The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, President Reagan said he talked about paying money to rescue American hostages but never thought of it as ransom. The Public Health Service said all immigrants applying for permanent U.S. residence should be tested for AIDS. Major banks raised the prime lending bank. Movie star Rita Hayworth died. We'll have details in our news summary coming up. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary we have three major focuses and an essay on the NewsHour tonight, starting with an extended excerpt of President Reagan's remarks to news editors today. Then we devote most of the NewsHour to AIDS. First, with a John Merrow report on educating teenagers on the risks. Then with a look at the politics of fighting AIDS. Next Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with a woman some call the conscience of South Africa, Nadine Gordimer. Finally, Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts on the dark side of the American landscape. News Summary

MacNEIL: President Reagan said today that he and aides have talked about paying money to achieve a rescue of American hostages. But he never thought of that as ransom. The President was speaking at a news conference with regional editors and was asked about a statement by former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane that he had approved paying $ 2 million in bribes and ransom.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I don't recall ever anything being suggested in the line of ransom. I do know that we were constantly receiving ideas and exploring ways in which we could try to get our hostages back. And I believe this is a definite responsibility of the government and we should do that. But it's possible that what we're talking about was use of money to pay people and hire individuals who could effect a rescue of our people there. And I've never thought of that as ransom.

MacNEIL: There were other developments in the Iran-contra story. The government of Taiwan said today that local businessmen had raised $ 2 million for humanitarian aid to the Nicaraguan contras at the request of the U.S. government. Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot provided $ 300,000 for a plan to have U.S. narcotics agents free hostages in Lebanon. Senator Paul Trible of Virginia said Perot gave the money to Col. Oliver North. Col. North's former secretary Fawn Hall made her third appearance before a grand jury. Ms. Hall, who admitted helping Col. North to shred documents made no comment after today's appearance. Judy?

WOODRUFF: The U.S. Public Health Service today recommended that all immigrants applying to live permanently in the country be required to take an AIDS test. If the proposal is adopted, AIDS would be added to a list of contagious diseases that disqualifies a person from receiving resident status. The requirement would not apply to tourists or visitors, nor to people in the U.S. on a temporary visa.

On Capitol Hill today, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and other Senate Democrats introduced a comprehensive legislative plan to fight the spread of AIDS. Kennedy told a news conference his proposal was needed because of what he called the Reagan administration's "lack of leadership" on the AIDS issue.

Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Mass.: In the face of the worst epidemic in this century, the administration has failed to respond. In answer to the No. 1 health concern of Americans, the administration has offered nothing but ideological disputes and paper

WOODRUFF: Kennedy's view was disputed by the Director of the Center for Disease Control. Dr. James Mason told a Senate Subcommittee progress is being made in the fight against AIDS.

Dr. JAMES MASON, Director, Center for Disease Control: Safeguards have been put in place to make the nation's blood supply safer. Alternate test sites have become counseling and testing programs. And state and local AIDS Education Risk Reduction Programs are now in place across the United States. Prevention and control of AIDS will depend upon successfully interrupting the transmission of the virus among those persons whose behaviors or their circumstances put them and others at risk of infection.

MacNEIL: Stock and bond prices fell sharply today in reaction to higher inflation, interest rates and falling industrial production. The Federal Reserve Board said production fell four-tenths of a percent in April, the sharpest drop in 13 months. At the same time, wholesale prices rose seven-tenths, spurred by sharp increases in auto and energy costs. Major banks today raised their prime lending rate a quarter of a percent, to 8-1/4, the second increase this month. On Wall Street, stock prices declined broadly, with the Dow Jones average closing down almost 53 points.

WOODRUFF: The first marine arrested in the Moscow Embassy spying scandal must face a court martial. Sergeant Clayton Lonetree will be tried for espionage for his actions on the guard detail at the Moscow Embassy. But he will not face charges that he allowed Soviet agents into the Embassy. Lt. Gen. Frank Peterson, Commander of the base at Quantico, Virginia, said those charges were based on hearsay evidence, which would not be admissible in court. Peterson also said that Lonetree will not face the death penalty in his espionage trial.

Also today, NATO urged the U.S. to insist that any deal with the Soviets on scrapping medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe include the Soviet Union's weapons in Asia as well. The recommendation came at the end of a two-day meeting of NATO Defense Ministers in Norway.

MacNEIL: Two hostage dramas took place today, continents apart. In Portland, Oregon, an armed man, still not identified, was shot to death after he entered an F.B.I. office and held five agents hostage for an hour. Authorities gave no explanation for the incident. At an airport in Warsaw, Poland, a young man held 20 bus passengers hostage and demanded a plane to fly him to Italy. For four hours there was a tense standoff. Then an anti-terrorist team stormed the vehicle and seized the hijacker. One hostage was slightly injured. What made these pictures unusual is that they appeared on Polish television at all.

WOODRUFF: And finally in the news, Rita Hayworth, one of the most glamorous superstars, is dead at 68. She had Alzheimer's Disease and died last night at the New York City apartment of her daughter the Princess Yasmin Khan. Rita Hayworth appeared in her last film in 1972. But the forties and fifties were the real era of her reign.

