: one last thing to keep in mind, whether he talks to the committee or not, it doesn't affect the criminal charges necessarily. he already rejected the initial's opinion -- subpoena, and that something that may come up. judy: meanwhile the senate is
3:29 pm
looking at a couple of do or die few weeks for their agenda, what does it look like there? lisa: ok, roll up your sleeves, we have a lot to talk about, but i will try to make it sort of palatable. joe manchin and chuck schumer, two top democrats, or now negotiating for final and perhaps last kind of narrowed version of the president's agenda. he used to be called build back better. now they're are talking about what could be left, and there is a potential outline story to emerge on a reconciliation or biden agenda deal. but there are some problems in terms of tactics, there are number of high-stakes meals. let's look at what is happening in the next three weeks. three high-stakes bills are moving that have some bipartisan support. one on china competitiveness, the need for the u.s. to make microchips and work on
3:30 pm
processors, also an insulin drug pricing bill that would reduce the price of insulin, and there is an agreement on reforming the electoral count act. the problems with that act were a factor in january 6. all of those bills have some kind of bipartisan momentum right now. the problem is, at the same time, we had the democrats talking about this combination reconciliation bill that would include drug prices and climate change, that narrow biden agenda bill. that is a partisan bill. so where are we? senator mcconnell, the republican leader, has said that if that partisan reconciliation bill moves forward, then those other bills, the bipartisan efforts, especially the china bill, he would block that. so we are in is kind of standoff or all of these bills are connected to one another and it's going to be very important, because each one of them has
3:31 pm
very critical implications for our country. judy: we will see how the coming weeks play out. lisa, watching it all very closely. we will have live coverage of the january 6th committee hearing lisa was just telling us about. that begins tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on pbs and streaming online at ♪ judy: just months before the midterm elections, a handful of domestic issues are driving the political agenda. rising inflation, a series of high-profile shootings and the overturning of roe versus wade. it's all dragging down president biden's approval ratings. in a new york times, siena
3:32 pm
college poll, 60% of americans disapprove of the job the president is doing. that includes a quarter of his own party. and the concerning number for democrats running this year -- more than two-thirds of independent voters disapprove of the president's job performance. to discuss the political stakes of the moment, i am joined now by amy walter of the cook political report with amy walter and tamara keith of npr. welcome to you both on this monday. amy, what everybody wants to know is why is this happening? why is president biden doing so poorly in the polls? >> i want to put this into context. if you look at an average of all the polls, the president's overall approval rating now at 38%. it is the lowest we have seen in a president at this point in his term going all the way bk to eisenhower.
3:33 pm
so it's not a very good milestone for democrats. you listed all the reasons your opener, the economy, the mass shootings, covid, now we have a sudden resurgence of a new variant. it feels as if things are sort of out of control, and the president -- people not feeling like heas his hand firmly on the steering wheel. he was selected in part by saying i'm going to help us get away from or at least navigate us through the chaos. now it feels like the chaos is still controlling us as a country and the president feels too many people li he is a step a hot -- step behind. democrats feel he's is not taking its republicans strong enough. they want to see theresident bite harder against republicans like mitch mcconnell and not let him drive the agenda.
3:34 pm
they just feel overwhelmed by the economy and how much these day-to-day increases in everything from groceries to rent to gas has impacted their lives. judy: what else do you see happening here? >> the american public is in a very sour mood, and we have talked about this before. inflation is probably the one thing maybe across the political spectrum that people can agree is something that is a real concern, every time you go fill up your tank, the price of gas. although it has been coming down in recent days. in addition to that, there are reasons that people on the left feel like the country is going in the wrong direction and they are incredibly frustrated, whether it be the mass shootings, and feeling like the president held a celebration today for gun safety legislation , that a lot of people felt was not worthy of celebration, that it was an incremental step at a
3:35 pm
time when people want radical change. on abortion rights, the same thing. there's this level of frustration at the president just can't do more. so the people on the left, 25% of democrats don't approve of the president's performance. that really takes a hit into your numbers when your own party isn't fully behind you, and the reason they have that reticence, as amy says, is they want more. in the white house would arg that the challenge he faces right now is, there is no alternative. it's not joe biden versus someone else, it's just, how do you feel about the psident? how do you feel about the country? well, not great. judy: when democrats are asked in this poll whether president biden should run again, only 26% of democrats say yes, he should. 69% say somebody else.
