TELEARUBA — broadcast
20261004 110000 UTC
458 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] six World Cups, seven Copa Americas, world champion, twice chosen as the best
[00:00:03] player of this tournament, I'm talking about the World Cups and it is truly a
[00:00:07] cultural heritage of Argentina, so we will be here in CNN covering all
[00:00:10] of it. It will be until tomorrow. Hugo Mano Correa accompanied
[00:00:22] the world leader in
[00:00:23] news.
[00:00:26] Oppenheimer presents, brought to you courtesy of
[00:00:41] you just said, putting a
[00:00:47] Uade, the Argentine university that trains you to
[00:00:50] succeed in the world, with laboratories, technology and
[00:00:53] practices that propel you into the job market, study trips to
[00:00:57] the main cities of the world, you choose
[00:01:01] a pop-up appears where, when and how
[00:01:02] to study.
[00:01:06] Build your future at UAD, a great
[00:01:09] university. Why are people unhappy everywhere? Surveys
[00:01:13] show there is a wave of dissatisfaction and an increase in
[00:01:17] stress, sadness and frustration sweeping the
[00:01:20] world. In "How to Get Out of the
[00:01:23] are separate from Hole", journalist Andrés Oppenheimer shares innovative
[00:01:26] strategies to combat unhappiness. With interviews with
[00:01:29] the world's leading gurus of the new science of
[00:01:32] happiness, he tells us how countries, companies and
[00:01:36] people are using artificial intelligence and
[00:01:39] positive psychology to increase their life
[00:01:43] satisfaction. Now available in bookstores and online
[00:01:46] stores.
[00:01:54] Hello, I'm Endenheim. The topic of the moment worldwide,
[00:01:58] perhaps the number one topic is: the panic that has spread after warnings
[00:02:02] from several former employees of major tech companies that artificial
[00:02:06] day, that is, what intelligence could end humanity, not
[00:02:10] in 100 years, but in the coming years. Some have
[00:02:13] said that an artificial intelligence model could get out of
[00:02:17] control and hack an atomic power plant or
[00:02:20] biological weapons as early as in the next 10 years.
[00:02:24] So, the big question is, are these
[00:02:27] warnings realistic or are they exaggerated? And do
[00:02:32] 12 a.m. and 6 those who make them have ulterior motives? It's not an academic question. The
[00:02:37] Independence at 9:30 in the panic broke out after a real event, when in
[00:02:40] July, artificial intelligence agents from OpenAI, the parent
[00:02:43] company of Chat GPT, penetrated
[00:02:46] the internet and hacked the tech company Hugging
[00:02:49] Face. OpenAI acknowledged the incident and said it would strengthen its
[00:02:53] security. But then, a few weeks ago, the alarms went off
[00:02:57] again when the former researcher resigned
[00:03:04] from his position citing fears that the artificial
[00:03:07] intelligence industry is in a race towards a super
[00:03:10] intelligence and that this will endanger our lives, he said
[00:03:14] accurate and timely information on on a social network that people
[00:03:17] control could mean the end of who are inside artificial intelligence companies believe
[00:03:20] that there is a great possibility that artificial
[00:03:24] intelligence, and I quote, "could
[00:03:26] kill us all" before the end of this...
[00:03:30] and I close the quote. And more recently, several
[00:03:33] executives and employees of these companies said that indeed there
[00:03:37] is fear within the industry that artificial
[00:03:41] you pay attention to and gives you a lot of intelligence will get out of control and cause a
[00:03:44] catastrophe. Today we will start the program by asking a
[00:03:48] well-known artificial intelligence expert if the
[00:03:51] end of the world is coming, if what they are saying is
[00:03:55] exaggerated, and then
[00:03:58] we will change the subject and talk with the Instagram and Facebook
[00:04:02] software engineer, who was a witness for the prosecution of several
[00:04:05] states in the recent lawsuit against Meta, the
[00:04:09] parent company of Facebook and Instagram. The
[00:04:12] lawsuit accused Meta of having intentionally designed its
[00:04:16] platforms to hook children and
[00:04:20] adolescents to screens, contributing to a mental
[00:04:23] health crisis among young people. The
[00:04:26] lawsuit, which was worldwide news, ended with an out-of-court
[00:04:30] settlement by which Meta will have to pay up to 18
[00:04:33] billion dollars and make changes to Instagram and
[00:04:37] Facebook to better protect minors. The company explicitly
[00:04:40] said it did not admit to having
[00:04:43] roulette, putting a gun to your done anything wrong, but as part of the agreement, it agreed to do several
[00:04:46] things, for example, set a 2-hour daily limit
[00:04:50] for screen time for minors under
[00:04:53] 17 years old on its social
[00:04:56] comply with networks. But the big question is, will these measures be enough?
