he took the dramatic step of abruptly closing down one of his biggest tabloid newspapers. it is called "the news of the world," and it is at the center of a scandal that just keeps getting wider and deeper by the hour. reporters there are accused of hacking into the voice mail of innocent people to get stories, one of them a 13-year-old murder victim, and allegedly paying thousands of dollars to police officers to get them to reveal secrets in high-profile cases. murdoch's son and heir apparent, james murdoch, went on the bbc to try to limit the damage. take a look. >> i feel regret. clearly, the practices of certain individuals did not live up to the standards and quality of journalism that we believe in and that i believe in. and that this company believes in. >> americans are no strangers to the dark side of tabloid culture. of course, just take a look at some of the coverage in the casey anthony case, for example. but in great britain, this reaches a whole other level. in a moment, i'll be talking about all of this with a couple of keen observers. but first, a look at some of the other stories i'll be drilling down on tonight. obama under fire. they say he's too quick to cave, and that's the democrats talking. >> do not consider social security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. and the last shuttle flight, as it roars into space, it leaves behind one small american town and a love affair 30 years in the making. then, he's conducted over 40,000 interview interviews, on first-name basis with everybody, including a wizard named harry. that rhymes with larry. e.d. hill talks with the king, live. we have so much going on tonight. but let's get back to our top story first, because it's impossible to overstate the impact of this. this is the most widely read english newspaper on the planet, and it's under the leadership of an american media tycoon, and now it is publishing its last page on sunday, going out of business after more than a century. a newspaper that lived by scandal now dies by it. cnn's richard quest has been covering the story from london. i spoke to him about the latest developments a short time ago. richard, what is the sense on the street there among people? is this the murdoch family finally doing the right thing or simply saying, for a long time we've been doing the wrong thing? >> well, in the sense that -- you can take it at numerous levels. you can first of all take it that they're doing the right thing, the revulsion that is being felt by people in britain means that closing "the news of the world was an inevidentability, they also want to lop it off and get rid of it. and those who are even suggesting that, frankly, it was always intended, eventually, to lose the "news of the world," and that it will merely be replaced by a sunday existing of one of the existing titles. in other words, one big, vast cost-saving measure. a politician in britain tonight said, it's a smoke screen. if it is, then once again, the murdoches have played their hand extremely well. >> you talk about a smoke screen and the politicians there. politicians are on the run from this, aren't they? some of them in the past have been very fond of having murdoch publications endorse them, get behind them. now they're trying to say, we've had nothing to do with the man behind the curtain. >> yes, and you see, the thing is that parties from both sides, the labor party, for example, the socialist labor party could never have got elected, perhaps, originally, if the "sun" newspaper, the murdoch staple, hadn't supported them. they always needed them, david cameron, needed the "sun" to come back on to his hands. david come cameron is close friends with rebecca brooks, the editor during this scandal, and is now the top executive. what hugh grant said to me yesterday, basically, the actor, is, it stinks. the stench of collusion between government, politics, media is so entrenched here that one this nasty story got going, the sewage was going to seep across everybody. >> is there a sense, though, that the sewage has now been mopped or is this just the beginning? >> no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. and in case you didn't quite get that, i'll say it again, no. because, tom, what we're going to get next are these two public inquiries, one into the hacking, one into the payments made by the police. and then it gets really interesting. because then the police are going to have to start to investigate, not only who made the payments, which policemen received them, it's all against the law. it will be a question of, come with me, please. i think you have some questions to answer. and nobody for a moment doubts that some people will find themselves before the courts, and if convicted, if convicted, in prison. >> and the story will no doubt roll on and you'll be there for us. thanks, richard. >> thank you. tabloid culture in britain holds a powerful sway in politics and culture, so it's a bombshell announcement that britain's largest tabloid is closing. again, we just can't say enough about what a shock this is. with constant competition for the latest scandal, are these tabloids crossing the line into crime? joining me now, phil bronstein, editor in chief for the "san francisco chronicle", and bonnie fuller, the editor in chief of hollywoodlife.com. let me start with you, ffel, so many people in this country already think that the media is constantly in collusion, doing dirty tricks, making secret deals. what's the good news in this scandal coming out of london? >> first of all, "news of the world," it never was. and the reason that it was the highest circulated newspaper in the world is not -- does not have anything to do with news, necessarily, as it has to do with semi-naked people and celebrities and scandal, and better even if you can put them all together. the good news here, though, because we don't rejoice in the closing of any newspaper these days, but it could happen to any one of us. but the good news is that there are actually boundaries. which in this culture, in the celebrity tabloid culture, and i don't blame tabloids for that, it's the culture at large, it's nice to know there are boundaries. and apparently rupert murdoch, as you pointed out, is the last great press barren, found one of those boundaries and stepped over it. and there were consequences. it's always good to know what the prompters of your cultures in the extremes. >> bonnie, what are the parameters for the culture media? i'm not sure i entirely agree with phil. sometimes when i hear about some of these tabloids closing, i'm delighted. because