[film clip] RITA HAYWORTH (singing): Put the blame on Mame, boys, put the blame on mame.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Hayworth appeared in 60 films, including Gilda, Blood and Sand, My Gal Sal, The Lady from Shanghai, The Loves of Carmen, Affair in Trinidad, and Miss Sadie Thompson. That wraps up our news summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, President Reagan's session with news editors, educating teenagers about AIDS, and the politics of the AIDS battle. A conversation with Nadine Gordimer, and a Roger Rosenblatt look at a dark side of America. Facing the Press

MacNEIL: Our first focus tonight is President Reagan. He's been watching part of the Iran-contra hearings this week, and the White House has responded almost daily to one point or another. Today, the President answered questions more fully when he held a short news conference for a group of regional editors.

BILL SHARPE, WCSC-TV, Charleston, S.C.: To those people who might say your presidency and you have been mortally wounded by the Iran-contra affair, how would you answer those people?

Pres. REAGAN: Well, sometimes before I've used a line from an old Scottish ballad, to the effect of, "Yes, I've been wounded. I'll lie me down and rest a bit and then I'll fight again." I have to say that I get around quite a bit in the country. And the audiences range from blue collar workers in a factory -- as they did just a few days ago -- to students and their families at a graduation ceremony. And I haven't seen any evidences that I've been mortally wounded. Nor do the people seem to be unhappy about what we've been doing here.

REPORTER: Mr. McFarlane has claimed that he briefed you dozens of times regarding the activities of -- that were going on regarding contra aid. And yet, you have repeatedly said you were not aware of many of the nuances of the things that were going on. In light of his testimony, what action have you taken to make sure that your directives -- that the NSC not be involved in implementing such operations -- what actions have you taken to see that those directives are followed up?

Pres. REAGAN: Well, we have taken actions on that, and I know that Frank Carlucci has made a number of changes there in the NSC. But I think something that's going on in all of these investigations that also lead to your question is this linking of Iran and contra aid. And it is -- they have seemed to try to portray me as claiming to be uninformed about everything. No, in the Iranian situation, in which they represented to their government -- not to Khomeini -- we were not doing business with him at all -- we were doing business with people that could have gotten shot if exposed as dealing with us -- and they were thinking in terms of what might be a future Iranian government, in view of the health of Khomeini, and so forth. And they wanted to make a contact to see if we couldn't discuss how we could have better relations. I immediately took them up on that.

Now, the contra situation -- and I'm gonna start calling them Freedom Fighters -- contras is a term of derogation imposed on them by the Sandinistas. These are people who are fighting for democracy and freedom in their country. And here, there's no question about my being informed. I've known what's going on there. As a matter of fact, for quite a long time now -- a matter of years -- I have been publicly speaking of the necessity of the American people to support our program of aid to those freedom fighters down there in order to prevent there being established a Soviet beach head here in the Western hemisphere -- in addition to the one we already have in Cuba. And to suggest that I am just finding out -- or that things are being exposed that I didn't know about -- no. Yes, I was kept briefed on that. As a matter of fact, I was very definitely involved in the decisions about support to the Freedom Fighters. It was my idea to begin with.

HUGH SMITH, WTVT-TV, Tampa, FLA: Mr. McFarlane, as you know, testified yesterday that you personally approved the $ 2 million bribe and ransom plan to get the hostages out, that he discussed it with you and the Vice President and possibly Don Regan. Could you respond to that?

Pres. REAGAN: I'm having some trouble remembering that. But then I want to tell you there were so many things going on and so many reports, and some of this was during the time I was laid up in the hospital and so forth. I don't recall ever anything being suggested in the line of ransom. I do know that we were constantly receiving ideas and exploring ways in which we could try to get our hostages back. And I believe this is a definite responsibility of the government and we should do that. But it's possible that what we're talking about was use of money to pay people and hire individuals who could effect a rescue of our people there. And I've never thought of that as ransom. But again, I'm having some troubles -- just as Bud had some trouble himself with solving questions that were asked him. There was an awful lot going on. And it's awful easy to be a little short of memory.

Mr. SMITH: Was it possible that such a conversation then took place to the best of your recollection?

Pres. REAGAN: Yes, but I would suggest that never would it be termed ransom. Because that -- from the very first -- we will not pay a ransom to kidnappers because it's only going to cause more taking of hostages.

JOHN PRUITT, WXIA, Atlanta: Congressman Ed Jenkins has raised some questions about contributions Taiwan made to the contra freedom fighters' fund. He's raised questions because there was a trade bill pending then that would have been damaging to Taiwan. It was a bill that you later vetoed. Are you concerned about questions this may raise about pressure, implied or otherwise, on Taiwan to make a contribution to the contras.

Pres. REAGAN: Anyone who would tie things like that together -- there's just -- it's totally dishonest. No, there's never been any such thing. I have known -- I have not myself directly ever engaged in soliciting from other countries, but I know that this wasn't even prohibited by the Boland Amendment. As a matter of fact, it specified that under the Secretary of State, we should encourage such support to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. And so this -- I don't see any tie of that kind at all. And I see nothing wrong also with the joining in by volunteer groups and individual citizens here in our own country from helping out in that cause.

