ĎNachmaní for Nov. 13
complete transcript to Wednesdayís show
Horan, Emily Nelson, Walid Phares, Steve Cain, Raghida
Dergham, David Kay
ANNOUNCER: He knows everybody and he rips the big stories wide open and oh yes, heís more than just another pretty face, heís Nachman, Jerry Nachman.
JERRY NACHMAN, HOST: Welcome to Volume One, Edition 86. On page one this Wednesday, Saddam Hussein bows to the United Nations resolution demanding that he disarm. The inspectors are preparing to head into
Analysts say it sounds like it is Osama bin Laden on that new audiotape, so heís still alive and threatening even more terror. President Bush takes all of this in stride saying if Osama is still around, itís just a matter of time.
My nameís Nachman and ladies and gentlemen of
Experts who analyzed an audiotape released yesterday say it certainly sounds like the voice of the worldís most wanted man. Itís clear the tape was recorded recently because bin Laden gloats over terrorist attacks made in only the past couple of months.
The Arab satellite channel, Al Jazeera, obtained the tapes. Hereís a clip from Al Jazeera with a voice of a translator.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The killing of Australians and Americans in
The whole world allying and combine against the Muslims under the pretext of fighting terrorism. The gang in Washington, the tyrant of the age, as you kill, you will be killed. As you attack, you will be attacked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: When questioned about the tape, President Bush seemed to take it all in stride.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Whoever put this tape out has put the world on notice yet again that weíre at war. And that we need to take these messages very seriously and we will. Weíll chase these people down one at a time. It doesnít matter how long it takes. Weíll find them and bring them to justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: Professor Walid Phares of
Letís start first with Professor Phares. Your reaction, sir, to what you heard purportedly from bin Laden.
PROF. WALID PHARES, TERRORISM EXPERT: Well Jerry, first of all, Iím sure that Steve will tell us more about the phonetics of the videotape. I will tell you more about the linguistics. I have been reviewing the bin Laden tape for over a year and a half, and the linguists of the videotape aired yesterday on Al Jazeera are very similar to his linguist, meaning the choice of words, the repetition of sentences.
This is only one brain that can do that and this is the brain of Osama bin Laden unless someone else has provided a clone; I donít think so. It is Osama bin Laden, probably in a different health condition. We donít know.
NACHMAN: Dr. Phares, I want to talk to you about the rhetoric in the tape and the syntax of the tape. I find historically that most of bin Ladenís statements are essentially general screeds, propounding on Arab themes and anti-Western themes, but he seemed to be very specific in this one, unlike him, and very geopolitical.
Letís look at what weíve labeled as number two, an Osama warning where he says, ďWhat do your governments want by allying themselves with a criminal gang in the White House against Muslims? Do your governments not know that the White House gangsters are the biggest butchers of this age? Rumsfeld, the butcher of
Very specific, talking about
PHARES: Different and non different. Different from the past videotapes aired what ii called globally on Al Jazeera. This is a global message basically to the Arab Muslim world, regardless of how it will be received in the Western world and in
To bring this up to the global messenger, which is Al Jazeera, means that he has decided to move ahead strategically and what his message is all about today through this audiotape is he that is posing himself as the new killer. He is now the same Islamist jihadist leader who can reach
This message, basically this audiotape is addressed to the masses of the Muslim world and the Arab world.
NACHMAN: And yet the specific target of his rage continues to be the
ďWhat Bush, the pharaoh of this age was doing in terms of killing our sons in Iraq and what Israel, the United States ally, was doing in terms of bombing houses that shelter old people, women and children with U.S. made aircraft in Palestine was sufficient to prompt the same among your rulers to distance themselves from this criminal gang.Ē
Dr. Phares, this also seems to be a renewed link between him, bin Laden, and Iraq on which he seemed to...
NACHMAN: ... to be most silent lately.
