>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin in washington, the white house summit to counter violent extremism. isis has shocked the world of

executions of christians in libya and the burning of a pilot in iraq. joining me is nasser judeh, he is the foreign minister from jordan, from washington, where he is attending the summit. thank you for joining us. nasser: it is a pleasure. charlie: tell me what these meetings are accomplishing. nasser: the more that you find international consensus on the way to effectively deal with this threat, the better. i think in order for it to be effective you have to have proper implementation on whatever is agreed on. the coalition against isis, is over 60 countries. represented here today, you had 75-76 countries.

media experts. so i think it was an international gathering par excellence. like i said, at the end of the day it depends on the practical implementation. you had king abdullah the second and he said this is a third world war by other means. charlie: define to us this threat. nasser: it is a threat on many levels. it is a threat on our world order, our civilization. it is a threat against different regions. it is a threat against individual countries. it is a threat against individuals. we are all feeling it. what we saw in the last few months in particular, like i said in my remarks, we are not new to this. we have been facing terrorism and extremism for decades. look at what happened in the last few weeks.

look at what you saw. you mentioned burning alive of our brave pilot. you mentioned the slaughtering of 21 egyptians. you have seen crimes in sydney australia, and ottawa, canada, in paris, in copenhagen. i think this is now clear to everyone that this is a global fight. a generational fight. it will take all of us together to combat it as a threat. charlie: is it a threat to islam? nasser: it is definitely a threat to islam. every once in a while you get a band of terrorists or extremists who try to hijack the religion who try to distort it central message.

islam is a religion of peace moderation, coexistence and has nothing to do with the ideology these people are trying to propagate or the way that they carry out these brutal murders. let me say it is not restricted to islam. there is terrorism and extremism in every religion and culture. in different ways, in different forms and formats. i think that by definition violent extremism is a concept and a sick notion that we all have to combat. nobody is immune. no culture is immune. we are all threatened. charlie: you said if anyone had any doubt this is our war as muslims, that doubt has been removed. nasser: very much so. in line with what the king said

this is primarily -- they have nothing to do with their religion. mentioned to you, this is primarily, those who try to hijack our religion and carry out this heinous crime, they have nothing to do work religion. if there was any doubt that they are brutal murderers, savages, that doubt is removed. charlie: the president has been careful in his language, so much so that there has been press talk about it to say these are extremists and to avoid the idea that this is a war, a cultural clash of civilizations. nasser: i am not want to interpret what the president means or didn't mean, or to second-guess what he is saying. his message was very clear and i think that it was a prudent extremely pertinent message. we have been very clear in saying that extremists terrorists, those who support them are enemies, all of them. nobody should be following that ideology. nobody should be justifying or trying to be an apologist for

it. we are threatened by it. when you say what do we mean by our war, it is our war. we have to take the lead. this is why jordan has been talking to different countries. i try to say not just like-minded countries, but exact minded countries, to come up with a unified position on what we really believe. charlie: tell me what the consensus is coming out of meetings in washington. nasser: the meetings are ongoing as we speak if you look at the different sessions and the way of a conference was organized, if you look at the participation, there was a ministerial aspect but you have religious figures, ngos, social media experts, people independent. the makeup of the participation is significant and it is quite telling. charlie: significant and telling in what way?

nasser: this is an across-the-board fight. it is not just a military fight. which is because of the clear and present danger. it is a security threat because of the threat to individual countries, but equally important if not more important is the long-term ideological fight. addressing the root cause of the problem, looking at the reality we are facing, the challenges. charlie: how do you see the unfolding, this military strategy to stop and turn back regain ground now occupied by them? nasser: there is a clear and present danger and we are dealing with that. we have had different extremist organizations cropping up every once in a while under different names on different umbrellas. look at the challenges we are facing in africa, in our part of the world.

