. >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with politics. ted cruz announced he will run for president. he is the first high-profile

candidates to enter. other republicans expected to run our rand paul, jeb bush, and scott walker. senator cruz: imagine in 2017, a new president. signing legislation repealing every word of obamacare. [applause] senator cruz: imagine a federal government that defends the sanctity of human life and upholds the sacrament of marriage. imagine a president who stands unapologetically with -- imagine a president who says we will stand up and defeat radical islamic terrorism. charlie: joining me, mike allen. i am pleased to have him on this

program. he appears every week on "charlie rose: the week." they have been out trying to define how they will run. trying to raise the money and look for the narratives. look for where the journey will take them. we now have an official candidate. tell me about ted cruz and what it means for him to get out front. mike: charlie, you are right. he surprised people this day. the other campaigns thought this event would be kind of lame. most campaigns set up elaborate optics.

rand paul, it will be five days, five states. he will have the uss yorktown as the backdrop. that is a more traditional beginning to a campaign. ted cruz, going to a place where he did not have to build the crowd. going to a regular convocation at liberty university, down the road from where i went to school, washington and lee university. the convocation is mandatory. this is what most politicians dream of, a mandatory audience for your announcement. people on other campaigns said that is kind of low rent. it turned out this was very effective, charlie. he got tons of attention. ted cruz was kind of out of the conversation. months ago, there was buzz about him. i told you, ted cruz can win iowa.

that always surprises people but it is true. iowa has very conservative christian voters. ted cruz, as we saw today, is effective at talking to christian conservative voters. he gets in front of this largely friendly crowd, but you will see everywhere the pictures of a couple of enterprising supporters of rand paul who got down front in red, stand with rand t-shirts. they got in the shot sometimes. this was a largely supportive audience. ted cruz speaking for 25 minutes as if he is speaking to a courtroom, without any notes. very focused. showing why he was such a skillful arguer at the supreme court. taking on issues that are very important to the audience he is going after. talking to his target audience including protecting christian congregations against lawsuits

that will force their ministers to perform gay marriage. that is an under the radar issue. most republicans will not touch it with a 10 foot pole. but it is a huge issue with evangelicals. it is a smart, under the radar issue. it is about how ted cruz knows who he is talking to. charlie: i assume he has to emerge as a leading conservative. as they go down the primary road, it will be a face-off between him and perhaps jeb bush even though jeb bush has claims to conservativism as well. that is the hope of this group of people who are essentially conservative, to stay in the game. mike: i predict ted cruz will be one of the last people standing. he is an excellent communicator. he will be a 10 in the debates

coming up. he has a real base. a base not based on momentum or the flavor of the month. his people are very dedicated to him. that will be very important. he might not have as much money as jeb bush or the fancy advertising. he is not the come from nowhere surprise story that scott walker is. he may not get the big establishment that marco rubio does. i think senator rubio will be the next candidate to get his day in the sun. to get a fresh look. things have been kind of quiet in his camp. national security, which is his wheelhouse, is rising as an issue. we are going to have marco rubio and rand paul. and maybe even hillary clinton all announce in the same week,

right after easter. the next day coming work on going to have rand paul announce in louisville -- the next day, you are going to have rand paul announce in louisville. and then hillary clinton. 2016 starting fast. charlie: someone said, he has the best sound bite. saying the biggest problem is in washington, we do not listen. summoning the public think washington is out of touch. there's a certain resonance about that. people like jeb bush saying, we -- i want to have a conversation. there is this sense that americans do not believe washington is hearing them whether it is tea party or elizabeth warren.