PHARES: Yes I come to the
The Arab League now through
In the afternoon or late afternoon, Mr. Osama bin Laden comes and declares jihad against various actors in international relations as far as
We need to read his mind as he flows through history of the seventh century and 12th Century fighting against the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the Persian empire, the Western Roman empire. Thatís where Osama bin Laden is...
NACHMAN: Dr. Phares, letís welcome Steve Cain, the voice identification expert. Our technology is apparently not state of the art. Mr. Cain, are you convinced of the bona fides of this tape? Can you hear me, sir? Mr. Cain...
STEVE CAIN, VOICE IDENTIFICATION EXPERT: I sure can.
NACHMAN: ...are you convinced of the bona fides of this tape? Do you think itís legit?
CAIN: Well first of all, I have not been provided any excerpts from it and without a known sample of Mr. bin Ladenís voice, I donít think itís appropriate to make any comment about whether or not it may or may not be his voice on the tape.
NACHMAN: You know, it seems like very sophisticated technology, but itís been 25 years, 30 years since investigators were able to determine that Richard Nixonís secretary erased a piece of White House recording tape, so I guess the technology has been around for a while.
CAIN: Yes it has, but what youíre talking about is essentially tape authentication or possible tape editing. That technology is still present in many of the cases whether it be criminal or civil cases, still involve questions about whether or not a tape has been tampered with or edited. Your issue, I think, is more concerned with whose voice is on the tape and that would be voice identification and that can be done as long as you have a suitably long known sample of the suspectís voice, and then, of course, you have a fairly decent question recording to comparing his.
NACHMAN: More questions up ahead. Steve Cain, Professor Phares, please hold your thoughts. Weíll come right back on what this means for terror, here, around the world, now that bin Laden apparently has spoken.
NACHMAN: Despite a $25-million dead or alive bounty, Osama bin Laden apparently has survived. We donít know about the state of his health, but he is well enough to continue making threats.
Steve Cain is with us. He analyzes audio and videotapes. He has degrees in forensic scientist - in science I should say, and Professor Walid Phares is an expert on terrorism and Middle East Studies at
Mr. Cain, what is the technology simply put and how efficacious is it?
CAIN: Simply put, itís a matter of obtaining a suitable number of words, which are fairly intelligible. In other words, not massed by a lot of noise. Then getting a sample of any suspectís voices where in they repeat the same words or phrases and you basically make a pattern match in a computer, where then you look for frequency similarities as they vary over time.
NACHMAN: So we all speak...
CAIN: Thatís essentially...
NACHMAN: We all speak within...
NACHMAN: ... a certain harmonic and where the peaks and valleys are, are individualistic?
CAIN: Thatís correct, except in voice printing, we normally concentrate more on the vowel sounds or what we call the phonemes. Thatís what a linguist would call it and thatís the basic sounds of the English language. So, itís the vowel sounds that basically you key in on. They are the ones that produce the patterns that the expert normally would look at it when heís trying to make a match or to eliminate a suspect.
NACHMAN: Degree of probability from zero to 100 percent, how effective is voice analysis?
CAIN: Itís very effective. Iíve been doing this for about 20 years, 10 years of which was with the government before I went into private practice, so Iíve worked for both sides, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
NACHMAN: So throw out a number for me...
CAIN: To my - based on published studies even by the FBI who looked at it over a 15-year period, thereís been as much as a 95 to 99-percent degree of accuracy associated with the voice...
NACHMAN: So almost fingerprint, almost DNA level matching.
CAIN: I would like to say that, but Iím a proponent of it and I think that we probably need to do a little more research before we come up with those kind of database statistics or figures.
NACHMAN: Dr. Phares, you mentioned something that fascinates me and I got questions on it. The timing, it came out when Saddam was under the gun. It came out after the U.S. election. Obviously he knows whatís going on in the world. Why didnít he do this before the election? Do you think it might have made a difference? Would it have helped Bush? I know Iím asking a lot of questions, but you know what Iím thinking.
