>> we'll examine the frenetic coverage of the movie theater shooting. conservative commentators join the call for mitt romney to reduce his tax returns. is there right in revolt against the republican candidate? plus, yahoo! taps google executive marisa maher as its new ceo and it's been downright adoring. >> google geek to yahoo! ceo, and she's going to be a first-time mommy. >> with so few female bosses in silicon valley, is the press putting her on a pedestal? i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." perhaps the single worst thing that news organizations do after a crazed gunman opens fire on a crowd is rush to judgment about the affiliation or beliefs of the shooter as abc news did. >> there's a james holmes of aurora, colorado, page on the tea party site, as well, talking about him joining the tea party last year. we don't know if this is the same james holmes. but james holmes of aurora, colorado. >> it turned out to be someone with the same name. and abc and brian ross apologized. that was a terrible blunder. the other troubling thing that particular in particular does is to turn such an atrocities into ideological fodder while all the victims are still being treated. msnbc had a gun-control debate just hours after the shootings, and there was this gun control discussion on cnn. >> honestly, i think this is the wrong night to be doing this. i wish you'd waited to have this segment until after the funerals. >> a lot of people have said that today. a lot of people who don't want strengthening gun control have said this is not the date to debate. it i tell you the day to debate it would be yesterday to have prevented this happening. >> other pundits said there was no need for some grand policy debate. >> once again we have mass murder in america. and the killer is a young man who was simply out of his mind. nobody's fault. it's no policy deficit. it's just an atrocity that's impossible to explain. >> joining us to examine the coverage of the colorado shooting in minneapolis, political correspondent for "the guardian." and here in washington, rame ramesh panuru from "political review." bob cusack from political newspaper "the hill." bob, why the great rush by abc too report what turned out to be flatly wrong information it the alleged shooter? >> that's a pretty bad mistake. obviously journalists in that situation, you're doing research, who is this guy -- you can't say that on television unless you confirm it. especially for such a common name. a bad mistake. i think generally the media did a good job, whether bill o'reilly or -- they went to straight news coverage on this. to make that kind of mistake, quite poor. >> infuriated the tea party and rightly so. we saw piers morgan a moment ago in the early hours after this tragedy. he tweeted, "america has got to do something about its gun laws." then breitbart.com, the conservative site founded, threw up a headline, "cnn, piers morgan exploits for gun control." >> i am pretty latitudena irs an -- >> can you explain that for people like me who don't get it? >> i know that if you do believe that stronger gun control laws would have prevented this from happening, which i think is pretty dubious, but if you do believe that, i don't see why you wouldn't make that argument on that day when people are paying attention and it might make an impact. >> the same breitbart site that talked about piers morgan exploiting the situation, puts up the headline, "joem could be re -- james holmes could be registered democrat." then update, may not be registered to vote. >> yes. people get things wrong. news organizations get things wrong, you know, in the sort of craziness right after an event like this. i think what's really missing from the coverage, however, is context. something about just how rare these kinds of shootings are. if we're going to have a gun policy debate, it probably shouldn't actually be about the kinds of assault weapons he used. 75% of all gun violence in the u.s. is actually committed with handguns. it's far more prevalent. you know, people die from gun violence all the time. chicago has seen a wave of violence. regularly has double-digit people dying over a single weekend. that doesn't get coverage. that doesn't get -- the kind of killing that happen every day that could be prevented aren't getting the kind of coverage that this gets. >> well, they certainly get local coverage. but the national media don't turn it into some kind of crusade. coming back -- >> we don't have a policy debate. we don't have a policy debate or killings because they happen all the time. they do get local coverage. that might be where a policy debate would make a difference. >> i would agree with ramesh to this extent. gun control, what kind of weapons are used. other security matters, we saw virginia tech. a legitimate part of the debate. i feel so strongly about this -- how about waiting a decent interval, maybe a day until, you know, the families have had time to absorb the shock, the victims have been identified. why this rush to do it immediately? >> if you talk to gun-control advocates, they are so frustrated because we've had these shooting massacres. and the nra is very, very powerful in washington and in the halls of congress. and democrats have shied away from the gun-control debate. so when they see this, they're just -- they want to speak out because they have an ability to possibly influence the debate. >> because they have the nation's attention for this rare moment because most of the time the attitude among journalists in washington is, well, gun control, it's not going anywhere, both parties consider it a political loser. >> that's right. >> now the media machine, and there are a lot of anchors and correspondent was all the networks that have flown out to colorado to do live shots and special reports, everybody, every network's got a special hour, now it's going to dig up every detail about james holmes' life. and it will be served up as political fodder. >> right. and i think one other thing we need to keep in mind here in addition to avoiding sensationalism and rushing from judgment in the case of abc is let's not make this guy into a celebrity. i mean, we know that many of these mass murderers study the coverage of previous mass murderers and part of what they want is publicity. let's be mindful -- obviously we've got a report on -- got to report on it, explain what happened, who