i've spent my life trying to be a serious journalist and i think a lot of tabloid reporting is not serious at all. >> well, first of all, i think we have a very different newspaper culture here and a very different tabloid culture. we don't have the kind of press wars, tabloid wars that were going on in britain. i mean, there they had numerous tabloids, people buy them in the millions every day. they've not had the declining newspapers that we've had here. >> and it's real cutthroat stuff over there. >> very cutthroat stuff. and our newspapers have always generally been more serious. now, there's only a couple of tabloids. we've got them here in new york, the "new york post," the "daily news," and they're very lively, but nobody, i think, would feel that they have stooped to the level of what was going on, the kind of scandals and we're not looking at any kind of allegations like these for our newspapers here. but our whole culture is very different. our popular culture. >> talk to me a little bit about that, bonnie, this popular culture. i've watched it over years, in certain cases, the o.j. simpson case, the tanya harding case, the ramsey murder case, they took over the news business, and frankly, i don't blame people for not trusting us. we start running this stuff like evening soap operas instead of saying, there are more serious matter outs there. the tabloids led the way on that, for sure. >> that's true, but listen. it's understandable. it's normal for people to be interested in these major crime stories. i mean, look at the casey anthony story. it riveted the nation. but it rivets -- these cases rivet the nation for a deferent reason. people want to find out the truth. they actually are looking for that. and also, i mean, in the case of casey anthony, women, i think, were mesmerized by this, because they identified as mothers. and they wondered how can i, you know, how could any loving mother do this to a child. and we look at celebrities different here. we relate to celebrities as if they are our friends and to public figures. and we actually kind of measure ourselves against them. >> in fairness, phil, bonnie has a point there, we cothdo that, i'm not so certain that we don't do that because we've encouraged our readers and viewers to do that. i remember newsroom where we were told, we're not in the business of what's interesting, we're in the business of what's important. so there was a natural governor on cases like the casey anthony case or the o.j. simpson trial where we said, enough, already, let's get back to business. are we set up for the same thing that happened in london to happen here? >> i think it probably does happen here. and it happens at various levels. it wasn't that many years ago, maybe a few decades ago, that reporters and columnists for "the new york times" were colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies. i mean, this kind of thing is not unheard of. and this whole idea of objective, serious journalism, yes, ox salgtsberger, they've been doing it for the last 100 years. but we've occasionally engaged in these sort of activities as the murdoches were in this circumstance. i think it's really about culture. the culture, we're in the roman amphitheater portion of our historical cultural curve at the moment. i saw a reality tv show last night, two guy guys, two wins w were metal workers who are making government armaments. i was sitting there watching, thinking, why am i watching? it's not funny, it's not dramatic, but members of the public are becoming celebrities. so it's the whole culture that's kind of pushed it out. you can still get serious news, you can get it a lot of places. you can get it in the "san francisco chronicle," in "the new york times", in "the atlantic,," and "the new yorker". it exists out there, but in this particular moment of our cultural history, when people say, we want serious news, there are a smaller portion of the people who actually consume news and information. and people will be making choices, particularly with social networks, that are going on, facebook and twitter and so forth. it will be the public more and more making those decisions for us about what it is they want to consume. so i think we have to be a little bit careful. >> let me get back to bonnie for a minute here. bonnie, what are the limits for people in tabloid journalism? what would you say, if a young person came in, tabloid journalism and they said, what should i not do? what should limits be? >> of course, the limit is to obey the law. that is the most important limit. you cannot break the law. >> is that the only limit? there are a lot of things in our life that are not illegal, but are sure wrong. >> i'm not sure what you're getting at here. >> you know what i'm getting at, you know, victimizing a child. take advantage of the grief of somebody who, really, you know, may have no sense of it. a 5-year-old crying over her mother, that doesn't seem right. >> i think you have to look at what is news. if something happens, do you not cover it? do you not look into cases of grief? do you not cover families who lose people in war? you could make a case that you're not going to cover anything sad. >> yeah, well, i guess, but that sounds like you're going to an extreme i'm not sure i buy. anyway, we'll wrap it up here and move on. i appreciate you coming in here, bonnie, and talking about it, and phil as well. we'll hear about this case overseas and if more washes up on our shores here. phil, bonnie, appreciate it. coming up, casey anthony, speaking of that, gets out of jail in six days, we're going to ask the legendary lawyer who defended michael jackson, is justice truly blind or clueless? but first, when harry met larry, e.d. hill explains what that's all about. e.d., what's up? >> what would make daniel radcliffe, better known as harry potter, weep? and what amazing news can larry king share tonight? you'll find out later in the show. >> thanks a lot, e.d. looking forward to it. and when we come back, justice itself on trial. sure, it's a seemy case, but the serious issue is before us. stay put. [ female announcer ] there's a new way to let go of some of the annoying symptoms menopause brings. it's one a day menopause formula. the only complete multivitamin with soy isoflavones to help address hot flashes and mild mood changes. one a day menopause formula. in servicing clients that serve our country. my name is marjorie reyes. i'm a chief warrant officer. i am very grateful and appreciative that quicken loans can offer service members va loans. it was very important for me to be able to