♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we are in phoenix, arizona at the walter cronkite. i am pleased to have as my guest senator john mccain. he is a big proponent of strong defense and america's role around the world. he ran for president in before 2008. serving in the senate, he was a member of the house of representatives. all of us know of his courage and heroism. senator mccain, is a pleasure to be in your home state.

senator mccain: profound congratulations on being awarded the award for outstanding journalism from the walter cronkite school for journalism. i think it is richly deserved and we are honored you would come to arizona to receive it. charlie: thank you. whenever they put my name in the same sentence as walter cronkite, that is a winning day for me. senator mccain: i understand. but it is richly deserved. charlie: you support the president's decision to remain in afghanistan? senator mccain: i support the decision, but not the number. if we could remain at 10,000, that would barely be enough. but he also says we would go down to 5000. maybe his successor would have a major impact on that that is an -- on that decision, but to have a minimum number rather than an efficient number -- i know for a fact military leaders

recommended a much larger number, but when you go down to the bare minimum, you put the lives of the men and women serving at greater risk. i wish you listen more to the recommendations of general campbell and some of the others. charlie: was that number that much larger? was it a question of 2000 or three thousand more? was it much larger? senator mccain: the first recommendation, i'm told, was 20,000. charlie: that's almost double. senator mccain: i would have been comfortable with 10,000 to 15,000. but, again, it is very clear that what you need to do is withdraw on the base of conditions, not on calendar. charlie, what just happened in kunduz is indicative of a fundamental weakness that cannot be addressed unless we stay and give them the support they need. they don't have an air force. they don't have good intelligence. they don't have medevac capability for example.

there are some of the things we can do in support that we would have to do. charlie: but people will raise the question, and you have heard this in the armed services committee, we have spent so much. we have given them so much in terms of treasure and blood and they have not been able to train very effective forces so far. senator mccain: one reason is because of the rapidity of the withdrawal. another reason is pakistan. can i also point out, the zeal to get everybody out. we have 30,000 troops still in korea. we have troops in germany, we have troops in bosnia. we have been leaving troops behind ever since world war ii. american people do not mind because americans are not dying or wounded, but we do spend a large amount of american treasure to maintain stability in those places and olivia is an

-- and libya is the example of what happens when you don't. charlie: i will come to libya and a moment. do you think is a recognition of the failure of the obama administration that it was too , early to withdraw from afghanistan and iraq? senator mccain: i think this is a contradiction. he wanted to leave office and get us out of both wars. remember, this was the good war in the president's universe. i believe it is an acknowledgment of the recognition and the need to have an american force their unless we want to see a destabilization. the taliban have been given weapons by iran. isis is getting a foothold. the sanctuary in pakistan still exists. it's a tough call. charlie: let me turn to syria.

you have said that the white house has no strategy. that its actions are floundering. what should we be doing? senator mccain: a long time ago when secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary of defense leon panetta and the director of the cia, then general petraeus, recommended we equip the free syrian army, that is when the president said it is not a matter of whether, it is a matter of when bashar al-assad will leave. since that refusal, and of course the red line was one of the seminal moments in the history of the obama administration. my friend, that had a profound effect, not only in the middle east, but around the world. charlie: meaning that the red line was violated and the president did nothing, even though there was an agreement the russians to get the chemical weapons out of syria? senator mccain: first of all, they are still using some chemical weapons. but the point is, the president

did not say if they crossed this red line we will intervene militarily. he did not say we would cooperate with the russians to get them out. he said we are going to strike if you cross this red line. and he didn't. that is why -- the saudi's just went to moscow to buy $9 billion worth of weapons. uae bought $7 billion. qatar bought $5 billion from the russians. that is inferior equipment. because they are trying to adjust to the dramatic reduction or end of america's serious influence in the region. now we see vladimir putin establishing himself as a major influence in the world, the -- in the middle east, the first time the russians have been able to do that since the russians out in 1973. if we had taken no steps at the

time, then i think fisher sought would be gone now. i still do not think what we should give up on the moderates. what putin and bashar al-assad are trying to do is face us with a choice of either isis or bashar al-assad. and then obviously would have to make an accommodation with the assad side. charlie: that's exactly what latimer putin said to me -- vladimir putin said to me. i'm coming to defend bashar al-assad because that's the only government. and we need a government to defeat isis, so let's do that first. senator mccain: i say with great respect, i understand putin's point of view, but what about the 240,000 syrians that have been injured by assad? what about the millions of refugees? are we going to come to some accommodation with this guy? right now, we are training and