this guy was. let's be mindful of that and not try to make him into a big deal. >> i would go a step further, ana marie. i don't care -- other than how he got the guns and how he got 2,000 rounds of ammunition, i read through the mail, i don't care about in guy. i don't care about whether he was disappointed in school. i don't want the psychological studies of him because anybody who shoots up a movie theater with men, women, and children is crazy. so much a sociopath i think it's almost fruitless to try to figure out what was it that made him snap. what do you think? >> well, another piece of context for this from the kinds of studies that surround this particular kind of violence, people don't understand psychopathology. it is kind of a mystery to the people who are professionals in that field. so yeah, it doesn't do a lot of good to try and figure out why this happened. but i guess i want to say something about whether or not we should do coverage in the immediate aftermath. i want to be careful about what saying the media should and shouldn't do because these are going to happen. i think ramesh is right in saying we should be mindful. abc probably should put everything in context. put everything sort of in the area, what they say, any news organization should be careful to say that we don't really know very much. and when you don't know, you say you don't know. you don't go with information that you think might be true. you know probably better than any of us here the pressure to break news. that pressure has become so overwhelming that people will go with false news. >> we saw this with the supreme court decision on obama care resulted in people going on the air at this network and others before -- realizing what the high court had done. but you know, all these profilers are being trotted out to psycho analyze the guy, as i said, i don't care. i don't want to turn him interest a celebrity. i don't want to turn him into a national object of fascination. at the same time, it seems like the whole dna of journalism is weak. there are unanswered questions. we have to answer them. maybe some questions can't be answered. >> that's right. and on television, you don't say, well, i don't know. and i think that's -- that's the point here is that when you don't know, you can't speculate. especially because we don't know what he's going to be saying in the next couple of days. it's just -- fruitless to speculate. >> and i think that raises another question which is everybody's been jumping all over brian ross. i think appropriately so. but what about stuart stephanopoulos? what went through his mind -- he obviously knew that ross was going to say something like that and asked the question. you know, he set it up. he said, you know, we understand there's some information here. something like that. >> i think that's fair because ross -- you know, while has made occasional mistakes, is an award-winning investigative reporter. the anchor is told he has information to report. you can't while sitting in this chair double-check the reporting of your correspondents. >> we haven't heard anything from stephanopoulos about what he knew, was he -- did he say afterward, well, gosh, i mean, you just listen to what ross said, and you have to say if you have any judgment whatsoever, boy, that seems awfully thin. didn't interject anything. >> as well we have the talk because this happened during "the dark knight rises" about "batman" movies, violent movies, the video game debate. you know, when you got 24 hours to fill a lot of columns and newspapers you try to explore every angle, but some of this is fruitless. and on this closing note, happened to notice a piece in "the washington times" by a retired police officer named peter bella who summing up says of the media, they could not resist turning a tragedy into a spectacular national media lollapalooza. it was sad -- pathetic to see how low the media sank in the name of sensationalism. i thought surprisingly the coverage was restrained in most instances but not all. ana marie cox, your thoughts? >> i think that people are starting to learn some lessons about the value of getting thing right first. but -- before, you know, getting things, just getting things out there. and i do think, i'm -- i was pleasantly surprised that there hasn't been a lot of speculation it what part the "batman" movie might have played. as we were saying before, people who are crazy do crazy things. they could be set off by -- by something they read, you know, while sitting on the toilet. they can be -- who knows what makes people do thing that they do? and to try and connect this really specifically to the "batman" movie seems especially kind of inappropriate to me. >> speculation is great whether you're sitting around -- in a bar, gathered around the water cooler. i don't think it has much place particularly at a sensitive time like this in the aftermath of such a tragedy in front of a television camera. we'll have more on this story later in the program. first, when we come back, george will, bill crystal, and "national review" say mitt romney should release his tax returns. is the press turning on the guy? [ male announcer ] this is rudy. his morning starts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pills. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brings more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve. it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ [ female announcer ] and try aleve for relief from tough headaches. [ female announcer ] and try aleve energy is being produced to power our lives. while energy development comes with some risk, north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsibly providing generations of cleaner-burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self-contained well systems. and, using state-of-the-art monitoring technologies, rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment. we're america's natural gas. you tell us what you want to pay, and we give you a range of coverages to choose from. who is she? that's flobot. she's this new robot we're trying out, mostly for, like, small stuff. wow! look at her go! she's pretty good. she's pretty good. hey, flobot, great job. oops. [ powers down ] uh-oh, flobot is broken. the "name your price" tool, only from progressive. call or click