WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Judy Woodruff is on vacation.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: President Trump's pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, faces questions over her involvement in the alleged torture of terrorism suspects.

Then: Iranian leaders blast President Trump over the decision to pull out of the nuclear deal, while European nations attempt to keep the agreement alive.

And our series inside the world of junk news continues -- tonight, how we as consumers become vulnerable to the spread of misinformation on social media.

GABE DORAN, Facebook User: It does change your perspective.

You do feel a little bit duped.

But then I guess we're all in some way a little bit addicted, so we keep going back in, in hopes that it will get figured out.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Plus: A new music video strikes a cultural chord -- how the actor and musician Donald Glover is driving a debate over race, guns and art.

All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."

(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Three American detainees are on their way home tonight from captivity in North Korea.

The Korean-Americans were freed today, ahead of a planned summit between Kim Jong-un and President Trump.

It came during a visit to Pyongyang by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo's plane carrying the three men stopped in Tokyo on its way back to the U.S. Pompeo said the men seemed to be in good health.

Later, at a Cabinet meeting, President Trump said the release was a gesture of goodwill in advance of their summit.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Nobody thought this was going to happen.

And I appreciate Kim Jong-un doing this and allowing them to go.

I believe that we have -- both sides want to negotiate a deal.

I think it's going to be very successful deal.

I think we have a really good shot at making it successful.

But lots of things can happen.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The president also ruled out the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea as the location for his meeting with Kim.

Iran's supreme leader today lambasted President Trump for pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Mr. Trump of telling lies, and he said the president is powerless against Iran.

European leaders called for finding ways to keep the nuclear deal alive.

We will have a full report later in the program.

In Syria, a war monitoring group says an airstrike overnight killed at least 15 people, including eight Iranians.

The group says the targets, near Damascus, were weaponry that likely belonged to Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.

Syrian state media blamed Israel, and showed video of the attack.

Israel neither confirmed nor denied it, but the Israeli intelligence minister said such attacks should send a warning to Iran.

YISRAEL KATZ, Israeli Intelligence Minister (through translator): We are not going to conquer Syria.

This is not the intention.

But there is importance to what we do on the practical level to bring this to Iran's awareness, a clear conclusion.

They have nothing to look for in Syria.

The price is too high.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And this evening, air raid sirens sounded in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, along the border with Syria.

Russia staged its annual World War II victory parade today, with President Vladimir Putin and an array of new weapons.

Tanks and other military hardware rolled through Red Square, along with thousands of troops.

Warplanes flew overhead, some carrying a hypersonic missile that Putin has described as invincible.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was also there for a meeting with Putin.

A former CIA case officer is now accused of passing secrets to China, and possibly exposing U.S. informants inside China, which caused one of the worst intelligence failures in recent history.

Jerry Chun Shing Lee was indicted Tuesday after his arrest in January.

He allegedly began selling defense secrets to China in 2010.

His attorney says he's innocent.

President Trump today hailed the results of Tuesday's Republican primaries.

In Indiana, businessman Mike Braun won the nomination to challenge Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly in November.

In West Virginia, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey will face Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.

Morrisey beat former convict Don Blankenship, whom the president had criticized days before the election.

PATRICK MORRISEY (R), West Virginia Senatorial Candidate: I would also like to recognize President Trump for weighing in, in this race.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) PATRICK MORRISEY: Mr. President, if you're watching right now, let me tell you, your tweet was huge.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, in Ohio, Richard Cordray secured the Democratic nomination for governor.

The former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will now take on Republican Mike DeWine, who is the state's attorney general.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Republican Congressman Robert Pittenger lost his primary.

He's the first incumbent to lose this year.

NBC News says an internal probe has found no evidence of a culture of sexual harassment.

That follows the firing last fall's of "Today Show" host Matt Lauer.

He was accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with another employee.

The network says senior management received no complaints against Lauer before late last year.

And on Wall Street, tech and energy stocks led the broader market higher.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 182 points, the Nasdaq rose 73 points, and the S&P 500 added nearly 26.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": the nominee for CIA director faces tough questions; the global ramifications of the U.S. withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal; who consumes so-called junk news on both the left and the right; plus, much more.

President Trump's nominee to head the CIA is its current acting director, Gina Haspel.

She went before the Senate Intelligence Committee for her confirmation hearing this morning.

As foreign affairs and defense correspondent Nick Schifrin reports, it was her involvement in one of the agency's most controversial activities after 9/11 that was front and center.

NICK SCHIFRIN: For three decades, Gina Haspel couldn't talk about her work.

Today, she had to defend it.

®MD-BGINA HASPEL, CIA Director Nominee: I welcome the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people for the first time.

It is a new experience for me, as I spent over 30 years undercover and in the shadows.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Haspel joined CIA in 1985 and has held at least 20 jobs, almost all clandestine.

In the intelligence community, she's well-respected, said Florida Republican Marco Rubio.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), Florida: If someone like you cannot be confirmed to head this agency, then who can?

NICK SCHIFRIN: But the protests began before she even started.

Haspel's played pivotal roles in the agency's most controversial recent actions.

After 9/11, CIA created at lest six black sites for what was then called enhanced interrogation.

Inside what are believed to be CIA-run buildings, detainees were subject to brutal interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and confinement in coffin-like boxes.