equipping young men to go into syria to fight -- in the case of the one program run by dod, it has been a complete collapse. but why did that collapse? because they made these young men swear they were only going to fight against isis when these young men think their enemy is the guy who has butchered everybody in their family. now we see the dod sponsored program, which has some viability -- excuse me, the cia-backed program. guess what? vladimir putin is killing them. so, what is the message to young men in syria? go back -- you train -- we train you and you go back in, but we will not protect you from vladimir putin slaughtering you? charlie: what would be your message to vladimir putin if, in fact, you knew the airstrike killed people the cia was supporting? senator mccain: i would say as hillary clinton has recommended

and david petreaus recommended, we have a no-fly zone. and we have a buffer zone. and we call it -- also for refugees, also a place or we can arm and train -- charlie: and if they shoot that down? senator mccain: that depends on how they did it and what they did. if they come in with evil intentions to destroy these people -- i would say they do so at their own risk. if it is an overflight, and obviously are talking about a different scenario. have declared a no-fly zone and a buffer zone to protect people and will doubt the russians come, i bet you $100 to donuts that they would never do that if they thought they would be responded to. come to syria because he's in a vacuum?

is that what happened with vladimir putin? senator mccain: i think the primary reason is bashar al-assad was very, very weak. by the moderates who are the major factor there. he wants to maintain his base in the mediterranean, which have been in jeopardy if the assad side was overthrown, and he was to be a major player in the middle east, which he has obtained that role. charlie: he is going to be a major player in the middle east now. he will have a base there. what is the solution for syria, because of all of the tragedy that is cap into that country, with more than almost 300,000 deaths and 4 million refugees, is it to find as the , administration suggests, some kind of transition government? is it necessary to figure out how we will work with the russians to defeat isis? because the director of the cia said we do not want to see isis

marching into damascus. senator mccain: do you know how many times they have floated this idea of how are we going to work with the russians? do you think that vladimir putin is interested in removing bashar power? om and even if you did, do you think he would not have someone who is not his close ally? to make sure that he kept his base and his major role there. of course not. charlie: do you know what the administration says about that? he is going to fail. it's going to be an embarrassment. he will fail the way that they failed in afghanistan. senator mccain: i certainly hope they are correct. in the meantime, how many thousands, innocent syrians have to die while he finds himself in a quagmire? or, as the secretary of defense, i like very much, said, is unprofessional. the major goal is to keep our airplanes from flying anywhere near russian airplanes while they kill the people we are

training. there is a certain immorality here, charlie, the likes of which i have seldom seen. charlie: where would be the ground forces you would think would be effective on the ground, and what they need some kind of additional help from american troops in one way or the other? senator mccain: i think in the no-fly zone, yes, they would need american troops, some trainers, that kind of assistance. and that would be perfectly legitimate to me. also we would need a lot more in iraq itself. as he watched the russians -- i'm sure you have seen this new accommodation between someone and the russians the , "intelligence sharing." the prime minister of iraq is that he would like to see russian airstrikes in iraq as well. charlie: is the risk a wider war? senator mccain: there are risks in every thing we do.

but the path we are on will lead to putin's ambitions and the continued growth and rise of isis and continued russian increasing influence in the region, which cannot be good. charlie: brzezinski said that there is one option. demand that russia cease and desist. and is it any repetition will prompt an immediate retaliation. senator mccain: i'm a big admirer, but if you could say we are going to defend these areas, we are not going to let you barrel bomb these people, we are going to train and equip these people and this is a no-fly zone and this is a buffer zone and we are going to care for these people. then, if vladimir putin moved

in, then you could expand from there. isis is not that strong. isis is strong because they are succeeding. vladimir putin is providing -- presiding over the weakest economy perhaps in all of europe. it's not as though these people are invincible. it's only they have a goal in strategy and we don't. ♪

charlie: there are people who argue also, let the russians fall on their own sword.

