♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we turn to the ongoing battle between apple and the fbi, fight over access to the phone of the san bernadino shooter. it continues and the two sides will meet in federal court next week. time magazine managing editor nancy gibbs and writer lev grossman sat down with tim cook. here to talk about that is nancy gibbs, and i am pleased to have her here. here is the cover of "time," magazine, talking about his fight with the fbi and why he won't back down. let me start with the obvious,

what is your assessment of him and his commitment to this? nancy: that's what i was most curious about and why i wanted to hear from him. on the face of it, why would the countries richest, most valuable tech company pick a fight with the fbi over a terrorist cell phone? it seems strictly insane from a pr point of view. obviously, apple has a huge commercial stake with privacy and secretly which are its product but talking to him, it was clear this is something he feels passionately about and the stakes of this debate around encryption are so high that having a single judge and a single court or a single case, even an important and emotional case like this, does not make sense. this is something that has to be debated by the american public, by the congress, should be handled with congress passing laws that determine when law enforcement should be able to break into these incredibly powerful databases we now all have built about ourselves and

carry with us. charlie: so he's not satisfied unless it goes all the way to the supreme court, and there is a decision on this individual case. he wants to see a broader decision made in congress? nancy: he says it's not just about this case. someone like the manhattan da has 175 phones he would like access to. law enforcement officials all over the country have similar cases where it would help them build their cases if they could break into iphones. so, it is not as though this is the only time -- charlie: he says there is no possible procedure that can be used to make this a case-by-case method because, in our own dealings in national security, processes and courts and judges that make decisions about things like this. nancy: that's right, he would say -- i am not apple's defense attorney but i wanted to hear him, how he answered.

charley: and that is what i want to hear. like, thisit is not phone has a key that would unlock it and if he just turns that over to the fbi, the fbi can on lock the phone and get the information and then you are one and done. that key does not exist, that door does not exist. they would need to build a new operating system and install it on this phone in order to let the fbi use brute force to get into the phone by testing the 10,000 different possible passcodes. once you build that operating system, not only will other people want access to it, it will get out into the wild. charlie: there is no way to stop it. nancy: you cannot know the back door that only the good guys use. everyone's a safety and privacy becomes threatened once that operating system exists. he does not think it is possible to actually lock out engineers

and investigators into a sealed room and open the phone, make it go away, and no one else can use it. charlie: what does he say about knowing that he is in opposition to the fbi? it is not a comfortable position. especially if it is terrorism. nancy: he recognizes that that the optics of this are terrible, and he is uncomfortable with it. he has likened this to past civil rights fights where he feels the government in this case is overreaching and someone has to say stop, slow down, let's talk about what is really at stake. let me say that apple has a lot at stake as to whether technology companies and everyone from microsoft to facebook and amazon, they have filed amicus briefs in support of apple. someone like michael hayden was not soft on terrorism who

understands -- the head of the nsa and cia and understands the threat of cyber attack well, also has ended up coming down on the side of apple. that encryption is something that is valuable and important for our national security. charlie: no exceptions from michael hayden? nancy: this exception of building a backdoor to break through this encryption, he is on the side of apple which i think is interesting. people have switched sides on this. country is divided. it's not a black and white case. it's a series of trade-offs. charlie: here's what he said to you -- he said the way we get somewhere, our journey is very ugly. but i am an optimist, that we ultimately arrive at the right thing. nancy: i think he thinks the right way to arrive there is to have this debate collectively, publicly, have congress address it. you said, can't there be any limits? if it's one court deciding in

one domestic terrorism case that it's ok to unlock the phone, another court might decide it is ok in a robbery case or a divorce case or a tax fraud case. don't we want congress to be the the ones who say these are the circumstances under which we think it is ok to break into a phone? these are the circumstances which it is not. charlie: i know tim cook and respect him but he calls up the idea that this has anything to do with apple's business. nancy: yes. and it may be a false choice, about principle or is this about profits? it may well be about both. his point is that apple did not invent encryption and apple does not own encryption. charlie: but it is getting more and more encrypted. nancy: with the last ios, it's the default setting.