In 2014, Senate Democrats released a report saying detainees had been tortured, and the techniques were not an effective means of acquiring intelligence.

By then, the program had already ended.

Haspel promised never to restart it.

GINA HASPEL: I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that, under my leadership, on my watch, CIA will not restart such a detention and interrogation program.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But Democrats wanted her to go farther.

California's Kamala Harris: SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D), California: Do you believe in hindsight that those techniques were immoral?

GINA HASPEL: Senator, what I believe sitting here today is that I support the higher moral standard we have decided ourselves to hold ourselves to.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Could you please answer the question?

GINA HASPEL: Senator, I think I have answered the question.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: No, you have not.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Virginia's Mark Warner is the committee's top Democrat.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D), Virginia: We need -- I need to at least get a sense of your moral code says about those kind of actions.

GINA HASPEL: I support the higher moral standard that this country has decided to hold itself to.

I would never, ever take CIA back to an interrogation program NICK SCHIFRIN: Haspel's believed to have run a site in Thailand where Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of bombing the USS Cole in 2000, was water-boarded.

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D), New Mexico: Where was that moral compass at the time?

NICK SCHIFRIN: New Mexico's Martin Heinrich.

GINA HASPEL: When you're out in the trenches at far-flung outposts in the globe, and Washington says, here is what we need you to do, this is legal, the attorney general has deemed it so, the president of the United States is counting on you to prevent another attack... SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH: No, I know you think it's legal.

You're giving very legalistic answers to very fundamentally moral questions.

GINA HASPEL: In all of my assignments, I have conducted myself honorably and in accordance with U.S. law.

NICK SCHIFRIN: As a candidate, President Trump vowed to bring the interrogation program back.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I would bring back water-boarding, and I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than water-boarding.

(APPLAUSE) MAN: What would you do if the president ordered you to get back in that business?

GINA HASPEL: I wouldn't restart under any circumstances an interrogation program at CIA, under any circumstances.

MAN: Thank you.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In 2005, Haspel was chief of staff to counterterrorism head Jose Rodriguez.

In the middle of congressional and media scrutiny, Haspel wrote a cable for Rodriguez that authorized the destruction of videos showing CIA interrogation.

Independent Maine Senator Angus King: SEN. ANGUS KING (I), Maine: Was it a matter of coincidence that you -- that this decision was made to destroy the tapes in same week that two major stories appeared in American newspapers?

GINA HASPEL: Senator, I do not recall being aware of that.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The CIA recently declassified a 2011 memo from then CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell that found no fault with Haspel's actions.

Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton came to her defense.

SEN. TOM COTTON (R), Arkansas: Would holding you responsible for drafting a cable at your boss' direction make any more sense than holding a Senate speechwriter responsible for the boring speeches senators give on the Senate floor?

GINA HASPEL: Senator, I will defer to you.

(LAUGHTER) SEN. TOM COTTON: I would submit that it doesn't.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Haspel tried to walk a fine line between criticizing torture, without criticizing her colleagues who conducted it.

Texas Republican John Cornyn said Haspel and her post-9/11 colleagues were being held to a double standard.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), Texas: People have simply forgotten the circumstances under which they were operating at the time, and doing their dead level best to protect the country from a follow-on attack.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The committee is expected to approve her next week, but it's not clear if she will be confirmed by the entire Senate.

Would Gina Haspel be a good director and should the Senate confirm her?

We get two views.

John Rizzo had a 34-year career at the CIA.

From 2001 to 2002, and from 2004 to 2009, he served as the CIA's chief legal officer.

He and with 52 former senior intelligence and national security officials wrote the Senate in support of Haspel's nomination.

And Stephen Xenakis is a retired Army brigadier general.

He was one of 109 retired general officers who wrote a different letter, urging the Senate to reject Gina Haspel if senators confirmed she played a role in detainee abuse.

He is also a psychiatrist who has counseled some of the men subjected to the CIA's torture techniques.

And thank you both for being here.

Stephen Xenakis, let me start with you.

We heard Gina Haspel defend herself today.

She said, look, this was a product of the time.

The Department of Justice approved it.

The White House approved these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

What is wrong with that defense?

BRIG.

GEN. STEPHEN XENAKIS (RET.

), U.S. Army: Look, she also said a couple of other things, is that when you're on the front lines, you're expected to make the tough decisions.

And she and the others were in the position, and any responsible leader, if he's a general or if he's a senior leader at CIA, is expected to make the tough decisions under tough conditions.

They don't panic.

They walk through it in a systemic, methodic way.

They know their profession.

They know the work.

And they know what's right.

And I think this was a lapse in leadership on her part.

There was a lapse in knowing what was right.

There was a lapse in knowing what was effective.

And even though she had some legal cover, and you could get legal cover almost in various ways, still didn't make it right or effective.

And so I think they failed, she failed particularly in not exercising good leadership and good judgment.

NICK SCHIFRIN: John Rizzo, was it neither right nor effective?

JOHN RIZZO, Former CIA Counsel: Well, it was effective.

A couple things, Nick.

First of all, I was in a leadership position at CIA during those years.

I was involved in the program from beginning to end.

Ms. Haspel -- I have to be circumspect here, because I know she was a little -- couldn't get into a lot of her precise responsibilities.

