visit philipslifeline.com/caregiver today or call this number for your free brochure and ask about free activation. ♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the discovery of debris which could be from the milosevic malaysian -- missing malaysian flight mh370. the boeing triple seven vanished in march of 2014. 239 passengers and crew went missing. the object was found on the indian ocean and appears to be a torn wing flap and will be shipped to france for further examination. joining me now from washington is retired colonel steve ganyard, a former pilot and an

abc news contributor and president of the strategic services firm -- a strategic services firm. i'm pleased to have him back on the program. thank you so much. >> it's great to be back with you. charlie: tell me what we have discovered here and what it might tell us and where it might lead us. steve: good news and bad news. the good news is that after 16 months, an airplane that disappeared, and the world could not fathom how a huge aircraft with all these people on board could disappear, we finally have what is a part from the airplane that will tell us yes, it crashed, and yes, those people are gone. on the other hand, we look at it and we say it is probably 4000 5000 miles away from where it hit. it had 16 months to drift around the currents in the indian ocean.

they move counterclockwise. from the impact point where it hit, those currents go north and then they turn to the west and if they get by reunion they go south. it is just a big circle. it is what they call a garbage gyre. everything collects. it is not pushed around. somehow we got spit out and washed up, but it does not tell us where the wreckage is on the bottom of the ocean. it does not tell us where the black box is. it really doesn't help us understand better what happened to image 370. -- mh charlie: it could be we 370. cannot find where the wreckage is. steve: right. what we are seeing is not going to be helpful in finding the airplane. the focus needs to stay back on that track that the a tsb has been looking at for months now. they are working through the winter months. this will bring some closure to the families. beyond that, it is not going to tell us much that is useful to find out what happened.

cancharlie: can they tell if this debris came from the missing 777? steve: we are 99% there. there is a part number. it does not in -- identify exactly where this came from but it does say it came from a 777. we know it is white. we know that there are no missing 777's in the world. only one has been missing. the powers of induction, we can say this is probably the piece. one of the things i noticed today, if you look at it, the barnacles are all over it. that would suggest it was submerged at some depth. so if you say, why didn't we see that when we had all of these airplanes after the aircraft went missing? why didn't we see at? sometimes when aircraft hit the water, they break into pieces or some float on the surface. some get waterlogged and they

will float somewhere between two inches and six feet below. that is what carbon fiber does as we know with airplanes that have crashed and use that modern material. it would suggest this was floating somewhere just below the surface and got spit out and washed up on to the beach. charlie: this investigation had been ongoing. i know you've had conversations with the people involved in that process. where is the investigation pre the discovery of the debris? steve: i have been down to talk to the australian investigators three times. in the past six months. it is a really impressive crew. they have everything you could ask for. they have help from other countries, boeing is helping the french are helping. they have everything they need. they have a professional crew.

i played to stump the stars with them over again. i said off the record, let me try to stump you. i was unable to. i'm confident in what they are doing. the science. if you remember the last time, there was an arc, the pings. remember the pings from the satellite? there was a last ping they think was the paying -- ping when the aircraft lost electrical power. if you have a transistor radio and it runs out of batteries that is the sort of last ping they heard. that gives them a good idea where that airplane is. somewhere along the arc, and a 60,000 square kilometer arc they knew exactly how much gas this airplane had at the top of its climate and they know the track, so they have a pretty good idea of where it came down. here is the interesting thing -- over the time i have met with the australians. when i first met with them, they

were like, no way is this going to escape us. we are going to find this airplane. the last time i met with them, they were nervous. they have looked at 50,000 kilometers out of 60000 and have expanded out to 120,000 because they still have not found it. they have extended the time they are going to be looking for the airplane to october. it is winter in the southern indian ocean, so the weather is difficult. they are nervous they have not found it. that said, i said between you and me, and off the record, we are having a beer, what do you think? they said, 100% we're going to find this. as we go along, they have two scenarios. the first one that they modeled as a scenario where you are at altitude. everybody is unconscious. the airplane flies along. it runs out of gas. when it runs out of gas, it runs out of gas one engine at a time.

you're going to get asymmetric thrust. supposedly, you would think the autopilot is on. it will try to correct, but you are going get this motion where the airplane is rolling around until the other engine flames out. it will do these various stalls sort of like a falling leaf into the water. in that scenario, they have a good idea of where the area of the airplane might be. that is if everybody was asleep. the thing that is disturbing today is that the flapper run is fully intact. if the airplane were going to fly into the water at a steep angle, only if the airplane hit the water at a slow speed.