today. this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state. one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com. hey america, even though slisa rinna is wearing the new depend silhouette briefs for charity to prove how great the fit is even under a fantastic dress. the best protection now looks, fits and feels just like underwear. we invite you to get a free sample and try one on too. the obama campaign along with liberal commentators has been hammering mitt romney for two weeks for refusing to release more of his tax returns. it was far more striking when national review scolded romney as well, the conservative magazine saying "his current posture is probably unsustainable. in all likelihood he won't be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions." there was no shortage of pundits on the right joining the fray. >> here's what he should do -- he should release the tax returns tomorrow. it's crazy. you've got to release six, eight, ten years of back tax returns. >> mitt romney's losing at this point in a big way. if something's going to come out, get it out in a hurry. >> romney and his wife, ann, are insisting in interviews that he won't change his position. and you knew that people would say even "national review," urging romeny to release tax returns -- romney to release tax returns? >> that's right. any time a magazine takes issue with something a candidate is doing, it becomes a little bit of a news story. i don't think, though, that this is something that signifies some big breach on the right. i think this is a tactical disagreement among people who are broadly allied saying this is not the right way for the romney campaign to proceed. and i suspect that's -- the way it's being received in boston, as well. >> ana marie dock, it does tend to undercut the argument that this is the big, bad political media harassing mitt romney. >> i'm not sure it does that. i can't believe i'm agreeing with ramesh, but this is getting the kind of coverage it's getting because it's a rift on the right and people like to cover rifts. and i also want to point out that there's a lot of presidential candidates who have only released limited numbers -- limited tax returns. this convention does ironically go back to his father, the convention of releasing a lot of tax returns. but i'm not sure that it matters to the average voter. what probably matter where if they can make the idea of secrecy stick and if they can make the idea that romney is so rich he does not play by the rules that others play by. i'm not -- >> let me -- i would add that many of these krveg commentators now criticizing romney taxes were not big fans of h during the primary. and somebody who added her voice to this debate is cnn anchor erin burnett. here's what she had to say. >> mitt romney is running on his business expertise. his tax returns are a relevant window into how he conducts his business affairs. if he refuses to releasehem, it is because, one, he had a lot more money in tax shelters in prior years than he does now. two, he did something shady. or three, he's stupid. >> head a straight news ancho-- should a straight news anchor be taking a stance on a hot button issue? >> i know people were not pleased with that. i think that pushes the envelope too far, especially the "he's stupid" part, that rubs republicans the wrong way. and republicans can fire back at that and blame the media for the controversy. >> i think an anchor can say somebody did something stupid. go ahead, ana marie. >> that's one way to heal the rift on the right. when you start doing that kind of name-calling, conservatives might forget that they're angry at romney or forget that they're talking about tactical errors in romney and go into -- to attack the media, will kind of bring them together. i want to point out, we were talking in the last segment about speculation. it's just as inappropriate here as it is in the aurora case. and we don't know why. we don't know what's in the tax returns. we can speculate, and it's found speculate. but there's no point to doing it. >> you have people saying it must show there are years when he didn't pay taxes when nobody has any clue. it is pure speculation. i didn't mean to cut you off. i want to turn to something that i've noticed has really become more and more of a prominent issue in presidential campaigns because of the media coverage. that is when surrogates for the presidential candidate say things that we in the press all jump on. here are three examples if we can roll the tape. >> i wish this president would learn how to be an american. >> either mitt romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at bain to the sec which is a felony. >> he ended up not going back at all and retired retro actively. >> okay, john sue? sue? and gillespie, stephanie -- john sununu, ann gillespie, stephanie cutter, why did they go over this about strategists and surrogates? >> i think the other campaigns are egging them on. an arms race on that front in your side makes an issue out of ed gillespie, our side will make an issue out of stephanie cutter. and you know, the idea is you either -- you force the other campaign to either distance itself from one of its own people, which creates all kind of problems on its side, or you force them to look like they're defending the indefensible. >> or get someone to apologize, which sununu did for his choice of words on obama should learn how to be an american. or apologized for his choice of words. ana marie cox, this does turn the media into a 24-hour gaffe patrol. >> it does. again, i have to bring the average voter into the equation who probably doesn't care about the kinds of things that this -- these are, gaffes, unless they reflect on the character of the candidate. and i don't think any of these really do that. these are -- >> don't these campaigns trot out john sununu, former governor of new hampshire, for example, to make this kind of case? and if he is raising questions indirectly or subtly about obama being an american, one could say the campaign is responsible for that. >> oh, the campaign's responsible, but i'm not sure how many people care. like -- i think that, you know, someone like john sununu, the reason surrogates are use sudden to largely gain support in a area where the surrogate is popular. it might matter to people there. i don't think that these fights are something that people will take into account when they're making their actual voting decisio