look at the crimes being committed around the world. at the end of the day, what is needed now is to continue along the three tracts that i mentioned. military because of the danger. the security because of the threat of global security and the ideological, the political and socioeconomic, and the economic. charlie: king abdullah had meetings in the uae. are they on board? nasser: everybody is on board. i think we have, we certainly have a meeting of minds. the core unit of, the core structure of jordan, the united arab emirates, saudi arabia, egypt, bahrain, and many other countries representing different continents where the threat is this is important. these are the countries we are talking to and the countries that will present a united front against extremists.

charlie: should iran be involved? nasser: at the end of the day, it depends on how you look at things. if you believe in violence and extremism, this is why i referred to earlier as a meeting of exact minded countries. charlie: so iran is not an exact minded country? nasser: there are things happening, i don't what to get into a discussion of what iran should and should not be doing on the air but there are things we agree on that need to be addressed in order for exact minded countries to effectively deal with the threat. i am sure that iran does not condone terrorism and extremism, and the brutality that we have seen, especially in the last few weeks. charlie: how about turkey? nasser: my friend, at the end of the day we saw that there was an

agreement between the united states and turkey on training and equipping opposition. there is a series question that needs to be addressed by all of us on foreign fighters in the financing. we have to be part of the international conversation. charlie: what is the conversation that has to be had, what are the questions that have to be asked to accomplish the objective? nasser: this is what i made in my remarks. discussing the military clear and present danger, we have to address the issue of foreign fighters. these foreign fighters are fighting alongside -- they will become potential terrorist. it will threaten the security of individual countries.

they are still thoroughly into the theater with defined ways and means to address that situation. they are still in control, they have access to funds and oil. they have access to sophisticated weaponry. at the end of the day i think this conversation, like i said ownership of the effort and recommendation on the grounds that it is all very important and much needed. charlie: it is important that the united states support but not lead? nasser: i said many times, and the king said to your program a couple of months ago, it has to have primarily muslim, arab stand. it is a convergence of interests between us and your country, but with united states and europe, and everyone because it has an aspect that threatens all of our countries on every continent everywhere in the world. it is a global fight, a generational fight. it is a fight with people trying to hijack the religion.

it has to have a primarily muslim arab stand. charlie: is it required that jordanians and egyptians and saudis, and emirates on the ground, boots on the ground in order to stop isis? nasser: we have to do everything in our power within our means to stop the spread of this evil. this is at the end of the day a fight of good versus evil. there is no way anyone would sit and discuss military strategies on the air. ground troops is a subject that has been brought into the conversation many times. we are not there yet. no decisions are required on that. the essential component of the military effort is empowering the troops on the ground right now, whether it is in iraq or in syria. they will be the most affected

supporting and complementing the campaign. at the end of the day it is all tracts, the ideological fight just as importantly as the military fight. charlie: how do you fight the ideological fight? that is most effective if it comes from within an arab country, from within islam. nasser: certainly. it is a long-term fight. you have to address the youth, and the vulnerability of the youth. and address their needs and alleviate what they are suffering from but it is unemployment, deprivation, or you have to address the question of deadlocked political prices historic political crisis. you can't look at terrorism and

extremism in isolation of what is happening for the last four years. the challenges that egypt is facing, the challenges we are all facing in libya. the absence of a resolution to that israeli conflict and the rights of the palestinians to statehood, and the people of the region to have peace and security, all of these are components. at the end of the day you have to have religious authority around the world representing all religions. but discredit these extremists and terrorists, and dispel what they tried to promote in terms of extremist ideology. we have to have more initiatives such as the ones taken by jordan and his majesty over the years

by talking together in interfaith dialogue, initiatives that bring harmony and coexistence to the world. it is a multiple track, multiple faceted effort that has to continue. this is how you fight the ideological fight. presenting a more convincing fight. charlie: there has never been more urgency than there has been now especially in the wake of what happened in libya and what happened to your pilot. nasser: these ugly incidents brought on the fact you are dealing with a brutal enemy. there are many in our part of the world who didn't know who the enemy was what that enemy looks like. i think there is any doubt of the enemy is the doubt has been removed. this belongs to no religion, no civilized norms whatsoever. at the end of the day it is