the very tip of the flapper run looks like it has been shaved off maybe by hitting the water. on that airplane, if somebody tried to to land that airplane after running out of gas, that is a chilling idea to think there was somebody alive in the cockpit flying the airplane after it had run out of gas. charlie: just to make sure i am where your head is --it is a chilling idea because? steve: everybody believes this is a murderer-suicide. nobody thinks it was mechanical. a lot of people believe it flew out to sea. he pointed it at the south pole. he dumped the cabin pressure. everybody in the back dies of the cold and they just fly off into oblivion. charlie: ah. steve: so if they did not and they tried to land the airplane, there may have been people alive when they hit water. charlie: do the people you talk to with the metaphor of you and

i having a beer at the bar, what is it they believe? steve: nobody knows enough to believe anything. they can pick up a couple scenarios. -- think of a couple of scenarios. the one scenario that makes them uncomfortable is the second scenario where somebody is conscious. as i said, you can backtrack from where you know the airplane was when it was leveled off. you have an idea of where it might have run out of gas. you can draw a circle around that. if somebody was at the controls, they could have flown the airplane in any direction. we are trying to look to -- look for consistency so we can narrow the area for the plane. if they were flying it and heading toward the south pole and decided to go off to the right, now you opened up a really big search area. the airplane can glide about 125

miles after running out of gas. now after you have gone to the trouble to narrow and focus your search area, in this wild, open ocean, if somebody did something at the end that was unpredictable, you have made it difficult. if it was murder-suicide somebody would think, i'm going to make it extra hard at the end and do something unpredictable. charlie: we talk murder suicide we are talking about one of the passengers murdering the other -- one of the pilots murdering the other and committing suicide. steve: yes. charlie: not somebody coming in. steve: it is possible. there are some convoluted ideas about how that would happen. i don't think so. there are too many things. you remember when the airplane was flying north, when they were in between the vietnamese and

malaysian air defense zones -- they were in that gap. you had to be a pilot to know you were in that radar gap. to type wave points and and have the airplane fly to know where the transponder switch was, this also just somebody who was highly trained. charlie: is this approaching an amelia earhart mystery? steve: i think it is worse. million where heart -- a millionaire heart was a pioneer doing something -- amelia earhart was doing something everyone knew was dangerous. it was a tragedy. this was a murderer. 200 some odd people killed by somebody who had some sick which to take them to his own end. it is chilling. there was an act of evil. there were multiple acts of evil perpetrated. everybody flies. everybody understands how safe it is. and then you get something like this. boy, it shows you. charlie: and your best guess?

as to whether they will find something or not? steve: i'm optimistic. i'm going to give it 70%. i think that we have between now and october. the weather will start getting better in the southern indian ocean. i think they have the technique, the most sophisticated kinds of technologies available, and they are doing what everybody thinks they should be doing. they've had this peer-reviewed. they have every scientist in the the world looking at it and refining it. if we don't find it, i will be shocked. charlie: they shipped the debris back to paris because it was a french island? steve: correct. the french are quite good in accident investigations. i would be worried if they shipped it to malaysia or some country that was not as capable of or has demonstrated that

capability. charlie: the experience and equipment. steve: correct. charlie: thank you so much. it is a pleasure. my thanks to abc news as well. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: we continue with a look at the death of the taliban leader mullah omar, forced from

power by a us-led coalition in 2001 and has been considered the ghosts leader of the group. the taliban released a statement today saying he died of illness. it apologized for any mistakes omar made during his role of afghanistan. -- rule of afghanistan. the afghan government suggests that he died two years ago in pakistan. reports of his death have cast uncertainty over the fate of peace talks taking place between the taliban and afghanistan. joining me from washington matthew rosenberg. he is the national security reporter for the new york times. also peter bergen, an analyst. i am pleased to have them. peter, let me begin with this question. why would they keep it quiet that he died? how long do you think he has been dead? peter: answering the second

question first, that is still pretty unclear. we have the afghan government saying he died in 2013. like a lot of things, that may not be completely correct. why did they keep her secret -- keep it secret? there is no one else that can replace him. if you think about the claim, he said he was commander of the faithful. this is not saying that i am just head of the taliban, this is the claim that i am the leader of all muslims everywhere. it is a really invoked religious title that the prophet muhammad and his successors were the first commanders of the faithful. there is nobody in the second tier of the taliban who could really claim that title. we will see some sort of succession struggle probably. some people have mentioned his son might try to take over. there are a couple of other contenders who are senior taliban leaders. but none of them have the stature of mullah omar. charlie: does this mean people have been making decisions in his name with the imprimatur of

his reputation and spirituality? peter: i think that is true. we have already seen -- the taliban is hardly a unified movement. there are three big parts of it , the afghan, pakistan, india county, and the likely result of mullah omar's departure have confirmed these groups may go their separate ways. others may split off and be more inclined to align with isis. we have seen that with small taliban groups in afghanistan and pakistan. who is the only other commander of the faithful? the head of isis. this is really an opportunity for isis. charlie: matthew, what would you add to that? matthew: one person seems to have been giving orders for the taliban for the last two. beers. guatemala months or.

