charlie: joaquin guzman is one of the world's most famous druglords. for months, the mexican government struggled to locate him. kate del castillo was in contact with him. she arranged a meeting between el chapo, herself, and sean penn. penn wrote a 10,000 word account in "rolling stone" magazine. el chapo was arrested by the marines monday before the story

was published. i sat down for an exclusive interview with sean penn. we talked about all the questions that have arisen from this remarkable story. why does sean penn, an actor, and writer, and adventurer want to go to mexico to interview a drug lord who has escaped from prison with a notorious reputation for doing terrible things and supplying a lot of drugs to america? what is the point? mr. penn: i think myself, and a generation of americans, have been on a treadmill of seeing the same stories in the press, the same movies where the policy of the war on drugs which so deeply affects all of our lives

seems not to change. it seems to be so unmovable. in its focus on these druglords, do we often lose focus that with all of the money now $25 billion per year of taxpayer money, -- opium addiction is rising in united states and the death toll is going up. a greater death toll in americans lost in both the afghani and iraqi war. in the violence around the drug war, we are taking thousands of americans and putting them into

prison for their illness and piling up our courts demanding over the capacity of our law enforcement, and filling our prisons. as a father, i think of those fathers who sadly fell victim to those addictions and the traumas that they go through in that prison system that they bring home to their children. it occurs to me that often it is a simple idea that often because we want to simple fight the problem and we want to look at a black hat and put our resources into focusing on the bad guy. i understand that. i absolutely understand justice and the rule of law. but we look so much in that

direction with tunnel vision that we forget about the programs of support when somebody has been overmedicated and a hospital or necessarily medicated but they do not have follow-up treatment to get off of and they pick up the street level version. that's one. i think that i find it so that in most of the media, by no means all, but most of what most americans spend their time watching on television that we get isolated from any kind of imagination that might move the problem forward so i feel that i can compartmentalize myself and that i can go and spend time with someone like that and do what i call experiential journalism.

i do not have to be the one who reports on the alleged murders or the amount of narcotics brought in. i go and spend time in the company of another human being, which everyone is and i make an observation and try to balance that with the focus that i believe we tend to put too much emphasis on. when i understood from colleagues of mine that there was the potential for contact with him, it struck me that i wanted to -- charlie: to do what, sean? clearly there are a huge problem with drugs in america. it is a terrible thing. most of us understand that and we have not been able to do very much about it. a lot of those drugs come from mexico from people like el chapo, who provide them.

but what is going to see him going to do about it other than somehow getting a lot of attention? mr. penn: for myself, it has always been true, inescapably true, that i feel complicit in the suffering going on in those prisons because i am not thinking about it every day. i'm not watching these laws showing no progression, these rehabilitations that are not happening. so i am looking the other way. i find that equally complicit with murders in juarez. as a culture, if we don't start to focus that way, i feel it that way. when i spend time with that person, there but for fortune -- that's true of most people. if not themselves, a child of theirs, abbas of theirs, the

library and down the street that if given circumstances, any of us could go to those places and again, without making a judgment -- the arrest of el chapo is at best, at best, going to be a symbolic victory of the rule of law. it will not affect narco trafficking. charlie: how do you see him? you spent seven hours around him. mr. penn: i see him as one man who, with the choices he was given, with the imagination and the entrepreneurial drive that he had, attached it to something that is experienced in its

harvesting and selling in a very different way than it experiences usage. the realities of that world, which have bred such incredible and horrible violence are again something that has been chronicled very well. that is part of what should be reviewed. every time we look at those numbers, it does seem our nature to want to find that person and that thing at fault and not look toward the long vision result. charlie: why can't you do both? mr. penn: i think my article is an example of that. any careful reader understands that the article is focused on re-examining the policy of the war on drugs. what happens is, anger leads to

sensationalism because sensationalism sells. and we see it in our candidates today in the election, tapping into anger. we are not making rational decisions. we take all of the focus and we keep putting it on that subject. the same thing that happened with my article. the article, as with the general dialogue about this war on drugs, which is mostly about el chapo, what they have done -- i'm talking about many of the primary media outlets and the reporters, what they have done is taken something that is of a nuanced nature and put it into a nuanced-free zone. it is cherry picked and used to propagate this continued dismissal of the real problem.