[00:05:00] Will the wave of anxiety and
[00:05:03] depression among youth be
[00:05:06] reduced with this? There are still many things to do. We will ask all this and much
[00:05:10] more to the former engineer. The former engineer who was the main
[00:05:14] witness against the company in the trial. Well,
[00:05:18] let's start with the first topic, the global panic about the possibility that artificial
[00:05:21] intelligence will end humanity in very few years.
[00:05:25] We have with us Stewart
[00:05:29] the Association for the Safe and Ethical Use of Artificial
[00:05:31] Intelligence and professor of computer science at the
[00:05:35] University of California at Berkeley. Let's go with him.
[00:05:39] Professor Russell, thank you for being with us. Well, let's get
[00:05:42] to the point. Do you think these warnings about
[00:05:45] a possible catastrophe due to artificial intelligence are
[00:05:49] justified or are they exaggerated? How
[00:05:52] concerned are you about all of this? First
[00:05:56] of all, I think it's important for people to know that these
[00:05:59] concerns are not new. The CEOs
[00:06:02] of major artificial intelligence companies
[00:06:06] have been saying this quite consistently,
[00:06:09] even before their own companies existed.
[00:06:13] So it's clear that it's not about inflating their stock
[00:06:16] prices, as some argue, because they were saying
[00:06:19] it even before they had stocks. The history of
[00:06:22] computing goes back at least to 1951.
[00:06:26] Alan Turing, founder of computing and one of the first to
[00:06:30] conceive of artificial intelligence, warned in
[00:06:33] 1951 that machines would likely
[00:06:37] take control if we managed to create machines more intelligent than
[00:06:40] humans, and the reason is quite obvious, right?
[00:06:44] Our intelligence gives us power over the world and all other
[00:06:47] species on Earth, and if we create systems more intelligent than
[00:06:51] us, then they will be more powerful than us, and how
[00:06:55] can we maintain power forever over entities much more
[00:06:58] powerful than us? Obviously, it's a difficult
[00:07:02] or impossible problem. This is basically what Alan Turing was telling
[00:07:06] us back in 1951.
[00:07:08] This is what the CEOs of the companies have been telling
[00:07:12] us. Dario Amodei from Anthropic, for example, estimated a
[00:07:16] risk of human extinction of up to 25%.
[00:07:20] So, there are two questions. Will we be able to create artificial
[00:07:24] intelligence systems with that level of capability, and do we have a
[00:07:27] solution to maintain control over them
[00:07:30] forever? The answer to the first question, most would
[00:07:34] say, seeing the pace of progress, is yes,
[00:07:37] we will be able to create systems with that level of
[00:07:40] capability. Do we want a solution to the control
[00:07:44] problem? The answer is no, companies openly
[00:07:47] admit that they don't know how to control even the systems
[00:07:51] they have now, much less systems that will be much
[00:07:54] more intelligent than human beings. You have
[00:07:58] been a skeptic about the proposals of Dario Amodei and others
[00:08:02] to slow down the race among companies
[00:08:05] towards artificial superintelligence. You said that the
[00:08:08] proposal to reduce the speed of this race
[00:08:12] is like going slower towards a
[00:08:16] cliff. Please explain that. Yes,
[00:08:20] well, given the argument I just made that creating
[00:08:23] machines much more intelligent than human beings and then losing
[00:08:29] the human race, if we are going full speed towards that
[00:08:32] goal, then we are going full speed towards a
[00:08:35] cliff, and saying, "Well, we're not going at 80
[00:08:39] km/h, but at 60 km/h," is very
[00:08:42] reassuring, right? The correct answer is:
[00:08:46] no, we have to go in another direction, and if we can't
[00:08:49] do that, we should stop. That's the same rule
[00:08:52] we use for airplanes, buildings, nuclear
[00:08:56] power plants, even for sandwiches. We say,
[00:08:59] there's a risk, either from a building collapse, a plane crash
[00:09:03] or food poisoning, and we demand
[00:09:06] certain safety tests before allowing a new type of airplane to be launched
[00:09:10] on the market and carry passengers.
