>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." charlie: welcome. we began with a conversation about the ted talks, a story i did for "60 minutes" sunday night. brian stevenson was the person ted people wanted. he spent years trying to reform the criminal justice and system. he said yes. then he remembered a serious conflict on his calendar.

brian: it was before i had an argument at the supreme court. charlie: what did they say to convince you? brian: it is a big deal. it is an incredible platform. everybody watches ted talks. charlie: in march of 2012, brian stevenson took the stage at the annual ted conference in long beach, california, one of 60 speakers that week. brian: we have a system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty. well not culpability shapes outcomes. -- well -- wealth charlie: he made the case for

changing the criminal justice system with the same mixture of passion and logic he uses to persuade judges and juries. he introduced his initiative in a disarmingly honest way. brian: miss parks turned to me and said -- tell me what the equal justice initiative is. i began giving her my wrap. we are trying to challenge injustice. we are trying to help people who have been wrongly convicted. we are trying to end life without parole sentences for children. we are trying to reduce the prison population. i gave her my whole wrap. she said, "mmm, mmm. that's going to make you tired, tired." i simply came to tell you not to take your eyes off the prize. charlie: did you think you had done a good job? brian: people responded in an enthusiastic way. charlie: the crowd offered financial support, unprecedented, since ted talks are not about raising money.

brian: they said -- we think what you are doing is important and a lot of people want to support you. i can't stay. much to my amazement, we raised $1 million. charlie: this is happening without you there. brian: without me there. charlie: what difference did it make for the cause you have devoted your life to? brian: hundreds now would have the chance to get better sentences. charlie: it didn't end with your speech because of the internet. ryan: we get lots and lots of people responding to the ted talk. charlie: the person who put him on the stage was chris anderson. he chooses speakers, he hosts conferences, and he decides which talks go online.

>> they have come up with something very important. to help them make their knowledge accessible. charlie: it is a campfire in part. >> it is a campfire. everyone's eyes are upon them. charlie: the story started in the 1980's. a bold new idea presented about technology, entertainment, and design. ted for short. anderson was a magazine publisher. he attended his first conference in 1998 and fell in love with what he heard there. he bought ted and turned into a nonprofit. in 2006, he put a handful of conference talks online. the reaction was almost immediate.

>> we started to get e-mails like -- i'm sitting at my computer screen crying. charlie: an emotional connection. >> a passionate connection. these talks had got inside people's heads and changed them. charlie: one of the earliest ted talks posted was literally about what was going on inside the head of a neurologist. >> my brain says to me, this is so cool. [laughter] how many brain scientists have the opportunity to study their own brain from the inside out? charlie: her talk went viral. soon, internet users couldn't get enough of ted talks. one million views turned into one billion views. now, it is an internet phenomenon.

there are all sorts of ted conferences being held daily. >> i've been locked up going on 15 years. charlie: the website has 2000 talks on just about every subject imaginable. >> with great confidence, i have been to the future. >> i am 17 years old and i'm a nuclear physicist. charlie: it was front-page news when monica lewinsky recently gave a ted talk on cyber bullying. how does chris anderson decide who gets the opportunity? >> there is no formula or algorithm. it is a judgment call as to what is interesting now. charlie: anderson and his team spend their time auditioning. looking for the next great story. >> i spent thousands of hours working with invasive breast

cancer cells in the lab. charlie: a great ted talk demands careful planning. >> changing that talk, it may land more clearly. charlie: there is no selling a product or a book from the stage. no pseudoscience is allowed. there is an 18 minute time limit. why 18 minutes? >> it is a natural human attention span. you can listen to something serious that long without getting bored or exhausted. charlie: the goal is to make it to a ted conference and then get posted online. speakers do not get paid. people line up for the chance to make a ted talk. they hope to be the next amy cuddy. >> we are fascinated with body language. charlie: an unknown psychologist until she took the ted stage in 2012.