TIM KENT, WRAL-TV, Raleigh, N.C.: I don't mean to contradict your earlier answer to the gentleman's question regarding the feeling of the national pulse. But in the last six months, public opinion surveys have indicated a significant drop in terms of public support of both you and your policies. In all frankness and candor, sir, how would you respond to that, and how --

Pres. REAGAN: We have our own pollster, who I think is the best in the business. He's been with us for years and has found that my approval rating stays at 53. It is true that there have been peaks when it has shot up higher than that. But 53 happens to be the same rating in the 6th year of the presidency of a 2-term president -- Dwight Eisenhower had that rating. And it is the only time in the history of ratings that in the 6th year of a 2-term Presidency, has a President had that high a rating. That's the highest. But also I think it's the way questions are asked. For example, I know a question in a poll that revealed a great majority didn't believe I had told all the truth to the people. But someone was smart enough to ask a poll of that kind another question -- how many of them thought it was all right if they weren't hearing the truth. And a huge majority of that majority that thought I wasn't, said they believed there were things that a President shouldn't be forced to tell the people while they are going on. I have been telling the truth. I told the truth when I went before the press and before both the leadership of both houses of Congress -- when the first hint came that there was more money than the $ 12 million, as I spoke a moment ago, telling about that -- I told everything that I knew in both instances. And I am still waiting -- as are others -- to find out some of those answers, too. Because I have not been informed of anything or any extra monies, and so forth.

MacNEIL: President Reagan at the White House this morning. Still to come on the NewsHours, AIDS and Education, the Politics of AIDS, a conversation with Nadine Gordimer, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. AIDS Ed

AIDS and how to deal with it is a problem on many agendas, from the White House to the nation's schools. We're going to look at two issues tonight, starting with how schools are coping with the AIDS epidemic. Since there is no known cure, public health officials have been focusing on preventative education to stop the spread of the disease. That has sparked a battle by adults over what should be taught to school children. Correspondent John Merrow has our report.

STUDENT: Does AIDS like die in oxygen like air? I heard that.

TEACHER: Let's say we have some of it and we put it on the table there. And exposing it to air it would die. It's not a hardy virus -- which is why it has to go right into the blood stream.

JOHN MERROW: For the most part, AIDS education is taking place in high schools, like this one in New York City. But getting the AIDS message through to teenagers is particularly difficult, according to Dr. Karen Hein, a specialist in adolescent medicine.

Dr. KAREN HEIN, Albert Einstein College of Medicine: Normally during adolescence, teenagers feel invulnerable. It's what lets them ride around on motorcycles without helmets, experiment with a lot of what we call risky behaviors -- which after a while they'll outgrow and then stop. But these seem to be an essential part of normal adolescent development. Now, some of the sexual experimentation and drug experimentation might fall into that category. So what we'd be asking of the adolescent is to eliminate a part of their normal development -- which is a lot to ask. It'd be like asking a baby to skip sitting up before they could walk.

MERROW: There's another problem in getting the AIDS message through to teenagers. Adults cannot agree on the message. AIDS is most often transmitted sexually. Obviously, the best way to avoid AIDS is to avoid sex -- just say no. Some say that's all we should say to teenagers. Others say, "Tell them everything -- including how to protect yourself if you are having sex." The debate is ongoing at local school boards and at the highest levels of the Reagan administration. Here's what Surgeon General Everett Koop, the nation's number one doctor, told the National School Boards Asso. about AIDS education.

Dr. C. EVERETT KOOP, U.S. Surgeon General: Short of monogamy and abstinence, however, condoms seem to offer the best barrier to the transmission of AIDS. Now, this is the kind of information we need to get across to young children, older children, if we are truly concerned about their lives and the future of our society.

MERROW: Dr. Koop's counterpart for education, William Bennett, takes an altogether different approach.

WILLIAM BENNET, Education Secretary: If you emphasize safe sex and the use of condoms, you may mislead kids -- young people -- into thinking that you regard sexual activity among them as the norm. When it is not the norm among them. Morality and science do walk the same path here, and just because -- I might add -- just because people may not subscribe to JudeoChristian moral teachings on this is no reason to deny their utility in this particular context.

Pres. REAGAN: AIDS education cannot be what some call "value neutral." After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons?

MERROW: The President listened to Secretary Bennett and Surgeon General Koop's different points of view, and recently established abstinence and an emphasis on family values as official federal policy. But school policies aren't made in Washington. Here in San Francisco, with 20% of the known cases of AIDS, the public schools are following the course recommended by Surgeon General Koop -- a comprehensive AIDS and sex education curriculum, beginning in elementary school.

JANE GERUGHTY, San Francisco school teacher: Today we're here to talk abut something that maybe some of you have been worrying about.

MERROW: Sixth grade teacher Jane Gerughty tries to allay her students' fears and clear up their misunderstandings about AIDS. There are a lot of both.

STUDENT: One of my friends told me -- I don't know that she has AIDS or not -- she says she feels tired and everything. And when she runs, she always falls down. That's what she told me. I don't think she has AIDS --

MERROW: How old is she?

STUDENT: Thirteen -- something -- I don't know. She's in the seventh grade.

MERROW: She thinks she has AIDS?

STUDENT: I think so.

MERROW: I think she does not.

Ms. GERUGHTY: When you teach children at this age level, you constantly review, review. And then tomorrow we'll discuss it again. And you paraphrase it, or restate it in a different way, or you present activities that cover the material, but maybe in a different fashion so that eventually it does sink in. It's not a hit-or-miss -- you teach it once and then forget about it. You have to constantly reinforce the concepts to make sure that everyone gains the correct knowledge.

MERROW: The correct knowledge for high school students in San Francisco is pretty explicit. Every high school student in this city is required to take Family Life.

STUDENT: A male and a female are having sex, and the male uses the withdrawal method. Is it still possible that he could have --

ROBERT VALVERDE, San Francisco teacher: So, let's look at that. So in the withdrawal method -- you all know what the withdrawal method of birth control is? It's pulling the penis out of the vagina before ejaculation. So let me go back to what you already learned and see if you can remember it. Why is withdrawal not a safe method?