correct? mike: that is a great point to read question is, can ted cruz rookie u.s. senator and former supreme court advocate, can he be an outsider? so far, he has tapped that well. there was a very similar construct in the speech. you saw where senator cruz again and again said, imagine. on twitter, they were making fun of him in the john lennon context. even with no notes, this was a shrewd linguistic construct. the other fascinating phrase he used is, charlie, he talked

about "courageous conservative." of course that is just to say his opponents are wimps. he has talked about the mushy middle. the video he announced this morning, he said if you want more of the same, you can fill in another senator or governor or jeb bush, if you want more of the same, there will be plenty of that. i will lead a new generation of courageous conservatives. that will be a powerful message. charlie: where is jeb bush now? mike: he is the far and away leader. he's the person someone has to take out to be the nominee. we had talked a month or two ago, we would have said, it is wide open. there are a bunch of credible candidates. serious people. marco rubio. governor walker. senator cruz.

but, jeb bush has had such an impressive even though quiet rollout. he built the enormous staff. he has an unbelievable fundraising machine. when he announces his initial fundraising, $80,000,000-$100,000,000, he will have more than every other republican candidate combined. he has an enormous financial advantage. going back until at least reagan, there has not been a single time that a republican has amassed a establishment endorsement, buzz, money, and has not gotten it. both bushes, dole, mccain, romney. everyone someone has cornered

that market gets the nomination. bush is mostly raising money. we don't expect him to formally announce his campaign until summer. he may be one of the last ones. we expect scott walker, who has said he will wait until his wisconsin legislation session is over, to go in late may or june. we'll have a steady drumbeat of candidates. now toward the early end. the candidate who blocks out the sun. hillary clinton, the debate in her campaign, do we go sooner in april, later, july? the argument for waiting is, narrow the window. allow her to be a statesman as long as she can be. within her campaign, we are told the early argument has one. they need to raise money and build a staff. that is why in the next couple of weeks, we will see her as an official candidate.

charlie: i assume all candidates this year have learned the lessons of how to use social media from obama in 2008 and obama in 2012 and are hiring people that understand the digital revolution and how you can use it in politics. identifying voters understanding which issues attract their vote. mike: we saw ted cruz announced on twitter. post a video in spanish. long before his event today, scott walker's campaign ramped up their own digital activities to try to reach people who were looking for information. they will wind up on the walker record.

a lot of candidates, including rand paul, buying google ad words. when you type in ted cruz, you may also see an ad for rand paul. they know you are curious about the republican field so you will see an ad for rand paul. what really matters now is fundraising. how effectively can you build an online fundraising machine? ted cruz has an opportunity with the lower dollar givers, stalwart conservatives throughout the country. partly because of his role in the government shutdown and his clashes with senate republican leadership. he has fewer friends within the capitol then maybe any other senator career because of that some of his big donors have pulled away.

the houston chronicle reported he had been doing deliberate outreach to some of those deep pockets that he had alienated. almost all the activity is with the bundlers, fundraisers. they will go to new hamphsire and iowa now and then for a tv picture. they are trying to stockpile the money so when all the candidates are out there, they will have it put away and spend more time on the trail. charlie: thank you. mike allen from washington. back in a moment. ♪ we continue now with my conversation with leon wieseltier. we talked about israel and the future of the two state solution. he was at the "new republic." he was the man who gave the magazine its cultural heart.

he left the magazine. he is now at the brookings institution and also the atlantic magazine. i begin and ask him a point i asked chris hughes when he was here about a month ago, what happened? leon: what happened was the owners of the "new republic" decided to take the magazine in a direction he believed was necessary for its survival and i believe destroyed it. that is what happened. that is what happened. charlie: explain to me, and then i will have a clip from him, explain what the difference in where he wanted to take it and where you wanted it to be. leon: as far as i understand it, he was overwhelmingly concerned

for commercial reasons with the transposition of what we did to certain new technologies especially mobile. everybody has an obsession with mobile. charlie: some say you have to have an obsession to survive. >> leon: my view is if it did not affect the content of the magazine, this was simply a historical inevitability. i'm not a fool. i understand there are technologies that reach many more new people than paper did. my own view was, just because there are new titles does not -- bottles doesn't mean the old wine was bad. if it was simply a matter of pouring it into the new bottles, that was fine. the idea that the invention of

new bottles require the invention of new wind so pieces on certain subjects would no longer be featured or even published so that longer pieces of a certain kind would be frowned upon. so that the kinds of the essays we ran for the entirety of our history would be substituted with shorter, more snackable bells and whistles seemed wrong to me. it was not something i could preside over or cooperate in. i think the primary task of serious magazines in this country is not to get clicks. it is to offer this country intellectual leadership. charlie: can't you offer it online? leon: you can, but that was not what was being done. certainly you can. my editing days are not over.