increasingly, encryption is the norm and his point is if apple no longer was able to encrypt your data, the bad guys will still easily go outside the u.s. it's easy for them to still be able to encrypt their communications. it would just make the rest of us more vulnerable. because the average american does not want to have to be a computer scientist to keep their data safe. charlie: there is also controversy about what'sapp where there are issues about how terrorists are using them to protect their own communication. let me turn to another question. this is what lev grossman says. it emerged that resetting the that had been a serious tactical error, they could have gotten the phone to make a fresh backup of itself automatically but once you change the password, it won't back itself up without the passcode. nancy: because the phone actually was not owned by the terrorist, it was owned by san bernardino county.

and so they thought they could get the information off of it just by resetting the password and getting into his icloud account. they did that and they found that the phone had not actually been backed up for the last few weeks. if, instead of doing that, they had gone to his house and plugged it in, it would have automatically backed up, then they would have had all the information on the phone. so they actually -- the one door that was available to them and apple had helped them open, it turned out they made that door less useful. charlie: who is winning the battle of public opinion? nancy: that is a moving target. you have seen some people like lindsay graham who initially came out against apple who, upon further conversation, has now been more inclined to see the other side. charlie: so apple may be winning? nancy: i don't know that they are winning but to the extent this becomes a more complex debate than just the soundbite, they are protecting the terrorists against the fbi, to that extent, apple is winning if

they are able to say there is much more at stake than a false dichotomy see of privacy versus security. charlie: you say sooner or later these questions will need to be put before the american people which is a reason the fbi has made this fight so ferocious and public. the question of where national security meets privacy. nancy: there is an enormous amount of information that we all have made available about ourselves quite apart from what is encrypted on our devices. charlie: that we don't want other people to know. nancy: in a way, this is the golden age of surveillance people have said. we have bugged ourselves. we make our health data and what we eat and where we are at any given time and we have all of that available and much of it is available publicly. what law enforcement is able to find out about anyone that they are interested in is vastly greater than it has ever been in history. part of the question is, to what extent does the fbi and other law enforcement need to do what our national security infrastructure has been doing,

upgrading their capabilities as opposed to -- is this a shortcut? is the fbi trying to take a shortcut to get this information? as opposed to becoming a real 21st century law enforcement organization. that's what one round of technology critics have said is that this is not the way you want to do it. charlie: do you accept the idea that apple makes the argument that there is no such thing -- that this is a one phone case? it cannot be that? nancy: why would this one case be different than another murder or criminal case that involves a drug dealer, where law enforcement says in order to build our case, we need access. who decides which cases warrant intrusion and which cases do

not? charlie: people come to this table from the silicon valley and people who are smart about understanding where we are in technology and computers and all of that. many of them will argue or some of them, will argue that the government can go to banks and get access to their bank statements. and that this is very private but there is a process to do that. why can't there be a process to do this? nancy: there was even legal precedent, somebody who had a bullet embedded in his shoulder that investigators needed to make their case and could they force a doctor, against the patient's wishes, to remove the bullet? ultimately, if that work its way through the courts, the patient won. but the fact that that took multiple appeals shows you that

the reach of law enforcement, as apple points out, this is under the all writs act, the ability of law enforcement to have fairly unlimited access to the places they need to go to make their case is well-established legal precedent. if we think because of the technological universe we are now living in and because of these incredibly powerful databases we have created about ourselves, i will bet you your phone has more information about you than your house does. charlie: oh, i am sure it does. nancy: now that we have which didn't exist 10 years ago but we are living in this new world we have created, and the law needs to catch up with that.

that is why they're feeling is this is something that needs to be decided in congress. apple says we will abide by the law, obviously. but, doing this on a case-by-case basis puts databases and everyone at risk. charlie: everyone knew this was coming, because people i talk to like ash carter, secretary of defense, he is concerned on a couple of levels about how they deal with silicon valley wherever the source is of remarkable technological innovation and they worry about the relationship with silicon valley and worry about how they form some kind of cooperative relationship that can deal with a range of issues. nancy: you put your finger on one of the most interesting questions here. a lot of the silicon valley companies that are involved in this case are this century's media companies. in the 20th century, the media had huge commercial interests and they had a public trust and a public responsibility. and they would have to weigh when you not publish something because of national security or when do you go to court to publish the pentagon papers? that territory and those obligations were well explored.

now we are in the new world world new set of players now has the kind of power those 20th-century players had. what are their obligations, what are their public responsibilities, whether it is to the government, these are global companies. they may be born and based in america, but they are global companies. apple sells 25% of its iphones in china. and so, you know, it's easy for them to say that if the united states government can tell us to open this backdoor, so can the iranian or chinese government. but the fact is, they are looking at this across the entire globe. and their interests and obligations everywhere. charlie: tim cook comes out of alabama. he was one of the first top ceos to announce he was gay. tim cook is a guy who has pictures of martin luther king and robert kennedy in his office.