PHARES: I do know what youíre thinking, and I think youíre thinking right on target. See, Osama bin laden is not just someone who may be in some of the caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He has a network around the world, including people who have PhD. in political science, international relations. He may also have advisers here in Washington, D.C.
I mean come on, we have to be realistic. Certainly when he sends a videotape to Al Jazeera or when Al Jazeera airs the videotape it already has, we donít know, there is a political analysis behind that. Things do not happen just emotionally. And of course, he was weighing the situation to see, or his advisers, if the elections that took place a few weeks ago will lead to a division within the American political spectrum.
Will that lead to a weakening of the resolve of the United Nations? Will that lead to a Arab League intervention in order to put an end to the American initiative in the region? All of that was evaluated and analyzed...
PHARES: ... with a series of strengths.
NACHMAN: There was an election. It appears, at least superficially, that President Bush has even more consent in the American electoral and popular vote. Did that tell bin laden, I better fight back now? Heís got more bullets in his gun.
PHARES: Itís a three-dimensional struggle. You have Saddam Hussein in
Now, those three shields were about to collapse and thatís when Osama bin Laden comes and say, if you get a U.N. resolution, if you send your inspectors, if you flex muscles with Iraq, I will come with my troops on another front, and I will deflect the attention into terrorism.
NACHMAN: I know weíre hypothesizing. What do you think his reaction was to the decision by the Arab League to urge
PHARES: Well, the Arab League has a stake in this whole thing. Itís another game player because most regimes in the Arab world would like to see a new, more democratic regime taking place in
So, when Osama bin Laden sees that the Arab shield around Saddam Hussein now is turning against Saddam Hussein, this is the moment, this is the time for him to make his followers create trouble in various spots. Look at what happened in
NACHMAN: Professor Phares...
PHARES: ... and Osama bin Laden has taken the lead today.
NACHMAN: Thank you for being our Rosetta stone today. Steve Cain, many thanks for your explanations.
ANNOUNCER: NACHMAN on
NACHMAN: Diplomats say it was a foregone conclusion. Saddam Hussein was in a corner, no allies, no wiggle room, leaving him no choice but to accept the U.N. resolution demanding that he disarm. So this morning
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED AL-DOURI, IRAQI U.N. AMBASSADOR:
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: So whatís next? An advance team of weapons inspectors should be in
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: This was never a question of accepting or rejecting the resolution. The U.N. resolution is binding on
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: Something has to give in the next few weeks because the inspectors are going in and the Iraqis continue to insist they have no weapons of mass destruction despite overwhelming intelligence evidence to the contrary.
Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent for the Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, broke the story of
Thanks both for being here. Raghida, you scooped the whole world.
RAGHIDA DERGHAM, SENIOR DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, AL-HAYAT: Thank you
NACHMAN: You want to tell us how you found out?
DERGHAM: Not really, you know...
DERGHAM: ... you know better.
NACHMAN: ... I didnít say who. I just want to know how.
DERGHAM: Yes, actually I had been doing a show earlier for MSNBC earlier on, on the tape of Osama bin Laden and while I was coming back to the United Nations I started my phone calls in the car, then I found out that the Iraqi ambassador was going to be at the United Nations and I figured well, I better run and see. I smelled something, Jerry, you know that good old thing. I smelled it and then I confirmed it.
NACHMAN: First rule in journalism, you donít ask, you donít get.
Ambassador Kay, your reaction sir.
DAVID KAY, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well I think there is no surprise. This is absolutely consistent Iraqi behavior since the end of the Gulf War. When faced with the United Security Council and the imminent threat of real military force, they always adopt a policy of saying we will welcome the inspectors, come back in.
It happened to me in July of 1991. Itís the behavior after youíre back in that you ought to look for, not the acceptance of the resolution.
NACHMAN: I need a very brief answer Ambassador. I keep thinking of the three-card money games they play in
KAY: Itíll be more complicated than that, but it is essentially the principle of the game. Itís hide-and-seek, back, find evidence that theyíre cheating. You canít disarm them, but you can find out whether theyíre cheating.