[00:09:42] executives, Jacob, who resigned from
[00:09:45] Anthropic, and Evan Hubinger, the Anthropic executive who supported him,
[00:09:48] spoke of more than a 10% probability of human
[00:09:51] extinction. That's playing Russian
[00:09:55] head and pulling the trigger, hoping the bullets aren't in the right
[00:09:59] chamber. How can we allow this to be happening? Basically, let
[00:10:03] me see if I understood you correctly, you are saying that technology companies should first
[00:10:08] safety requirements and
[00:10:11] then, if approved, only then launch their
[00:10:15] products. You gave as an example the case of
[00:10:17] airplanes. Yes, I was questioning the idea that
[00:10:21] the solution will be to slow down the current race.
[00:10:25] Slowing down the process basically means, well, we're
[00:10:28] going to keep moving forward regardless of whether we can do it safely,
[00:10:32] we'll just do it at a slower pace, and I
[00:10:35] argued that if an aircraft manufacturer said, "We're going to introduce
[00:10:39] a new aircraft once a year and we hope that will give us enough
[00:10:42] time to carry out the flight tests and that the results will
[00:10:46] be good, but we're going to introduce the aircraft anyway," if that were the
[00:10:50] case, the government would say,
[00:10:53] "No, you're getting it completely wrong, you can't
[00:10:56] launch aircraft whenever you want, you have to do the flight tests
[00:11:00] and the results of the flight tests have to be good, and the same goes for the
[00:11:04] structural integrity and the tests of the wings and engines." There
[00:11:08] are regulations that say they have to comply with all these safety
[00:11:12] standards, because otherwise they are putting people
[00:11:15] at risk and we will not accept it.
[00:11:18] Many ethics experts advocate for
[00:11:20] labeling. They say that artificial intelligence companies and social
[00:11:25] networks should be required to label their
[00:11:28] products, just like supermarkets do with
[00:11:31] food. That is, for example, to indicate if a video or an image, a
[00:11:35] photo has been created with artificial intelligence, or what
[00:11:38] percentage of the content of a video has been
[00:11:42] created with artificial intelligence. What do you think about
[00:11:45] that? How would it work? This is already a requirement in Europe and
[00:11:48] China, where there are very strict regulations on the labeling of
[00:11:52] artificial intelligence content. I think that
[00:11:55] it actually works. It is curious that American
[00:11:58] companies argue in the United States that
[00:12:02] this is too burdensome, "we cannot comply with these terrible
[00:12:06] regulations proposed by the states of the United States," while
[00:12:10] they comply with them in Europe and have succeeded without problems, and it is not that
[00:12:13] difficult. I think the simplest example is that one should
[00:12:17] have the right to know if they are interacting with a human or with a
[00:12:21] machine. It is very simple, if it is a dialogue, either.
[00:12:30] That would include, for example, when one receives a tweet or a message on social
[00:12:34] networks, on Twitter, on Facebook or on any other social
[00:12:37] network. Should social networks explicitly
[00:12:41] notify us that it is a bot? Of course
[00:12:45] they should, and I should have the option to filter responses or
[00:12:49] friend requests from bots. Personally, I don't
[00:12:52] want to be friends with a bot, I don't want bots in my
[00:12:55] inbox with nonsense generated by other bots. I should be able to
[00:12:59] filter non-human interactions.
[00:13:02] Professor, all this debate about the potential
[00:13:05] apocalypse due to artificial intelligence is overshadowing another
[00:13:09] debate, the debate about the effect of artificial intelligence on our
[00:13:13] minds, right? What experts call cognitive
[00:13:16] surrender. What advice would you give to our viewers
[00:13:20] on how to protect their minds, their brains from this
[00:13:23] bombardment of messages and artificial intelligence algorithms
[00:13:26] that manipulate our thoughts? How can we preserve
[00:13:29] our mental independence?