important to knock at their door before they knock on yours. this does not require just a military effort. charlie: have sunni tribesmen in iraq turned against them? nasser: you have different interpretations of what are the different components of isis. some say there is a core of religious ideologues, i use that very loosely because it has nothing to do with any religion, but then people say you have an outer circle, and an even outer circle to that of sunnis who probably, from all over the world, from different political and religious orientations, who have found a vehicle through which they can promote their different grievances, if one can call them that. at the end of the day sunnis and it is wrong to just single out just sunnis, as a serious

component of both. but the sunnis want nothing to do with the sick ideology, if they happen to be in that camp. if not, having realized that already, they have no place there. charlie: that is a component though. nasser: of course. political inclusiveness in the countries where you didn't have politically inclusiveness will go a long way towards keeping the sunnis feeling comfortable. charlie: political inclusiveness. nasser: yes. charlie: specifically in iraq. nasser: in iraq, certainly, and in the future we talk about the solution in syria, there has to be a political inclusiveness. for the longest time they felt they were marginalized and completely ignored. it is important to have a political process back on track in iraq.

we are seeing elements of that where the sunnis feel that their rights are guaranteed but they are an essential part. charlie: in syria? nasser: the political solution eludes us still. and this is not totally divorced from what is happening in terms of the rise of extremism and terror but we are convinced and in agreement that we have to come back with clear ideas on how to restore the political process and ensure a smooth transition. charlie: thank you again. we will be right back. ♪

charlie: chris hughes is here. he is the cofounder of facebook and the owner and publisher of "the new republic." he bought the magazine in 2012. he planned to try to transform it to a vertically integrated digital media platform. his vision led editors to resign in december over disagreements over the publication's future they were followed by dozens of staffers and correspondents who also left. the event points to a broader shift taking place in journalism

as the institutions take a look at the new era of technology and business. what i want to understand here is your side of what happened. it was a great institution. it may become, it may be on its way to be a greater institution or something else. tell me what happened. and why. chris: so when i bought "the new republic" i bought it because i believe in the values of the journalism that goes past the headlines and gets detail.

that has been a sustaining value of the institution and the reason i showed up in the first place, three years ago. over the course of the past three years, one of the key learnings i have had is that the media environment and landscape is shifting. it is a key way that we sit down and leaned back, and the reach that we can have is broader than it has ever been before. we have 3 million readers online each month who are engaging with our content. we have 40,000 in print. it is not that 3 million is bigger than 40,000, but we have to think about the journalism that we do, the content that we produce, and how people are going to interface with it today in 2015 and tomorrow in the future. to your question, in december, at a moment of transition, we had a fundamental disagreement

about the role of "the new republic" and what it is going to be like in the future. what should have been an editorial leadership transition mustered into it with bigger question of is it possible to hold onto these values of quality, depth, criticism and at the same time adapt to the emerging technological landscape? my answer is not only yes, but it is essential if "the new republic" is going to be relevant 10 years from now, even further into the future. charlie: when you arrived, talk about this. there were in many pockets enthusiasm amongst the people that came to a bitter disagreement with you. evidently you arrived with an understanding that the "new republic" was a great institution, that it played a prominent role in america.

you had a 100th anniversary to celebrate that. i don't understand what happened between that relationship and what people perceive you. what did you do to make them so angry? and you didn't tell them at the beginning? chris: i think one of the key things, i do come from silicon valley, cofounder of facebook, and ran barack obama's online campaign in 2008. at the same time i have been a student of and an admirer of not just great journalism but great literature, great criticism, the kinds of things "the new republic" is one of the key institutions of in the united states and has been over the past century. on that point i connected and still connect deeply with some of the staff who left and the staff who stayed. that is the reason i invested in it. it is the reason i show up to

work every day. now, that does not mean that we were in alignment on how best to support these values so that in 2030 those same core ideals were reaching newer audiences in a broader way than ever before. there is a view that "the new republic" should just be a small print circulation magazine for a group of insiders. that is what it has been in the past. that is not my view. not only is the world changing but this brand and these values deserve a larger audience. charlie: was it their understanding that you promised to keep the magazine as a small circulation magazine or that you could maintain that and provide economic sustainability as well as reach new audiences because of what you knew about the digital world without compromising their values?