NACHMAN: OK, weíre going to ask you to hold it. Raghida and David Kay, donít go anywhere.
Many more questions, much on Saddamís diplomatic maneuvering with the U.N. after this break.
NACHMAN: In the next half-hour, what the weapons inspectors will expect to find when they arrive in Iraq and are you getting more words per minute on primetime TV whether you want them or not.
First the headlines.
NACHMAN: Saddam Hussein is complying, at least on paper, with U.N. demands that he disarm at least for now. Raghida Dergham broke the story here on MSNBC. David Kay was the U.N. chief weapons inspector in
Mr. Ambassador, any surprises? Any revelations here?
HUME HORAN, FMR. AMBASSADOR TO
NACHMAN: You really think heís in the bunker?
HORAN: He is in the bunker. He has no friends. Even
NACHMAN: I want to go hard in reverse for a minute because Iíve got this distinguished panel. Ambassador, I want to stay with you on an earlier issue. What was your reaction to the apparent revelation that Osama bin Laden is alive?
HORAN: You know, first, is he alive? Who knows. Iíd love to see his face on tape, and I wonder why he was not prepared to reveal it. But secondly, I think it was-it was an action that plays into the hands of the United Nations, the hands of the administration.
It is something that should cause Saddam Hussein to grown, because here he is thinking, letís hope that something happens that will cause the Americans not to want to go after me. But now all of a sudden, if the American public sees that the man who is responsible for 9-11 is somewhere, alive and kicking in the
NACHMAN: Raghida, my next question was to you. Riding up and down those escalators and elevators in the U.N., hanging out in the U.N. correspondents lounge, very good food, very low prices, what did your Arab envoys think of this? Was that a big buzz over there today as well?
DERGHAM: Well, indeed, because it is very good news if people donít mind that
NACHMAN: Iím talking about the revelation that bin Laden may be alive.
DERGHAM: Oh, OK. Well, no, thatís-I actually did not speak to the diplomats about that, but I know one thing, that the fact that this tape came out, whether bin Laden himself is alive or not, the issue remains that al Qaeda is functioning and that they have a message to increase the fears and to really blow up-blow out our serenity. And the issue is to say that they are elusive.
They are still functioning. That we have not won the war against terrorism or against bin Laden.
NACHMAN: But Raghida, Iíd like your response to what the ambassador said. Mr. Ambassador Horan said that Saddam is kind of in the bunker. Heís now been essentially ostracized by his fellow Arabs in the
DERGHAM: The Arabs have been pressuring Saddam Hussein to deliver on the resolution, to accept it and to comply with it. Theyíve been saying to him, look, if you donít, youíre going to have to understand that youíll go down all by yourself and itís going to be disaster for the Iraqi people and for the region altogether. And donít forget, Jerry, there is something called the survival of the regimes, which these countries want to make sure they maintain.
So the pressure has been on the Iraqi government to comply. There has been a consensus on this. As to whether this right now-I mean, the worry is that war plans and the rhetoric of war goes on and the worry is that every time the Iraqis comply we have people coming out from Washington and other places. And I think the ambassador has sort of made that clear, to say, look, weíre not going to believe you.
Itís not good enough. Get lost. I mean, why? Letís just take yes for an answer, however, letís go and verify. Nobody is saying take Saddam...
NACHMAN: Dr. Kay, do you believe that this consensus of Arab opinion against Saddam is going to make the work of your successors the next phalanx of arms inspectors any easier?
KAY: I think itís largely immaterial to it. Saddam has not had any friends in the region for well over a decade. After all, he invaded
He has no friends there and he knows that. Itís clear to him now, thatís important, but it doesnít really affect-the life of the inspector is a life driven by the horribly hard task they have before them. They have 60 days from the time they begin to unmask that program and find out and test if he in fact this time is telling the truth.