But I will say this for Ms. Haspel.

She wasn't in a leadership position at the agency, and certainly wasn't in a leadership position, like I was, in the creation and approval and implementation of those techniques.

So, I mean, I think that's important to keep in mind.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, Stephen Xenakis, does that exonerate her, just because she wasn't in the leadership?

BRIG.

GEN. STEPHEN XENAKIS: I don't think so.

I mean, again, you're on the front lines, you have to make the tough decisions.

And you're in a situation where there aren't people there.

You're right.

You're facing the problem.

And you have got to exercise a judgment that you know is best and is going to work.

Interestingly, also, in listening to her testimony, she never answered directly if this was effective or not.

I forget which senator asked her, do you think it worked?

And she didn't say, well, it works or it doesn't work.

What she said was, well, we got, eventually, the information we needed from the captives.

So, it's not clear to me that, at this point, which I think is important, she may in fact recognize that these tactics are not effective.

(CROSSTALK) JOHN RIZZO: Well, may I speak to that?

I will say for myself -- and I have said this before publicly, including in a memoir I wrote a few years back -- that the program was effective.

I mean, aside from its moral -- I mean, apart from its questions of morality or even legality, the program produced results.

The difficult part of this is that, you know, it is unknowable whether these detainees would have yielded the same information without resorting to these admittedly harsh, harsh techniques.

And I think that is unknowable.

And I believe Ms. Haspel made that point at the hearing.

So, it's a complicated, complex, difficult issue.

NICK SCHIFRIN: It certainly is.

But I think we heard Democrats state today that this is about more than whether it was effective or not.

It was about whether it was right and the morality.

And you believe that it just simply wasn't there, or at least her response weren't there for those answers?

BRIG.

GEN. STEPHEN XENAKIS: No.

Her responsibility wasn't there.

It's clearly immoral, and it's clearly illegal for everybody.

NICK SCHIFRIN: John Rizzo, does it matter if it's immoral?

JOHN RIZZO: Well, first of all, it wasn't illegal at the time.

Now, a program like that could not take place today because Congress subsequently, a few years back, basically prohibited any of these harsh techniques.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Right, but does it matter if it's immoral?

JOHN RIZZO: Oh, sure.

I mean, that's a fact.

For what it's worth, I believe that there was a moral imperative after 9/11, both from the American people and from Congress, that the CIA wouldn't, could not, must not allow a second major attack on the homeland to happen.

I mean, as we all remember, those were very perilous times.

So, in terms of the morality, I think -- I think -- I believed then, I believe now -- CIA had a moral imperative on behalf of the American pique to protect the country, to protect thousands of people, innocent people from being murdered, and to use those techniques within the law that would elicit the kind of critical intelligence that could prevent another imminent, major attack on this country.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Stephen Xenakis, I want to get your thoughts quickly on something else.

You have -- you're a psychiatrist who has seen some of these detainees who were subject to the some of these techniques.

What's the impact on them?

BRIG.

GEN. STEPHEN XENAKIS: Oh, it's injured them.

There's evidence of clear injury and damage, which is -- I think is further evidence that these tactics really were torture, and they were brutal.

And we make it clear from our standpoint -- and I sit with a number of philosophers and lawyers at the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at Penn Law School -- torture is illegal.

Now, there may be legal opinion that says this is -- these -- what you're doing is cleared, but torture is illegal.

And this was brutal, and it injured these people, and in every ways, it was torture.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And I just want to get one last point in.

Gina Haspel would be the first woman CIA director, also the first operative, the first clandestine officer in more than 50 years.

Does that matter?

JOHN RIZZO: Well on, the first point, it's certainly -- it's certainly a good thing that a woman is finally appointed CIA director.

I don't think that, frankly, affects her qualifications about whether she will be confirmed or not.

But it is quite important, in my view, to have a career intelligence officer, especially operations officer, to head the CIA.

I worked under 11 CIA directors.

None had the kind of experience that Ms. Haspel had.

And I'm telling you, on the inside, it is much easier and more efficient for the agency and for the country to have a CIA director in the chair who doesn't have to have on-the-job training.

NICK SCHIFRIN: John Rizzo, Stephen Xenakis, thank you both for coming in.

JOHN RIZZO: Thank you.

BRIG.

GEN. STEPHEN XENAKIS: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Now back to the ongoing fallout to President Trump's decision to break the U.S. commitment to the Iran nuclear deal, and withdraw from the pact.

Worldwide reaction continued today, including protests within Iran.

Iranian lawmakers had one reaction today, outright fury, to the U.S.' decision to walk away from the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Inside Parliament, they chanted the usual refrain, "Death to America," and burned an image of an American flag.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was no more measured.

He lashed out at President Trump, accusing him of lying in yesterday's announcement.

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, Supreme Leader of Iran (through translator): This man will die, and his body will turn into ashes and food for worms and ants, but the Islamic Republic will continue to stand.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: At the White House, President Trump insisted that new sanctions were coming, and offered this warning to the Iranian regime: DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I would advise Iran not to start their nuclear program.

I would advise them very strongly.

If they do, there will be very severe consequence.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In London and other world capitals today, talk centered on keeping the nuclear deal alive without the U.S. Members of parliament challenged British Prime Minister Theresa May about her efforts to keep the U.S. in the deal.