that if they are there, they will find out they are no better at solving the mess in syria than anyone else and it will end up the same weight afghanistan ended up for them when they went home and had been defeated by the mujahedin. senator mccain: i might remind you that we supported the mujahedin. that's something we have not done. my question -- how many men, women, and children are we willing to watch be slaughtered by the russians and bashar al-assad -- by the russians and bashar al-assad? charlie: you are saying we have to do whatever is necessary including boots on the ground to stop them. senator mccain: i'm not talking about 100,000. i'm talking about some boots on the ground. when you look at libya, what happened -- charlie: we supported going into libya to overthrow gadhafi, and now you have a failed state. a failed state with isis making

gains. what are the lessons of that? senator mccain: the first step is defeat and the change in government. we still have 38,000 troops in korea, as i mentioned, the most important way, you have to help them build a nation. we walked away. we completely walked away from libya. and joe lieberman and lindsey graham and i wrote a piece right after it and said, you've got to help them secure weapons caching. you got to help them with society building. you got to help them with people who are wounded. you've got to do things to help these countries make the transition. if you walk away from any country that has been governed by nothing by a dictator -- look at south korea after the armistice in south korea. i'm saying it did not have to turn out that way and libya. because a completely walked way. i called up leon panetta and i said, leon, send a hospital ship. they have 20,000 wounded in

libya. send a hospital ship and help them treat their wounded. that would be the greatest pr thing you can do. no, they could not do it. they did not do anything. when you say these things into -- ended up the wrong way, the end of the wrong way because we do not follow through. charlie: and you have said, everybody knows russia is winning. senator mccain: in the short term, he clearly is. look at vladimir putin. he has been able to insert himself in the middle east in a way they have not since 1973 and he is playing a major role in a lot of places. he has been able to dismember ukraine. he has been able to take crimea. he is putting enormous pressure on the baltic countries. charlie: there are those who argue what russia is doing -- that it has built up and wisely build up its military notwithstanding is economic

, circumstances -- it is building up its military so it has a more effective military than five years ago. senator mccain: his goals are much larger than a well-trained military. charlie: but it is a recognition he has a stronger military than he has ever had. senator mccain: absolutely. look at the investment they have made. look at their latest aircraft. look at their surface to air capabilities. look at the operation when they invaded georgia. it was kind of ham-fisted. a lot of mistakes. compare that with what they did in crimea. they've gotten a lot better. and their economy is fundamentally weak. in history, when dictators have weak economies and problems at home, what do they do? charlie: they create war. benghazi. speaking of libya. has the committee been totally discredited in your judgment? senator mccain: i think there has been an attempt to -- and i cannot judge what this committee has done until the final rendering of their conclusions,

etc. i know trey gowdy. i know that he is an honest man and a man of integrity. so before i make a decision and , before anybody should, let's see the results of this. charlie: it's not about benghazi. now it's about her e-mails and everything else. senator mccain: every major investigation you and i have seen leads a different direction. certainly watergate was a great example of that. charlie: but is republican credibility on trial here now as secretary clinton comes to testify? senator mccain: i think the conclusions at the end of all of this -- because the conclusion that they reached whether the , american people believe they are legitimate or not, will be the ultimate test. charlie: what do you believe? senator mccain: i know this. people do not come to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and rpg's. i happen to be on a sunday

morning show right after susan rice was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. i said, no one brings an rpg and mortar to a spontaneous demonstration. even when the bodies came home, i was in amherst, and hillary clinton told the families, we will get the people who made this hateful video. by that time, it was obvious that there was no cable video. that this was a planned and well carried out attack. charlie: there was a hateful video, but you're saying notwithstanding, it was not that. that they clearly went there with weapons in the beginning. mccain: absolutely. absolutely. i know that. it is well known that chris stevens sent back many warnings, severe warnings -- charlie: secretary clinton's response is it was not my

responsibility to be in charge of security. that is not the secretary of state does. senator mccain: when the ship runs aground, the captain says i was not in charge of navigation or the navigator was. charlie: if it happens on your watch, you are responsible? therefore, how should she be held accountable? senator mccain: what did she know, when did she know it, why didn't she know it, all of those questions. the usual. you and i have seen these investigations before on occasions. watergate. nixon, what did he know, when did he know it applies here. so, we will see. what i would ask is to let it play out. i not familiar with what they are doing. i do believe they have been pretty well in controlling leaks. i think they have done a pretty good job there given the sieve