chris: absolutely. that is still what i believe. charlie: but why don't they believe that? chris: i don't know. you would have to ask them. chris: absolutely. it is true that in the months moving up into december, i take full responsibility for failing to communicate that the are not in conflict. the values that have been behind the new republic as an institution, costs that are not in conflict with updating into the world that we live in in 2015. over the course of the fall i brought in new leadership into "the new republic." i think that there was a sense that the place was using a lot more silicon valley language and jargon than it ever had before. charlie: that offended people. the language he used. chris: absolutely. i will take 100% responsibility for the fact that we did not communicate nearly as effectively that just because we

want to double down on our investment in new technologies and audiences doesn't mean that we are not going to not do journalism. that communication error was very real and i take responsibility for that. i don't think though that the vast majority of our staff of the 55 we started with, 12 left. the vast majority stayed. since then we have hired a great team of senior editors and junior up-and-coming journalists. and bloggers who are part of the "new republic" brand. charlie: what does the understanding of media contribute to the understanding of journalistic institutions who transform themselves into sweatshops where words cannot wait for thoughts and first responses are promoted. digital expectations of

terseness confer the highest prestige upon the twittering cacophony of one-liners and professionals. this is ridiculous. chris: you are quoting from an essay that has been in "the times." leon has been a friend and is a brilliant, writer, thinker, he was without parallel. he was incredibly talented. charlie: what did you do to keep him there? chris: we have invested in the institution in a way that it has not been invested in in decades. since i came on board, we have doubled the size of the editorial staff. we have significantly invested in our digital products and in the print magazine, everything from the feel of the paper to the size of the paper.

this has been investing in the values of the place. where leon and i did not see eye to eye is a belief that the same kind of value that he talks about which are these humanist ideals, which is incredibly important, that we must move into the 21st century and if we are honest with ourselves and we walked down the middle of the train or the middle of a plane and we think about how we read today, we spend an enormous time on our mobile devices, on our tablets, and on our computers. the kind of journalism that we do has to adapt to those formats. that does not mean we do not do longform or that we stop doing criticism. we continue to do those things. in addition to that we have to think creatively about audio interactive graphics, timelines,

different forms of pieces that do not just conform to the traditional 5000 word prose. these do not come without cost. i think it is important we invest in that. so that "the new republic" is relevant for the people who will be in the corridors of power in 20 years. charlie: "the new york times" has adapted. chris: they have made smart investments. the upshot is a vertical that they have invested in, which has done well. there are several legacy media institutions that have thought very creatively. npr is another one that has done a great job. they released another app, sort of like a pandora for npr which is great. charlie: has the "new yorker" adapted? that is a longform journalism magazine. chris: in terms of the case of the adaptation it would not be

at the head of the pack but journalism is influential. charlie: i am struggling with why there has to be a conflict between keeping a great magazine and honoring its tradition, and at the same time having an entree into the global marketplace that you get from online participation and online presence. do you believe there has to be a conflict? chris: no. charlie: these smart people did. was it because -- did you fire frank? chris: we did make a decision in late november to change editorial leadership. chris: i will answer your question.