i have thought about starting something. if i start it, i will use new technologies. it is nice to reach lots of people. since this is about the formation of american opinion, the more people you reach, the more influence you will have. the question is, what are you reaching them with? what are you reaching them with? the idea that the kind of serious critical essays that did not always get the most clicks had been made obsolete -- charlie: are you saying there was no part in the digital magazine that he believed in that was going to run with the future of the digital revolution, it would not be possible to have thoughtful pieces? leon: my pages were being cut. i was being pressured to put shorter, cuter things in. the fact that some of the pieces that i regarded as our most valuable contributions did not

do that well online weighed against them. you put something out into the culture and you let it find its readership. there is not a metric for intellectual leadership. one needs the long view. charlie: when he bought the magazine, he was viewed as a conquering hero, was he not? you were a huge supporter. what did you buy that made you a supporter that turned out not to be real? leon: the magazine, the direction, his plans were nothing like the plans i was told about near the end. charlie: his plans for the

magazine, beyond whatever it was you wrote or edited, they wanted somebody different from you, there is a long tradition with the new republic. he wanted to change that. leon: yes. look at it. i have looked at one issue. i do not intend to look at it again. i said, the new "new republic" is to the old "new republic" as paris, texas is to paris france. charlie: there was a rebellion? leon: it turns out -- he discovered they had hired another editor and not told him. nothing like that was done to me. i made it clear, when i spoke to the staff and resigned, i was not resigning for any personal reason. nothing personal was done to me. i was resigning because i did

not like the direction of the magazine to read i thought a cultural institution was being vandalized. also, because i was horrified by the way my colleague and friend frank was treated. charlie: another editor was hired without informing him. leon, that was the most egregious. but also, there was a magical morning we discovered the magazine had two heads. i mean two editors. my conception of what the magazine has to be, which is very much linked to what it was, is not the direction the magazine was being taken. charlie: chris is not a guy with experience in journalism. he came out of harvard and facebook and was a friend of mark zuckerberg.

he had worked in the obama administration campaign. was there no one with a magazine sensibility there to buy the magazine? leon: people have come to me since. it is chris's magazine. he owns it. charlie: they all come to you and say, why didn't you come to me? leon: he seemed terrific. charlie: here's the program i did with chris. chris: where we did not see eye to eye, the belief that ideals he talks about, must move into the 21st century.

if we are honest with ourselves, when we walked down the middle of a train or plane, we think about how we read today, we spend an enormous time on mobile devices. tablets. computers. the kind of journalism we do has to adapt to those formats. it doesn't mean we don't do longform or criticism. in addition to that, we also have to think creatively about audio. interactive graphics. timelines. different forms of pieces that don't just conform to the traditional 5000-word prose. these things do not come without a cost. so that it is important we invest that so "the new republic" is relevant. leon: i have nothing against audio or video, and it would be

stupid to say i have something against the ipad or mobile phone. that would be having something against reality. the existence of all of these things should not have the effect of changing the core discourse of a serious magazine. that is what is happening. not just the "new republic." charlie: that is where we are in this conversation. you are here because you are my friend. i asked him at the time. tell me what you think is at stake for american magazines and especially magazines of thought like the "new republic." leon: i think what is at stake we are a democracy. which is to say we are a

republic of opinion. we operate according to the opinion of our citizens. that being the case, one of the primary services that can be performed in such a society is to attend to the quality of american opinion. to the means of american opinion formation. the more enlightened and sophisticated and historically-informed and critically-minded american opinion will be, the better our country will be. the more easily manipulated, short attention span, the more disengaged from serious argument, the less good our country will be. it really is that simple. now, the new republic was not the only magazine whose role it was to provide such intellectual leadership. but that is actually what the historical calling of such magazines are.