he is a guy that has enormous respect for people who have been prepared to go the distance for their beliefs. nancy: that is exactly the mode that he appears to be operating in in this case. you could say it would be in the interest of apple to have handled this more quietly. or you could argue as the justice department has that no, apple wanted this public fight because it is good for their branding. even that is an interesting question. my sense from him certainly was that this is something where he thinks the stakes of this debate are exceptionally high and they go much higher than simply the stakes of finding out what might be on this one phone. charlie: thank you, great to have you. "time," magazine cover story, apple ceo tim cook on his fight with the fbi and what he will not back down written bylev grossman.

this story has been on this program a lot. it is an ongoing story, and the magazine gives more context. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: john feinstein is here and has been called the dean of the college basketball press and his new book explores the complex relationships and backyard rivalries of three coaches who dominated college basketball during the 1980's and

1990's, dean smith, duke coach mike krzyweski and jim valvano. it's called "the legend club." hall of fame coach jim calhoun calls his book a must read for all lovers of college basketball and the personalities who have made this game great. welcome back. john: thank you. charlie: this is a story you said you're not born to write but you lived it. i live in the middle where all this took place. john: as you know, i went to college at duke and met dean smith first of the three as a terrified duke junior. i tried to interview him about tate armstrong who was on his olympic team. i was 19 and scared to death by dean could not have been nicer. he had actually read something i had written in the student newspaper at duke because back then, they clipped every single paper in the country. i had written something, saying bill foster who was the duke coach had modeled his program

after dean. he said you were fair to us in that piece especially someone from duke and that became a running theme for 35 years. i was covering the acc for the "washington post," in the 1980's when dean was the icon, valvano was the rockstar and krzyweski was the little engine trying to get started in the early 80's. they were born nine days apart. and here is the irony i found out researching this book. a great player at duke in the 1960's was associate athletic director and yet seen krzyweski coach and brought his name to tom butters. his answer was literally, who? he had never heard of him. he was an obscure young coach at army but he became enamored after interviewing him and decided to hire him even though he had been 9-17 at army. the headline in the student

newspaper at duke the next day was, this is not a typo. krzyweski. but, jim valvano wrote to tom butters, the coach at iona in new york, and had been very successful, 29-5 and wrote to butters about the duke job. the letter went through the coaching search and he was so impressed with the letter, he showed it to butters who sent it to willis casey, the athletic director at n.c. state. nine days later, valvano is the head coach. charlie: you regret not writing the biography? john: i do. i wanted to for many years but when i finally convinced them to do it in 2009, he was already in the middle stages of dementia. not the last stages of dementia. we had two long sessions together. two things happened. there were moments when he was still dean and i asked him how he met his first wife and he remembered it minute by minute and i asked him about bob spear, his first friend at air force academy, and he had no idea who he was. by the end of each session, i could see him getting very tired.

i talked to his wife and to his son and we agreed that we cannot go forward. he was not in good enough shape to do it. i did get some things out of those interviews i was able to use in this book and dean's wife pam, jim's wife, were very helpful because i could not talk to dean or jim. charlie: what was the impact of these three guys in the 1980's? john: dean smith was an icon by the time krzyweski by the time and valvano came along. mike tells a great story about recruiting a kid in california named mike akers and realizing it was not going well. he finally turned to his mom, who had not said anything and said mrs. akers, is there anything at all you want to know about our academics at duke? she said, no, i don't need to ask questions because the only thing is important that mike go to college somewhere where he's close to god. he said, if it comes to duke, he will be going down the road in

chapel hill. [laughter] >> he went to oral roberts. but that is what they were dealing with when they first got down there. dean won the national title in 1982 and then valvano won the title in 1983. we all remember him running around the court in albuquerque. they barely got in the tournament. if they had not won the acc tournament, they went to the nit and jim might've gotten fired. that's the way he was thinking. when they won back-to-back national titles, krzyweski was sitting there. lost the last game of the season to virginia. that night, i was with krzyweski that night in the denny's at 2:00 in the morning when the duke sid raised his glass and said here's to forgetting tonight and krzyweski raises his glass and said here's to never blanking forgetting tonight. he beat virginia the next 16 times they played. in 1991 when they finally won