>> what does your body language communicate to you? charlie: her talk was about nonverbal communication. it was her personal story that captured the imagination of the audience. >> when i was 19 years old, i was in a bad car accident. i woke up in a head injury ward. my iq had dropped. charlie: she suffered a traumatic brain injury in the car accident. >> i felt ambivalence. what have i done? have i changed my life in a way that i will regret? will my colleagues think i am stupid? the head injury story was personal. it was something i had kept locked away. charlie: this is the most watched ted talk in the last two years. >> that is what chris tells me.

charlie: according to chris anderson, she has had more than 23 million views. it has turned her into a star in this new ted created universe. she is hot on the lecture circuit and has a new book coming out. chris anderson can make someone's career. charlie: do you like the power it gives you? >> i don't think in terms of power. charlie: you can change somebody's life by making them a ted speaker. you make those choices. then you have power. >> i would phrase it more as responsibility. i do love the fact that someone can give a talk and a few months later can be known by millions around the world. charlie: for mason, the fame she received was not the fame she was looking for. >> i got 99 problems. charlie: when she appeared a

year and a half ago, she had a punch line. >> i'm palestinian, muslim, female, disabled, and i live in new jersey. [laughter] charlie: and she had a serious point. >> people with disabilities are the largest minority in the world and the most underrepresented in entertainment. charlie: she also had an agenda. >> i actually thought that once the talk was done my career would skyrocket. i want to be on tv. i thought the ted talk would open the door for more opportunities. charlie: that is what ted did not do. >> what it did do is amplified my voice worldwide. charlie: with more than 6 million views of her talk, she believes she succeeded in a different way. >> i didn't expect to hear from so many people that felt the talk was about them.

charlie: how did you change the lives of people who are disabled? >> the change occurs on an individual basis. i have helped people go out there and say i have a disability, it is totally fine. treat me as an equal even if i'm physically different. what i have done is empowered people to be proud of who they are. a lot of people with cp don't walk. charlie: critics believe this emphasis on the personal stories have turned them into infotainment. easy answers to serious problems. don't count brian among the skeptics. he traces part of the current public debate about reforming the criminal justice system to the ted talk he gave in 2012. while he is grateful for the money ted raised, he's more appreciative of the platform. charlie: did your experience at

ted change you? >> it did. it made me more hopeful about what can be achieved if you change the narrative. charlie: is there something about ted you want to change? brian: the challenge is people who consume this stuff that ted provides to not just be consumers, but to take what they learn and turn it into some kind of action. that may be uncomfortable. it may be inconvenient. it will be transformative into making great ideas that not only spread, but create a greater world. ♪

charlie: jon krakauer is here. he is known for bestsellers. his latest book takes a look at sexual assaults at the university of montana. it is called "missoula." it's the least reported felony in america. i'm pleased to have jon krakauer back at this table. "into thin air," "three cups of deceit." what do they have in common? jon: most of them had to do with people who -- fanatics. people who take things too far to the logical extreme.

it harms the person and those around them. charlie: it is a story of people that grow out of obsessions. jon: that is fair. charlie: why doesn't this fit? jon: this is a very different book. i wrote it for personal reasons. i felt compelled to write it, i learned a friend had been raped twice as a teenager. i didn't know that until 10 years later. she turned up at a treatment facility for addiction and sexual assault. she was in treatment. the trauma of the assaults, she had never gotten over it. i was ignorant, i'm ashamed to say, about the seriousness of sexual assault and how prevalent it is.

there is not an epidemic of assault. it is always there beneath the surface. people deny the problem exists. charlie: you quote, should we treat women as agents responsible for themselves women don't get raped because they were drinking or took drugs. they do not get raped because they were not careful enough. women get raped because someone raped them. jon: i love that quote. you put the blame on the victim, which is wrong. you get raped because someone raped you in the end. the drinking issue, it is obvious alcohol played a part in many rapes. some researchers show if you

remove alcohol from the equation the rate of rape would not go up. it stays the same. alcohol plays a factor in so many rapes if drinking wasn't involved there would be other reasons people were raped. charlie: one of the most important points is that it is not in the majority of cases from someone you didn't know. it is not the stranger who accosts you by coming up to your apartment and breaking in. jon: that is right. charlie: it is the person you thought you knew but didn't. jon: 85% of rapes are done by acquaintances of the victim. charlie: 85%. jon: in many cases, someone knows them well. the main character my book was

raped by a football player who was her best friend since the first grade, someone she trusted like a brother, and she went to a party, drank too much, was offered a couch to sleep on, went to sleep alone, and woke up when she was being raped. people think it must be more traumatic to be raped by a stranger. it is more traumatic probably to be raped by someone you trust completely. that destroys your trust and everything. charlie: do you think in 99% of the cases, the person who is raping a woman understands what he is doing? jon: that is a good question. sometimes it is clearly calculated, they know exactly. in most times, because so many have told themselves it is the stranger breaking into the apartment, what i am doing, she is flirting with me, she wants it. she said no but she was leading me on.