-like nature of washington. charlie: it will be interesting when she testifies. senator mccain: i was there on the foreign relations committee when she went through that tirade about what difference does it make? that was a disgraceful performance on her part. charlie: she basically preceded that by saying americans were killed, so who cares? that is what she said. let me turn to iran to rid the -- the radians are now beginning to dismantle. what is your expectation? just testedin they an icbm. there are now pouring in to ran to see if they have missed capacity to do what? senator mccain: in icbm usually carries a nuclear weapon. they are pouring into syria to fight with russian airpower -- charlie: you're saying iranians, not hezbollah?

senator mccain: they are -- supporting and supplying people in yemen. charlie: what should we do about iranian behavior? beyond the agreement that does not deal with the rainy behavior backup senator mccain: i think it is very wrongheaded to take an arms agreement can treat it in a vacuum. especially when everyone knows that barack obama's ambition from the beginning was there was this new arrangement with iran where we would have a whole new changed landscape in the middle east. and obviously when you see their behavior, that is not happening. now they have 100 billion or so to reinforce -- charlie: listen to this. this is from henrik kissinger, you're very good friend, --

especially during the time leading up to running for president. american policy on iran has moved to the center of its middle eastern policy. the administration insists it will take a stand against jihadists and imperialist designs by iran and it will deal sternly with the violations of the nuclear agreement. but it also sees passionately committed to the quest for bringing about a reversal of the hostile, aggressive dimension of iranian policy through historic evolution bolstered by negotiation. and it goes on to say that if in fact, they are looking to an analogy with china and his opening to china does not work? senator mccain: as he points out in that article, there were 40-some russian divisions. this was the precept. this is why barack obama refused to say a word on behalf of the demonstrators in 2009 after a corrupt election in tehran. so, it seems at least so far it is abundantly clear there will

not be any change in iranian behavior. charlie: with respect to israel and iran and the united states relationship with israel --is it at a low point? senator mccain: clearly. it is very much at a low point. i talked to the israelis all the time. they are very disillusioned and very upset. and by the way, just for a second. this new thing with the stabbing. this is the quintessence of asymmetric warfare. motivate somebody who is willing to give up their lives, and kill as many people as you can before you are killed. charlie: could it lead to a new intifada? senator mccain: i think you are seeing the beginnings of it. with this new wrinkle. rather than stonethrowing and all that kind of stuff. you know you were going to die, but kill as many israelis as you can before that? that's awfully hard to counter. one of the soldiers at the killing just had a press id on.

charlie: one of the palestinian protesters who came forward at a press id. let me turn to politics. you are running for reelection. senator mccain: yes, sir. charlie: what is it like to run for reelection this year? what is the temper of the public? senator mccain: very angry. charlie: how washington? senator mccain: at washington, the slow economy. particularly and lower and middle income. charlie: and they have a reason to be angry? senator mccain: yes. and they have a reason to be angry at congress because they do not see any real results. that would direct leases them to better lives. there's a a degree of antagonism between the two parties which is maybe higher than you and i have seen. so they want to clean everybody out. charlie: speaking of that, donald trump. senator mccain: [laughter] well, look, he is leading. he has struck a nerve and he is

playing on the situation, as you and i just discussed -- charlie: immigration and other issues. he is struggling to have latino votes. people say that the republican party is during away any opportunity to have hispanic and latino support because the perception is the republican party holds the view that donald trump does. senator mccain: well, that is true to a significant degree, that there is that feeling. look at the percentage of the vote that has steadily decreased since george w. bush -- ronald reagan used to take a majority, as you know. it has decreased every election. i think it's clear we are not attracting a significant percentage. charlie: you call them crazy. senator mccain: let me say this.

when you look at the demographics of the growth of the hispanic population, no party is going to win unless they are consigned to a very small percentage of the vote. in 2035, the arizona majority party will be hispanic. it is just the growth of the party. by the way, small business, pro-life, pro-military, all of the things. are 52 new small businesses there. for the best small business people? charlie: if donald trump is at the head of the republican ticket, and the polls say he will, if he is at the head of the party at 2016, will that threaten the reelection of john mccain? senator mccain: it is about having an effect on everybody. charlie: will there be a negative effect on john mccain?