MERROW: Robert Valverde says he is teaching three different groups -- those who are sexually active, those who are not, and the ones who haven't made up their minds. The facts are the same, but Valverde says his message is different.

Mr. VALVERDE: The message applies to those who are not sexually active is, "Congratulations, don't. Don't do it. Don't start now. Save yourself. Save for an opportunity for relationship." The middle ones, it's almost the same -- "Don't. I know you're thinking about it, but don't. Listen to what else is going on. Listen to what the opportunity of your life is. It's not just sex and drugs. If you're going to be sexually active, if you're going to have to go to parties and have sexual intercourse, use a condom."

MERROW: After class we talked with some of Valverde's students.

STUDENT: If I were in a position where I was going to have sex, I would use a condom, because even though that's not 100%, that would be my way of trying to feel sure that I was alright, that I was being safe.

MERROW: It would be 90% safe?

STUDENT: Yeah. But (unintelligible) saying, "No, it would be 100%."

MERROW: Would that be tough to do?

STUDENT: Yeah. Yeah, it would.

STUDENT: I don't think no guy's cute enough or could say enough to me so where I'd just go jump in the bed and not thinking about AIDS and it can kill you, you know?

STUDENT: You should get married before you have sex, because -- well, I think your first sex should be your husband.

MERROW: Teenagers in San Francisco now know more facts about AIDS, according to a survey, but it's too early to tell whether they're behaving any differently.

New York City Teacher: What if you don't want to have sex with somebody? What do you do then?

MERROW: New York City schools have had a comprehensive AIDS curriculum, even longer than San Francisco. That's not surprising since New York's AIDS problem is worse. It has 30% of the known cases of AIDS, and the most cases of teenagers with AIDS. New York also has a much higher percentage of patients who got AIDS from intravenous drug use.

STUDENT: I think it's because of the sharing of needles.

MERROW: Nobody objects to the anti-drug message in New York's AIDS curriculum. What to say about sex? That's caused controversy from the beginning.

TEACHER: Okay, let's say you're thinking of having sex with somebody -- what do you do?

MERROW: Monsignor John Woolsey has been leading the fight against New York's AIDS curriculum and against sex education generally.

Msgr. JOHN WOOLSEY, Archdiocese of New York: We say if you really want to avoid AIDS, then you must consider what is fundamentally a moral way of living in the first place -- and this is not to be involved in sexual activity outside of the purpose for which it was created for in the first place -- namely in the context of a loving marital relationship. That's the only sure way of avoiding AIDS.

Dr. STEPHEN JOSEPH, Health Commission, N.Y.C.: a rather simplistic argumenton one side is "Just say, NO." The answer to AIDS is chastity.

MERROW: Arguing for the comprehensive approach to AIDS education is Dr. Stephen Joseph, New York City's top health official.

Dr. JOSEPH: Certainly in a city where the average age of first intercourse is between 15 and 16 years, where 35,000 adolescents become pregnant every year -- 1200 of them under 14 years of age -- telling a kid to just say no is not going to answer to the reality problems of many kids.

MERROW: The Board of Education thought a movie might be the answer -- a good way to get the AIDS message across. School officials worked closely with the film maker, approved the script, and rushed production so they could show the movie last year.

[film clip from Sex, Drugs and AIDS] ACTRESS: Sex. What does sex have to do with getting AIDS?

MERROW: Instead, the Board's film, Sex, Drugs and AIDS was shelved -- largely because of its controversial, forthright approach to AIDS prevention.

[film clip] ACTRESS: Listen, guys, I've been thinking about having sex lately, you know. But, I don't know, 'cause I don't want to get pregnant, I don't know what to use, because I don't want any diseases either, you know? I just -- What do you use?

ACTRESS: I use the pill. It was the easiest -- most convenient --

ACTRESS: Yeah?

ACTRESS: Yeah, it's the best, really, of all the methods of birth control.

ACTRESS: I use condoms.

ACTRESS: I just can't believe it, I --

ACTRESS: Why?

ACTRESS: I didn't think anybody used those anymore?

ACTRESS: That's not the point. You go on the pill, you won't get pregnant, but it's no guarantee you're not going to get AIDS or syphilis or something.

ACTRESS: She doesn't have to worry about AIDS. AIDS is a --

ACTRESS: No, it's not. Anybody can get AIDS now.

MERROW: The medical community for the most part strongly endorsed the film and encourages its quick release.

Dr. JOSEPH: I think it's a four star film. With any kind of film -- whether educational or not -- people will always pick nits and criticize. And I think the overall impact of the film is very direct. It is a very explicit film. All the adolescents that I know of who have seen the film have thought it was terrific. It speaks to kids in a way that kids relate to being spoken to.

MERROW: Opposing the film's release were Msgr. Woolsey and some conservative parent groups.

Msgr. WOOLSEY: I saw a film the other day that was suggested to be used in the public health system -- it just assumed that you would -- and implicitly said it was all right to be involved in sexual activity, but make sure that you make use of a condom. The word chastity, abstinence, isn't even there at all. I mean, not that it's not played up -- it's not even there.

MERROW: In the middle of all the controversy was the Board of Education. Robert Wagner, Jr. is the Board's President.

ROBERT WAGNER, JR., President, Board of Education: A number of us on the Board, after having watched the film, while thinking it was a good film, a quality film, did not feel that it fully conveyed the message we would like to convey to youngsters. And what has happened is there is now a revised version of the film that says, "No," in the way that the original film didn't.