[00:13:33] It's a very important question, and there is
[00:13:37] increasingly clear evidence that using artificial intelligence to
[00:13:40] perform cognitive tasks results, as you say, in
[00:13:44] cognitive surrender, cognitive deficit, cognitive
[00:13:47] decline. We really need to find an appropriate
[00:13:51] term for this. Basically, one becomes
[00:13:54] dumber. One becomes less intelligent, loses their
[00:13:57] mental capacity. For example, there are people who cannot
[00:14:01] answer a question without first consulting their artificial
[00:14:04] intelligence platform. They cannot organize their daily lives, they cannot
[00:14:07] work. I have spoken with managers whose direct
[00:14:10] subordinates cannot function without constant help from the artificial
[00:14:14] intelligence system. We have very clear evidence of an
[00:14:17] experiment conducted in China with 26 children. Some
[00:14:21] used artificial intelligence to help them with their homework and others
[00:14:25] did not. The children who used artificial intelligence scored
[00:14:28] higher on their homework and lower on their
[00:14:32] final exams, closed-book final exams
[00:14:35] and without artificial intelligence. Therefore,
[00:14:38] the use of artificial intelligence clearly resulted in a
[00:14:41] failure to learn. So, I think that as
[00:14:45] this becomes more widespread, it will be increasingly inexcusable that
[00:14:49] we allow children to continue using artificial intelligence to
[00:14:52] copy and paste their homework and substitute
[00:14:56] think. It would be a total negligence on our part, and it
[00:15:00] is already happening. Professor Russell, thank you very much, we have
[00:15:03] a break now. When we return, we will talk to the former
[00:15:06] Instagram software engineer,
[00:15:09] who was a witness in the trial against the company for allegedly damaging
[00:15:13] the mental health of minors. Don't go away, we'll be
[00:15:17] right back.
[00:15:18] volvemos,
[00:15:24] There are places that... stay with you forever, and that is Dominican
[00:15:28] Republic. Dominican Republic is beach and
[00:15:31] mountain, it's city, countryside and a path to discover. It's the
[00:15:35] flavor of a cuisine born from the land. Music that is danced
[00:15:38] and felt, it's people who receive you as if they had known you for
[00:15:42] years, hands that create, communities that share,
[00:15:45] stories that make you part, it's a country that grows
[00:15:48] caring for what makes it unique, Dominican Republic
[00:15:51] feels. Feel Dominican Republic. The full story
[00:15:55] with Anderson Cooper, CNN's best journalists share deeply
[00:15:58] documented stories.
[00:16:00] documentadas.
[00:16:07] your advice be to me, you believe the civil
[00:16:10] government should be guided and dictated by biblical law, how
[00:16:14] in the world did you survive
[00:16:15] this?
[00:16:19] The full story with Anderson Cooper, Sunday on
[00:16:23] CNN. Do you have 5 minutes? We have five
[00:16:27] things for you, a podcast with the five most important topics
[00:16:31] of the day. Just ask your smart device, "Give me
[00:16:34] the latest news from CNN." Next, I'm
[00:16:37] going to tell you the five things you need to know at this time, updated every
[00:16:41] hour, free of charge or commitment. Stay informed
[00:16:45] from anywhere and at any time. Subscribe
[00:16:48] to our newsletter. Listen to the five things you need to know
[00:16:52] throughout the day.
[00:17:35] The need to migrate knows no age. Many
[00:17:39] say they want to reach Mexico City, but others are looking
[00:17:42] to go further
[00:17:43] north.
[00:17:47] The Mexican army's anti-drone battalion consists of
[00:17:50] these types of elements, jammers to bring down drones
[00:17:54] that have become a threat. The
[00:17:57] Chiapas authorities have detected a cattle smuggling
[00:18:00] point. This is one of the illegal crossing
[00:18:04] points for cattle going from Central America to
[00:18:07] Mexico. Thousands of demonstrators, workers from this
[00:18:11] country, left the Angel of
[00:18:14] morning. I am in the municipality of Teuchitlán, in the
[00:18:18] Mexican state of Jalisco. Here the discovery was
[00:18:21] macabre by collectives of people searching for the
[00:18:25] disappeared. What made you come here with the suspicion
[00:18:29] that your son might be on this
[00:18:30] ranch?