3:36 pm
democrats answer, 33% cite his age, 32% cite his job performance, 12% say they just would prefer somebody else, and 10% say he's not progressive enough. >> if you are in the biden white house, you would say it's very early, we understand where that people are frustrated, but the fact that we haven't even had a midterm election yet, and a quarter of democrats say they would support the president is a pretty bleak number. we've been seeing this number, though, for quite some time. maybe not this high, but since the beginning of the year, about 50% of democrats in polls are saying that would like somebody else. when you break it down to who they would like to see, that's where it comes to the next
3:37 pm
question. if it's not biden, then who? even people who follow politics for a living or are in politics for a living say who would that be? how would that happen? judy: i want to show you where the matchup is when you match him head-to-head against former president trump. these are tough numbers. >> when i saw these numbers, i went and looked up this quote that sticks with me from march 2020 and potentially might explain some of this. he said in march 2020, look, i see myself as a bridge, not as anything else. there is an entire generation of leaders you saw stan behind me. they are the future of this country. in a way he pitched himself as a transitional leader. now he is saying i'm running for reelection in 2024. well, all of these voters in this polar saying wait, i thought you said you were a transitional leader and we are moving onto the next thing.
3:38 pm
i think that because he presented himself in that way, that's why these numbers are this way. judy: i think after we show these numbers to the viewers, when voters are asked about a matchup between biden and trump, 44% and 41%, biden has a little bit of an edge due to margin of error. with independents, trump has a slight edge. >> there are two ways to look at this. one is to say, see, wha we told you was actually true, that we are the only candidate that can be donald trump. but you also say, yes, but three points, if we assume that is where things sit, that's is basically where we we in 2020.
3:39 pm
he only won the electoral college by 40,000 votes. we also don't have that matchup between any other democrat. what it feels like is those numbers are locked in amber. people who voted for biden are still going to vote for biden, and people who voted for trump will still vote for trump. but the section of people who say i don't even want to make that choice right now -- my guess is we will not see either one of those candidates on the ballot in 2024. what voters have been telling us from the beginning of this year's they would like to see some new faces on the ballot. >> it is a long way -- repeatedly they are saying he is writing again, and pushin back, making sure that friends of biden talk to the reporters who are working on these stories. they want to make it clear that he is running.
3:40 pm
if you were to say right now that he isn't running, all of the oxygen would go out of the room. any effort to get his agenda through would be on ice. judy: all right, tameka -- tamra keith, amy walter, thank you both. ♪ judy: amid high inflation and rising housing costs, it's not just young people looking for roommates; some americans in their '60's and '70's are turning to homesharing. our economics correspondent paul solman has the story about a growing number of baby boomers who are considering becoming
3:41 pm
boommates. >> for years, becky only had one companion, maxie. but maxie doesn't pay rent. a retired receptionist was having trouble making into meet. >> i'm single, so i wasn't able to put a lot into my ira, so i depleted it. my mortgage and my hoa fees were over half of my income. so i decided for financial reasons to get a roommate. paul: this 64-year-old divorcee moved into her home a year and a half ago. >> i liksaving money, i like having another person to talk to , to have a relationship with. it's nice to have some companionship when you are at home. >> they found each other on silver nest, and internet platform that matches older homeowners with housemates.