if he died, if mullah omar died in 2013, he spent two years deceiving his colleagues saying i have been talking to our leader. apparently there was a lot of disaffection with him. that really does set up for a pretty serious power struggle. he apparently wants to take over. that makes it so much harder to make peace if you have all these internal factions vying for power. charlie: but i assume -- he is obviously number two, but it is said that one of the contenders. if not likely, the most likely. is the other his son? matthew: his son is one of them. there are a few others that are around. there was a former military commander who once had been a prisoner in guantanamo bay. the other problem with the taliban, it is always hard to

tell what is going on inside. this is a group of peasant clerics, many of whom have known each other for years. there are not a lot of outsiders in the inner circle. it is difficult for western intelligence agencies and even afghan intelligence agencies to really get inside the leadership and figure out what is going on. they get pieces from the outside, but not inside. charlie: i asked people after charlie: i asked people after osama bin laden was killed, why not mullah omar? you must know where he is. they would always say we think he is here, but we don't really know. and then i would say, would you go get him and they would say of course. peter: yeah, it says a lot about our intelligence agencies funded to the tune of $80 billion a year, like the tune of a trillion dollars plus.

it has come as a surprise that mullah omar, if these reports are true, died two years ago. he had $10 million on his head. one of the most wanted men in the national security arena. it goes to what matthew was saying. this is an opaque movement. i went back, when was the last time we could actually have a definitive proof of life from mullah omar? it looks like the last audiotape came in around 2005. since then, he has released written communications once a year. there was very little evidence that he was alive even when he was alive. the most basic facts have not been clarified. we have a biography saying he was born in 1960, but that wasn't very clear at all. it gets to this question of, negotiating with this opaque movement, their leader dies, what happens next? it will be complicated. on the plus side, if the

movement starts splitting, you are able to negotiate with the moderate elements. on the negative side there is no one figure who can bring them together and do a deal. that person was mullah omar. it is unlikely his successor will have the same ability to put his in premodern -- ability to make peace negotiations. charlie: do we know he wanted a deal, or do we assume so because they would not have done it if not? peter: i would be curious to see what matthew says. i can't believe they did not start negotiating some sort of deal without him. if you think about it, the negotiations between the taliban and the united states and the taliban and afghan government, this has been going on for many years. it long preceded the beau bergdel deal. it did not get very far when bowe bergdahl was released thickly, but it did not just start in the last six months. this is a process that has been

ongoing many years. i can't believe mullah omar would not have sanctioned it. charlie: matthew? matthew: it seems he did. if you look at it, the chief negotiator had been his secretary. that was 2012 when it started. the process stalled quickly. which goes to assume mullah omar was dissatisfied with how it went and americans were negotiating in bad faith. mullah omar, under his leadership, was adamant about not negotiating with cap -- with the afghan government. now they are. is that something most taliban support? we don't know. now that he is known to the -- known to be dead, will they support further negotiations with the afghan government? we don't know. there were talks that have been postponed. that raises questions. under what circumstances will the talk and to whom will they talk? charlie: what about their success on the ground in afghanistan today?

matthew: the one thing is -- they have done so well in the last year or two that perhaps this has been a blessing for them. they really have made impressive gains in northern afghanistan and parts of egypt and southern afghanistan, they have given the afghan military an incredible amount of trouble. the afghan military has struggled mightily to keep up with them. that is frightening as well. the movement that was leaderless where people were grousing about his absence, will it fall apart or continue to press forward? if it does continue to press forward, that should help to keep people on board, which could be problematic. charlie: peter, i found it interesting that in the notes of what we have learned, the family said we apologize for whatever mistakes we made to the state of afghanistan and to the taliban. it is an interesting thing to do.