[00:18:44] Thank you for staying with us. A few weeks ago, Meta, the parent
[00:18:48] company of Instagram and Facebook, reached an out-of-court
[00:18:51] settlement with 48 states of the United
[00:18:54] States, for which the company will have to pay up to
[00:18:57] 18 billion dollars and make several
[00:19:00] changes to its platforms to
[00:19:03] better protect minors. The lawsuit had accused
[00:19:06] Meta of intentionally causing screen addiction
[00:19:10] in children and adolescents,
[00:19:13] contributing to a mental health crisis among
[00:19:16] young people. The company has explicitly denied
[00:19:20] having done anything wrong, and as part of that agreement, it agreed to
[00:19:24] several demands, such as, for example, setting a 2-hour daily
[00:19:28] limit for the time minors under
[00:19:31] 17 years old can spend on its
[00:19:34] platforms. But will that be enough
[00:19:37] to combat this wave of anxiety and youth depression that
[00:19:41] we were talking about? We have with us the man who was a witness
[00:19:44] against the company in the trial, former Instagram software
[00:19:48] engineer Arturo Bejar. Let's point out
[00:19:51] that we invited Meta three weeks ago to interview an official
[00:19:55] spokesperson for the company, but so far we have not received a
[00:19:58] response. Instead, they sent us the following
[00:20:01] statement, uh, I quote, "Meta has reached an agreement
[00:20:05] with a bipartisan group of... attorneys
[00:20:08] general, uh, state attorneys general across the country,
[00:20:12] on a new set of rules governing adolescents' use of social networks.
[00:20:16] The framework we have negotiated will allow
[00:20:19] parents to easily manage their children's access
[00:20:22] to our platforms. Our new commitments on time limits, night mode features,
[00:20:26] and usage limits during school hours set the right path for the entire
[00:20:30] industry. But this framework will only work if all our
[00:20:34] competitors join in. Given that adolescents frequently use
[00:20:37] dozens of applications, we need an industry-wide
[00:20:41] solution." I close the quote. Let's go with Arturo
[00:20:45] Bejar. Arturo, thank you for being with us. Well. As we just
[00:20:49] said, you were a key protagonist in this trial. What is
[00:20:52] your conclusion after this agreement? Will these measures be
[00:20:56] enough to protect minors?
[00:21:00] No. It's a very important change that the
[00:21:02] states achieved in the agreement, because there are
[00:21:06] some good things, but at the same time it's a start and it's
[00:21:10] not enough. It's like telling our children that they
[00:21:14] can smoke all the cigarettes they can smoke in 2
[00:21:17] hours. To change the nature of cigarettes to
[00:21:20] make young people safer on these products, let's
[00:21:24] break it down. One of the measures that Instagram and Facebook
[00:21:28] committed to was what
[00:21:31] 2-hour daily limit on screen
[00:21:35] time, on the time minors can spend on their
[00:21:38] platforms to precisely reduce
[00:21:42] screen addiction. How will that work? That
[00:21:45] means that after 2 hours the transmission stops or
[00:21:51] saying: "We advise you not to continue." How will this
[00:21:54] work? How it should work is that after 2
[00:21:57] hours, when one tries to open Instagram or anything
[00:22:01] like that service on our phone, it should be a
[00:22:04] screen saying: "Today the 2 hours are up and
[00:22:08] nothing else can be done except messages," because messages
[00:22:13] what is the normal use of the social network. Two hours per
[00:22:17] day or 2 hours in a row? It's 2 hours per
[00:22:20] day, and in theory, at 15 minutes, they will give a
[00:22:24] warning, but these would have to be made in such a way that they were
[00:22:27] effective for something that, when you see
[00:22:31] it, makes you put down the phone, not just a small
[00:22:35] screen in between that everyone says yes to and then continues
[00:22:38] doing what they were doing. Do you think this 2-hour
[00:22:42] daily limit will make a difference, that it will be important?
[00:22:46] It can make a difference,
[00:22:49] but the... the problem still is that for the other years that young people
[00:22:53] live on these products every
[00:22:56] these social networks are giving our children, that is not
[00:23:00] changing. So it's good that there is a
[00:23:03] limit of fewer hours a day, provided it is
[00:23:06] done in a way that is effective, but something
[00:23:09] needs to be done about the other harms. Another measure agreed upon by Instagram,
[00:23:13] Facebook and the plaintiffs was that minors will no
[00:23:16] longer be able to use Instagram and Facebook between
[00:23:22] a.m. to prevent sleep deprivation, which
[00:23:26] according to many psychologists causes anxiety and depression. Will those
[00:23:29] 6 hours of blocking be enough to
[00:23:33] reduce mental problems in minors? We hope it
[00:23:36] helps, and the fact that they are doing it is very
[00:23:39] important, but something that is missing in this
[00:23:43] issue, which is necessary for governments in the United
[00:23:47] States and Latin America and other places to do,
[00:23:50] is to ask young people how much these changes are
[00:23:54] helping them. But if you ask young people, "Hey, how's
[00:23:58] your sleep, what product are you using, what's keeping you
[00:24:01] awake?", they will tell you, and at the end of the day,
[00:24:04] results are more important than efforts. What did
[00:24:07] Instagram and Facebook agree with the plaintiffs on the
[00:24:10] issue of infinite scrolling? That is,
[00:24:14] infinite scrolling. With
[00:24:17] respect to the addiction mechanisms, such as
[00:24:21] infinite scrolling, videos that start playing
[00:24:24] automatically, notifications,
[00:24:27] an algorithm that notices what
[00:24:31] that, whether it's good or bad for you, in those areas there were
[00:24:35] no agreements. What was changed is how much time. So
[00:24:39] that is a job that needs to continue, and what we need to
[00:24:42] know, both parents and governments, is that this is the beginning of a
[00:24:46] process, not the end. Let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying:
[00:24:50] the usage time was changed, but not the content.