NACHMAN: Dr. Kay, I not only agree with you, I want to recall that the last time the inspectors went in there was an Arab coalition of active combatants. And yet it didnít make the inspectorsí job any easier. It wasnít just a diplomatic agreement, it was a military consensus. So what do you think theyíll find when they go in there starting next week?
KAY: I think the inspectors, who are better equipped this time, although theyíre suffering severe resource constraints-most people donít realize weíre talking about fielding 80 to 100 inspectors in a country the size of France or the state of California. Itís a very tough job. I think they will be able to find out and test whether Saddam this time has changed and is cooperating or continues to cheat. Look for December 8, when you get the declaration.
NACHMAN: Another question for you, Dr. Kay. The military keeps telling us about the quantum leaps in improved technology on the battlefield. Have the same tools that inspectors used grown significantly in their effectiveness in the four years since inspectors have been there?
KAY: No, Iím afraid there are no J-dams out there or highly accurate munitions for the inspectors. Sure, tools have gotten better, but thereís not been a quantum leap, particularly when it comes to the very critical task of talking to Iraqi scientists and finding out whether theyíre telling the truth.
NACHMAN: Iím sorry. Go ahead, Raghida.
DERGHAM: Yes, I would like to say David Kay knows more than anybody else that the inspectors throughout the years did a very good job. Itís not that they failed. There are things that remain undone, but letís give credit to these inspectors. They did a great job for a very long time.
And what weíre looking at right now is a country that basically the declarations theyíre asked to give, itís the declarations about past weapons of mass destruction as well. That means about programs, about scientists, and itís rather peculiar here. Weíre after scientists, not only after Saddam Hussein.
NACHMAN: Mr. Ambassador, do you foresee anything but deja vu all over again?
HORAN: You know, this time it could read somewhat different. If we have more aggressive inspectors probing more deeply, more as they will in that country, could the very fact that in this dictatorship, all of a sudden thereís a group of people who are above and untouched by his power, able to move about at random, representing international reprobation of his regime.
Would that very act of subversive defiance of his dictatorial government give cause to some elements within, to think, well, Saddam isnít all powerful? And there are people out there that disprove of him. And maybe Iím on the wrong side and maybe we ought to do something about it.
NACHMAN: Were you surprised as an Arabist (ph) and a man of long experience in the State Department of the state craft that was employed by this administration, perceived as unilateralist, perceived as cowboys, was able to get a unanimous declaration from the Security Council?
HORAN: Was it not Nixon who was able to make the oppotura (ph), the opening to
NACHMAN: Dr. Kay, do you think, given the perception that this Bush administration has a stiffer spine than the former Bush administration, that the job of your fellow inspectors will be made somewhat easier?
KAY: Any time the Iraqis believe that real American military force is possibly going to be deployed against them, the job of the inspectors are inherently easier. And I think the comparison here is not with the first Bush administration, which was actually fairly strong in supporting inspectors, itís with the
NACHMAN: Raghida, is the
DERGHAM: Certainly. That, and even before. But the point of the matter right now is not only about what should the diplomatic front or the military front how could they go together or against each other. What we have right now is, like David Kay said, itís very good that we have inspectors going back, backed by the will and the determination of the international community and the military right (ph) of the
But, having said that, itís also important to accept that if there are ways to avoid that war, you know, thatís not a bad idea. After all, weíre talking about probably half a million Iraqi civilians, innocent people dying. If there is a way to avoid that through accepting compliance, well, you know, why not?
NACHMAN: OK, Raghida.
DERGHAM: I donít understand why there are people who resist that.
Itís the fear of compliance.
NACHMAN: Thank you Raghida. Thank you Dr. David Kay. Thank you Ambassador Hume Horan. Thank you all for being here.
HORAN: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
NACHMAN: Up ahead, a break from talk of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to talk about talking-have you noticed how fast the actors on prime time TV say their lines lately? Not the result of caffeine overdose. Stay tuned.