although many people think of things like that. they don't really say them. peter: i'm not an expert on his molecule into -- islamic the ologies but -- islamic theolog y, but i know that when you die you are supposed to pay off all your debts. you are supposed to make amends to people. it is part of the act of dying. maybe this was their way of doing it. it is a puzzling statement. mullah omar made a lot of mistakes. he drove afghanistan, the world bank stopped measuring afghanistan's economic indicators under the taliban because there were none. the population of kabul is about 3.5 or 4 million people. they came in, a moment of a honeymoon, but they really took

away almost every aspect of life that most people enjoy. the economy dematerialized. yes, mullah omar had reasons to be sorry. charlie: and what they did for women and culture. two examples. peter: they provided something of a model for isis. you think about the destruction of the buddha, a huge story in 2001 -- they destroyed the major tourist attraction. that is similar to what we have seen isis do in museums in mosul and other sites in iraq and syria that they have destroyed. and the women, the same playbook. isis is more brutal. but the taliban is the most recent model we have seen. charlie: what will happen in pakistan because of his death? matthew? matthew: an american official

today said he is not sure the pakistanis knew about this. i pressed him on that, saying come on. i spent a lot of time in pakistan. they know where i am. how are they losing mullah omar? the way he put it was, if you make a decision early on you don't want to know, it is easy to lose track of them. the response so far has been to say nothing formal or official about it. they say, let's move on, guys. charlie: they said the same thing about osama bin laden. after he was shot they said, we didn't know he was there. matthew: the bin laden grade -- raid was an american force coming into their country, killing him and leaving, which was a huge problem internally. the challenge to their dominance. this does not challenge them at all. this is some old guy who died in a hospital we don't know about. it was easy to move on and say this is not our problem.

charlie: one of the things i remember -- peter can help me more -- i think was the head of intelligence of the saudi's to -- who went in person or otherwise talked to mullah omar and said, you've got to get osama bin laden out of here. peter: that is right. prince turkey went after the in the sea attacks in africa. turkey went and said this is it. you've got to expel this guy. mullah omar, this was an early indicator about how he would handle the question of bin laden. mullah omar told them to get lost. prince turkey wished he never attempted to do it. mullah omar was standing by bin laden long before 9/11. when 9/11 came on, he lost his

entire country on this point of principle about not handing bin laden over. charlie: he said it would be against my religion to -- not to treat a friend the way i am treating osama bin laden. peter: that is right. he gave an interview and said it would be betraying islam to hand over bin laden. charlie: did we come close to finding him? we might have, we could have. great going to hear reports from inside? -- are we going to hear reports from inside? peter: in 2010, i spoke to some senior u.s. intelligence -- intel officials. they said we think mullah omar is spending some of his time in karachi. that is where the afghans say he died. karachi is a big pakistani city

with 20 million people. that was -- was there assessment based on real information or a hunch? it was not clear. no one was surprised by the fact charlie: we had always believed that is where he was. peter: yeah. the senior leadership of the taliban has been living in pakistan. charlie: so what will this mean in terms of the taliban's effort to negotiate or take over afghanistan? matthew. matthew: sorry. it is hard to say. it depends. if they stayed together, they have been doing well militarily. if they fall apart, it undermines the rest of the country. it does not help afghanistan.

you have a bunch of insurgent factions in different places. no central authority. it is chaotic as ever and dangerous for ordinary people, whomever. on the point of the americans, i spoke to a fair amount of americans and i was told it was not until tuesday he was convinced omar was probably dead. they were not looking very hard. he may have been a wanted man, but when the afghan intelligence looked into this, they quickly found out not many people wanted to put effort into finding him. it was not like bin laden. there was no special cia team hunting him down. charlie: why was that? matthew: the americans had come to see him as a spiritual leader. they were worried about field commanders.

one general compared him to el cid, whose corpse was put on a horse after he was killed. why bother looking for this guy, who is not important enough? experts can debate whether that was a wise decision. the americans had kind of written him off. that's the impression i get. peter: also, if you are going to negotiate, the united states made a decision to negotiate. you can't have somebody on a capture-kill list if you are in the middle of a negotiation. it does not work that way. at a certain point, the afghan taliban is not considered a terrorist organization like al qaeda because we negotiated with them. we won't negotiate with terrorists. we started negotiating.