3:42 pm
>> there is a significant portion of the population going into their mid 60's, with $20,000 or $30,000 in their 401(k)s and nothing saved. paul: so they feel the need to home share. >> since the start of 2022 inflation rising, just people under so much more financial pressure, the first half of this year we've seen by far more activity, to having three times activity we have seen in previous years. paul: but it's just much -- part of a bigger trend. >> i think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. paul: it turns out dorothy, rose, plants, and sophia were harbingers. >> 20 years ago, it was about
3:43 pm
20%. today it's over a million over adults, more than double the number in that time. paul: small wonder, given the rise in housing costs. >> over a third of older adult households pay over 30% of their income in housing. half of those are paying more than 50% of their income in housing. what they do start cutting back on food come out of pocket radical care, insurance, which affects your overall well-being. paul: brenda's neighborhood has been in her family -- our houses been her family since 1946. >> this is my bedroom, and has a lot of just artifacts that are left. >> she struggled to maintain the place. >> i kind of retired prematurely and realized i had a big old house that needed repairs, etc., and that i was older so i was
3:44 pm
moving into an area with the fixed income and begin to say, how? can i work this out? >> she worked it out by renting a room to a grad student. >> i was not used to sharing space. paul: so surprisingly lovely, a student living upstairs now is roommate number six. a rwandan doctor is stub being -- studying public health at boston university. >> it was not new to me, because my mom was like that. >> does she remind you of your mom? >> yes. [laughter] >> she keeps an eye on him and he on her. do you worry about her
3:45 pm
sometimes, particularly during covid? >> if i don't hear from her the whole day, i will be worried. >> she really likes having someone around. >> to be able to be connected to people who are outside of my sphere -- christian is not my peer. none of the students who have come here have been my peers, but they have all been my friends. i just want to continue to learn. all: connection is key, since social isolation for the elderly is linked to higher occurrence of dementia, depression, and premature death. >> i thought, somebody is going to come in and use my kitchen. and she did. >> but that turned into the proverbial blessing in disguise. >> i don't have to cook supper every night.
3:46 pm
we take turns cooking supper. this chicken recipe that she's making tonight -- what's the name of that? >> mediterranean chicken thighs with lemon and garlic. >> that is so good. we are having a friend over, and we are just going to peek out on that. paul: of course taken in an unknown roommate isn't for everyone. >> i don't want strangers in my house. >> that's my cousin. >> i don't care how nice they are. i don't want them messing with my stuff. i just love being able to eat if i want to, not eat if i don't want to. not having to put clothes on if i don't want to. and just feeling -- i think the word is free. paul: does this resonate for
3:47 pm
you, rosemary? >> yes, i would rather cut down on other things and have a roommate. paul: i contrast, my sister, a widow, started renting out her spare room. how much of the motivation was financial? >> i would say most of it, but i found it is remote in -- rewarding to have another person on the property. >> for me, it was mostly financial. >> this cousin had hoped for more connection from her housemates. >> i had a few people who are not social. i just had to let go about my ideas about war companionship. paul: as the cost of living keeps rising, homesharing may become more commonplace. >> we are going to have to get creative and try some new things, find some new ways of thinking about the single-family home, because we have to.
3:48 pm
>> brenda addison is glad she did. >> being housing insecure, that's not comfortable. i lived on that edge for quite some time. i don't ever want to go back to that. but it's the social piece that means more to me now than the financial peace. paul: becky miller, she agrees. >> i get a feeling of peace. i have always been by myself, and i discovered that i have room in my heart for another person. paul: relationships born of necessity that have gone into something a lot more. ♪ judy: the ride-hailing company, uber, is under scrutiny after a whistleblower leaked more than a
3:49 pm
hundred thousand documents detailing the companies aggressive tactics as it expanded abroad, including efforts to curtail laws and regulations. stephanie sy has our report. stephanie: judy, the uber files consist of emails, text messages, memos and other records that purportedly show, among many questionable tactics. that uber used technology to cut access to its internal systems from regulators and law enforcement using a kill switch. and that the company used violence against its drivers as a p.r. tool to win public sympathy. doug macmillan is a corporate accountability reporter for the washington post, who has been covering this story. he joins me from washington d.c. doug, thank you so much for joining the newshour. i want to dive right into these findings. one of the main ones being about how then-ceo travis kalanick allegedly exploited the anger being directed against uber
3:50 pm