first i have to say that frank i count myself privileged to have worked with frank for two years. i got a small view into his tenure. he was without question from my view and the view of his peers one of the most influential editors the magazine has had. to see some of the less finished, who has had as much of an imprint. we did make a decision, which was a difficult decision. in late november, to change editorial leadership. i made that decision in conjunction with our ceo because we are entering a new era where we have to think of ourselves as a digital media company that produces a print magazine that has one of several different products and points with our leaders rather than a print magazine that happens to do digital work. just as in any other company there are great leaders at certain times, and other times

you need new leadership, guy veeder and i made a decision to make that change. charlie: what would you have done differently other than the language that guy used? chris: i think that there the topline thing that i have spoken about, it was an important learning for me personally. communicating much better with a team that the investments we were making in evolving as a company into a digital brand did not mean we were going to do big idea journalism. we start with the idea and the idea might take all of these other forms we discussed. data visualization. but the quality of the journalism does not go away. if it is going to be successful five years from now, 10 years

from now and into the future, it is because of the journalism. the technology is a way to get that journalism in front of people. i firmly believe that. [indiscernible] charlie: quality writing. chris: no question. without adapting to help people read today you could run the risk of doing fantastic war journalism that never sees the light of day. for us, half of our readers digitally read is on mobile phones. that means that we have to change how we think about the mobile experience. that means people can and do read longform but it means they are more likely to read on the go. you have to think about how people pick up when they are interrupted, is there an audio component of what we do, is there a short version that you can choose based on how much time you have? the journalism story underneath is what matters. it is what ultimately is going to be the barometer of our success. we have to invest in these technologies if we are going to

be relevant. i take responsibility for not communicating how important that journalism content is. in a very specific instance, after we did make a decision to make the transition, i wanted to have a conversation with frank in person. that ended up being a few days off. we got scooped. it was embarrassing. the news that we were going to switch editorial leadership leaked out. chris: he found out somewhere else. chris: it was embarassing thing from me, for all of us.

we had to have a phone call which i regret. charlie: what happened to leon? chris: leon decided it was the right time for him to move on as well. he made the decision on his own. charlie: was money becoming an increasing factor for you? your enormously wealthy man. at the same time, there was if you read the report of what happened, it was not front and center at the beginning. it became more and more on the topic of conversation for you. is that a fair appraisal? chris: from the day i bought "the new republic," i treated it as a business. it is not a charity. it should be or rely on the largess of a single owner. from my perspective the money we're putting in as absolutely necessary to invest in the institution so that we can survive. it is no secret we lose money. we lost money last year. we will probably lose a little money next year. charlie: by 2017 you think you

can turn the corner? chris: i would love to turn the corner in 2017. it is too premature to make that prediction. we are going to lose money. i know that. i knew that buying this institution. i am not naive. it is a kind of transition. i was not buying "the new republic" to make money. i know it is not going to be the next facebook. chris: some ask why did he not just start a new magazine rather than by "the new republic." why did you buy it? chris: i knew that it came with the responsibility respect a lot of people who came before me that this has existed. that it meant bringing change to an institution that may not love change. it isn't just to foot the bills sign the checks. we have to ask ourselves how is the media environment changing. how do we make sure that this is

relevant to a millenial or college student today. 20 or 30 years from now, i want her or him to think about "the new republic" and asked to see what the brands you feel confident about -- charlie: because what would have within it that you make them say that? chris: it should have several ingredients it has had for a hundred years. the content is most important. it has to have a guide yet journalism that holds people in power accountable. it has to be difficult to invest in. it has to have incredible social and political awards. content, analysis, opinion. this is never been one to have strong voices -- never been one to be shy to have strong voices. it has to cover culture and the

arts, and how we live today in a way that is in touch with contemporary culture. that doesn't just mean just reviews of the opera at the met. it also means interfacing with television, and [indiscernible] charlie: high and low culture. i'm reading some tough appraisals here. i can point out, the washington post was sold to jeff fayzos because a proud family thought he needed extra resources. perhaps jeff would be able to do that. this is not the first case in which people in great journalistic institutions have grappled with what the future holds. with great sadness and pain that had to make choices they did not

necessarily want to make. chris: absolutely. we are part of that moment, part of the tension. that is why we have become a talking point. charlie: you are tough enough to handle this. hughes claimed to hate silicon valley and it know what he wanted to do with his new toy. he's that money on the right things, wasted money in the same ways, -- hughes seemed to have grown impatient with the same but not great web traffic, and losses of his legacy publication. the names may have lost their beguiling hold on his imagination and decided to do away with them in such a way that everyone but obligated to leave with them.

