>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." andrew: good evening, i'm am andrew ross sorkin of "the new york times." it is my privilege to sit in for charlie rose. the media's coverage of the president shall campaign has been a topic of heightened interest. donald trump's handling of the press was a decisive factor in securing the republican nomination. hillary clinton's health is the latest source of rampant speculation after a delay in revealing she had pneumonia. brian skelter is the host of cnn's "reliable sources."

ism los angeles, ben shapiro a columnist, author, and editor-in-chief of "the daily wire." i am pleased to have both of them with me. let me start with you, brian. let me start with the issue of hillary clinton's health. there was a lot of speculation about hillary clinton's health in the news media prior to the revelation of these images, prior to her disclosure about pneumonia. you called some of the spec -- speculationch back then reckless. now that this news is out there, was it still reckless? brian: some of these figures feel vindicated. ld.on't think they shou there is a basket of legitimate questioning about hillary clinton's health, and some media figures fit into that basket. they are right to wonder about her health in some cases. then there is this other death -- basket, truly deplorable

basket. sean hannity fits into it. so do rush limbaugh and others. i am not saying hannity or rush limbaugh fit into this, but some of these figures want her to be sick. they want her to be dying. they want her to be on her deathbed. it's wishful thinking. that is some of this bs that is on the web. populates ourn facebook feeds and twitter feeds, and it becomes this innuendo we don't just see on the front page of "the national enquirer," but it also seeps into the public discourse. that is why the hannitys are responsible. andrew: do you think the mainstream media should have been asking questions about her health? brian: i think the mainstream media was asking those questions. it wasn't necessarily all broadcast, but i think many reporters have been questioning her health, especially with her coughing fits. think aboutting to friday to sunday when she was diagnosed with pneumonia that reporters did not know until

sunday. part of that is because the campaign kept it a secret, and part of it is because it's hard to get into the inner circle of the campaign. maybe reporters should have been trying hard to get that information. it's disturbing the campaign with held that, and it's disturbing the campaign kept them in the dark. listening tore brian, and i am curious where you land. ben: when it comes to the media coverage, i don't think the media were asking the appropriate questions. chris alyssa of "the washington post" wrote a column about why we shouldn't be asking questions about hillary clinton's health, and then she collapses, and it's legitimate. why do you have a consistent record of hacking this much? none of that is illegitimate. i agree that baseless speculation, these videos going around saying she has parkinson's, all of this is nonsense. having doctors on the air to try to diagnose hillary based on the fact that there is a tape of her

coffin, it is silliness. my wife is a doctor, and she wouldn't be diagnosing her. it's the difference between reporting and rumormongering. there has been too much wishful thinking and rumormongering. andrew: this is jim rutenberg in "the new york times" in a column called "trump is testing the objectivity." he says, balance has been on vacation since mr. trump stepped onto his golden trump tower escalator to announce his candidacy. democrats say trump has gone $2 billion in free advertising, free media. say mr. trump has gone unchallenged. i'm going to go to ben. do you think there is true and utter bias in the media? do you think it is a conscious bias? obviously there is conscious bias in the media, and then there is the generalized unconscious bias. most people in the mainstream media are democrats and will vote for hillary clinton, and

they don't reveal that before they go on air. unconscious bias has an impact on how people perceive these issues. cnn, msnbc have run chiron's fact checking trump. there's never been one fact checking hillary clinton. in the other direction, i will there has been this unconscious lowering of the standard of decent behavior for trump in the sense that if donald trump shows up in mexico and doesn't do anything noteworthy, this is considered a victory for his campaign. if he goes into the debate with hillary clinton and doesn't act like a loon bag, that will be a big win for him. the new standard for normal campaigning has been left behind. if they held donald trump to mitt romney standards, there is no way he would've gotten this far. andrew: do you think the media is truly down the middle? brian: i think there is a complicated definition of fairness in the selection. not on the statements are created equal.