senator mccain: i think it would be minimized because i have had such a long relationship with the hispanic community in arizona. but i do not think it will make it any easier. it could have an effect nationwide. there was a guy doing statistics that said if ronald reagan got a certain percentage of hispanic votes, if there were that many now, it would be hard for a republican to win a general election with the percentage of the hispanic vote due to the increasing numbers. charlie: is the john mccain of that campaign in 2000 the same john mccain today? senator mccain: sure. yeah. charlie, there is no point in changing now. charlie: and this -- senator mccain: that is one of the reasons i'm going to have a tough fight. charlie: because you are a

straight talker. there's also this. in a long and distinguish career what are you most proud of? , what is john mccain, beyond the family tradition of service to the country -- what is it? senator mccain: i am most proud of my military service for having the strength of my comrades to refuse an offer to come home early. in public life, i think i have been most effective and can be effective on national security. being chairman of the senate armed services committee has enormous responsibilities and authorities. that is why i am running again. because i see that we are -- and part of the problem is republicans that only care about deficits. we see frustration now. we need to care for the men and women.

we need to train them, give them the weapons and benefits they need. we need a strategy. you were quoting henry kissinger. when he and george schultz and madeleine albright testified before the armed services committee, they agreed the world has not been in more turmoil since the end of world war ii. by the way we have the largest , number of refugees since world war ii. charlie: thank you for allowing me to visit with you in your home state. senator mccain: you are always welcome back here in arizona. i knew you're going to be here a little while longer please spend , a lot of money while you are here. thank you. charlie: i do not have a lot of money. thank you. back in a moment. we will talk about journalism at the walter cronkite school of journalism and ask medications, where they are doing some remarkable things as they look at journalism, almost a laboratory for how journals and can have an impact. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: walter cronkite one set of the role of journalists their job is to hold up a , mirror, to tell the public what has happened. while the landscape continues to evolve, this task remains the same. we are here with eric newton, the school innovation chief who spent 15 years at the james knight foundation. chris callahan is the founding dean.

he is also vice provost of the downtown and is. steve capus is my friend and executive of cbs news. an executive editor of cbs news. i am pleased to have them. welcome all. even know your home, thank you for letting us come all the way from new york to be here. steve has been here before. it is an honor for me to be here and meet you guys and your students. where are we in journalism today with the impact of new digital technology? how is it impacting us, and what are the lessons and challenges? chris: from a teaching perspective, huge challenges. the basic skills of journalism are arguably more important now. the ability to identify a story, the ability to report accurately, verily, and objectively, fairly and to be

, able to write. writing that can compel people to listen to a story. more important now than ever. layer on top of that a whole series of tools. digital tools that our students and young journalists now have the ability to use. they have to learn them and and learn them well. charlie: you have to tell the story and put the pictures together. eric: i think the digital age is turning journalism upside down. why we need journalism is the same. but who journalists can be, what stories are, when, where, how people get news, all of that is changing. the digital age is a major new age in communication. while everything chris is saying is right, the fundamentals of storytelling are not changing, so many things are. if we do not pay attention to

those, we will not just experience a decline of current traditional media, but a missed opportunity in connecting with the next generation. charlie: what is it you want to do? you have used the idea of it being not only a lad, but a place unlike medicine, where he really do get a kind of training that you may not have gotten in the past. eric: when i was at the night foundation, i worked with 100 journalism schools around the country. the best idea for teaching journalists is immersive education, like a teaching hospital. at a teaching hospital, medical students save lives. they can birth babies. they also develop new techniques and technologies. burn treatment, heart transplant protocols, infant

icu. that came out of teaching hospitals. our idea is that students have the capacity not just to do journalism in journalism school, but to learn to try new ways of doing journalism, new ways of engaging with the community. then they are better prepared , not just for the job when they graduate, but for the career after that. charlie: you have been executive producer of nbc nightly news, president of nbc news. you are an executive producer with an additional title at cbs news. is different today than when you are an executive producer at nightly news? steve: it is different. you cannot have an explosion of technology and distribution platforms and say we will do the same job we were doing in the 1980's and things have changed. 1990's. the information age is a wonderful time. i think what this really comes down to is a quest for relevance. we want to stay relevant to news consumers.

so, we have direct ties that by the time they come around to a place like the evening news, they know it is going on. there is a lot of commoditized information. i do not want to be in the commodities business. i want to be in the business of offering something new. charlie: you have the same elements -- white house correspondent, correspondents around the world. steve: true. and from those deployments, we are in the same sorts of things. i would say that in this age, you can kind of do whatever journalism you want. i have chosen to be on a network where i think what our quest for relevance is is presenting information of unquestionable caliber and high quality. and unique enterprise journalism. that white house reporter has to have something different. it has to advance the story.