many rapists don't understand what they do is rape. the culture leads them to believe this is sport. it is a conquest. for many reasons. it is rape. without a doubt. they can convince themselves it is not. there's a lot that needs to be done to educate young men about that. charlie: because of the case did you accelerate this book? jon: there's a misunderstanding. the book was originally slated for now. i was supposed to turn it in in september of 2014. i needed more time to finish the fact checking. i don't turn them in until they are as good as i can make them. i turned it in around new year's. when i was done.

once they got it, when i asked for three more months they said ok we'll move it to the fall. when i turned it in it was ready. they said we can crash this. they rushed the publication date. it's not like i compromised the book. charlie: why do they want to crash it? jon: because it was timely. they are not going to publish in the summer. it was either fall or spring. all this is going on. the "rolling stone" article was one more fiasco. your book shows women may lie but most women don't. in my book, i didn't know about the "rolling stone" mess. i relied on documents, videotapes, audio tapes. i didn't take anyone's word. i believe victims but i corroberated everything. i had a paper trail. this is serious stuff. got to do your fact checking. charlie: what do you hope this book accomplishes?

jon: i hope it raises awareness. charlie: and eliminates myths. jon: i hope it emboldens women. there was a shift that began before i started working on this book. 10 years ago. women started coming forward and talking about their own assaults, about -- yes i was raped. i'm not going to let myself feel shame. i did nothing that was shameful. i'm hoping that at some point, there is a tipping point. i use this analogy. it's like what happened with drunk driving. before 1980 a lot of people drove drunk. i drove drunk in my 20's. i didn't appreciate the seriousness of it. mothers against drunk driving started coming out with

horrifying statistics and numbers. law enforcement that began to get serious about arresting and convicting truck drivers. arrests went up 220%. deaths went down. maybe something like that will happen at some point with the problem of rape. charlie: how long did you work on this book? jon: three years. i started in the summer of 2012. charlie: how did you go about putting it together? jon: i wrote this because this woman had been raped. i just wanted to learn, correct my ignorance. i love research. i hate writing but i love research. i'm just curious. i started reading. i started looking at the news. in no time i realized there are these rape scandals in the news all around the country.

universities coast-to-coast. i had many of them. a couple dozen at least. one of them was a series of rapes in missoula, montana. when i went to missoula to go to a sentencing hearing. i went to that hearing, and when i saw allison, an amazing woman, a small woman. she looks unassuming. when she was on the witness stand being badgered by this defense attorney she stood up to him and wasn't cowed. she spoke her peace. she told the truth. she wanted people to know this is the truth. i was so impressed by her, i thought well, i was inspired. i wanted to put her in the book. that moment. charlie: what did you learn about the man who raped her? jon: he was by many accounts a good guy. he grew up in a working-class

family. he did well. he was a decent student and brilliant athlete. he was recruited by the university of montana football team. he became a good football player. no one could have seen this. he had done other things like this but kept them hidden. it was shocking for allison to wake up to be raped by her best friend. that changed the way she thought of him. during the sentencing, don't you think he is a good person? do you think he deserves another chance? she said i don't know the person sitting over there. the person who raped me is not the person i thought i knew. he has destroyed my faith in humanity. i don't trust anyone anymore. charlie: did you hear that often? something about their lives had been severely damaged?

jon: yes. as i described, one victim being sexually assaulted as a teenager turned her into a ghost. the rapist robbed her innocence, turned her into this ghost forever trapped in the act of being violated for a decade. that is what it does. to be penetrated by another person is a different kind of trauma. it's hard to imagine if you yourself have not been assaulted. the rate of ptsd in rape victims is higher than in soldiers and marines returning from combat in afghanistan. it is similar. the military has good statistics on ptsd and veterans. academics are now coming up with statistics for ptsd in rape victims. charlie: how do you explain the cases in which victims get facts

wrong, or make false accusations? jon: the studies show, that 2% to 10% of women who do falsely accuse men, the research is clear most of the time you can find a reason. they want to explain a pregnancy to a partner or husband, they have a reason they are trying to get revenge. sometimes they get facts wrong. they often confuse things. to be traumatized changes your brain chemistry. it changes the way you process memory. your memories become impressionistic. you can easily remember what happened, by keeping track but the order becomes difficult. that is why it is difficult for police when they first

interrogate a victim, they need to begin by believing. later you can check the facts. these people are traumatized. if you go in there, old-school cops -- do you have a boyfriend, are you making this up, that doesn't work with traumatized victims. what are you feeling, how did you feel? you drop these details to not only convict the rapist, but to exonerate the innocent. you begin by believing. charlie: in some cities they have a sex crimes unit. often they are run by women. is prosecution of rape a problem? jon: it is very difficult. the criminal justice system is not well constructed for the conviction of rapists. the burden of proof is so high.