IAN BLACKFORD, British Parliament Member: Did she speak in the strongest terms on the lunacy of the actions that the president of the United States has taken?

THERESA MAY, British Prime Minister: I have been very clear in a number of conversations with the president of the United States about the belief of the United Kingdom that the JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran, should stay.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her disappointment, and said Germany would try to keep the deal together.

ANGELA MERKEL, German Chancellor (through translator): We will remain committed to the agreement and will do everything in our power to ensure that Iran also meets its obligations in the future.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: From Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to express his view that both of their countries should keep honoring the agreement.

But Khamenei said today he didn't trust the U.K., Germany or France.

In Beijing, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said China, which also signed onto the 2015 pact, would be sticking with it as well.

Meantime, American officials ramped up the economic pressure against Iran and against those who do business there.

The new U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, tweeted that German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.

And rival manufacturers Boeing and Airbus could be two of the biggest companies hurt by the decision.

The Trump administration has indicated that the two manufacturers may lose their licenses to sell Iran commercial airliners.

Now two views on what is happening, and could happen, inside Iran.

Vali Nasr is the dean of the John Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies.

He served as the State Department's counselor during the Obama administration.

Robin Wright is a staff writer for "The New Yorker," and author of two books on Iran.

She's also a distinguished scholar at the United States Institute of Peace.

Welcome to you both.

Vali Nasr, to you first.

We have seen the denunciations from the president and the supreme leader of Iran to the president's move.

What do you think Iran is going to do next?

VALI NASR, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University: I think, in the immediate future, they're going to give Europeans, Chinese, and the Russians time to see whether they can preserve elements of the deal that is enough economic activity with Iran that would justify Iran staying with the deal.

That might take about 30 to 45 days.

If that doesn't work out, then I think there will be domestic pressure on Iran to essentially part ways with the deal.

But I think, at the same time, Iran would have to -- look for ways to convince Washington that it's not as weak and vulnerable as the administration may have concluded that it is.

And that's actually much tougher for them to do.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Robin Wright, obviously, President Rouhani is in a very tough spot here.

He was elected, in no small part, to deliver on this, to sign a nuclear deal, to open up relations with the West, and to reap the benefits of this deal.

What happens with him now?

ROBIN WRIGHT, Senior Fellow, U.S. Institute of Peace: Well, one of the big questions about Iran and its reactions is the context in which it plays out, because Iran is at a critical juncture.

They have aging leadership.

The actuarial charts would tell you the supreme leader will at some point transit out of the world.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Leave this world.

ROBIN WRIGHT: And there will be a new one.

The Iranians have to select a new one.

Iran has term limits on the presidency, and so they will go to the polls, and President Rouhani will not run again.

The big question, of course, is, does this aid the hard-liners who are a minority, but disproportionately powerful?

And will this give them the leverage to re-exert themselves and say, you see, we were right all along, you can't do business with the United States, they're still the great Satan, and so we should stand up to them, and vote for us instead?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Certainly, that is one of the arguments that the hard-liners always made, that you can't trust the Americans.

And in some ways, President Trump has fulfilled that prophecy that they made.

VALI NASR: Absolutely.

I think President Rouhani and his team and his faction in Iran made a bet on the nuclear deal, that it is possible to engage the West and perhaps change Iran's economy and even political structures through an engagement with the West, and you can trust United States and the European countries to work with you.

I think, at least, in Iran, the perception is that he's proven wrong, that the Iranians paid a huge cost in terms of liquidating its main leverage, which was the nuclear program, and he has very little to show for it.

Its economy is weaker now than in fact when the nuclear negotiation started, and, actually, it can't -- doesn't have much to go back to the table with.

I think, at the same time, though, the hard-liners do need President Rouhani at this moment, because the economy is weak.

They were riots in Iran.

And I think he is in a better position to keep the Iranian public right-sided.

He is also the face that Iran needs in terms of engaging Europeans, Russians, and the Chinese.

On the other hand, I would say that it is the hard-liners that hold all the cards regionally, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Afghanistan.

And that's actually now the only place where Iran has actually something that it could use in order to get some degree of U.S., you know, respect for Iranian power and... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A lever in their favor.

VALI NASR: A lever, exactly.

And that's in the hands of the hard-liners.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Trump believes that he can renegotiate this deal.

He thinks that Iran, as Vali has just been saying, that they are economically weak, and that these new sanctions that he wants to impose will bit and bring them back to the table.

How realistic is that?

ROBIN WRIGHT: Very unrealistic.

The prospects of Iran going back to the table are almost nil.

At the moment, they feel they have the rest of the world on their side.

They also have -- we believe, have developed a nuclear capacity, that they weren't going to build a bomb itself and test it because they knew there would be some kind of regional response, international response, and they have gotten militarily to where they want to be.

So, the incentive for them is to actually stay in the deal and to bee seen to be complying.

If they walk away from the deal, then, suddenly, the whole world will be reimposing sanctions, and that will cost even more to them.

So, at the moment, if they play their cards right, they can resist at least short-term.

The question is, how does this play out domestically?

And that still is -- they will a very severe economic price for what President Trump has done.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What about the other argument that President Trump made all along, which was the parts that were not in the deal, Iranian's development of ballistic missiles, their actions elsewhere in the region?