there is a reason why these magazines generally have not shown profits. they have not prospered. just because something has a business dimension does not mean it is essentially a business. the smithsonian institution has terrible fiscal problems. if somebody were to buy it and

decide they could solve all the fiscal problems by turning it into disneyland, that should not be an acceptable solution even though it would be a solution to the financial crisis. you would solve the money problem, but in the process, you would destroy what is valuable about it. people who own these magazines less all the enlightened ones, are performing an essential service to this culture. you can call it patronage. citizenship. the quantification and fiscalization of such enterprises does not give you an adequate picture of their importance. it does not. charlie: do you think we has a democracy are losing something because of the arrival of the internet, in terms of the place we have four ideas? beyond: i think there are gains and losses -- leon: i think there are gains and losses. the reach of the internet is a blessing when what is being brought is valuable. when it is garbage, the reach of the internet turns out to be not such a blessing. you could ask, what is garbage and what is not? i confess that is the role of

gate keepers such as myself to decide. our reputations stand or fall as to whether our judgments as to what is good or bad are accepted as correct or admirable. yeah. but i think our basic role is one of leadership, not of followership. the problem with clicks and the metric of success is it turns leaders into followers. it is all about marketing. marketing cannot be the whole story. marketing cannot be the whole story. charlie: the founding editors of "the new republic" wrote, this time of wreck and ruin, the one power that can save and heal is clear and intelligent thought. leon: amen. charlie: you wrote, we must not be a nation of idiots. a thoughtless member of

democracy is a delinquent member of democracy. leon: i believe serious magazines have to stretch readers. in the way that serious preachers have to stretch parishioners. you don't set out to see where they are and what candy they like to eat and give them candy. you decide what you think are the most urgent issues facing this country. this culture. and then you decide how you think those issues should be addressed. not what positions do you take but what kind of discourse you think is necessary for making progress and understanding those issues. you put before the readers as they may not have known they wanted to if they like what you are putting before them, he intelligent readers out there like being treated intelligently, then you have succeeded. i'm not saying you succeed

financially, but you succeed culturally, historically politically. that is the kind of success that should most matter to intellectuals. charlie: unless you succeed to a degree and find some aspect of sustainability -- leo: the thing about sustainability, it is not my money. if i had the money, i would have bought it. the idea that i would not have lost any money at all would have seemed ridiculous. there are other things to do with money. you can buy alibaba stock. all sorts of things you can do.

there are all kinds of places you can put your money. this is not about chris. i'm speaking generally. if i had bought "the new republic," i am sure i would have been concerned about cost and so one. but i would not have bought "the new republic" on the exception i could turn a profit one day. i would not have been ashamed ever if i own something that did not turn a profit. i do not believe that the role of money in our society is only to make more money. i would not have paid writers as little as they are being paid now. not just at "the new republic," but everywhere. this is a technology that would be nothing without content. the people who produce this content are supposed to do it for little or even nothing. there are all kinds of moral and cultural scruples that would have entered into my economic calculation.

if the only kind of calculation i was prepared to make was economics of the prospect of losses as such horrified me, so much, that i would actually tamper with the core product which was a important institution in american life, if economic institutions would have pushed me to that point, then i would have been the wrong owner. charlie: what are you going to do now? leon: i'm going to continue to write and study the things i study. write about the collapse of foreign policy. the clash between the humanities and social sciences. the siege that the humanities find themselves under.

for "the atlantic." for brookings. i've just barely figured out how to use e-mail. i'm considering for the sake of convenience using a private server. [laughter] the great about brookings and "the atlantic," the reason i am so grateful, they asked me to bring my known causes an interest. i miss my old magazine to read i was there for 33 years. the rhythms were in my body. i devoted my life to it. there came a moment when what i referred to as my magazine was no longer going to be my magazine. charlie: you are going to try new experiments? leon: i don't think my editing days are over. there is a strong possibility a strong possibility of i am going to try to bring something back.