we would not have targeted him the same way. it is interesting this is news. we found out this week that mullah omar was dead and might have been a long time. it raises questions about the intelligence community's capacity. matthew: even now, they are just trying to piece this together. we know he is dead. two weeks ago, two years ago, we are not sure. that says a lot. they are trying to figure this out. they don't have a clear idea. charlie: everything in terms of these issues has to do with isis and their recruitment and success. all of that. do you share that? peter: there is a point. if you take what matthew said about the taliban advancing, and you add to that mullah omar's departure may be an advancement for isis recruitment, that

traces the question about american policy in afghanistan. we are going to pull out all troops by the end of 2016. whether it is hillary clinton or jeb bush that as president, i think he or she might well say do we want a rerun of isis taking over afghanistan or pakistan? should we look at this policy? that is a good question to ask. the obama administration is leaving. that does not mean isis may not become a factor in that region. matthew: you look at the parallels between the taliban and isis. when the taliban took over in the 1990's, it was the world premiere jihadist movement. they have been supplanted by isis.

the same kind of claim of leading the faithful and now they attract everyone. there is still a lot of fighting in afghanistan. is this going to fall apart? it is so hard to tell. it is amazing it took two years to figure out the guy had died. charlie: matthew congratulations on doing some very good reporting. peter, cnn, his book was called "manhunt." we will be right back. ♪

♪ ♪ (ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...) (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) (hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store.

charlie: adam moss is here. the editor in chief of new york magazine. last year announced the magazine would be published biweekly. it has won 30 awards. david carr said many would suggest mr. moss with his deft hand is one of the best editors working in the hybrid age. i would agree with that. i'm pleased to have adam moss at the table. while we are quoting here, you said to me 10 years ago that i love this magazine.

do you still love this magazine in the same way? adam: yes. in part in the same way. in part in a different way. 10 years ago we were just a print magazine. it was a very exciting thing to do. it was limited in dimension and audience. in those 10 years, we have really become a publication of about five different digital magazines. one on entertainment and fashion, news. bolger is one of them. the cut. the science of us is something we started this year, last year. human behavior. and of course the web operates with a different dynamic.

although it still has storytelling. charlie: his electronic reading different? adam: a lot of people print it. a lot of people read it episodically on their phone. they are directed to it from social media or other places. they don't necessarily know it is part of the new york magazine universe. these are the dynamics of how we live in this media world right now. that is all fine with us. we do also kind of supplement it often with other material that you can only do in a digital medium. video and animation, audio. the sorts of things you do. charlie: my favorite word is would you send me a link? adam: links are very important. it is an incredible way to

distribute material. charlie: send me a link. it is instantly there. adam: and it has come recommended by somebody. charlie: and it comes clean. adam: yeah. there are many people in my business, even today, who are resistant about the not so new ways people take in information. i have never been that way. and we as a company have never done that. the digital medium has allowed us to explode the amount of people who can read our content and has allowed us to change our business and journalistic mission. charlie: it reduces your expenses. adam: it is cheaper to do.

there is no paper or postage. manufacturing cost is cheaper. the important thing about it, it eliminates the distribution obstacles that the mail presents. so suddenly we publish and we are read in los angeles, london, shanghai, and that changes the mission of the magazine from one that is about the concrete jungle of new york city, which has been part of it, to a kind of global urban universe. that has been exciting.

charlie: what about biweekly? adam: that relates to this. we went by weekly for three reasons. stabilize our finances. no question. another question was to liberate money from printing fewer issues, to buttress our digital universe of journalism. the third reason was to respond to the ways people exist in time as part of their reading life. weeklies, when magazines were weekly, you would get time and newsweek. you would get the new yorker. a series of magazines on a monday and they would have a certain urgency because one week meant something. with the explosion of digital media, a week did not mean as much. therefore we thought as we were doing so much online, we thought it was more valuable to readers

if we created a biweekly that was more substantive that you'd want to keep around. we would have more time to do it and because that became our mission. we would go fast and slow. the fast stuff was all mine. the slow stuff was more deliberate about making a higher-quality magazine. charlie: does the digital revolution put a restriction on editing, which is what you do? adam: it has a lot of effects on editing. stuff has to go up faster. there is less time to edit and write. it is a more impulsive medium in that sense, which is not to say it is not intelligent. it is more like conversation. you don't have a chance to think about what you're going to say.

there is that aspect of it. what i think of, this is very interesting in the way i work, when i was a magazine editor the most important thing was to create an environment that we controlled as editors. you read the cover first, we controlled your mood as you went through the magazine. the order of things was important. the mix was important. and now in this world, with the explosion of social media, most people come at all of your pieces of content independent of the environment. they are floating in the ether. so that thing i have been trained to do, which is to create a controlled environment, has been blown to smithereens. the reader -- charlie: is it scary? adam: it is different.