The president wants those to be addressed.

Is there any realistic sense that the Iranians would change their behavior, would stop research on ballistic missiles to satisfy the president?

VALI NASR: I don't think so.

I think it actually doesn't make sense for them to do that, largely because that's the only levers they have.

But, also, if you went back to 2015, when the deal was signed, the most important issue with Iran was the nuclear program, then followed by ballistic missiles, followed by Hezbollah.

You could have a list.

The top of the list was the nuclear issue.

President Obama removed that top of the list, so we could focus on item two, three, four.

Now we have put back -- the nuclear issue back on top of the list.

In fact, any pressure we bring on Iran is going to have to deal with the nuclear program, with the sunset clause, with all the things that President Trump complained about.

And I think, in effect, ballistic missiles, terrorism, Hezbollah, regional behavior is going to be pushed further down the line.

And at the same time, you know, once the nuclear deal was signed, the United States gave huge amount of arms to Iran's neighbors.

That created, if you will, a military deficit between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which actually was the reason why they doubled down on ballistic missiles.

And I do think that Iran does feel vulnerability with Israel in Syria.

It does feel vulnerability with Saudi Arabia, and that that kind of sense of insecurity is not going to help them give these things up.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Robin Wright, do you feel that there are pressures on Rouhani and the supreme leader to go full nuclear, to say, we are done with this fully, to kick the inspectors out, and to restart the program?

Do you really think the international condemnation and potential military action that would follow means that that's really not going to happen, that they're not going to restart their program?

ROBIN WRIGHT: Well, there not much incentive to restart their program right now, unless it's a response to what President Trump has done.

And they have threatened that, if the U.S. withdrew, they had the option of withdrawing.

There are a lot of options along the way.

I would think that , if Iranians were gaming it -- and they're very good gamers -- that they would be looking more at a response in the region, whether it's what they do in Syria, what they do in Iraq, that they look for those areas where the United States and Iran have rival interests, and that that's where you see, because the hard-liners are more powerful there, whether it's the Revolutionary Guards, the kind of militant wings of the regime, will make some kind of response.

That's, I think, where much more likely than immediately restarting the nuclear program.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Robin Wright, Vali Nasr, thank you both very much.

Stay with us.

Coming up on the "NewsHour": why several companies made large payments to Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen; plus, what Donald Glover's controversial music video says about race and violence in America.

Now to our special series on junk news.

Miles O'Brien has been reporting extensively on how it's spread, how social media platforms have been utilized and manipulated, and how some folks have used it for business and other political motives.

Tonight, he looks at many of us, the users who see all of this, and how it's feeding into our own beliefs about politics, institutions and government.

It's part of weekly series on the Leading Edge of technology.

BETTY MANLOVE, Facebook User: I go on Facebook because members of my family post pictures, and I can keep track of my family that way.

MILES O'BRIEN: Betty Manlove used to be a smoker.

Not anymore.

But she still battles an addiction.

BETTY MANLOVE: My other addiction is Facebook.

I have lost hours on Facebook that I should have been doing other things.

MILES O'BRIEN: And while pictures of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren lured her to the social networking platform in the first place, it is politics that fuels addiction.

BETTY MANLOVE: I was raised Democrat .

However, I have decided that I will not vote Democrat again.

MILES O'BRIEN: We found this dyed-in-the-wool Christian conservative in a surprising way.

Her grandson is Cameron Hickey, the producer of this series.

As part of our investigation into the world of junk news, he wrote some software that searched the social network for misinformation.

His grandmother had liked more of these sites than any of his friends.

Among pages she has followed, those produced by Cyrus Massoumi, the prolific purveyor of hyperpartisan content we featured in our last installment.

CAMERON HICKEY: She said she doesn't talk to any of her kids, not my mom, not her other kids, about politics, because it seems like a challenge.

But she loves liking political stuff on Facebook.

BETTY MANLOVE: I think social media has caused me to be more concerned with politics.

MILES O'BRIEN: Facebook is exquisitely designed to feed Betty Manlove's addiction.

The ever-learning algorithm knows her well and consistently provides content designed to keep her at the screen and move her emotions, one way or another.

BETTY MANLOVE: It seems like they want to stir up questions in your mind.

And those kinds of things are meant to try influence you to change your mind.

And they don't.

They make me a little bit angry.

MILES O'BRIEN: That's one thing Betty Manlove shares in common with another one of Cameron's Facebook friends.

Gabe Doran is an actor and soccer dad from Brooklyn.

GABE DORAN, Facebook User: Look alive, boys.

MILES O'BRIEN: He also admits he might be addicted to Facebook.

GABE DORAN: I got really involved on Facebook, which is kind of a waste of time, to be honest with you.

But it's how I choose to waste some of my time.

So, it's like, damn.

I just wasted like an hour on Facebook really accomplishing nothing.

That group is called I Am a Liberal Until My Dying Day.

CAMERON HICKEY: You are a member of that group?

GABE DORAN: I don't know.

I guess so.

If you like it, you are a member, right?

MILES O'BRIEN: Gabe Doran is as blue as Betty Manlove is red.

GABE DORAN: I'm pretty liberal.

For some, that's a bad word.