drivers in paris in europe , around 2016. can you explain what was discovered about what kalanick did and why it was so egregious? doug: everywhere uber expanded, there was a tension with the global -- the local taxi industry, where these taxi drivers, and some had invested their whole lives and careers in having these taxi jobs, salt uber as a threat to their livelihood. in some places, they reacted with physical violence against uber drivers. we saw this across europe and particularly in france, there were a lot of attacks against over drivers and the executives of the company were starting to look at these attacks and look at the possibility of not focusing on how to protect the drivers and keep them safe, but potentially using these incidents of violence or uber's own political gain. so the text conversation with saul, which is the most striking document of all 124,000
3:51 pm
documents in the trove of over files was that travis callan it was looking at this possible demonstration where his drivers were being put at physical risk and said, i think it is worth the, violence guarantee success. so reframing violence against his own drivers, people he built his service on, is kind of shocking to a lot of people who expected more interest in promoting and protecting the safety of its people. >>'s spokesperson issued a statement and this is what it said. mr. kalanick never suggested that uber should take advantage at the expense of driver safety. any expectation that he directed, engaged in, or was involved in any of these activities is completely false. are any of the actions in the uber files, including the
3:52 pm
supposed exploitation of the violence that was already occurring between taxi drivers and drivers criminal? was it illegal? >> there is no indication that huber has broken any laws here. i'm sure people will be looking into that in studying it, but a main take away for me was that the story of ubernd its growth as an executive, hardball tactics company that took aggressive measures to get a foothold in markets around the world, it's kind of surprising the disregard sometimes that the , managers of this company, show for sometimes their own drivers and their own employees. the disregard sometimes they show up for law enforcement. there's one particular episode which was stuck out which they were even wearing goober is using a software system they developed called the kill switch. and this is in the lead up to a potential law enforcement raid on ubers. amsterdam headquarters, travis
3:53 pm
kalanick, the former ceo at the time, says to his managers and amsterdam hit the kill switch and by that he meant cut off access to all data on our computers, potentially to prevent law enforcement investigation of that data. and so, you know, here we have a company is actually developing software for the express purpose of trying to evade law enforcement efforts to hold them accountable. >> anu berhow said that was to protect intellectual property, for their part. why did the whistleblower who ends up being a former company lobbyist, want to reveal these details? >> mark mcgann says that he was worried that uber had sold a lie that the people that uber had recruited to its service, a lot, a lot of low income people that have recruited to be drivers of the service were told this vision of if you drive for uber you are going to build a better life for yourself and we're going to empower you to be an entrepreneur.
3:54 pm
and mark mcgann is saying, you know, this, this message didn't sit well with him in the years since he left the company because what ended up happening to a lot of these people is they didn't improve their lives. a lot of these people ended up in debt to rental car companies that they owed money to. and some of the people in our reporting the washington post showed ended up with, you know, threats to their physical safety. sometimes you know, uber implemented cash payments and its app in south africa, for example, that generated a lot of criminal activity of uber drivers being targeted for crime on their app. so a lot of times these drivers sold this vision of uber is going to help you improve your life and they actually did the opposite. it did not help them improve their life. and i think the source of these leaks has been been kind of worried about that. and that was part of his motivation for coming forward with these documents. >> we should say uber today says all in past new leadership last -- they have had new leadership for the last five years.
3:55 pm
we will have to leave it there. doug mcmillon of the washingn post, thanks for joining the newshour. judy: and a note online, see first image reduce by a webspace telescope, is filled with stars and galaxies and the farthest amenity has ever seen into the universe. that is the newshour for tonight. don't forget to join us tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern for live coverage of the january 6 committee hearing. for all of us at pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and we will see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal is been to provide our service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer a variety of plans and we can help find one that fits you. visit consumer ♪
3:56 pm
>> the kendeda fund committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments and ideas. supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation committed to building more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at mac and with the ongoing support of these institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
hello everyone and welcome to amanpour and company. here's what's coming up. >> it pains me to see that we have learned so little from the holocaust. >> he's the last surviving prosecutor. now 75 years after those land mark trials, benjamin ferencz joins me with an urgent call to action about russia's war in ukraine. plus. >> putin doesn't care about holocaust, doesn't care about jews. >> my visit to kyiv's holocaust memorial site. then. >> i have not stoppedorrying about the people in poland. when will the hour of execution come? will this blind world see it when it's too late.
4:01 pm