try an experiment in 2015-2016 with the revival of a classical sort of journal of ideas that will survive if not flourish in part owing to the web. that is not happening right now. it certainly was not happening at "the new republic." i hope it works. the country needs it. not because i am doing it. the more thoughtful this country is -- public intellectuals are public servants. in that sense. because we are engaged in an attempt to improve -- we disapprove or approve of policies. in an open society, there is nothing more primary.

maybe you feel this way, too. you live it more intensely than i do. i am so sick of media, and media on the media. i am so sick of the self-glorification of the media. most media talk is really business talk disguised as culture talk. it's not about media. is about real journalism, real argument. real critical discourse. if you put it on paper or online or using piece of trouble to put it on the side of a rock, that is less interesting -- it is what it is. that is what the fight was about. that is what my heartbreak was about. it is about what it is. charlie: thank you for coming. leon: thank you, my friend. charlie: back in a moment. ♪

charlie: the brazilian photographer sebastiao salgado his latest photo series took him to places least touched by mankind.

he is featured in the new documentary, “the salt of the earth." >> the photographer is writing and rewriting the world with light and shadows. i first saw this picture more than 20 years ago. what i saw profoundly moved to me. the signature, sebastiao salgado. little did i know that i was going to discover more than just a photographer. it is all started in the little town in brazil. on a memorable day, he bought a

photo camera. the first picture he took was of his wife. he traveled to the four corners of the world as a social photographer and witness of the human condition. his photographs drew worldwide attention to the people of africa and other places. he was trying to shine a light on the fate of the outcast. he really cared about people. after all, people are the salt of the earth.

charlie: joining me is the director, juliano salgado. juliano: learning how to work with one of the greatest filmmakers ever. wim wenders one of the greatest guys around. charlie: what started this? juliano: my intuition was the important thing he could share it was his experiences. he traveled the world in a way nobody else had. there was a lot to learn from

him. wim had the same intuition. charlie: were there moments when you said, this is not what i thought it was going to be? juliano: i always thought the project was great. but we hit one difficulty. having two directors on one film, it is almost impossible. we we wrote the film together and decided what was going to happen. how we were going to shoot. and then we had to edit it and be in the editing room. that was practically impossible. the first thing we did was edit our own sequences. then i had a go at trying to put the film together. oh, boy. wim, he is a nice guy. so gentle. when he saw the edit, he shouted

in the editing room. it was scary. very scary. he took the thing over. come back with a result that is not so good either. we kept working with each other. there was a lot of fighting. we have -- we had different visions of what the film would be. there was a chance we would not be able to finish together. at one point, we decided to sit together and accept each other's presence. believe it or not, it took us a year to get to this point. and then in two months, it was ready. charlie: he said, we realized if we overcame this thing, being the sole author, we could make something bigger, more than the sum of our two films. that is interesting.

more than the sum of our two films. juliano: there is something special about it. to manage to get to the point where the film was on the same level as what sebastiao salgado had to say with photography. it took us a long time. it was very complicated. charlie: salgado means salty. why is that the title? juliano: that is part of the title. he went around the world many times. visited almost every country there is. the way he did this travel taking a lot of care to integrate. be part of the communities he would photograph and become part

of whoever it was. i think people are the salt of the earth. they bring all this flavor to the earth. sebastiao salgado is a great connoisseur. charlie: at the same time, it is difficult to capture beyond of the art. i have interviewed so many artists. i will say, who are you? they will say, look at my art. you want to go deeper and find more. juliano: we had to take a lot of care to be able to listen to sebastiao salgado.

you know, it is crazy. when you put him in front of one of his photos, most photographers what are you -- it was difficult to get there. i got sick. whatever. sebastiao salgado, when you show him the photo, he starts remembering the moment. the people in the photo. what happened to them. a lot of these experiences are really essential. he is facing moments where literally people are facing death. surprisingly, a lot of what you learn from the experiences is beautiful. a lot from humanity, you know, when it gets to the crisis moments, beautiful and humane. it is not always the case. that is what we needed to learn from sebastiao salgado. charlie: let's take a look at some of the photographs. workers in kuwait, battling fires in an exploding oil well attacked by iraqi soldiers.