close and refinance my home quickly. i wanted to lower my mortgage payment. quicken loans guided me through every step of the process. the whole experience was amazing! [ tony ] serving those who serve us all... one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. ♪ i like your messy hair ♪ i like the clothes you wear ♪ i like the way you sing ♪ and when you dance with me ♪ you always make me smile [ male announcer ] we believe you're at your best when you can relax and be yourself. and at thousands of newly refreshed holiday inn express hotels, you always can. holiday inn express. stay you. and now stay rewarded with vacation pay. stay two weekend nights and get a $75 prepaid card. no justice for caylee, arrest the jury, thanks for letting a killer go free. on july 13th, casey anthony will, indeed, walk free. and judging by the protest signs outside the florida courthouse today, plenty of people are outraged that she was acquitted of murdering her child and will be on the street so soon. but according to my next guest tonight, this is exactly how the system should work. he is a lawyer whose client, like casey anthony, was presumed guilty, and like casey anthony, was acquitted. the accused in that case was none other than michael jackson. and my guest is defense attorney tom mesereau. tom, thanks so much for joining us here. why do you say this is how the system should work in the casey anthony case, because so many people obviously think this is exactly how it shouldn't work. >> well, the system is supposed to be above emotion, above the masses, above the media. it's a system that works around certain rules that are strictly applied, and we're not supposed to just knuckle under the emotions of the moment. and that's exactly what this jury did, and they're to be commended. they did exactly what they were supposed to do, in my opinion. >> one of the things that i was struck by, as i watch the public reaction to this was, whenever i've been in courtroom on big trials, i'm always struck by how different it is being there, actually seeing all the evidence versus sitting at home on the la-z-boy, getting the highlights. >> well, they're under oath, they have a solemn responsibility to a life. they also know they have a solemn obligation to observe and hear and see everything and to apply the law strictly as it's given to them. that is a very different perspective than just turning on the tube and having some fun or turning on the internet and just look at someone or something for 10 minutes or 20 minutes or whatever it is. it's a totally different perspective. >> i've often been struck by the notion that when you look at some of these things from the outside, it's very easy to think you know things, because you get that veneer of things. but the moment in this trial when the defense attorney stood up with that chart and basically said, did the prosecution prove this? no. did they prove this? no. did they prove this? no. i watched that, and i thought, that may be the turning point. as a juror, if you take your vows seriously, you have to look at that and say, yeah, i didn't see that stuff. so how can i find this person guilty. >> well, i think these lawyers on the defense did a great job from the beginning. first of all, they picked a good jury. you know, they had to work within certain parameters, just like the prosecutors did, but they got a jury that was willing to listen to what they had to say. second of all, i think that mr. baez in his opening statement gave a detailed, prepared, passionate, personable statement to the jury and gave them an alternate story and alternative that kept their eyes open. people like to say, everyone's presumed innocent, but really you're presumed guilty if you're sitting at the defense table. what these defense lawyers did, very professionally, was they kept the jurors' mind open, they attacked the prosecution's evidence in a way which was understandable. they went bit by bit and showed they had not proven the things they promised to prove. and in the end, i think these jurors did what they had to do. they acquitted. they said, this case is not proven, we don't know how she died, where she died, when she died, the defendant's hair and fingerprints are not on the duct tape. no one can tell us exactly what happened. we can't speculate. the judge told us we cannot speculate, the case must be proven, and they did their job. >> it seems like some of the jurors that are speaking up basically are saying, look, we didn't say she was innocent, we said we could not convict her. and i often think that's a distinction that is lost on the general public. they think anytime a person walks away, that that person is innocent. you're a defense lawyer, you don't even believe that, do you? >> well, there are some systems where the jury has three options. they can say guilty, they can say innocent, or they can say not proven. and a lot of people think that would be a better system here. but nevertheless, not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent, although it could mean innocent. it means, really, that they were told job was you must strictly apply the law. you must apply reasonable doubt to every single element of a defense. and if they fall short, you must acquit. these people had to follow the judge's instructions, they were under oath, and they were there to do what they did in my opinion. they were not to knuckle under the media or the masses or people who have whatever grudge they have. they have to follow the law, they have to look at everything that goes on in the courtroom and do their job. they are under oath. >> when you look all the of these people that are complaining about this and showing signs and all that, i tack it you are looking at them and saying, you folks are wrong. this is our justice system and that's the way it works. >> look, in 95% of criminal trials result in convictions. 95%. i'm hearing everybody talk about now that reasonable doubt is too high a standard. it's nonsense. most of the time they convict. additionally, over 200 people now have been released from death sentences and lengthy prison sentences because of dna technology. how about those cases where there was no dna to test? i mean, our system is the best in fact world, our standards are the highest, we have the fairest system in the world, but even still, injustice happens repeatedly. so you can't say this is too high a standard when you get 95% of convictions in criminal jury trials. >> tom mesereau, nice perspectives there. interesting in the face after all of this public outrage about it. good to have you with us.