my article should not have made this much noise. el chapo should not have been this popular a figure. charlie: he was a popular figure to talk about and read about before you went to mexico. mr. penn: i am well aware of that. law enforcement will do what they do, we as a society have to demand of our policymakers that they do not just continue to justify retreading a failed policy decade after decade. charlie: giving you your interest and concern and humanitarian instinct, what about those who say this is ego, he likes being at the center of this. he is an adventurer and things of himself as a writer in the tradition of hunter thompson -- do you accept any of that? mr. penn: do i accept that people feel that way? i absolutely accept that they feel that way. charlie: are they right? mr. penn: no, they are not right. charlie but i am just asking what it's about. mr. penn: it hurts me.

this hurts to feel a part of a society and impotently so. i don't have the answer to this war on drugs. what i did for the last week is i have this incredible and almost intolerable front row seat to something that i know much more in the abstract day-to-day and in my other job, i have seen my on my share of unfair treatment of myself and others. charlie: how did you know to reach out to her? she is the principal person from everything we know that enabled you to visit him. mr. penn: there was a colleague that i had worked with in the past who had been involved in discussions with her and with a third-party about a film.

i'm not sure if they were talking about a documentary or a feature. i believe it was a feature. charlie: biopic? mr. penn: yeah. i still have no interest whatsoever in that. i had pre-signed away all potential movie rights because those kinds of things have to be addressed when you are putting out a magazine article. i have no interest and had no interest going there related to the film. only that i thought this is somebody who -- upon whose interview could i begin a conversation about the policy of the war on drugs. that was my simple idea. charlie but you wanted to have a conversation. mr. penn: with the reader. with him i wanted to sit, observant asked him questions

and use that as an anchor into this article. charlie: what did he say? why did he accept? mr. penn: i cannot read his mind. charlie: but you talk to him and you know the characters involved. mr. penn: i would say that, from the conversation that was had, in several ways, he wanted to be on the record about -- charlie: about what? mr. penn: i don't know. certainly not what is in my interview. i do not think that was his final aim. whether it was a documentary or a film, he is and was aware that there were companies considering taking films with or without his

involvement and i think that he had a sense that he would rather be telling his own story. charlie: as you know there have been the release of some exchanges between her and him. suggesting that he was enamored of her. smitten. impressed. an admirer. all of the things that -- was that it? mr. penn: the premise on which you are asking the question is you have started talking about the exchanges between them. i think we learned from those exchanges as much as we learn if we try to spy on our friends. we never really know the context. so we tend to read certain things into them. kate del castillo is a very bright and very warm and very moral person.

charlie: moral person? mr. penn: yes. she is an extraordinarily caring person. i have got to know kate and some of her friends. i think that whatever the nature of the communications with someone like this -- let's face it. it is a surreal place to put oneself and in these cables, you never know when someone is playing good cop, bad cop with somebody. charlie: you are suggesting that someone made it available? mr. penn: i'm suggesting that they fabricated it and said that this hollywood group is the reason we got it tracked. that is two things. that is vindictiveness of those in the mexican government who are either unhappy with his capture because of information

he has or are unhappy with kate castillo and they want to punish her for saying something that was not documentary to the mexican government in 2012. between that, i find my opinion -- strong opinion, is that, in looking for a cover, as they do, as any intelligence organization should, for the practices of that and the strategies of that intel, they had a very convenient one that was this rolling stone article happening and wanting to attribute it to the ego of the defendant, so on and so forth. charlie: the ego of el chapo? mr. penn: i have been watching the coverage and they say it's about that and this. charlie: what is it about?

mr. penn: what i'm suggesting is at the same operational intelligence that will used in their pursuit of others like el chapo is the same that they do not want the public or them to know. so the cover is, we don't like these guys, this actress said these things about us, this actor who thinks he is a journalist said this, let's use that. they are the ones that led us. people believe this stuff. mr. penn: and what it really is alarming, and how wrong the journalist that picked that up and has repeated it over and over again is that neither do they understand people reporting on the real world, how real it is, nor would they ever attempt those kind of reckless speculations upon their own families. but they will do it upon other

american citizens. ♪

charlie: do you believe the mexican government, whether it was made up or not, released it in part because they wanted to see you blamed and to put you at risk? mr. penn: yes.