charlie: what about the university community? jon: universities, there is no standard policy for how they adjudicate rape. that is a huge problem. every university is different. most do a terrible job. they have systems that are fair. in missoula, their system was better than many. it hinged on the dean of students. in the cases i examined, it was his job to act as the prosecutor. there's no rules of evidence. you can't imprison anyone. you can't put them on a list of sex offenders. all you can do is expel them. you don't need this difficult burden of proof. you can lower the bar to the federal government mandate

lower measure of a preponderance of evidence. more likely than not this occurred. universities don't have to go through -- they try to keep lawyers uninvolved. they don't want to get lost in procedure. they want to get to the truth. universities want to find out the truth quickly. there are usually several layers. the dean may determine himself if you are guilty. charlie: what did the retracted rolling stone article contribute? jon: it didn't contribute. it set back the conversation. a lot of people out there that do not believe there is a rate problem. there are deniers that say it is

rape hysteria. the rape deniers use that 40-50%. the studies have been debunked. it is wrong. people out there are waiting for ammunition to say women lie. there isn't a rape problem. the rolling stone fiasco gave them ammunition. set things back. that story was not true. the editors did not do their due diligence. they did not do that checking. you can blame the woman who falsely accused the fraternity boys but this would have never happened if the magazine had done what it was supposed to. charlie: how are you received in missoula? jon: not well. it's a wonderful town. they feel the scandal has been going on since it broke. a local reporter broke the story in 2011.

they feel they are under fire. they feel their town has been besmirched. charlie: do they have a point? jon: no. charlie: in terms of are they different than other colleges? jon: no. that is true. have a slightly lower rate of rape than other towns of its size. that's the disturbing thing. missoula is typical. they are very upset the title of my book is missoula. why couldn't you name it something else? i pointed out the title -- charlie: would you change it? jon: no. it describes exactly what it is about. i'm sorry people are upset but missoula, they say we are no worse than anyone else. that is nothing to brag about. missoula had a problem. it has improved.

thanks to this learning about this series of rapes investigated them, and compelled the university and prosecutor's office to change their ways, improve their ways of handling rate cases. the town is safer for women as a consequence. charlie: the book is called "missoula: rape and the justice system in a college town." back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: julianna margulies is here. she is an emmy award-winning actress. she was nurse carol hathaway on "er." she now stars on "the good wife." one of the most ambitious, morally complex dramas. >> how dare you. do you have a personal life? do you know what it would be like to have your personal life spilled across the stage like

this? broadcasted into the home of your friends? do you know what that would be like? it would one thing if my job had something to do with my husband's infidelity. i'm running for state's attorney. i'm running to be someone to put a dent in crime in this town. what does that have to do with my marriage life? charlie: there she is. the final episode of series six. where is she in this moment? julianna: a long way from there. it has been quite a journey this year. charlie: she is running for state's attorney. julianna: she ran for states attorney. she gets thrown under the bus by the democratic committee because there is an accusation of voter fraud, which she had nothing to

do with. they say just take one for the party. they throw her under the bus. she has to concede and she does. frank gets rightfully crowned. it had nothing to do with either of them or their runs for an office which she rightfully run. it was a clever way robert and michelle managed to make politics for women interesting and not have her be -- the truth is when i asked if she was going to win they said no. the show is interesting to write when you are in a law firm. being states attorney means you are prosecuting criminals. the great characters like lemond bishop and dylan baker, those characters would fall to the

wayside. charlie: is this a year of change for the series? julianna: it was a big year of change. that is the luxury of doing 22 episodes a year. we have a slow burn. we don't have to throw everything in your face in eight episodes. we get to let the audience warm-up to these characters. things make sense when they happen. charlie: the title reflected the wife of a disgraced politician. the good wife. julianna: right. charlie: if you were titling this show now what would you call it? julianna: a great question. alicia is the moral center. the vengeful wife. no, i think i would call her the flawed wife. probably. charlie: flawed by the necessity of survival? julianna: i think she constantly

wants to do the right thing and is constantly provoked by power. she wants to do the right thing. she had a beautiful scene with stockard channing and says i always clean up people's messes don't i? that's what dad did. people make messes and i clean them up. that is who she is. she is the good girl. she was raised that way. her mother is in. -- is not. she never wanted to be like her mother. she gave up the job in the career to be the good wife.