the national championship and i walked on the court, congratulated mike, the first thing he said was, we have come a long way from the blanking denny's so he never did forget. that's what he was up against. charlie: this is coach k on this program in 2010 talking about the common thread among the great college coaches. >> i don't think any of those guys over coach, over talk. i think a competitive mind is like a glass. you can only fill it so much. if u.s. a coach try to fill it with all that you know, you take away from it the players instincts. you've got to fill it up to a certain point and then allow the player to fill it on his own. i think there is that combination. i think those coaches, whether they frame it that way or whatever, evoke that. charlie: how do they coach

differently? john: what he said was fascinating. they were playing a game against carolina and he had talked in practice about not letting carolina cross a line. you don't let him them across that line on wednesday night. his pregame speech that night was he walked into the locker room, walked up to the white board and drew a line. he said let's go. that was it. that was his pregame speech. what has made mike for so many years is his flexibility. he changes constantly. he learns from failure which goes back to his days at west point. two years ago, when they lost to mercer in the first round of the ncaa tournament, he did not whine and say his players were terrible on defense. which they were. he said, how do i get better and he started doing little things. he got on twitter so he could follow his players so he would

know what they were thinking. he learned how to text so he could text the players on a regular basis. he decided to coach the one and done freshmen like they were seniors because they were seniors. they were never going to be sophomores. you cannot be patient until they learn man-to-man defense. he had the place to his own. that was the only way for them to win last year and that's why they won last year because he had that flexibility. dean was very system oriented. this is the way we do things, the passing game on offense, changing defenses on the other end of the court, always playing deep into the bench. nobody pushed the ball better than dean smith. charlie: as recruiters? john: again, krzyweski and dean are similar because they were selling the same thing. they were selling great liberal arts education and the tradition of their two schools because duke had a tradition before he got there. dean built the tradition although frank maguire won the national title in 1957 but they sold the tradition and the beauty of their campuses and what is like to be at a game. valvano sold himself. terry gannon tells a story about

valvano coming to his home on a home visit. he didn't bring anything but himself and walked in the door and shouted at his father who was a high school coach about how terrible is directions were and then sat down with his father and started helping him pick games. because his dad liked to bet on basketball. he went off and started picking games with his dad. by the time he walked at the door, terry and never seen n.c. state, and his death that you -- and his dad said, you were going to go play for him. that was the way he sold it. charlie: this is dean smith in 1999 talking about what he loved about reading a basketball coach. >> i really did enjoy it teaching at the practice is more than anything. i enjoyed a tough ballgame where it was going to be a contest. i hated the games where the players, the fans, everyone thought we should win by 20. i knew the other team was dangerous. the joy also was the relationships that you have with the guys. in basketball in college, you change each year.

charlie: dean smith, it reminds me of the story about george wallace, the governor of alabama said the only reason i am governor is because bryant does not want to be. john: funny you should say that. in 1984, i was with dean smith on election day and he and i would always talk politics because our politics were similar, very liberal. charlie: unlike mike. john: mike used to say you two liberal you know whats. charlie: where are the programs today? dean smith and carolina, ranked four? >> ranked third and they are a ncaar one seed in the tournament. duke won a national championship last year. they had a down year. what happened was tyus jones did not turn pro because they had a good tournament. emil jefferson, their one good inside player got hurt and has been out since the ninth game of the system and they are not deep enough. you need to be seven or eight

players deep. they only have six players deep but they are still pretty good that they cannot defend the way mike krzyzewski can defend. charlie: will they make it to the top 16? john: maybe, they will play baylor and that will be tough. they can certainly do it. carolina could win the national championship. they better because two of their best players, bryce johnson and marcus paige are seniors and this investigation is finally winding up we don't know what will happen in april or may when the ncaa finally comes down with their results in this investigation, it's the academic scandal. it is terrible. especially for a program like carolina. i don't think -- anybody who really loves college basketball, cannot be happy to see this happening. what's interesting about n.c. state is they have had some good teams since jim left in 1990. but pam valvano said that she believes that all four coaches who followed jim have all coach in his shadow.

every year, we see the espy speech that jim gave eight weeks before he died. every year we see him running around the court in albuquerque and he is still young. anti-is still jim valvano. and and he was young. it's very hard to get out of that shadow because he was such a unique personality. there was never anybody like him. he was so smart and so funny. one thing i learned was that jim and and dean were good friends. died, he wasore he too sick to travel. the sb award was the last time he traveled. they said send somebody in your place and we will say you are representing jim valvano. he called it dean.