tell me what you see. juliano: a crazy scenario. very dangerous. night. during the daytime, there is no day. the smoke is so thick. water, fire, and people risking their lives, just to solve this huge ecological problem. charlie: the next one is 1984. a camp in ethiopia. tell me what you see. juliano: a difficult moment. very political, the ethiopian government was not letting food arrive to the camps. they were using the starvation to make people move away. a tough one. charlie: an image of the arctic from project genesis. juliano: the ice cube of god.

charlie: another image from genesis. juliano: this one is amazing to read the hand of an iguana. it looks like it could be a man. charlie: that is the hand of an iguana. look at that. juliano: we see we all come from the same cells. an iguana. charlie: this is you filming your father filming the tribe. juliano: they are amazing. they live the exactly as they used to 15,000 years ago. their relationships are mostly love. when they have an argument, they bring the people who are arguing

to a safe place. the whole tribe comes. they can argue. charlie: at the end of the time, the argument is over. juliano: that is it. charlie: your father was absent much of the time. juliano: there are good sides and bad sides. the bad side was, he was gone for a long time. it was tough. my brother has down syndrome. at home, it was not always easy. and he was mainly gone. on the other hand, he came back with those stories. those experiences of what was happening out there. there was a lot to learn from him. very early, we had a sense his photography had a role to play. it happened for the first time in 1984. during starvation in --. the terrible photography of the

camps, the people migrating. people going beyond their limits. literally. those photos, appearing on the front pages of newspapers. you could feel things were changing for him. he had found a role for his photography. really, you know, and for himself. you had to accept that. it was very important for him. charlie: what is his legacy? juliano: a farm in brazil where they have 2.5 million trees. that's would be that. also, when i decided to become a documentary filmmaker, i was inspired by him. he travels, gets to learn. being really open. but he is also the delineation between fact and audience. whoever is going to see the photos is going to see the world through his eyes.

somehow, he is shaping the vision or understanding. i thought, that is interesting career at something i took on when i started doing documentaries. i want to be that point of mediation. it is interesting and political. in a way that is noble. charlie: this is from your film. recalling his experiences photographing people in 1986. sebastiao salgado: [speaking a foreign language]

charlie: you have an interesting family. your mother was an architect but she gave it up after your brother was born with down syndrome. juliano: they have worked together. she designs the books, the exhibitions. they conceptualize their work together. they are a powerful couple. they have ecological projects. charlie: at the end of the film, it documents their return to brazil. juliano: at some point, he reached the limits to his work.

after ethiopia, he kept working but he had to find a way to make a difference with his photos. every time he went somewhere there was a reason to hope things would get that her. a reason for the photo, a role for the photo to play. then he goes to rwanda. during the genocide. he hits a moment where it is literally the end of the world. there's nothing to hope. his photos will not make a difference. that changed him completely. it was a huge hit for him. he could not take his role as a social photographer the same way. there was not a function for his photo. charlie: he said, my soul was sick. i no longer believed in anything. juliano: he was desperate and lost.

wim, he is an experienced guy. he said something that is nice that i would like to quote. he says, a man in his 50's that realizes that something he does really well does not have a point, doesn't believe what he is doing, that he is capable of stopping that, he is a very courageous person. it takes a lot of guts to abandon a successful career because you do not believe in it. and that is what happened. and luckily -- charlie: is he at peace with that? juliano: i think he is. the transformation he went to. i think it healed him completely. charlie: thank you for coming. “the salt of the earth” is the film. it opens on march 27. juliano salgado, thank you for

joining us. we will see you next time. ♪

cory: live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west" where we cover technology, innovation, and the future of business. i'm cory johnson. here they check of your bloomberg top headlines. investors have recovered one of the black boxes from the flight that crashed in the alps. it dropped already 3000 feet in just eight minutes without a single mayday call. the ceo of germanwings airbus company lufthansa. >> but for now, in this dark