MERROW: Oralee Wachter produced both versions of the film.

ORALEE WACHTER, film producer: The new version -- which is now, I understand, going to be accepted -- is more about how we want kids to be -- not how they are. How kids should be. They should not have sex. They should postpone sex until they get married. They should be monogamous after they get married, and all those things that we want all kids to be. Me, too. I would like kids to be like this. I think my difference as a producer and educator is I'm not sure that by telling kids how we want them to be is the best way to get them to be as we want them to be.

Mr. WAGNER: Well, the best message is to say, "No." And that is the clear message we have tried to convey, whether in our curriculum or the other materials that have been provided. It is in moral terms -- the answer is to say, "No." In practical terms, the answer is to say, "No."

MERROW: The revised film reflects a shift in School Board policy, away from a comprehensive approach to AIDS prevention, and towards the Reagan administration's policy of emphasizing abstinence. The film's new title is "AIDS -- Just Say No."

[film clip] ACTRESS: It's a really big decision.

ACTRESS: That's why the safest thing to do is not have sex at all.

ACTRESS: Like me -- I don't have to worry.

ACTRESS: Hey, Con -- don't let Gary press you into doing anything you don't want to do. If you don't feel ready, if you can't handle birth control, and condoms -- then just say, "No." He'll understand.

MERROW: The new version will be shown to students in New York City this fall. Meanwhile, the old version is being used -- in San Francisco and a number of other places. But the only New York students who will ever see the old version are this year's seniors. The Board finally voted to let them see it, just before they graduate.

The argument over AIDS education are really not all that different from the arguments we heard for years over sex education. But the spectre of AIDS raises the stakes, making the moral dilemma even sharper and the need to resolve the conflict all the more urgent.

WOODRUFF: The battle over sex education is not the only one being fought within the Reagan administration over AIDS. There is also the question of who should be tested. As we reported, the Public Health Service recommended today that all immigrants applying for permanent residence be tested for the AIDS antibody. Education Secretary William Bennett wants mandatory AIDS tests given to hospital patients, marriage license applicants, and prisoners as well. And last month, Vice President George Bush went on the record favoring required AIDS tests for marriage license applicants. As with the issue of preventive education, testing for AIDS finds Surgeon General Everett Koop at odds with Secretary Bennett. Dr. Koop and many other health officials think mandatory tests would lead to a backlash against AIDS victims. For some background tonight on some battles within the administration, we talk to two Washington political journalists: Steven Roberts, White House correspondent for the New York Times, and Fred Barnes, Senior Editor of the New Republic. Gentlemen, why are we even having a political discussion about AIDS? Why isn't it just a health issue?

STEVEN ROBERTS, New York Times: Well, I think, Judy, it has been a health issue now for quite a while: But I think the White House and other people on Capitol Hill are understanding the enormous impact on the federal budget -- will have a greater impact on the federal budget. It's seeping into more areas of life -- it's not just limited to fear and concern, not just limited to the gay community, but to the broader community. And therefore it gets into the question of behavior, of values, and it's also going to be a political issue. So it's both a public policy and a political issue.

WOODRUFF: But, Fred, there's criticism now that the administration hasn't moved quick enough. We saw -- we reported earlier -- Senator Edward Kennedy announcing this whole big legislative package today to deal with AIDS, and he accuses the administration -- he said they've squandered precious time on nothing more than getting ready to begin.

FRED BARNES, New Republic: Well, I don't think that's quite right. They have spent a great deal of money -- three-quarters of a billion dollars this fiscal year, and a billion dollars next year -- just on AIDS research. But in truth, they haven't decided some very big issues about AIDS -- who should be tested, whether tests should be mandatory. There's a big fight going on between -- as you mentioned -- health officials, mainly the Department of HHS -- Health and Human Services -- in the Reagan administration, and a number of aides at the White House, in addition to Education Secretary Bennett. The hardliners at the White House and Bennett want to have mandatory testing. They don't want to have mandatory testing at HHS. And the argument rages on. You also have an argument over confidentiality. If it's found that somebody has AIDS, who can be told? Should you tell their wife? Should you tell their over? Should you tell a spouse, whatever. And should you have contact tracing -- should you go back and find out who might have been the sexual partners over the last year or two of this person?

WOODRUFF: Why is there this kind of disagreement? I mean, why is it that they -- we've asked this about any number of other issues in the administration from trade policy to arms control -- but why can't they reach some kind of agreement on it?

Mr. ROBERTS: Because we're dealing with a number of different elements in this problem. As we saw in the film, there's an enormous emotional and moral content to this question. It's not just a simple question of disease -- how much money did you spend? The President has a vested interest in the moral aspect of this. You see him over and over again talking about, "Just say, 'No.'" And trying to relate his philosophy to this problem. And so his tendency tends to almost take on a philosophical approach to it. But there are others who are saying there's a much more practical question at hand.

WOODRUFF: Let's back up. You refer to the division. Let's get this straight, now. Who's on which side and why?

Mr. BARNES: Well, what you have is, you have some White House aides -- Gary Bauer, the advisor on domestic policy -- his boss, Ken Crid. You have Ed Meese, the Attorney General, who's also the head of the Domestic Policy Council, and Education Secretary William Bennett on one side. They're the hardliners.

WOODRUFF: A question. Why is the Secretary of Education taking positions on AIDS?

Mr. BARNES: Well, I'll tell you how he's explained it to me is that nobody else was going out and speaking on this issue. There wasn't a national debate about testing and confidentiality and so on, and he thought he'd spark it.