sometimes if you look at the banner on the bottom of the screen, it may not be fact checking a hillary clinton lie because the line may be more complicated, may be more nuanced, may take more explanation. in this selection, fairness does not mean 50/50 coverage of each candidate. these candidates are not equal. they are not even in that way. ben is right. there has been a lower standard of treatment for donald trump. andrew: if you believe donald trump has gone unchallenged, why do think that has been the case? brian: he has been challenge many times, but the treatment is different. number one, he has been up until recently very accessible to television networks. he is same time, simultaneously running a media-driven campaign and an anti-media campaign. this is the definition of having it both ways. he attacks the press on a daily basis, and there are reasons to think he is a true threat to press freedom, even though he has relaxed his so-called blacklist.

that is all true. at the same time, he's been accessible. andrew: to the extent people think he has gone unchallenged, is it because of his accessibility? brian: i think it's because of the saturation of the news environment we live in. you may read 100 stories where it feels like trump is being let off the hook. there are 100 other stories on your facebook feed where he is .eing severely scrutinized we live in a choose your own adventure, choose your own news environment. it makes it difficult for the audience at home to get to the reality. andrew: i am assuming that the assertion that there is balance in the coverage of trump or that he's gone unchallenged, you disagree with. ben: he has gone challenge on virtually everything. the problem with trump is he gives 10 different positions for the same issue, so it makes it difficult for anybody to get down to, what does he believe about something?

he will shift on a dime. that is a challenge for the media. the idea that hillary clinton gets off scott free because her scandals are two complicated, hillary clinton scandals are not complicated. brian: what about the banners on the bottom of the screen? will say things like, i never had classified material on the server, and the fbi said, no, you did have classified material. chiron will say "clinton: no classified information on my server." they will do that with trump all the time. this doesn't really exist. trump is always perceived to be fibbing. a lot of the times he is fitting. she is always perceived as telling the truth, and later if it turns out she's lying, the media will rush to cover it. it is what happens with the e-mail server. all we heard was it was in the big deal until the fbi revealed it was a big deal. brian: i don't know what shows you are watching.

what i hear is a victimization narrative from conservatives. i would point out there are many liberals equally frustrated by news coverage. i interested in how much anxiety an outrightre is fear, among liberals about the prospect of a donald trump presidency and how they are taking that out on the media. andrew: let me ask you this. both of you have talked about this issue of fact checking. i wonder how you feel or what you feel the role of the journalist is supposed to be. chris wallace is going to be one of those moderators. truth-squadingd, was not his responsibility, that he didn't see the idea of fact checking on the fly being something that he should be doing. it's a show, don't tell approach. what do you think the role of the journalist is supposed to be when it comes to these debates? brian: we work for the viewer at home. reader reading our work.

to the extent a viewer is misinformed, the moderator has to help the viewer understand what the truth is peered sometimes, that is a carefully crafted follow-up question, as you do on cnbc. the follow-up question can be the fact check. sometimes, the moderator will have to step in to explain. not all allies are treated equally. it's hard to fact check what a grayscale story is, but some stories are black and white. that is why donald trump is a unique challenge. you could argue he's the biggest journalistic challenge of this decade. it's not that clinton should be let off scott free. she does make misstatements, but trump is equally challenging. this is the hardest task of these debate moderators have faced. andrew: the role of the journalist, the responsibility as these debates approach? ben: the role of the journalist when it comes to these debates is going to be asking follow-up questions. there are a lot of these fact checkers out there that do have a bias where they will simply credibility is to

candidates based on the political leanings of those candidates. it is dangerous to have a moderator up there who says, donald trump, what you are saying about vladimir putin is not true. hillary clinton, what you are saying about your e-mails is true or not true. it would be good to be able to say, donald, you weren't saying this a year ago, here's a clip of you not say this year ago, and let's stop pretending this is a difficult job. we have seen these candidates for a year. we know what they are going to say. if you been watching donald trump, you can predict what donald trump is predictable. if you know what they are going to say, you should have a follow-up prepared for every one of your questions. brian: if moderators don't step in, the television networks, major papers have a real responsibility to provide fact checking to the audience after these debates, and of course, it is on the viewers at home, readers at home to check,

follow-up, to look into the information ourselves. divided, so ono our own sides as tribes, but the information is out there if we want it. there is more information than ever before. we have to work harder to access it. andrew: let me ask you a question about the mainstream media, and i'm looking at you because you work at cnn. argument that has been made that the mainstream media has not been aggressively covering hillary clinton and that much of the most aggressive coverage has emanated from some of what has been described as conservative or right-wing media organizations like judicial watch, which has requested some of her e-mails. do you think that is a fair assertion? brian: to some degree, it is that is a valuable part of the media system.