NACHMAN: Well, thereís an old saying that
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at whatís happening. Theyíre getting you to pull us back by continuing this preposterous life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But weíre not the ones playing skeet shoot with their cabinet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, Ben (ph), I think weíre in this one together.
NACHMAN: Well, they were supposed to be talking fast. They werenít. But they do. The actors on Aaron Sorkinís NBC (ph) at ďThe West WingĒ even use dialogue coaches to teach them how to speed up. Here to talk about this, like a well-trained Eliza Doolittle is Emily Nelson, who covers network television for the ďWall Street Journal.Ē
Emily, page one story in the ďWall Street Journal.Ē Nice going.
EMILY NELSON, ďWALL STREET JOURNALĒ: Oh, hey, Jerry.
NACHMAN: Whatís the point? Is this being done for aesthetic reasons, artistic reasons or to deal with a new multitasking generation?
NELSON: Well, there are a bunch of things at play here. A couple of different theories. Some people say people appear smarter if theyíre talking faster, so thatís something you see play out on ďThe West Wing,Ē where the actors are playing
presidential staffers, and so they have to be talking so fast. So instantly
the audience knows, even if they donít understand every word, wow, these people
are really smart.
It was also jokingly referred to me as a humor insurance policy, so if the audience is watching and they donít find one joke funny, another is coming right at them.
NACHMAN: Again, is this just because of younger writers, younger producers, who reproduce how they live their lives and extrapolate that as what the audience is going to want?
NELSON: No. I donít know if you can kind of pin it on one generation. Sure, you know, some of the people involved here are young, but I found so many people I spoke with quoting ďHis Girl FridayĒ to me, and thatís the 1940ís. So they definitely-theyíre aware of a sense of history here.
NACHMAN: OK. Stop right there. You hit a button. One of my favorite movies of all time, newspaper movie, Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and according to several surveys, the quickest talking movie in the history, and that was done in 1940. Watch this movie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARY GRANT, ACTOR: This will bring us back together again, just the way we used to be.
ROSALIND RUSSELL, ACTRESS: Thatís what Iím afraid of any time, anyplace, anywhere.
GRANT: Oh, donít mock me. This is bigger than anything that ever happened to us. Donít do it for me, do it for the paper.
RUSSELL: Scram, Svengali.
GRANT: Now look, if you wonít do it for love, how about money?
Forget the other offer. Iíll raise you $25 a week.
RUSSELL: Listen to me, you great big bubble-headed (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
GRANT: Iíll make it 35 bucks, and not another cent more.
RUSSELL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), are you going to listen?
GRANT: Well, good grief, how much is that other paper going to pay you?
RUSSELL: There isnít any other paper.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: You were going to say, Emily, how much Cary Grant, the editor, reminds you of me, right?
NACHMAN: Thatís what many people have said.
NELSON: And I was going to say it very quickly.
NACHMAN: So do people understand-this always amazed me, because I come out of all-news radio and local television-that people really want us to slow down? I get more e-mail about the fact that I talk slower and my guests answer slower and theyíre all positive e-mails than for any other question.
NELSON: No, thatís interesting. I mean, growing up, I remember every night at the dinner table my parents told me to speak more slowly. You know, itís a style, and thatís what theyíre going for. It also, it divides the audience in a way, so that youíve got viewers who arenít getting a lot of the lines. You know theyíre flying right past them, but they can still understand the plot of a show.
But then youíve got your core group of viewers who are complete addicts to the show, and they get the inside jokes. So that way you cultivate this group of loyal, loyal viewers and they feel like theyíre in on the inside joke.
NACHMAN: Well, my sense is one of the things it does is it leaves out a lot of stuff. So when I see a rerun of a show like ďWest Wing,Ē I catch a lot of stuff I didnít catch the first time, because it went by too fast.