but dean hated to talk in public. they'll he said if he could have been deemed to the practice court and never done anything else, he would have done that. me in his home are all sorts of pictures of him with friends and coaches. only one picture of him alone and it is him throwing out that pitch. charlie: it is an amazing story. where on the eve of march madness. can anybody beat kentucky? the answer turned out to be yes. share, if you said, pick one team i would say give me 10 choices and i might not pick the national champion. mostnk carolina has the

talent. i love the way virginia plays. kansas is playing as well as anybody in the country right now. i still not have touched on the team that is going to win the tournament. simmons will be the number one pick. is six footood, he eight inches, he is still growing. he is a teenager. he can shoot and he can put it on the floor. he will be a very good nba player. for duke and college basketball, he will be an nba player next year. valveean, and especially and no, he has always been about relationships with the players. helping them to grow. hen he was first recruiting,

would fly home with a recruit after a visit so he could spend time with him. the nba changed that role. but he was always about those relationships. one and done you can't do, but he still has to recruit those kids. charlie: here is one less clip. have a confidence level that i am the guy coordinating this. they can use their skills and a will be there to help them use their skills as well as they possibly key possibly can in every game. throughll not take them so much that to i will rob them of their instincts. over the year, our players trust us. charlie: there is a great story about that. >> the famous game in 1992. a story about how they came off

the court with only 22 seconds to go and he thought, i guess we are going on spring break next week. hall,hey came into the coach k said, we are going to win the dam game. in they did. that is what he is talking about .".bout "i am the facilitator if the coach says you can win the game walking on your hands, they can. charlie: the book is called the legends club. tell me your impression of him and the reason why he is the number one golfer in the world. years old going on 40 years old when you talk to him, verse to ball. i laugh when people say he does not do anything great. he does the two things more important than anybody. he is the best punter in the

world. and he has the best mind. jordan does not hit the ball as far as tiger but he is the best putter.-- charlie: recently someone said nobody is even remotely as good as he is at his best. >> i think at his dominant best two 1997-2008 when he won majors, and even if you narrow it to when he made seven out of 11. nicholas did not do that. nicholas was great, don't get the wrong. when i hear people say, rory mcilroy is the next tiger. tiger.is they next let them be themselves, that is pretty darn good. gerwhat do they say about ty

now? say, who knows. everybody is just waiting to see if he shows up again. nobody is counting on it. and that is a positive thing. the good thing about golf is for years there was concern, what happens when tiger woods goes collapsel golf completely. the good thing is that now you have these three great players who are not only very good players, they are good guys. charlie: so, here is what is interesting about jordan, he was 54 under for the four majors. >> right. 54 under. he said he doesn't think anyone will do that again. he doesn't expect 10 under to win the masters.

john: he shot 17 under and didn't win. i think it is the third greatest year in the history of golf. the greatest year,, 2000 when tiger woods won the u.s. open by 15, the british open by 8 in the pga by five and finished off by winning the masters. 1953. jordan, 2015, when the 2, it was third. that is how good it was. charlie: he also said people say when he is 15 feet, it is almost like everybody else being at five feet. he is that good. john: totally. charlie: thank you for coming. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: a.o. scott is here, the new york times chief film critic. he has written a book. "better living through criticism: how to live truth, beauty,

and criticism." the los angeles time wrote his book is like watching the hero of a 1940's hero facing down his adversaries. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. a.o.: great to be here. charlie: why did you write this? a.o.: for a few reasons. i want to be reflective on what i do. i have written pieces about what i thought criticism is for. why some people are mistaken when they think critics are the enemies of artists were out to spoil fun. it was more immediately because i began to notice a lot of predictions of my immediate extinction. the idea that we have amazon algorithms, facebook and twitter. everyone is a critic. nobody needs to be professional anymore. i wanted to think about that without prejudice, not just to celebrate the democracy of the internet but not to cry about how the sky is falling and how my job is going to be taken away and how standards are collapsing and the world is going to help. -- and the world is going to