[00:24:54] Exactly, the time is limited, but the things
[00:24:58] that we are learning and know cause harm, which is infinite
[00:25:01] scrolling, I mean, from the moment you are born until you die, you can be
[00:25:04] watching, the videos that start to
[00:25:08] play before you say, "I want to
[00:25:12] see that," and companies know and
[00:25:15] studies show that when you you see a video,
[00:25:19] you immediately prepare to pay attention to it and see what is
[00:25:22] happening, it's natural, you enter a bar or whatever, there's a
[00:25:25] screen, our eyes immediately spend a few
[00:25:29] seconds there to see what happened and when that video has
[00:25:32] something so strong, something exhausting,
[00:25:35] something that affects you, well, you've already experienced it, right?
[00:25:39] when you saw it, let's remember that several weeks ago we invited
[00:25:42] Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, to participate in today's
[00:25:46] program, but we did not receive a response. Previously, Meta had
[00:25:50] denied that its platforms harm minors and said that the
[00:25:53] agreement reached with the plaintiffs does not imply that
[00:25:57] it admits to having done anything wrong. The company sent us a statement from its chief
[00:26:00] legal officer, CH Mahone, saying,
[00:26:03] and I quote, "Meta has reached an agreement with a bipartisan group of
[00:26:07] state attorneys general across the country on a new set of rules
[00:26:10] regulating the use of social networks by
[00:26:13] teenagers. The framework we have negotiated will allow parents to easily
[00:26:17] manage their children's access to these platforms.
[00:26:21] Our new commitments on time limits, night mode features,
[00:26:24] and school-day usage limits mark the right
[00:26:28] path for our entire industry. But this framework will only
[00:26:31] work if all our competitors join. Given that
[00:26:34] teenagers frequently use dozens of applications, we need
[00:26:38] an industry-wide solution." End quote.
[00:26:41] We have to not cut when we come back, we'll continue with the
[00:26:44] witness in the trial against Meta. Don't go anywhere, we'll
[00:26:48] be back.
[00:26:53] Every night there is the possibility of an
[00:26:57] unfiltered bombardment. Our young people should
[00:27:00] not be treated like this anywhere. Here we
[00:27:04] ask, is there freedom of belief in the country, in Spain? One
[00:27:08] hears that this type of phenomenon is not that they are the
[00:27:11] generators of change, they are the expression of change, and it is debated, will
[00:27:15] your foreign policy be like this, lukewarm, without taking
[00:27:18] positions? Conclusions with Fernando del Rincón from Monday to
[00:27:21] Friday on
[00:27:22] CNN.
[00:29:26] City,
[00:29:28] a story can change everything, a
[00:29:31] look. at the reconstruction of a city and the
[00:29:34] hope of a people determined to rise again, it evolved very
[00:29:37] quickly and we never thought it would become a category
[00:29:41] five. And to understand what is happening, we go
[00:29:44] to my colleague Ione Molinares in Washington,
[00:29:48] the explosion, we can see the dimension it had to take down the entire
[00:29:52] facade. We hear the protagonists, they
[00:29:56] took care of us as mothers and fathers of the
[00:29:59] 43, where she lived, a bomb fell. We are about
[00:30:02] to board this Mexican Air Force plane bound for
[00:30:06] Romania, to have a complete view. We are
[00:30:09] here as immigrants to progress, to make this country grow. There are
[00:30:13] great stories to know and many perspectives to analyze.
[00:30:17] Perspectives with Mario González, Monday to Friday
[00:30:20] on CNN.
[00:30:53] Hello, I'm Andreas Openheimer. If you liked today's program and want to recommend it to your
[00:30:57] friends, you can find it on YouTube.