and stabbed her in the back. at the same time, it made her who she is. she has a lot of power because of what happened. she found herself in many ways. now she is re-finding herself. charlie: are they different than other hollywood producers you know? julianna: yes. charlie: how so? julianna: -- charlie: it is called smarter television by some. julianna: they are incredibly bright. robert reads. i don't how he has the time. we have a writer's room. robert does the last pass on every episode. michelle and robert are involved in a way that most producers at this stage of the game of a series start to do another series and leave to a show runner. they don't do that. they are 100% -- charlie: show runner, director writers. julianna: they are there all the time. the writers room is in los angeles. they may be a problem. if i call on behalf of another actor whatever the problem is,

they pick up the phone. they respond. they want this to be a collaboration. the three of us are very much on the same page. i try -- i'm always surprised when guest actors come in and say i can't say this line. i always think trust the writing. it's your job to make the line work. that's a great line. make it work. they are so good at that. that is why the show has such success. i wish i spoke more like alicia. they are smart people. they are very connected to what they are doing. charlie: you are gifted with great costars. julianna: unbelievable. alan cumming, christine baranski, it is an embarrassment of riches. there is usually 2-3 tony award-winning actors and working with per day. charlie: did you all know, was

there a sense that this was special, that george was at this leading man potential? julianna: i can't speak for other people. i was so new to the game, i was 26 years old, i didn't realize what it meant to be on a network drama. to me, george was always -- i always looked at him that way. he is a charismatic, unbelievably gracious and humble human being. nothing about him is pretentious. he really was -- his star was rising high within our second season. he was still such a game player with us. george was the one who kept letting us know. he had done 14 failed pilots. he always believed in us. everything i have had has had to

do with les moonves. he put er on the air. they didn't want to air it. warren littlefield did not want put er on the air. les moonves said -- i will pay if this show fails. he put it on the air. same with "the good wife." who wanted to see a show about a politician's wife? i owe my career. charlie: were you married to george? what was the relationship? julianna: we have twins. [laughter] we were the romantic couple on that show. we never actually got married. george was the one, my character was supposed to die. i was ready to do homicide life

on the street. i loved it. tom fontana put me in a pilot abc had said no, she looks too ethnic, she can't be an american person. he gave me a part of a nurse. it didn't get picked up. george called me and said the pilot got picked up. don't take another job. i think your character is going to live. i died in the pilots. no one else bothered to do that. i was bussing tables. i waited and said don't hate me, but i think this other show may go. charlie: can you tell by what you already know, the final episode is? what the next season will be? is it a giant indicator as to where next year will be? julianna: it's very clear how the kings do this.

we end the final episode with how the next season will begin always. this year, it is brilliant what they did. the only bad thing is we have to make sure our hair stays the same. alan asked me if i would run for state's attorney. then his hair was dyed pitch black. they were trying to gray it up. there were comments, it looks like the same setup, but why is his hair changed? charlie: how hard was it for josh charles not to be there? julianna: i miss him every day. he is an exceptional actor. he and i together, he is an old, dear friend. we worked really well together. he and christine worked really well together. those two relationships were pivotal.

christine and josh were pivotal to the show. what is incredible, aside from missing him, what it did was open up our characters to have other experiences. it kept the writing fresh. as horrible as it is to lose a character, for a show that has to 22 episodes a year, it feeds bloodlines. it opens up friendships you don't know you would have had. in a certain way he gave no energy. i miss working with him. charlie: is sunday night a good time? julianna: right now i don't think so. you have "game of thrones, madmen. you have all these shows that are on now. it is almost like, sundays have become the place to be. i am grateful to our audience. we don't seem to lose audience participation.

they are there with us. we get put on weird football schedules. les moonves decided to keep us there because we have not lost viewership. even though they are cranky. they get cranky during football season. charlie: in reading about your show, people were talking about how smart it was. it was listed as their favorite show by many critics. a lot of people had seen this year began to say you can't miss it. julianna: what's been amazing how many men have abandoned this i don't watch a show called the good wife, which was the network's fear in the beginning. it must only be about women. now there is this incredible resurgence of this male energy we are getting on the show because they are realizing it is not just a female show. charlie: what is this a show about?

julianna: it's a show about politics, law, human feelings and relationships. charlie: good guys and bad guys? guys that become good guys. julianna: there is this moral center to the show. the lead character constantly doesn't know which side of that line to go one. that's what's interesting. how do we create a character -- right. it is a slippery slope. if you are running for politics, and you want to clean up a corrupt state's attorney's office, there are certain things you have to do to get there. when you do, with ed as nurse who played this wonderful character, who gives her $1 million, i'm supposed to be his puppet now?