he did not plan for a change at the top. even david brooks, the country suffered a great loss this year, but the destruction of "the new republic" at the hands of its incompetent owner. outstanding essays. respond to that. these are two people award-winning writer and journalist, and david brooks the equivalent columnist of the new york times. what do you say to those people? are you misunderstood? chris: our plans are misunderstood. i think george packer, david brooks and other people feel strongly about the new republic.

whether it is them or other people, it has cultivated a whole generation, a whole sensibility in journalism. it is hard to trace the alumni and where they went. we did make the editorial leadership change, many were upset, rightfully because of the way that it happened. we did make mistakes. i think they also see this as a change that is indicative of what is happening in the larger media landscape. there reads, which i don't agree with, is that moving in a digital direction means the destruction of the quality of the journalism that we do. i think it has been two months since they have penned those words.

we are seeing that is not in the case. we have put out a fantastic print edition and online. gabriel snyder, a great addition on the web. we have more readers than we have had on average in the past year. we are convening quality conversations about policy issues, about culture, and we're going to do that in a way that is increasingly digital. anyone claiming this is the death of "the new republic" is claiming something immaturely -- prematurely. in my judgment and the judgment of the other staff that are there working every day, to create incredible journalism on our site, to build our product and apps, all the have to do is come down to her office and they

will see something -- charlie: you moved to new york. chris: we open the office in 2012. over time it grew to be at the same size as our traditional headquarters in washington. it is a few heads larger than the original office in washington. we are absolutely committed to having a robust group in new york, designers, advertising partnerships, salespeople. for "the new republic" to be vibrant it has to have an ingredient in both of those cities. we have to have some of the creativity and access to the cultural world that [indiscernible] charlie: you want to enlarge the cultural coverage of the magazine. chris: the cultural coverage -- i would not have bought it if it weren't for its history of the cultural coverage. leon was a storied editor, was a fixture. charlie: you would not have bought it it it not be cultural commitment. i hear you say you want to expand that. you want to have a presence in new york. chris: whether or not the

balance of how much politics and culture, how much society, that will be a decision the editor in chief or might over time. culture isn't going anywhere. you can see in this print edition and on the web, we have architecture and reviews, we are engaging with contemporary fiction. music has been a topic we have covered. we do want to do it differently, more openly. there is no question that a piece like ann friedman, the singer of sonic youth, a review of her autobiography might not have appeared in "the new republic" before 2015. i think that is the journalism that can engage new audience is, it can hold truth to doing it critically and thoughtfully. but do in a way that adapts to the cultural conversation. charlie: any effort to bring back the people?

chris: i have talked to some and have learned from those conversations. charlie: did you learn anything that surprised you? or anything? chris: absolutely. it goes back to communication points. i had developed good working relationships with several people who left but it turns out that over the course of the three months leading up to their departure, they felt like they could not approach me to talk about their worries, there concerns for the direction of the magazine. that is something i regret immensely as a leader. these were people i cared about, talented journalists that i would have preferred not to leave. as a manager, it has been a useful moment for me to be more focus on communicating with the

vast majority of the staff and staff as it grows. charlie: here is the cover story. the magazine has been a beacon of fact-based reporting and a form over racial issues. at its worst times it has fallen under racial theorizing and crackpot racial lore. what is this magazine in this article saying about "the new republic?" chris: gabriel snyder made the decision to run this piece on the cover for a lot of reasons. i talked after the fact to understand why. from his perspective, -- charlie: about why he would want to have this in his article at this time. chris: he makes the editorial decisions. i work with the ceo to bring