I don't -- I still don't really understand that, but I'm pretty proud of it.

MILES O'BRIEN: He has also liked several hyperpartisan pages, including Cyrus Massoumi's liberal Truth Examiner.

Gabe Doran got really hooked during the 2016 presidential election.

GABE DORAN: I was in shock.

I didn't understand, knowing everything that we knew then, and we know so much more now.

And there's still a lot of support.

It's just -- it's mind-boggling to me.

MILES O'BRIEN: He too sees a lot that makes him angry.

GABE DORAN: I have some right-wing friends who jump on me whenever I post these things, and it starts a long back and forth.

They're incredibly misinformed.

And there's nothing I can do about that with my facts and with my logic and with my common sense.

MILES O'BRIEN: But common sense, the facts are not what keeps people coming back to Facebook again and again.

CAMERON HICKEY: Do you ever tried to verify the things that you see?

BETTY MANLOVE: Sometimes, if it bothers me.

Usually, I just think it's political and go right on.

MILES O'BRIEN: Raw emotion, untethered from the facts, is what causes the virtual food-fight.

Jonathan Albright watches all of this as research director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University.

JONATHAN ALBRIGHT, Director, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University: I saw friends and people that I knew posting things that were, insensitive and things that maybe I wouldn't normally see them post, kind of outrage type political -- almost like outrage porn, is what I call it.

MILES O'BRIEN: In this world, fringe players have equal footing, and because they are apt to be more strident, they get a lot of engagement, and end up at the top of our news feeds, burying the middle ground.

JONATHAN ALBRIGHT: I think maybe some of the polarization and the kind of effects of what we're seeing are really just the exposure of groups that traditionally, without such densely interconnected social media, would never come in contact with one another.

MILES O'BRIEN: And everyone has made decisions about what to trust based on the conventional wisdom of a set of friends, our tribe.

And we tend to agree with them.

Neither Betty nor Gabe say their opinions have been swayed on Facebook, just hardened.

CAMERON HICKEY: Do you think that you're going to change any of your beliefs based on the news you read?

BETTY MANLOVE: Not unless there's tremendous proof that I should change what I believe.

And, these days, the actual truth is kind of hard to come by.

GABE DORAN: I know that no one is going to change my mind about the way I feel.

I know I'm not going to change anybody else's mind.

MILES O'BRIEN: The term of art is a filter bubble.

Web publisher Eli Pariser coined the phrase.

ELI PARISER, Good Media Group: This kind of image of a filter bubble as this kind of personal universe of information that follows us around wherever we go.

And it filters out things that we might not want to engage with, and shapes our own sort of view of the world.

That's a really big shift from a set of editors and producers carefully thinking about what should go on the front page and what shouldn't.

MILES O'BRIEN: It is a welcome shift for Betty Manlove, who has very little trust of traditional media sources.

BETTY MANLOVE: I believe what I want to believe.

I'm too much of an independent thinker to allow emotions to take over.

And news is news and opinion is opinion, and so I just go for the true news.

MILES O'BRIEN: But finding what is true in her news feed is not so easy.

She has been convinced Barack Obama was born in Kenya... DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Let him produce the birth certificate, which I hear doesn't exist.

MILES O'BRIEN: ... and Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg is a fraud.

So, where do these ideas come from?

From the filter bubble created on Facebook by liking a post or clicking on a targeted ad that unwittingly makes users followers of a hyperpartisan page.

In the mix, some misinformation from Russia.

Her grandson helped her find that out by going to a site on Facebook for users to see if they have liked any pages linked to Russia's Internet Research Agency.

CAMERON HICKEY: So, it shows that, on 6/20/2016, you liked this page, stopa.i, which is a Russian Facebook page.

Then, on January 8, 2017, you liked Army of Jesus, which is another Russian page.

BETTY MANLOVE: Really?

CAMERON HICKEY: Yes.

Let's keep going down.

And then, on 6/20/2016, you liked one called Secured Borders.

So, these three pages that you liked were pages created by Russian intelligence agents to spread disinformation.

BETTY MANLOVE: Well, that's all new information for me.

CAMERON HICKEY: Does it ever worry you that they might manipulating you?

BETTY MANLOVE: I'm sure that they are trying to.

I try not to be manipulated by that, but it's possible that I am.

MILES O'BRIEN: Gabe Doran says he is more likely to seek humor and entertainment stories on Facebook.

He says he goes out of his way to check stories for accuracy before sharing.

He doesn't feel manipulated by falsehoods, but rather Facebook itself and a business model that rewards polarization and makes users the product.

GABE DORAN: It does change your perspective.

It's -- you do feel a little bit duped.

But then I guess we're all in some way a little bit addicted, so we keep going back, in the hopes that it will get figured out, that they will figure out the glitches and the stuff that's not working.

MILES O'BRIEN: In our next installment, we will take you back inside Facebook and show you how they're trying to fix what's not working.

I'm Miles O'Brien for the "PBS NewsHour," in Menlo Park, California.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There are new questions being raised about payments to President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

The money went to a shell company set up by Cohen.

It totaled more than $4 million, including about $500,000 from a U.S. company with ties to a Russian oligarch who is close to Vladimir Putin.

John Yang breaks down what we know.