we are better off having outlets that are supposedly conservative. we are also better off because there are outlets that are liberal, places like slate and talking points memo. "the new york times" assigned amy cozad to the clinton campaign years ago. there have been thorough investigations from mainstream media. there's a distinction between outlets that come with a point of view like fox news and outlets that try not to come with a point of view. andrew: i'm assuming you think nobody comes without a point of view. ben: trying to separate, using bryant language, fox news into the opinionated basket and cnn into the non-opinionated basket, anybody who views both networks knows there is an editorial bent to both networks. when it comes to the media, i agree. i would point out a distention. brian come you shifted away from the fact that judicial watch was named. judicial watch has been doing much of the heavy lifting on the clinton documentation. judicial watch is a 501(c)(3) a's theseion that foi

documents. why "the washington post" wasn't doing that is a question that ought to be looked at. brian: where i disagree with you is that judicial watch is now a media outlet. all of these groups are now media outlets. i would say donald trump's campaign and hillary clinton's campaigns are media outlets, as ben smith and other media outlets have pointed out. we should take that seriously. that has been a change in our media ecosystem. all of these nonprofits, all of these companies are media outlets. it's harder for the audience at home. it puts more of the onus on us to sort through it all. the way fact is that judicial watch works, and i know this because i know the folks there -- if they receive documents from a foia request come it's not what they have the power of putting it in front of millions of people. they pitch their information to media outlets who either pick it up or don't pick it up. the mediaerybody in basket says there is no such thing as the media. an individual cell phone is the media. brian: i think you are a media

company. i'm glad you are, because i can subscribe to. ben: i hope everybody subscribes to thedailywire.com. i do run a media company, but it's a media company that has readers and spends money to market our material. judicial watch is getting documents from the federal government. right now, we know the media are trying to unseal donald trump's divorce records. ing weren't they foia' hillary clinton's documents? the obama administration was trying to crack down on the ap for various reasons. earlier in this segment, you were talking about the fact that you thought trump was a threat to press freedom. i don't disagree with that, but the idea that hillary isn't when she has been less than forthcoming with the press, and barack obama has been maybe the worst guy for the press in the modern presidency, is evidence of bias on your part. brian: it is not bias. i would agree with you clinton is also in some ways a threat.

trump has taken more explicit steps to curtail the press. there are behaviors that are clinton ising, but no front to the media. it would seem either of these candidates would continue president obama's troublesome relationship with the media. areew: on that note, we going to have to end the conversation. i appreciate it. it's a debate that isn't going to end anytime soon. ben: thanks so much.

andrew: ray kelly is here. he was new york city's longest serving police commissioner before stepping down from the force in 2013. following the attacks of september 11, he created the first counterterrorism bureau of any municipal police department in the country. he established a new global intelligence program with new york city detectives stationed in foreign cities. he writes more about this in "vigilance." it is currently out in paperback. he currently serves as vice chairman of k2 intelligence. ray: great to be with you. torew: when you go back september 11, 15 years ago now, about whato yourself you thought could and would happen to this city when it comes to terrorism, if i had asked you then whether this city would have suffered some form of terrorist attack, what would you have said? ray: i would have said