Mr. ROBERTS: These are also the hardcore conservative ideologists.

Mr. BARNES: Yeah -- they line up that way. At the Department of Health and Human Services, you have the softliners, the people who -- at the White House they accuse HHS of being mau-maued by the gay community and treating it as a civil rights issue, and a privacy issue and so on, and not as a public health hazard that has to be blocked.

WOODRUFF: Are you saying that the Surgeon General Everett Koop is considered a liberal by the White House?

Mr. BARNES: He certainly is by that group -- and on this issue he has taken the liberal position. He's taken the position against mandatory testing.

Mr. ROBERTS: One of the interesting things about this is I've written a few articles about this subject -- I've been stunned at the public reaction of three, four, five different gay groups, for instance, called me immediately when I wrote about the possibility of a White House Commission on this. They're convinced that there's a right wing conspiracy within the White House for mandatory testing -- which they see as very much an anti-gay conspiracy.

WOODRUFF: Well, the fact is we're now reading that there's some move for some in the White House to keep gays off the commission.

Mr. BARNES: No, no. It's not a move to keep gays off. It's not really a conspiracy, but it is conservatives that have a particular position on the AIDS issue. And after all, this is a conservative administration. But what Gary Bauer says is he doesn't think a gay rights activist should be a member of the Presidential Commission, because that's somebody with an ax to grind. He also told me he doesn't think a conservative activist with a predetermined position on AIDS should be on the commission. He wants doctors and so on, and people like that with an open mind, with some knowledge about medicine to be on this commission.

WOODRUFF: Where do we think the President comes down on all this? I mean, he did appoint the commission, but he was late really in talking about the whole issue. We saw in John Merrow's report just now that he has apparently sided with the conservatives, at least on the issue of sex education.

Mr. ROBERTS: Up to a point he sided with the conservatives. But the last time we talked about this, he did acknowledge -- sort of parenthetically, but he did acknowledge -- that "Just say No," is not the answer for everybody. And he's beginning to understand that there has to be some practical steps taken as well as the (unintelligible) steps taken.

WOODRUFF: Why is that?

Mr. BARNES: Well, what he's actually done is he's agreed with Koop and he's agreed with Bennett. He's taken both of them so far. He said, "Well, we'll have some values taught, and we'll also teach safe sex as well," that the Surgeon General wants to teach. But basically, the President hasn't made up his mind. He hasn't set a policy. There's a big question now is whether he'll wait for the Commission to give him a report, or whether he'll go ahead and decide on testing before that.

Mr. ROBERTS: I think he's being pushed by the dynamics. And Senator Kennedy today in his proposal made it -- manifested this enormous pressure building to deal with this issue. And the President, even though he would like to ignore it and sweep under the rug, is being pushed to confront it, and I think that's part of what was --

WOODRUFF: I read one story that said Mrs. Reagan had been prevailed upon, for example, by her friend Elizabeth Taylor who's sponsoring this big AIDS benefit here in Washington in June, to get the President to speak there. And it is partly on Mrs. Reagan's influence the President agreed to do that. Is she playing a significant role, or --

Mr. BARNES: Well, I don't know whether it's a significant role in setting the policy, but she certainly did in having the President attend this event and be the keynote speaker. So now there's a big fight over what he's going to say in the speech -- should he come out for mandatory testing and so on? She brought in a speechwriter she likes who tends to be a moderate. And meanwhile the regular, more conservative White House speech writing operation will probably produce its speech. You'll have a battle of speeches. The President always has a problem of reaching a decision when you have warring factions at the White House -- in his administration. He likes them to reach a compromise and then bring it to him.

WOODRUFF: Looking ahead, Presidential politics -- is there any reason to believe that this issue is going to ply itself out in some way in the Presidential campaign?

Mr. ROBERTS: Well, I think it can be played out in several levels. The whole moral issue is one that's emerging more with the Gary Hart problems. George Bush last week chose to talk about morals on the campaign trail. A lot of political pollsters are starting to see this in a vague form show up in their polls. I think you will see people talking about it and expressing sympathy, concern. Exactly what policy positions they will take is difficult, because as we say, there's no clear direction.

Mr. BARNES: A very dangerous issue to deal with for a politician, except just to be against AIDS and so on. You run so many risks of appearing to exploit an issue about a disease that's really killing people. So they really have to be careful in playing with the AIDS issue.

WOODRUFF: Well, we thank you both for being with us. It is a delicate one. Fred Barnes, thank you. Steve Roberts, thank you. Nadine Gordimer

MacNEIL: Next, a conversation with one of South Africa's most prolific writers. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has details.

HUNTER-GAULT: Nadine Gordimer has described herself as a stranger in a strange land. Yet, for more than 30 years, the 63-year-old writer has been one of the major intellectual tour guides through the complex layers of South African life. And in great and intimate detail, she has produced damning indictments of her country's rigid system of racial segregation known as apartheid. Her work includes seven collections of short stories, "Six Feet of the Country," and "A Soldier's Embrace," among them. And nine novels -- "A World of Strangers," "A Guest of Honor," "The Conservationist," "Burger's Daughter," "July's People," among them. Her latest novel is called "Sport of Nature," a sweeping panorama of Southern African life and politics, as seen through the life of Hillela Kgomani, a young Jewish girl who more or less sleeps her way to becoming a major partner in Black African revolution. During a recent talk with Ms. Gordimer, I asked her about the meaning of her title, "Sport of Nature," and what it means for her heroine.