JOHN YANG: William, the payments went to the company that Cohen says he set up to pay the $130,000 hush money to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford.

Her attorney, Michael Avenatti, revealed the payments in a document he posted online.

To help us unpack all of this, here's Rosalind Helderman.

She's the Washington Post political investigations reporter.

Rosalind, thanks so much for joining us.

Of the payments that you have been able to confirm, who did they come from, and how much money are we talking about?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN, The Washington Post: We're talking about, I think it's about $2.5 million that seems to be confirmed at this point.

And they come from some major U.S. and foreign companies.

They include AT&T, Novartis, a pharmaceutical company.

They include this company Columbus Nova, which is a U.S.-based affiliate of a company that is owned and founded by a Russian businessman.

One thing that ties a number of these companies together is that they had major issues pending before the U.S. government.

But each of them, in turn, has essentially said that that's not why they hired Mr. Cohen, that they hired him for various reasons, to provide real estate advice, to provide accounting advice, for his general legal knowledge.

JOHN YANG: And, Rosalind, what -- I know there was a filing late today, Michael Cohen challenging some of this information that Michael Avenatti put out.

What can you tell us about that?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Yes, that's right.

That just came in, I think, within the last 10 minutes or so.

This is lawyers for Michael Cohen saying basically two things in court about the Avenatti information.

On the one hand, they seem to be conceding that some of it is accurate, because they say it's a sign that Avenatti improperly has access to Michael Cohen's bank records.

And they're trying to get the court to force Avenatti to say where he's getting this information, so they can assess whether he properly should have access to that information.

At the same time, they cited some of the details that have not been covered in the media, because I think the media has not been able to confirm them, a few additional details that are sort of on the last page of what Avenatti put out.

And they're suggesting that that information might actually be false.

JOHN YANG: And, in addition, the Treasury Department inspector general has begun an investigation about whether any confidential banking records have been tampered with.

Why is Avenatti so interested in this?

Why is he putting this out?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: I think that he -- what he has said is that it gives you more information about the -- the sort of process by which his client, Ms. Clifford, was paid, because Michael Cohen seems to have used this same bank account that he used to pay Stormy Daniels, as she is better known, as he did for all these other transactions.

He says that his strategy is working.

He's on TV a great deal, as your viewers probably know.

And, as a result, people are just sending him information that is relevant and helps inform the American public about the activities of Mr. Cohen and President Trump.

And he's trying to publicize that.

JOHN YANG: What else is sort of intriguing about these -- where -- the source of these payments?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Yes.

I mean, I think one thing that's very interesting is the sort of -- the picture you get of the swamp as it exists under Donald Trump.

Of course, President Trump ran against the D.C. swamp.

And one thing that's been very clear is that people associated with President Trump, with his campaign, with his business, who can argue to major companies that they know this very hard-to-understand world of Trump's Washington suddenly have found themselves with very marketable skills.

I spoke to several people like that just today who said essentially that their phones were ringing off the hook starting in January of 2017 from companies who wanted to, you know, essentially throw money at them to understand Donald Trump.

JOHN YANG: And not only understand Donald Trump.

You said that some of these companies had business before the government in the past couple of years.

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Yes, that's right.

AT&T was -- is going through a merger which requires Department of Justice approval.

That's an important thing for that company.

They say it's unrelated to these payments.

Novartis, their CEO had a meeting with Donald Trump not long after this payment.

They, too, say that that was unrelated.

But these are companies that have -- another one of them, Korean Aerospace, makes aircraft and is competing for a very, very large contract with the U.S. Air Force.

They, too, say that's unrelated to these payments.

But these are companies that had things they were trying to get out of the U.S. government.

JOHN YANG: And, Rosalind, we should note that another of President Trump's personal attorneys, Rudolph Giuliani, is saying this evening that the president had no knowledge of these payments to Cohen.

But this story will go on.

Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post, thank you so much for joining us.

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Thank you for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In just a few days, a music video online called "This Is America" has been viewed almost 55 million times.

As Jeffrey Brown explains, the video has also set off an intense debate about violence and race.

JEFFREY BROWN: The video is beautifully shot and choreographed, infectious in its beat, jarring in its violence and imagery.

And it's clearly struck a nerve, touching on painful racial history and a contemporary culture of mass entertainment and mass murders.

It's the work of Donald Glover, known for writing and acting in the acclaimed TV series "Atlanta," for his comedy, and for the music he performs, as here, under the pseudonym Childish Gambino.

Here is an excerpt from "This Is America," with a warning for some of the violent images it contains.

(MUSIC) JEFFREY BROWN: The "This Is America" video has elicited all kinds of reaction, pro and con.

We're joined now by Tre Johnson, a contributor to "Rolling Stone" magazine who just wrote about the piece.

Tre, thanks for joining us.

Why -- first of all, in general terms, why is it striking such a chord?

TRE JOHNSON, "Rolling Stone": Yes.

Thanks for having me on.

I think it's striking a chord for a couple of reasons.

One, I think it represents a pretty strong departure for some of the work Donald Glover had been doing that people previously had known.

A lot of his work, as you had noted, has been much more in the comedy realm.

And this is a starker, darker reflection of his take on what is happening in American society that isn't played up for laughs.