hell. thought, maybe i can explain what criticism is. why it is a part of our lives. what we talk about when we talk about the works of art we are interested in. charlie: you started as a book critic. a.o.: i did. and migrated to movies. it is now almost 17 years ago. but yes. i think i started from an interest in criticism and migrated in a way from literature into film. charlie: who has informed your sense of criticism? responsibility, talent? a.o.: there are a lot of writers who i grew up reading. in film criticism, it's impossible to avoid the voice of pauline kale. her voice is so strong and she really is a model for how to talk in a direct personal passionate way about popular

culture. she has influenced film critics but people who write about popular music, television. migratefluenced, passion when i was an adolescent was popular music. punk rock and the aftermath. grill marcus was an enormous influence. he could take a song, and alban -- in album track, a performance, and open it up in a way and show how it was connected to all of these other things in the world and american history and modern culture and do it with a powerful, personal voice. he is still a strong role model. another one, i have been on the show talking about him, roger ebert. who for me, he personifies criticism as a democratic arts. a person talking to other people. someone who is knowledgeable but not at all snobbish, who is convinced of their own taste but

willing to listen to other people. and to can, whether he was on television or in the sun-times or in his book, he could speak about what he cared about in a way others would care about it. charlie: one criticism about criticism, from people who make films and write books, it is they say a critic suggested what was in their mind which was never there. a.o.: i have a quote at the beginning of the book from oscar wilde who says the highest active criticism is to put into a work of art something the artist had not even put there. i think that one of the fascinating things to me about all different kinds of works of art is how open they are to interpretation. whether we are professional critics or not, when we see them and appreciate them, whether we like them or don't, we are filtering through our own personalities, our experiences and emotions.

a critic is no different from anyone else. we do it in a way that is more public and trying to be of use to other people. charlie: do you think most artists say yes, that is right, or to most artists never agree with the criticism? a.o.: it is interesting. i sometimes hear from filmmakers. sometimes i get an e-mail or a letter that says thank you. you understood what i was trying to do. they tend to say that when i have positive things to say. i like to think that i understood it just as well when i didn't like it. i think it varies. artists take criticism to heart. they are either wounded by it or encouraged. some people, some artists ignore

it. i once asked joel and ethan: what they thought -- they don't like to interpret anything. and they are great to talk to but they say if we get good reviews maybe we sell more tickets. charlie: have you had artists saying you are absolutely right. i fail to do that. i knew i was not doing that. it was a struggle for me. it was a painful thing you pointed out but it was true. a.o.: that does happen sometimes. i'm touched when it does. i try not to be cruel or harsh. not to be punitive. there are some things that are bad and cynical in a way that deserve to be called out and harshly scolded but a lot of the time most of the time, i proceed from the idea that no one was trying to make a bad movie. someone was trying to do something good.

i have heard, i'm not what name names, people have said i think that is right. we didn't quite nail the end of that story. we didn't have it as sharp as we could have. charlie: how much good criticism is good writing? a.o.: a lot of it. maybe all of it. that you need to be knowledgeable, you need to have good judgment that for me, the critics i love to read are not the ones i agree with but the ones whose voices i want to hear. the ones whose company i seek out. charlie: what i want to hear and a critic is a love of the arts that he or she is writing about. a.o.: i think that is the key. it is so interesting to me that

critics are often accused of the opposite. as if we could be motivated by a hatred or hostility. as if anybody could spend hundreds and thousands of hours in a movie theater doing that for the living because they hated movies. that would be a perverse approach to the world. i try to walk in and every critic i know does it with an open mind. an expectation or hope of being surprised. charlie: that is another criticism i hear of critics. they criticize the movie they wanted me to make, not the movie i made. a.o.: i have felt the a little bit reading reviews of this book. it has turned around a little bit. there have been a couple of reviews that i think that is an interesting account of some other book, the book you assumed i would have written. i think that is a risk that you take sometimes.

i think it is something to try to struggle against. i don't think you can never entirely overcome that risk of imposing your own expectations on the work but you do try. i think that every critic i'm no -- and i think that to every critic i know and respect those try to see the thing for what it is, to figure out what it is trying to do. its ownit lived up to intentions, whether those intentions were worthy. into that is where you have to begin. with the sense of, well, what is this? what did i just see? charlie: how often do you write a review of the film and you look and almost everybody else, including people you respect had a different view and you ask your self, what did i miss here? >> that is one of my favorite

things about criticism. it is still my favorite thing about reading other critics. the longest chapter in this book is called, "how to be wrong." i think one of the things critics do for one another is take positions that can be disagreed with. i love reading writers that i respect saying things, 180 degrees away from where i am. in a way, it does not make me doubt myself so much as think well, that movie must be really interesting. only an interesting movie could inspire such opposite and strongly held views. i think in a way when we stop arguing about works of art is when we begin to lose interest in them. when they begin to die a little bit. charlie: here is something you wrote. our drive to write something compensates for a primal feeling of alienation or loss in the universe and confusion about our identity. a.o.: that is what art sets out to do.