she gets the reality check from eli. i love her relationship with eli. it is the comedy of errors with the two of them. she can call him on his bluff. it is a show about a moral center. where do we go? their finger is on the pulse constantly. they wrote a show four months ago, and we shot it three months ago, about gay marriage, and what it means to have a wedding planner refuse your wedding as a gay couple, and get sued, and then it was an issue. we aired and people said they are copying life. no, it takes us months. they have their thing here on the pulse. charlie: in the beginning was the original idea based on the

spitzers? julianna: they say they were based on a lot of political wives. where you see her behind -- which will remain one of my favorite scenes in the entire show, her just taking this piece of lint off of his suit in the middle of this press conference, that was based on the spitzers. what happens to these people? how does she respond? it is one of my favorite scenes of her walking down the hallway and stopping, and slapping him in the face and saying -- and she tries to leave. she has nowhere to go. charlie: she's a very accomplished woman. it affected the marriage. julianna: a clearly affected the marriage and the children's lives. charlie: this is eli and you talking about running for office. >> the election is in eight months. the candidate announcement is monday. >> this monday? that's in four days. >> we are ready to go. we have plans and polling.

if the election were held today, and the only candidates were you and castro, you would win by eight points. >> you think it will be me and castro? >> you have to hear these things first. eight points. you would win by eight points. >> that's good, right? like that is remarkable. >> i don't think it lasts. good news tends not to last. >> that is what i like about you. you are always looking for the bad. there are so many disasters in the campaign. you have to acknowledge the non-disasters when they happen. >> people don't really know me yet. castro will try to define me. go after the clients i represent. >> you are a brand now pre-saint

alicia. >> i wish you would say that with a hint of irony. >> irony is dead. jfk can be funny, you can't. >> stop joking. charlie: it has so much energy so much rapid fire. julianna: it's smart dialogue. i'm always amazed. i did six episodes on "the sopranos," which was an amazing experience. they were very specific about if, ands, or buts. you didn't change anything. the script supervisor came over and said it is if, not and. his reaction is that is so much better. i took something from that. it was respect for the writing and understanding that it is written for a reason. it makes your job easier as an actor if you can trust the writing.

i try to be word perfect and not -- every now and then something doesn't sound right in a sentence. or a different tense with a present tense. for the most part, i think it is an important lesson for actors when you are on a television show, i have so many other things to think about, i do have -- i don't have to think about the writing. i can learn it, and say it think i'm going to active. charlie: a golden age of television. a golden age for you. julianna: i feel like i have had two golden ages of television. it is a markable. when i was on er, that thursday night lineup, it was friends seinfeld, fraser, er. the golden age of television. then there was a gap or it went away. and we got it again. i feel so grateful. all these incredible actors are coming to television. movie stars.

there doesn't seem to be -- carter actually said i did a magazine shoot for vanity fair with women on television. claire danes, sofia vergara. it was talking about women on television. in the editor's letter, he said don't you remember when we were kids, television was for kids and movies were for adults? let's be honest. movies are for kids. television is for adults. i thought that was such an elegant way of saying it is right there in your living room. it is. writers and directors have more freedom in television. charlie: and the stories are better told. the quality of the acting, and the people coming to television. they have time to develop a character. they have the best writing coming to television. because people appreciate the fact. with all the technology that has

come in, you can watch it when you want to watch it. julianna: and you can watch all 22 episodes. i have people tell me for three weeks they watched all five seasons. i love film. i don't want to take away from what film is. it has changed. the sequels and all that -- there are great films out there. actors are finding that the audience wants to see women, and it is a great time to be a woman in television in many ways. we have further to go. i do believe there are more women starring in their own shows this year than there ever have been in the history of television. that is huge. it is much more so than film. you will never see the kind of women you see in television on film. charlie: thank you for coming. julianna: thank you for having me. it was so fun. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time.

♪

cory: from pier 3 in san francisco, this is “bloomberg west.” we cover innovation and the future of business. i'm cory johnson. president obama says he takes full responsibility for a january drone strike that accidentally killed two al qaeda hostages. it killed an american hostage held since 2011 and giovanni, an italian held since 2012. president obama: we believed that no civilians were present and that capturing these terrorists was not possible. now, we do believe that operation did take out dangerous members of al qaeda. bu