charlie: they wanted to encourage the cartel to put you in their crosshairs? mr. penn: yes. charlie: are you fearful for your life? mr. penn: no. charlie: do you believe the cartel wants to do harm to you because they have accepted the idea that the visit that you made somehow led to the recapture of el chapo? mr. penn: they have been in this business a long time. they have dealt with law enforcement issues for a long time. they have dealt with misinformation for a long time. there are irrational people, so i cannot say for sure that there is no risk. i am not laissez-faire about that. but in terms of the people we are talking about, i do not think there is any belief that way.

i think it is understood that this is what the government does. charlie: you know the son of el chapo? mr. penn: i have met two of them. charlie: one a company do to visit his father -- one accompanied you to visit his father. mr. penn: yes. charlie: had you heard from him or any of them? mr. penn: no. charlie: why is that? mr. penn: people are asking if i have heard from the justice department. i have not heard from anybody. charlie: what is it like to sit where you do? what are your concerns? mr. penn: i am being as honest as i can be about this. i can be very -- you know, flamboyant in my words sometimes.

i can get angry, like many people can. i am really sad about the state of journalism in our country. it is been an incredible hypocrisy and an incredible lesson in how much they don't know and how did served we are. of course i know there are people who do not like me out of the gate. charlie: you are not without controversy. mr. penn: not without controversy. fair enough. at the same time, for example, journalists who want to say that i am not a journalist. i want to see the license that says that they are a journalist. i will not go to the comparative things which are actually, ethically dangerous to democracy

itself. this is in major news outlets. the same outlets say that because i -- by the way, this was not rolling stone's for disclosure, this was my full disclosure. i wanted the reader to know that what was brokered for me to have the interview was that i would finish the article send it to him and if he said no then that was no harm, no foul to any reader. charlie: it would never be printed? mr. penn: it would never be printed. i would never write in any event toward getting him to approve it and i would never censor one word or have anything affected. charlie: the question is, and we can hear your criticism of journalism at the same time as we hear journalism's criticism of you.

did you negotiate on that point? did he insist on the right of approval? mr. penn: no. charlie: could you have done the interview without giving him that right of approval? was that an essential condition for you to get to see him? mr. penn: i think there is a sense of this that holds journalism to a higher standard. i like to make contact with somebody and say, i tell you what, i might say some hard things about you but step into my office and i will be there. i will be fair in so much as i will not report what i do not see. i will not google or get an intern to google for me information that i regurgitate. i was not present to report on the things people would like to see reported on.

i was not present at murders or present to see narcotics. what i was present or i wrote. i wrote that to use it as a pillar for an article about the policy of the war on drugs. if i came to charley and said i want to write a piece about you. it's not essential that i publish that piece. it is essential that i write the piece. charlie: i would hope it would be essential that you write the truth. mr. penn: that is what i am saying. and that is what i did in this article. charlie: but you know we do not go around giving people approval of the piece. mr. penn: that is just not true. in so many ways that is just not true. look at the "new york times" which is one of the great and ethical -- president bush very clearly held off an article on illegal wiretaps for 13 months through the election until after the election that was pretty close with john kerry. the american people were not served.

all i'm saying is as an experiential journalist, which i am, and have been and have done for a long time. charlie: what is that mean? mr. penn: i am sharing an experience. in that capacity, there is nothing -- what i'm doing is looking at somebody who has never given an interview and saying, i can offer this because i don't need to publish this. charlie: you're saying it was never a condition that he could edit the piece? mr. penn: absolutely not. charlie: he could either say i liked the piece and have no objection, or he could object and you could say, we will not publish it. that is all there was between the deal of rolling stone and a and el chapo? mr. penn: that's all there was. charlie: if he wanted to make changes that went to the core of what you wanted to write, you would have rejected them and not

printed the piece. mr. penn: absolutely. charlie: but it never came to that because he did not object to the piece. mr. penn: let me say that things said in the piece -- not only did he not object, but some of them, had he been taped saying an early arrests through arresting officers. charlie: you understand that a lot of people would have wanted you, in this conversation, to see how he would react if you wanted to hold him accountable for his life. would want him to say -- and that is why i think a lot of journalists would have wanted you to do. are you saying a had no interest

in doing that, other people do that, but other people do not have a chance to sit eyeball to eyeball as we do and have a chance to have him justify, explain his life. mr. penn: what it means is if somebody would like me to ask the questions that they want me to ask, there is that problem that we run into in life, they are not me. charlie: did you have no interest? you didn't have any interest in understanding how he justified, felt about, made decisions, organized the cartel. and a lot of journalists would like to have been where you were . penn: to present the simple