NADINE GORDIMER, writer: Well, it's a genetic term. And it means a mutant to plant or animal, who has departed from the parent type. A kind of freak, in fact. It can be a nasty creature, it can be an interesting creature, a beautiful thing -- something that departs from what you would expect. Hellelica in her strange way finds -- it's ironic to me -- ironic and amusing -- that she finds her way and the other people do not.

HUNTER-GAULT: Your treatment of white liberals in South Africa is somewhat harsh. Why is that?

Ms. GORDIMER: They have all sorts of squirming positions. One person, one vote. But a federal system. Well, you live in a federal system in this country, but I think that it means something rather different here. In the end, you would still have white control, ultimate control. Some people move on from there to the radical position. And they they know what to do --

HUNTER-GAULT: And the radical position is what?

Ms. GORDIMER: Well, the radical position doesn't accept that you can reform apartheid. That's what it boils down to. That it's not just a matter of letting blacks into the system, creating a third outhouse in parliament -- we've already got one for so-called coloreds and Indians. It's not that at all. You cannot reform apartheid, you've got to get rid of the whole thing. And that's where the liberals and the radicals part.

HUNTER-GAULT: Your novel is set primarily in the present day. How dangerous was it to do that, given the extreme volatility of the present political situation?

Ms. GORDIMER: Dangerous vis a vis the government?

HUNTER-GAULT: You've interwoven real situations with your fictitious story and bring it right up to the eventual takeover by blacks of the government in the country. Given positions like that that you've taken in the book, what do you think the prospect of this book being banned in South Africa are?

Ms. GORDIMER: I'm always rather optimistic about that, because you just never know. It's quite unpredictable.

HUNTER-GAULT: You've had books banned in the past. That's such a foreign concept here. What is it like to work and create and produce, knowing that the state might saying this can never see the light of day here?

Ms. GORDIMER: Well it isn't quieted if you're writing in a world language. So all of us who are banned there who are also published outside as well in the country, at least we know that we reach other people. But that's one thing. And you do want to be read by your own people in your own country. It happened to me three times, and I can only say that it's a ghostly feeling. Because you've spent -- in the case of this book -- 3-1/2 years. It's a long time of your life that's gone into that book. And you've been living concurrently, obviously, with the things that have been happening to you and to your friends and the society in which you live. And you really want their reactions to this book.

HUNTER-GAULT: Under those circumstances in which something you do can be banned, what goes through your mind as you create? Do you watch every word, every thought?

Ms. GORDIMER: It doesn't hang over my head at all. I can only speak for myself. I never think about it. And I think if one did, that would be very inhibiting. And among the people that I know -- the writers I know -- black and white -- they don't think about it either. You get lost in the work, you do the work. The thinking comes afterwards when you read the book over. Then you think, "Oh, my God," you know, "this may bring me into trouble, or that may." And sometimes I've had friends who have been -- brought the manuscript along to the publisher. And the publisher suddenly says, "Well, I really don't know what to do about this book -- whether we should go ahead and publish it or not."

HUNTER-GAULT: There's a self-censorship?

Ms. GORDIMER: Yes. Well, then the writer is faced with the terrible problem -- should he change -- he or she -- change the book, or not?

HUNTER-GAULT: And how does that get resolved?

Ms. GORDIMER: I don't know, because there's a kind of tactful thing that one doesn't ask anybody, because it's such an awful question. If they were to say, "Yes, took a chapter out of thebook," or "I changed it," then I'm afraid that the feeling would be -- we'd rather look down on somebody that'd done that, most of us. So it's better not to ask. But I may say in my case I've never changed a single word. And I never would.

HUNTER-GAULT: You seem to be speaking out more publicly than in the past. What's motivating that?

Ms. GORDIMER: Living there. Realizing that one has a responsibility as a human being, as a White African. It's no good just saying I believe that there's going to be a post apartheid South Africa, there's going to be justice there. Nothing's going to be perfect, but I believe in the future of South Africa. You've got to put your life on the line and show that you're in the struggle.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is it harder to speak out than it is to write and get your views out that way?

Ms. GORDIMER: Well, I don't consider that in my writing I get my views out. I separate my responsibility as a writer, my responsibility to my craft, from my responsibilities as a human being, as a White living in South Africa. I think there's a special responsibility about being a White in South Africa, as there is a special responsibility about being a Black. Nobody, I think, can just go on living there without taking sides. Yes.

HUNTER-GAULT: Within the last few days, one of the South African Supreme Courts has struck down some of the key provisions of the Emergency Regulations on censorship. What's your reading on the impact of that?

Ms. GORDIMER: Well, I'm appalled to see how successful this clampdown on the media has been. That we have disappeared from your television screen. In your newspapers the coverage has shrunk tremendously, and I hope that American readers see when they pick up a paper like the New York Times, and they see a little box in the middle of a story on South Africa saying that information from South Africa [intelligible] has to be released by the Bureau of Information.

HUNTER-GAULT: You gave me an example a while ago of a photograph you saw which you felt was distorted in its imagery.

Ms. GORDIMER: Well, it was a photograph of Black railway workers attacking a White policeman. Of course, it happened, but that was a big, terrible fight going on, and there were six black people were killed in those places during that struggle with -- not only railway workers, but their whole transport system. And the only photograph apparently that was allowed out was the one showing Blacks attacking a White policemen. What about all the photographs that must have shown the other side of it? The White police and army attacking Blacks? They obviously had the guns -- otherwise they couldn't have shot six people. And these people in the photograph -- the Blacks in the photographs -- they had weapons. They were chunks of wood and bricks as far as I could see.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying basically that you feel that people in South Africa as well as outside being badly informed --

Ms. GORDIMER: There's distortion by omission -- which is also [unintelligible] distortion.