to try to explain to ourselves what it is to be human. the puzzle and the mystery, and the sense of loss and alienation. what are we, what are we doing? what happened to us? and also, you are not alone. >> and also that you're not alone. and, i think that the representations of the human condition, that we put under the category of art, they are what also inspire us to the act of criticism. because then we have to figure out what those things were. because of someone painted a picture or wrote a poem or wrote a column that is showing us something about human emotions and human thoughts and feelings. then we have to figure what they meant. what that all means. it is part of this endless human project and the way of making sense of who we are and where we are. charlie: do you ever you write,

this is not a great movie but i loved it? a.o.: i think so. i try to bring those things into alignment as much as i can. there are movies, a few movies that maybe are not on formal or aesthetic grounds perfectly achieved masterpieces. charlie: but something entertaining. it is a notion about john grisham, who gets better and better as he writes. but as a notion that somebody does popular culture. it is the definition of doing popular culture, they do it well. a.o.: and sometimes what it is done well it can rise to the level of art. one of my favorite movies last year was creed, a great movie and a wonderful piece of popular entertainment. i also had a really good time in seven." furious no one will say it is say masterpiece of cinema but it had such conviction, such audacity and was so generous with its audience. it was saying to the audience,,

come on. let's have a good time. these cars off skyscrapers. let's have a good time. a good movie should have some kind of human connection. whether it is fantasy or science fiction or superhero movie or it shouldwhat ever, have some core of human authenticity where there is some feeling or some situation they had can recognize as genuine. charlie: art should somehow speak to you and say something to you that you somehow deep inside feel but have not been able to give expression to other than it you know it is there. a.o.: it is that recognition. where you see something, you see the faces on the screen, you see a situation. charlie: it you see the agony and you know the pain.

a.o.: or the laughter. charlie: for sure. the oscars. you said, i am a critic, intent on punishing artists. let me put that up with you. a snob, -- that is the role that calls the public to play. i would like to say forget about the oscars. a.o.: that was before the oscars i wrote that. they were a fascinating show for sure this year. i thought what chris rock did in difficult circumstances was pretty fantastic. charlie: masterful. a.o.: masterful. the academy put itself into this situation where they were deservedly being called out for manifesting the narrowness and homogenate of and

hollywood. the lack of inclusion. charlie: the criticism is the nature of the academy itself. a.o.: i think that is a big problem. the academy does reflect the larger film industry. it is attached to the bigger problem of fewer opportunities for filmmakers and writers and act as of color and women. the more attention brought to that, the better. also the academy has a problem of having a narrower idea of what is quality, what is prestige, what are the movies we want to show to the world as our superior product. i think they leave out a lot to very interesting movies that do not fit that narrative tradition. and again, this is not a judgment of the movies. i admired quite a few of them. i love spotlight, brooklyn. i liked the big short. i liked "room."

especially the first up. i loved the performances. but, i think they never have room for comedy. they don't have room for movies that are connected with some of the more youthful and diverse energies within the popular culture. so, they could not see the artistry i think of a movie like "creed." it is a boxing movie, a rocky movie. i happen to think it is a remarkable drama. i think it is up to the standards of all of the nominees last year. and in a way, you know, it is ok. people like that movie and people embrace that movie. and the movie will be all right. but the oscars, if they want to have any kind of claim on relevance or public attention, they need to figure out how to reform what they are doing. charlie: a.o. scott is the chief critic at the new york times.

" better living through criticism: how to think about art, criticism, beauty, and is the title of the book. thank you. a.o.: thank you. great to be here. charlie: thank you for joining us, we will see you next time. ♪

♪ carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." in this week's issue, reinventing ge. let's go meet the editor. ♪ carol: we are here with the editor of "bloomberg businessweek," ellen pollock. in the global economic section, you write about a capital mystery. meaning capital expenditure. ellen: we look at why companies are investing less in software tools, the percentage of total investment on an ann