things -- that you can understand. this article went along with a video interview. that video interview -- i did not comment much on how he spoke. charlie: but it has been released. mr. penn: this is part of the offering of this article that people go and they get to take their own bead off of this. was it an orchestrated performance? did you hate him? did you love him? did you think he was bright? did you think he was simple? charlie: tell me the answer to those questions. mr. penn: and you tell me. you can see the video. we are in new media. the magazine piece corresponds online. i do not want to make all the decisions for the reader. charlie: what did you learn about him. what did you like about him and what did you learn that you did not know? mr. penn: this is a person that

i spent six or seven hours with late one night. charlie: shared a meal with. mr. penn: ok. i would say that i was able to answer your questions in the body of the article to completion. though some may -- i have big fans of my prose and those who think it's garbage. it is to be expected -- i not only expect it but respected. i did my best to give the sense of an answer. to try to tell you that i have an answer is ludicrous. this man is a pillar for a bigger subject. my interest was the bigger subject. charlie: what is the bigger subject? does this man have any answers at how to get at the drug problem which is the scourge of the world? mr. penn: i don't what to speculate on answers that we

didn't get to and conversations that we did not have. i would say that i believe that anyone who reads the article who really reads it, so many clearly had not who were commenting on it -- they will know as valuable what i was able to find out as i do. i do not think i left out anything deeper. i have been to pakistan. i was in karachi, i was in benghazi with chris stevens during the nato bombings. i have been in a lot of places and i had a lot of experiences and i have found that if i could write 20 more chapters on el chapo, would that be in later chapters these questions? yes. but it is a learning curve.

charlie: for you? mr. penn: i find, weather in social atmospheres or a journalistic atmosphere, i very much still -- i think that everything i do comes from the same place, whether it is writing or acting. i am much better at letting the story be told to me then prodding or interrogating. so much of the prodding and interrogating that i see the professional journalist do -- you are unique. i cannot explain why. you are asking me to explain him. i do not know why i think charlie rose is unique. you are very prodding, you are very informed. but overall, i feel with american journalism -- we know that there are stellar

exceptions, but i feel that largely that if you wait long enough, if you listen to people they will tell you who they are. i was much more interested in watching him and listening to him than saying, what is the solution to the drug crisis? as i said, i did have and i told it to him. charlie: does he have a solution to the drug crisis? mr. penn: no, but that's what i'm saying. hypothetically getting into certain kinds of questions, and he says so in the interview on the tape. from his point of view, there was no other way to make money. is there a way to survive? the question that you have to ask, you can make a criticism that other farmers are growing corn. but we in a capitalist society

support this idea of self initiative and dreams. i think it is possible, though i know how controversial it would be to say, that we might do ourselves a service if only for five minutes to say, if i wanted to dream and all i could do is grow corn in the senate lower state of mexico -- charlie: you are giving him a justification for what he is. mr. penn: we use this word "justification" to stop us from thinking. i know what makes people so angry. i know that. my place in this article -- and i stand by this. my place in this article is to put that here. there is a lot of -- you cannot go anywhere without finding that stuff about him. charlie: you say, it is all out there so it was not necessary for me to have that conversation. and those people who want me to

sit there and try to get him to talk about who he was and what he did, and why violence was such a product of the business he was in. mr. penn: mine is not the definitive article of the drug lord. charlie: that's the experience of visiting with the largest drug lord in the world. that is what it is. mr. penn: that is not what it is. we do this thing where we look at the black and the white and we forget about the pragmatic prisms of gray. how do i, using what i think -- whatever talent i have to do this, on what you are talking about, i would much rather get charlie rose down to talk to him. charlie: charlie rose would have liked to interview him. mr. penn: i think it's citizens, complimented each other instead of polarizing, and journalists

commented each other -- complemented -- i think if citizens complemented each other instead of polarizing, and journalists commented each other we might get something. charlie: you think we demonize el chapo too much? mr. penn: we have, as citizens to a drug lord, or a foreign head of state as an enemy, we are married to them. they are of our time. they are affecting us. like a marriage, you might want divorce, but you have to look at this person as a person. if all we aim to understand is that this is a very bad person, then let's not understand anything else. see what it gets us. charlie: tell me what else you understand? mr. penn: i understand what i have been talking about throughout the interview. the focus on him.