I think some of it, too, has to do with the fact that you're watching what feels like an almost endless loop of chaos and violence, all of it expended upon the black body in particular, which, given the climate that we're in nowadays, is trending a lot for people.

JEFFREY BROWN: The shooting that we saw evokes the Charleston shooting at a black church by Dylann Roof.

What other specific themes or history are used in this video?

TRE JOHNSON: Yes, I would say there's a couple of things.

There is obviously the shooting that you just referenced.

There is also the shooting that takes place in the beginning of the video, where you see a black guitarist who is peacefully trying to do some music, and he is kind of mercilessly executed right at the beginning of the film.

In the background, too, I think what's interesting to watch is there is an ever-evolving, increasing chaos and violence that's happening in the background.

Some of it is very reminiscent of some of the protests and riots that we have seen in light of a lot of the black victims that have fallen due to police brutality and other types of gun violence.

I think, too, what you're also witnessing is just the ways that some of this imagery and some of these scenes and tragedies have been captured.

So, one of the starkest images I think that pop up the video for me is when you see the camera pan up to the rafters, and there is a group of small black children who are using cell phones to capture a lot of what's happening around them.

JEFFREY BROWN: There really is a mix here of entertainment, you know, the music and the dancing, even fun at times, with this - - with guns and violence and all you were just referencing.

But it is a kind of in-your-face juxtaposition.

TRE JOHNSON: Yes, I think that's purposeful, and I think for a couple reasons.

And I write about this in the article.

One is the idea that, you know, I think, a lot of times, black artists understand the need to transform their community's pain and trauma into art.

And, sometimes, that art looks very joyful, because we're looking for ways to uplift ourselves and to heal from a lot of the things that are visited upon us in the community every day.

I also think you look at, like, kind of the - - the kind of, like, the tension between exploitation of black culture and black pain for media and popular culture consumption.

So, there is an aloofness around just what people are sharing.

Sometimes, it's consumed without the context or the care about the actual pain and the real-life circumstances that are involved in the lives of black artists and the communities that they often represent, when they're kind of taken in by people who are several altitudes removed from those kind of day-to-day circumstances, too.

JEFFREY BROWN: You know, I mentioned that there's been a lot of negative reaction.

There's many, many layers and strains of that.

Part of it, of course, is questioning the violence and how much that is necessary, how much of it is shown.

Some people are also talk -- questioning Glover's motives and his own background and what he's bringing to this.

Explain what you're hearing in terms of the critique out there.

TRE JOHNSON: Yes.

You know, I hear some of those same critiques.

I think, for some folks, the idea of seeing even fictionalized black violence on the screen is unfortunate, because I think a lot of people feel like we have already become very viral in seeing the image of black bodies, either through police footage, or, again, captured on cell phones, looped through our social media feeds and across text message chains all the time.

I think, too, again, you know, I think what is jarring about the video itself is that you watch Glover's own kind of facial contortions as he moves from scene to scene to scene.

I think there's a desire to see him kind of linger in the despair and acknowledge the deep pain that some of these images are causing for people, or how they are resonant of things that are happening that people identify with all the time, in terms of losing family members or friends or other relatives to gun violence itself.

And then I think, lastly, but what I really challenge people on is, you know, art is going to make people uncomfortable at times.

And I think what I really like to do is focus on crediting how much it is that black artists are kind of choosing to take on the hard labor of holding the tension between entertainment and a responsibility to uplifting just more nuanced conversations about American life that I think is often given a pass to some of their mainstream white peer artists.

And so, for me, I'm more interested in the conversation of, what is this art telling us vs. what are the motivations behind it, because I think the conversation that we're trying to have around what this art is producing in front of us is much more worthwhile than trying to scrutinize and parse what everyone's individual motivations are.

JEFFREY BROWN: You know, just briefly, in our last minute, I mean, I can see a lot of people wondering, just what's going on here?

How much of it is Glover making a serious statement, as opposed to making a provocative piece of entertainment himself?

TRE JOHNSON: Yes.

I mean, the tough answer might be that it could be both.

He might want to actually -- you know, I think this is a subversion of pop culture typically being the thing that is an escapism, that makes us feel good and makes us feel happy.

I have been saying, watching this season's "Atlanta," one of the greatest things that he's been doing about this is changing the expectations on what we're doing in terms of engaging with traditional pop culture mediums.

And so both "Atlanta" and "This Is America" are choosing to take on a darker, harsher tone, which is, like, confounding the expectations a lot of people are expecting.

And I think, lastly, this fits -- "This Is America," "Atlanta" fits into a wider conversation around pop culture or tapestry that black artists are doing.

If you look at "Get Out," you look at "Lemonade," you look at even some of the things that Solange Knowles has done with "A Seat at the Table," and Janelle Monae's most recent album, they're all looking to choose to pick up the baton of having America really look at a lot of the contradictions around what we say we value about black lives, and then how we actually address black entertainment when it chooses to stand up and represent the kind of like chaotic, nuanced experiences around black lives inside of the wider society.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Tre Johnson of "Rolling Stone," thank you very much.

TRE JOHNSON: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On the "NewsHour" online, we're hosting a Twitter chat tomorrow at 12:00 p.m. Eastern about changes in higher education and how we support college students.

That's part of our series Rethinking College.

Find the details on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.

For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and good night.