great leadership in. after that he is the editor. charlie: you had the title editor in chief. chris: to be honest, it was not appropriate for the role that i was exerting. i never edited a piece. i never read the bulk of the print magazine -- it is focused more on the technology side. i wasn't any articles for frequency. it wasn't a title that felt appropriate to the role that i had. charlie: you made the choice. chris: i made the choice to change that title and remain the chairman and publisher. to your question, i think that this was a powerful these two look back on the history of the institution to say quite honestly that when it comes to race, "the new republic" hasn't always been the best.

that is an understatement. from the earliest founding days through the 1990's, "the new republic" has not been a brand that leads the way on discussions of racial equality. in some moments it is conversations like the bell curve that took us backwards. that kind of piece was an opportunity to look back on that story, to be honest about it. from gabriel's perspective, this is a transitional moment for us as a journalistic brand. as an outlet. it is unique opportunity to take stock. charlie: this transitions only in terms of its business model and its desire to reach new audiences online. chris: i think that has been the engine of the transition. when you have as many senior editors leave as we did bringing in the kind of talent that gabriel has been able to hire,

no matter what will mean a different kind of editorial voice for the institution. if you talk to him about where he wants to take the new republic from a voice perspective, it is to be much more deeply engaged with the new generation of readers and writers who are a little bit more diverse, a little bit less -- you're able to think more creatively about domestic policy, who are able to write in a way that uses the first person. charlie: both in terms of content and in terms of distribution. anytime there is an editorial change, it is always different. charlie: it is more pervasive than just the change of an editor. chris: i think the audience that gabriel is looking to appeal to is a broader audience than "the new republic" has built into in

the past. i think over the past few decades, we have been satisfied to speak to a relatively small elite group of thinkers. it has done that at times extremely well and other times it has been weaker. there is an opportunity and responsibility to expand that audience and to stay true to those values in 2015. a great example this particular issue is a piece by one of our senior editors, who is one who stayed through the transition, who takes a first-person perspective of the question of what is it me to be pregnant in the workplace? she talks about maternal leave paternal leave, the nine months up to having that may be, and how do we think of the public all is the and how out of step it is. charlie: would that have

appeared in the old "the new republic?" chris: the roots of the idea would have been covered. it is a policy issue that has lasted. i think that the way that these things are discussed, and audiences that they can reach, and how these pieces are written matters. that piece in particular brought in the largest facebook audience. it seemed to spark a conversation on a network because i identify with this issue or i don't think this is actually fair at all. sparking those kinds of conversations is what we want to do. there is an editorial part of that. it has to come together. charlie: ruth bader ginsburg canceled her subscription. my point is not to say that this supreme court justice -- it is to raise this question that you talked about.

what is there the risk of losing that might have been important? are you going to lose opinion leaders in washington who are part of the national conversation in the economic sphere because you are changing "the new republic." chris: we have not seen it yet. we had subscriptions canceled but by the end of the month we had 400 new ones come in. we were up in terms of subscriptions. similarly on the web. when you have that many people leave our traffic was down. it is already back above the average for 2014 for this month in february. my point is that the readership is still there. people are curious about what we are doing. i think as long as we do quality journalism as this place has been known for in a way that

holds to those values, and experiment to bring a new audiences, i don't think we have to say it is either out with the old and in with the new or something else. i think we can do these things in conjunction with one another. charlie: thank you. chris hughes of "the new republic." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." i'm cory johnson. here's a check of your bloomberg top headlines. u.s. stocks end week on a high note. the nasdaq extending its winning streak to eight days. stocks took off after greece reached a preliminary deal with eu area finance ministers to extend the greek bailouts by four months. labor secretary tom perez is giving unions and the companies in the ports a deadline of sunday to end the lockout of the west coast ports. if no deal is reached, perez was to move talks to washington.