let's go to the big picture of what we all want. we all want this drug problem to stop. we all want the killings in chicago to stop. we are the consumer. whether you agree with sean penn or not, there is a complicity there. if you are in the moral right or the far left, just as many of your children are doing these drugs. just as many of your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, teachers at school. just as many. how much time have they spent in the last week talking about that? 1%? that would be generous. charlie: you say there is not much dialogue -- mr. penn: my article has failed. let me be clear. my article has failed. everything spoken about is everything but what i was trying to speak of. charlie: you have a lot of platforms. you believe deeply and have done

a lot of good work in haiti. you have been praised the military and lots of other people by the way you can down and continued to be there. there are a lot of avenues for you, if you are overwhelmingly obsessed by what the drug problem in america is doing, to do. mr. penn: let's not mistake this. overwhelmingly obsessed -- you make a movie and you put two years in. this article has taken months of focused effort in my life. a lot of work. just the logistics alone. charlie: right. mr. penn: you pick a subject. sometimes it just comes up. it's not like hey, i want to write about this. you met somebody who has contacts, something gets triggered. once you are there, this does not declare my obsession is the war on drugs, my obsession, if

anything, is that we are always looking as a culture at large to simplify the things that we know are more complicated when we go alone at night in our beds with our wives or our children. ♪ the only way to get better is to challenge yourself,

and that's what we're doing at xfinity. we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience.

and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20. it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around. charlie: were you fearful for

your life at any time? mr. penn: i think it is ludicrous to not consider what can be an extraordinarily unpredictable situation where you have a lot of irrational people and somebody who is the target of military sent law enforcement who is on the run and the most wanted this and all of that. of course. but i do not know how to fly an airplane and every time i get on the plane i am relaxed all stop i don't know if upfront those guys are having a heart attack in this burden will fall out of the sky. once you make the decision you focus on the things you can control. i am not in control of any of that. making the decision i'm in control of but my focus is or was and hopes still to be that this article creates some dialogue.

maybe it is not happening on tv, maybe it is happening at dinner tables and maybe it won't work. my focus will be in whatever work i do whether i am writing journalism or acting in movies or directing movies. to create a conversation. charlie: do you believe he was under surveillance? mr. penn: that there were eyes on? i don't think so. charlie: how much time was there between the time you are there and the time they rated where he was? mr. penn: the initial raids? certainly it was imminent. charlie: next day? mr. penn: i would say certainly it was imminent. the official date was october 6. by official i am talking about the reported day. charlie: when do you think it came? the date of that reporting on that siege did not come out until the 13th this is where we

know the reports of the mexican human rights watch had been prohibited from entering the area. there were a lot of displaced campesinos and many reports of death because of what was described to me was that these gunships came in -- charlie: do you think they could have raided the date you were there and chose not to? that has been speculated about. mr. penn: i do not know. how can i know? whether you are talking about the united states -- charlie: we are talking the mexican marines. mr. penn: the mexican marines are not part of that which is considered inefficient in mexico. charlie: is that the reason they were put in charge of the rate?

mr. penn: they are not the ones operating the intelligence in the surveillance. the marines are the implementers. so who, between the united states intelligence agencies and the mexican new who knows what? charlie: how was america involved in this? mr. penn: this is something i haven't been speculating about so much. i want to be careful about speculation. what i would say if anything is that it is very typical where if a government or a partner government has a lot to do with what is considered a successful mission, very typically, they will protect the pride and sovereignty of the leadership of the country within which the action takes place. whether or not the united states had a bigger part to play i do not think we would know because i think there are diplomatic issues bigger than everything

that sean penn can talk about or be involved in and talk about when one country takes credit for the actions of another. i'm not saying that's what happens here. i just don't know how much the u.s. did. i see things that they have reported about themselves, i also know that there is a lot of inter-agency and bureaucratic issues where people are taking credit for things. even in that arena things get skewed. this is a very complex issue. charlie: was it naive of you to believe that you could come to mexico, meet with kate del castillo and go see el chapo without something knowing about it? mr. penn: i assumed they knew about it and i say so in the article. i was stunned that he would risk our trip.

i was stunned. not only did he risk it, there were no blindfolds. charlie: you have to explain that to me. you assumed the government was surveilling you and her and a new when you arrived and how and where you are going and they knew that you were going to see him and they knew about because of her earlier tweets and things, that they had communication. mr. penn: the united states government is acknowledging that at this point. at the time i wrote the article, it was me making the assumption. i am not james bond. they are. charlie: you say that you assume you were being surveilled and you assumed that they knew what you were doing and she was doing going to see him. you cannot quite know why he felt safe in reaching out because he said at the worst thing in the world is going to prison because he would rather die than go to prison.