NELSON: No, that makes perfect sense. Since my article ran, I received e-mails from some readers who say that they tape the show and then watch it again in order to get all the jokes. Itís also-I mean, think of how many times youíve got the TV on but youíre not really paying attention, youíre getting up, youíre walking around the house, doing something else, and this is a way to force viewers to sit in their couch and really watch a show.
NACHMAN: All right, Emily. Take a breath, pause. We only have a few minutes remaining. So Iím going to have to speed it up in our next segment.
Youíre watching NACHMAN on MSNBC. Well you better listen close so you donít miss a word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEBRA MESSING, ACTRESS: Iím talking to Will. Iíll meet you there.
Just order me what youíre having.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tofu scramble on a bed of spinach.
MESSING: Yes. But instead of the spinach, Iíll have chocolate chip pancakes. Oh, and 86 the tofu scramble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: All right. Fast talking. Thatís Debra Messing, who plays Grace on ďWill and Grace.Ē Weíre discussing the trendy trend of prime time actors speaking faster by design. Iím joined by Emily Nelson, who wrote all about that in the ďWall Street Journal,Ē where she covers network television.
Emily, you said they have to shoot these shows differently now. They have to get people from x to y quicker. They have to edit differently.
NACHMAN: They have to write more.
NELSON: No, itís amazing. It sets off this chain of events. You know, shows arenít changing their length, so if people are speaking faster, youíve got to write more lines to fit it in a one-hour show.
NACHMAN: So thereís many more pages of script.
NELSON: Oh, many more. When ďE.R.Ē started eight seasons ago, it was considered fast. And its scripts were about 60 pages then. Nowadays theyíre up to 80 pages. With ďGilmore GirlsĒ (ph), they recently shot an episode that was a 77-page script, and they had to go back and add in another scene because they came up short.
NACHMAN: And you mentioned that thereís an actor who can watch morning news and verbatim quote the talking head because sheís so used to memorizing lots of lines on her sitcom.
NELSON: Right. Thatís Alexis Lidell (ph), who is one of the stars of the ďGilmore GirlsĒ (ph).
NACHMAN: You know, you mentioned MTV. And I remember back when it started when Bob Pittman (ph), who along with John Lack (ph) created it, said that kids were nonlinear, whatever that meant. He said that they could multi-task, whatever that meant. And when I asked him what that meant, he said it means they will watch TV, talk on the phone, play a record, and-a record-sorry-do their homework.
NACHMAN: Yeah. And do their homework at the same time.
NACHMAN: Is this what weíre now seeing as a result of all of that?
NELSON: I think maybe thatís some of it. But you know you can look at ďHis Girl Friday,Ē and that still looks fast even after decades of MTV. So I think itís just whatís trendy.
NACHMAN: People who buy commercials on prime time, do they have a position on this as in, we donít like it?
NELSON: My sense is that they kind of donít have as much a say in it. I think their concerns are more about the content of a show and the language and violence...
NACHMAN: You know...
NELSON: ... rather than the style.
NACHMAN: ... thereís a machine called the time machine, which speeds up these shows imperceptibly and allows local stations to add a 30-second additional spot. And these stations are getting into enormous trouble with the syndicators and the networks who are saying donít do that to our shows.
NACHMAN: So what do you think will be the next wave? Do you think weíll ever slow down and go back to quiet dialogue?
NELSON: You could. I mean, one thing about this trend is, that when they do pause on the shows, itís really noticeable. Some of the writers are ending their shows with a photo montage or with just a music-sort of like a music video stretch, because they feel like audiences are so wound up.
NACHMAN: OK. We have to stop talking right here. That will do it for our Wednesday edition of NACHMAN. We thank you for joining us.
A reminder: Iím here every Friday-every weekday at Eastern Time. Look how fast I can talk. Comments: NACHMAN@MSNBC.com. Stay tuned for Dan Abrams and ďTHE ABRAMS REPORTĒ followed by ďCOUNTDOWN:
And donít miss the ďHARDBALLĒ college tour tonight from the Air Force Academy in