the competitive situation has become so much greater. however, we still do rely on the fundamentals. i want the brand of cbs news to continue to mean something. that is where we are absolutely in partnership with some of schools -- the great schools like arizona state or temple. they have to give us journalists who are ready to go. otherwise, we are not going to be able to turn out the kind of quality work that is required. charlie: has the path for journalists today become different? for example, often you get a job , in the 150th market if it was television, and go to the 50th market, and then you may go to network.

is that the path and hours at different? chris: those are still paths, but there is much more in the news ecosystem. there are so many of them. you still sense that the students are learning in digital news, skills that are so transferable not only to news, but two different industries. everybody is in the business of trying to tell their own story. to tell you accurately and powerfully. charlie: they have podcasts, so many other ways to create a different newscast. eric: and if you know some of the tools and technologies coming out, you can, as a young person, get hired in an entry position at the best news organizations in the country. because news organizations have , to change with the times. if graduating students are prepared to help with the newest ways of doing things, it can save an awful lot of time. things that can be better and help us do journalism faster and

better. then they can become extremely , valuable to the big news organizations. it used to take a long time to get to "the new york times." now, you can get there right out of school, working in digital-related jobs. charlie: it is a sense of value about news and values about a sense of right and wrong. chris: that is always the starting point. that remains true throughout. at a place that has walter cronkite's name on the building, that is little easier for us to do. say walter was , extremely good friends with the gentleman who owned a cbs affiliate for decades and decades. i was there in the early 1980's. it was the late tom chauncy who said, how can we help what was at the time, a struggling

regional journalism school to be affiliated with great journalists? walter is the first name. walter had only one condition. and that was that journalism remain a journalism school, not a school of media. journalism was the driving element. charlie: has that changed? chris: not at all. the focus on journalism remains. that is our standard. charlie: he would come here and present the award every year. chris: he would. and interact with students. it was a wonderful thing to see. 100, 200 students in a room with walter, regaling them with stories. as you know, he was always more interested in their stories than his. charlie: the secret of walter that some people knew but not many, was his curiosity.

he was never being anchorman and for hard news, but his fascination, somehow he invited , the nation's curiosity about space, and about medicine, and about the universe. and also about celebrity and the rest of it. he enjoyed the company of people he admired because of their skills as a musician, filmmaker or cultural figure. eric: if you had two students to consider and they were equal storytellers, you would want the one that was creative, curious, adaptable. the one that had more than storytelling skills. they had something plus. that is the difference between great journalists that tell people things they absolutely need to know to run governments and their lives, and the ones who are not as great. charlie: those kinds of people may have been the demise of the evening news. at the same time, abc, cbs, fox

reached 15 million people. steve: the audience is a significant audience, there is no question about it. we have been hearing about the imminent demise of the evening newscast since we have been doing this, but i do not see it. there will always be a home for a place that does summarize the day's news, that gives context and perspective, and gives unique investigative reporting. and the places that are true to their brand will survive. charlie: what i think is important is that this has freed us from real-time. you can watch an evening newscast in front of the television at 6:30, but there are other places to watch it. you did not want me to say that, did you?

steve: i actually like that. because, my point is you will , not get somebody to watch something with a short shelf life. if all the news that we do on the evening news is only kind of a summary of what took place, and there is no real investigative reporting or unique reporting, there is no reason to go to the dvr. you have already known the headlines. you are writing in your car on the way home, and you had news radio on. a steady stream online all day long. i am ok if somebody wants to dvr the broadcast because we will make it worth the investment. i do not think they're going to watch it a week from tomorrow. charlie: it is not just that. you can go to a cbs app. what do you see? steve: you can see a streaming broadcast, a 24-hour streaming

channel of cbs newscasts. you can go back into the archives and watch "60 minutes." you can watch any of the broadcast, you can watch "this morning." i think it is worth the time. this is a nod to the audience and making sure we are staying relevant. because they will say, i get my , news from the phone. charlie: if they say i get the news from my phone -- steve: then we had better do -- better be there. eric: on the one hand, we come from the 20th century when the newsmakers were the gatekeepers. nobody was a bigger gatekeeper and walter cronkite. now, the fence is gone. the gate is gone. but millions of people are walking through where the gate used to be. some of it is content. some of it is habit. it is what is there.