so my point is, why didn't they get him earlier? why didn't they get him when you were there? because he is and has been an embarrassment to the mexican government because he escaped from prison. it's considered almost a huge black mark on the president and his administration. why didn't they get him if they knew where he was? mr. penn: these are very good questions. charlie: what is the answer? mr. penn: a lot of people have a lot at stake. a lot of economies at stake. this is a subject for a more sophisticated writer than i. i feel i am sophisticated enough for the kind of writing that i do and i stand behind it, but i do have a general sense of how big and complicated that question is. it is one that would be very difficult and i must say very

dangerous for writers to approach in a holistic way. there are very -- there is not a lot of rodrigo's around. he died in an effort to bring down pablo escobar. charlie: and in fact, you made a dedication at the end of your piece. mr. penn: you do not find that kind of courage and the numbers it would take to dissected this. charlie: why did you make that dedication? mr. penn: think he was not just a victim of pablo escobar. in the same way that our own incredible public servants in the dea, who have lost their lives in this war on drugs.

or the mexican marines, or the dealers in the streets of chicago or the victims of those dealers -- all of this stuff, he is subject to a bigger policy. as an implementer of it and a lawmaker in columbia at the time. the way government needs to take care of us, we have to take care of government. to sit there and see people like this slain. for doing their job, and saying, we are going to do tomorrow what got him killed yesterday. we will put all of our focus -- forget about blame. we will put all of our focus, energy and billions of dollars

on the bad guy. what happens? you get another death the next day. then his kids or her kids go, or the journalist. charlie: because they kill families. mr. penn: we all kill families. we all kill families. whether we do it with our tax dollars or drug smuggling. charlie: it is not a moral equivalency. mr. penn: moral equivalency to me -- it is not a conversation i want to have with others because i do not want to have that conversation. it is a moral equivalency to me. charlie: i know that it is. if you thought that you were under surveillance, why did you go? mr. penn: i was there to experience wherever it was. charlie: that you knew that you must be putting him at risk?

mr. penn: he knew that kate had gone public in january 2012. charlie: tweeting? mr. penn: yeah. i truly, as i sit here today, i cannot explain that. charlie: cannot explain why, knowing she had gone public, knowing the government was so anxious to recapture him, that they had to be talking, exploring, tapping -- whatever they had to do. they had to be burning with the desire to avenge the embarrassment of him escaping? and anyone they thought could lead them to him, they were all over. and you come, and she comes, and he gives you precautions to take. yes? mr. penn: yes. charlie: and you follow those precautions? mr. penn: yes. charlie: thinking, if he is willing to take the risk, that is up to him?

mr. penn: the experience which is the pillar of my bigger story. intended to be the bigger story. mr. penn: not necessarily about el chapo, but the war on drugs. with a doorway to a reader who might be him, but i wanted to sneak in the bigger debate. it has not been successful. that is what i wanted to do. charlie: maybe it is important that you answer the question people have right now. clearly, you have to understand, you live -- you are a celebrity and you live in the culture that we live in. you are not naive and she is not naive. clearly. and you knew that if sean penn went to see a drug lord on the run and had a conversation with him, that and the -- and a mexican actress whom he was

smitten with, if you believe the communication that has been disclosed, you knew that is a story. you knew that is a big story. you are not naive. then you blame people for wanting to know more about it. it is inevitable. mr. penn: no, my problem with people is that they think they know more about it. i'm not talking about people wanting to know more about it. i am not the final arbiter of what they know. what i'm saying is if i waited every day to get out of bed to base yesterday's experience in being understood what would happen? i would never get out of bed. i think my biggest criticism of the press is a word that they would put on me.

i think we have the most naive press corps that i can imagine. charlie: that is a were they put on you. naive. what did he expect? but they are naive because? to give you a chance to express their naivete. mr. penn: a bigger picture that i see would be making a greater claim than the one i am making. where the world lives. and to have had this kind of front row seat to the press covering a story that is, if not significant, sensationalized. ♪

>> stocks are down again, we have concerns about the nikkei. all playing in our investors nerves. living things down there, we see this picture in china. it has been urged to weaken the 50% this year.t it with is the pressure on foreign exchange. he