what is challenging is that we are still doing a print magazine we love. it is important to us. we have to do many things at once. we have to create a piece of what we hope is great journalism that can exist all by itself outside of the environment. and we also pay attention to the surrounding material and the effect, the emotional effect which has been one of the things i have loved about magazines. the emotional relationship people have with the publication. you look at a magazine. magazines have different personalities. charlie: it speaks to your spirit and your taste. adam: and your mood. charlie: look at this cover. started in 1968.

bringing together a stable of gifted writers. you have done that. it was a combination of features, political features new york features, national stories. is it the same? adam: it is. charlie: as you become global, is new york a less significant component? new york gives you a location and a title. adam: and a sensibility. a way of looking at the world. the content itself is not about new york so much, but the content, everything is informed by a certain way new yorkers think.

you know what i'm talking about. it has to do with a kind of skeptical intelligence. a compassionate intelligence. we have tried hard to make a magazine that is sympathetic and wry and funny. charlie: if somebody said you have a european sensibility, would you like that? magazines in paris that admire you and give you awards. adam: new york city has always been more like a paris or london then it has been like a cincinnati. charlie: even chicago. adam: so to that extent, we are a cosmopolitan magazine of a particular kind. we have leaders in paris. we have readers in london and chicago. miami. whatever.

these places that have a certain lens and that is what we are about. so whether we write about bill de blasio, barack obama, hollywood, science, what not, we try to do all of that through a lens which is broad but has consistent attributes. charlie: take a look at this cover. caotes came and sat at this table. adam: he is an amazing intellect. one of the true public intellectuals of our age. charlie: what does that mean of our age? adam: there used to be a category. categorically he is that. also he has had an amazing effect on the discourse of the last few years. charlie: he writes about what he

knows. adam: what he knows personally and layering on to his own experience a great moral force and a great intelligence. charlie: where is the magazine going? adam: we are going to try to do what we do better. i think the basic formula we have, which is printing this magazine that we care about, still very crucial to our operation. expanding our digital journalism, doing more stuff we can publish. verticals, basically many magazines. we did a great digital project this year called scene, which was a pop of magazine about the art world.

those are exciting. charlie: out of your head? adam: that one wasn't. some of them are. very smart staff and entrepreneurial. charlie: the future of the magazine is fine. as long as they adjust. adam: i think so. one thing we have learned is for all of the famous problems with media, those problems are about business models and advertising. they are not about the demand for the work itself. we have an audience that is 10 times what it was when i got into the magazine. at least. and we are charging more for it.

people are paying for it. there is not a reader issue. readers want this stuff to do well. charlie: you said in a speech, what a mess of a business you are about to enter. what did you mean? adam: the business models are up for grabs. that essentially most businesses like ours have been dependent on advertising as their source of revenue. advertising still works. we have a strong advertising business. it is dangerous to be completely dependent on an industry which is undergoing a great deal of change. so different media companies are

doing different things. some of them are going to the conference business. some of them are going into television, very heavily into video. charlie: do you understand the impact video is going to have? is it going to be another component? adam: some companies will become more video companies than word companies. charlie: i can imagine -- adam: that kind of stuff is less important. we did one of those things about the history of the hamburger. charlie: who's idea was that? adam: benjamin wallace. anyway, if you go to the online version, you will find three videos that supplement the storytelling. they are all very good.

charlie: this was a great story. bill keller. adam: he was our partner. we had this idea in all of the conversation about rikers, what was not properly understood was the life, if you thought of it as a city, the life of the city was about. our operating idea was what does it smell like. so we went to bill keller, and a former editor of the new york times, and we created a team. that team went and did a series of intimate oral accounts of what life was like for the prisoners, the guards, librarians, teachers. really looked at it as if it were its own urban environment.

very intimate. and harrowing, as you would imagine, and with some interesting storytelling. online supplemented in all kinds of ways with storytelling you can do online. charlie: the obama history project. a conversation about where he stands. adam: what is fascinating, i looked at it last night, they were responding -- it is amazing

how fickle history is. they were responding, that peace was in january, they were responding to the events on the ground in january. any number of historian said what changed his legacy is what will never happen, a deal with iran. what would change his legacy is what will never happen, some kind of deal with cuba. all of these things were unimaginable in january. particularly the run obama has had over the past few weeks has had a great deal of affect on his legacy. charlie: adam moss of new york magazine. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

announcer: "brilliant ideas," powered by hyundai motors. narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it's a 21st century phenomenon, a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at the artists at the heart of this artists with a unique power to astonish, challenge, and surprise. in this program, danny lane. ♪