it gives them meaning in a world full of data, full of information. we continue to provide that. steve: but it is a two-way street. for all of those years, when walter was doing a broadcast, broadcast networks have this added to, that we were about to present the news. and, now, the news. and it was a one-way street transmitted from cbs and the other networks -- and the audience was told to respect it because it is network programming. they do not care as much about what people were saying or what we were doing. but you had better care right now and have engaged in the conversation. charlie: this is your point about relevancy? steve: relevancy, and it is a two-way street. it is not just one way. chris: one of the things we're trying to teach is that audience matters in a way maybe it didn't

matter 20 years ago. when i first started out i would , write a story and send it out and that was it. i did not pay attention to who read it or whatever. now, we need to make sure those individuals know who is reading it and why they are reading it. eric: talking about public broadcasting, here at the cronkite school, there is the public insight network. this is a general outreach program for everybody who wants to be involved in the news, wants to be a source for the news. they want to talk to reporters. you amass thousands of people in the database. it helps, in an organized way, to be in touch with the community. that kind of thing was not possible 20 years ago. charlie: the phenomenon of jon stewart, recently left the show

with great respect for his influence. with a young audience who came to him. what do you say about the notion of how a comedy program gains such respect among a young audience? eric: they were true jokes. there was a lot of truth in them. charlie: satire? eric: it is not a news thing. a different generation had "saturday night live." and now there is john oliver on hbo. charlie: here is what is interesting to me about that. most of what they do has to do with the news. most of what -- even the jokes are about playing off of what is happening today. it is the news that serves them

and their material. steve: i do not see it as a substitute. i see it as a way to get people interested. charlie: what about what it has done in bringing in a younger audience? steve: i welcome any time somebody comes into the space and is committed to serious journalism. and wants to try to expand our audience and her readers. charlie: the standards we all believe in. steve: i would hope that is what you want to see. the quickest way to doom yourself to irrelevance in the news space is to not be a stickler about fundamentals. and so a commitment to -- to stay true to qualities, the things that the audience expects of you, do not let the audience down. then you will be fine.

this is a great time because there is so much opportunity and so many new outlets like vice. i think it is great. because we are conditioning , people to seek news and information. that is a good thing for all of us. chris: and for us to look at different types of expand mentation. and are there lessons that we can draw and bring to our organization? charlie: chris, thank you for inviting me. john mccain let the cat out of the bag as to why i am here, but thank you for inviting me. i want to say to students that this is a wonderful way to spend your life. the idea of getting up in the morning, asking yourself what is real, relevant, interesting, compelling, it is remarkable. as fast as you can develop the skills to do that, they will

enhance your appreciation of what you are doing -- better writing, better comparisons, better analysis -- all of that is part of a life of a journalist. i have found myself after a long time in this business, working with a remarkable group of people. if you, out there, knew the quality of the men and women i have had the great fortune to work with, you would be proud of the people bringing you the news. these are really hard-working people. they care about the story. they spend a lot of time making sure they got it right. sometimes, we fail. but so often, we are doing things above and beyond the call of duty. but it is the duty, the duty to get it right. we often like to get it first, but most of all, we would like to get it right. i have had a pleasure and honor to work with a series of people that have been with me on the

program that first gained attention for me, the 60 minutes executive producer -- chris, executive producer of cbs this morning. all of them have been my colleagues and my boss and have helped me with whatever i have done that has enabled me to come here and be honored by you. those people deserve this every bit as much as i have. it has given me much more than i have given it. thank you. it is so nice to be with you from arizona state university. at the walter cronkite school of journalism and mass communication. good night. ♪

rishaad: it is wednesday, the 21st of october. this is "trending business." ♪ rishaad: we're heading to tokyo and mumbai this hour. we are looking at asia-pacific markets, the bank of japan may have to react. china is tied with the uk saying relations can only get better.

ferrari raising money. of us know what you think today's top stories on twitter. her -- public holider holiday here hand -- and hong kong/g. all at the moment in the mix. seeing a goodre gain from japanese equities. you might've just noticed the shanghai composite region from red to green, that has been the same all day. china stocks