HUNTER-GAULT: How serious is that? What difference does it make that people aren't informed?

Ms. GORDIMER: I think it's very, very serious. It does two things at home. For some people, it induces a false sense of security. They want to be ostriches, they want to have their heads in the sand, and they don't want to know of what is happening -- perhaps a few miles away, perhaps in another part of the country. And I think that it's very, very bad for the cause of freedom -- our cause abroad -- because if people abroad don't see what's going on in South Africa, then they begin to feel they can wash their hands of the whole problem.

HUNTER-GAULT: Given everything that's going on in South Africa, what is the environment like for an artist, creator -- is it good or is it bad?

Ms. GORDIMER: It's very difficult to say. Because if you look back into the past, and -- or the present -- you think of what has happened in Latin America. Incredible turmoil. But the most interesting writing -- new writing -- coming from the Americas has come from these very places. Sometimes the writers have been in exile, sometimes they've been at home, sometimes they've gone back when the regime has changed. But there's a great spirit of creative energy there. The same might be true of South Africa. And if you look back into the past, you think the great novels of Russia in the late 19th century -- I mean, Dostoevski was always writing one (unintelligible). But whether I think if there is an advantage to be gained for the writer, it's because people are living extraordinary lives. They're living very fully. It's almost impossible -- certainly among Blacks -- very few people are living in a kind of rut, just paying off the rent on the price of a house, or paying for the TV set, or a new set of furniture, or whatever. Their lives have been jostled about, and forced into all sorts of strange contortions by events.

HUNTER-GAULT: And Nadine Gordimer?

Ms. GORDIMER: Well, mine, too, of course. To a certain extent. I can't compare with my experience with that of Blacks living in the townships.

HUNTER-GAULT: But to your creative energy, this does what?

Ms. GORDIMER: Well, with me, and now I'm speaking only for myself. The necessity to do other things -- no to concentrate myself entirely on my work -- I find a strain. But as I said before I feel I must do it. American Gothic?

WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt takes a look at the dark side of the American landscape.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The landscape holds a furious deception. All quiet in a bank. A College. An apartment. Still. White as a band-aid box in the afternoon sun. Until some gunman cuts loose. Pop, pop. Shouts of bewilderment. Screams of realization. Headlines. Studies. A couple of weeks ago, the landscape was a shopping center in Palm Bay, Florida -- the name alone an idyll. There, 60-year-old William B. Cruse cruised in his white Toyota with his rifle and ammo, picked off six people, wounded ten -- the usual innocents going about their shopping center business in the slow, Florida evening. The commonplaces of American life blown out of shape by the rifleman in the white Toyota. The wild west exploding in his mind. American Gothic. These scenes recreated year after year in casual locations, blameless as a Hopper painting. In 1966, Charles Whitman climbed the tower at the University of Texas, high-powered rifle in hand. And expert marksman, he killed 14. In September 1982, George E. Banks, a prison guard killed 13 people of Wilkesbarre, PA. Patrick Sherrell, a retired mail carrier, knocked off 14 fellow workers in a post office in Edmund, Oklahoma in 1986. On July 18, 1984, James Huberty, a recently fired security guard, shot and killed 21 people, most of them children, in a MacDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California. Death among the Big Macs. California, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas. Also in recent years, Camden, New Jersey, Hamilton, Ohio, New York, New York. A truly national phenomenon, these bursts of death. Sudden noise, lifelong grief. Funerals. Folktales for the survivors who'll recollect for years to come the glaze in Cruse's eyes or how they saw Charles Whitman the day before the shootings, looking just as normal as you please. The absolute strangeness of the events. Dutifully one links them to psychological profiles, or hard issues such as gun control. But the strangeness prevails. An obliterating rage delivers itself upon a portion of tranquility and then is gone, leaving the country wide-eyed, open-mouthed, as if it had just seen a ghost.

Is it a ghost? America's ghost? Not that the madness of a discharged employee or the disgruntled lover is peculiarly American. But these explosions fit the country in some terrible way. Unexpected, they are expected still. As if the nation understood that its manufactured serenity must conceal the suspicion, the hint, of the violent, desperate mind brooding somewhere in the calm. The film Blue Velvet understands such things. It is about the outside and the inside -- the sweet exterior of a town that hides the hell at which it will not look until death makes it look. Even at that, the town covers its eyes again as soon as it can. It will not admit everything it is. The landscape holds a furious deception. Of course, it does. What choice does one have but to create a world of insistent normality and pray that it prevails. So we go shopping, strolling, driving, clinging to the nice, safe life we make. Except at such times as the crazy killer chooses to arrive. And we know in a burst of fire everything we're made of, everything we are.

MacNEIL: Once again, the main points in today's news. President Reagan said that he and his aides talked about paying money to effect a rescue of American hostages in Lebanon, but he never considered it ransom. A Marine Corps general has ruled Sgt. Clayton Lonetree must face a court martial on espionage charges arising from the Moscow Embassy scandal. The charges that Lonetree allowed Soviet agents inside the embassy were dropped. The Dow Jones average fell almost 53 points after news that industrial production was down. Wholesale inflation up in April, and leading banks raised the prime rates to 8-1/4%. Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.