absolutely, and it would've been very soon. you could feel that in this city. there was a lot of gloom and doom. wasn't a question of if but when. frankly, the pundits were saying that. they were writing that. we knew that. when the bloomberg administration came in, we wanted to do things that gave people a sense of comfort, sort of address those concerns. we did a lot of things, and we did it quickly. we put in place a counterterrorism bureau. we assigned officers overseas, but there was in the 12 years of mayor blame -- mayor bloomberg's reign 16 plots against the city. andrew: you write about them in this book. andrew:ray: some of them were defeated on the part of good work from law enforcement and the nypd, and some as a result of sheer luck. we didn't know about these events and plans aimed at us. andrew: dare i ask the same

question 15 years from now when you think about new york city -- how well-positioned are we to prevent the next one? ray: it depends on what the next one is. i think the lone wolf threat is going to be with us for a long time to come. that is a self radicalized individual or small groups who, through the internet, become radicalized and decide to act. what we have seen is that after they do radicalize, they act quickly. it's difficult to predict who is going to react to the hundreds of thousands of tweets that come out. andrew: why haven't we seen a lone wolf in new york city? ray: we saw attempts, and i think we have to be ready for one. it's very difficult to prevent. i think the country and new york city has done a much better job of addressing the 9/11-type,

complex, lots of moving parts aot that could be directed at city. we've spent a lot of money and directed a lot of resources, but it is that individual sitting in his basement who decides to kill his fellow countrymen, that is what we are concerned about. andrew: what aren't we doing that we should be? ray: i think we are doing everything we reasonably can do. you can look back in history and say, we should've done this or that overseas, but we are where we are now, and i think the fbi has done a good job of rolling people up throughout the country for material support to terrorists. they have arrested probably 100 people over the last 2.5 years. have the tsa in place. those sorts of agencies and resources have been put in place at great expense to the taxpayers, and i think they are doing a reasonably good job. andrew: when you look at the

secure -- the security of the city and compare it to others in the u.s., what is the margin? what is the difference? ray: the difference is significant, but new york has a much greater threat than other locations, although san -- newino and orlando york is the biggest target in the terrorists' minds. it's the capital of the world. anything that happens here will reverberate throughout the world. as i say, a lot of money, a lot of resources, and the federal government has invested a lot of money. 10 million people here on a business day. andrew: i want to ask about the relationship between the american public, the citizens, and police. it seems there is a greater divide, a sense of distrust that hasn't been there before, at a level that is greater than ever. you can see it with black lives matter. you see it with football players like colin kaepernick taking a

knee during the national anthem. what do you make of that? what is that about? ray: there is no question that some of these very disturbing videos and shootings have set back the relationship between police and communities of color in this country. from my vantage point, having been in policing for 45 years, the relationship is much better but it was many years ago, the advent of these videos has set it back. people have lost some trust in the place. i think it is something that has to be worked on everyday as far as a police commissioner, police chief, because of the nature of policing. police are asked to do the dirty work in society, make arrests, give you summons, being the bearers of bad news. it is something that is problematic.

certain developments canne increase that trust, like wearing body cameras p i support that. i think it's the smart thing to do to have police officers in the field where body cameras -- wear body cameras. we have to try to regain the trust everyday. andrew: did you think at least in the city of new york that stop and frisk played a role in this? ray: not as much as you might think. activists certainly campaigned against it. it was a skillful campaign. lasted for 14 years, something that didn't happen overnight, but i think the people in these communities want help. they are the ones who are being victimized. i know that from being in those communities so much. i think videos of the ferguson incident and the so-called that haseffect

emanated from these incidents is troubling. i mean by that, police not in gauging on the level they did engage. crime is down in this country or was down in this country for two decades based on smarter policing, and some of that is proactive policing. if you see somebody acting suspicious, you have to intervene. that is what you are paid for. now we see the police backing off from that. they don't want to jeopardize their own career or the well-being of their families. as a result of that, we see certainly murders in the 50 largest cities going up. time will heal some of this. andrew: you say this about mayor de blasio who has stopped a stop and frisk as a policy -- you say the fact that he has walked away from this, you call a routine and useful policing tool, the result is, "people will lose their lives as a result." have people lost their lives as a result?

andrew: you've got to look at some of the numbers. there was a 22% increase in murders by gun in the city. we have an increase in slashings and stabbings. this is not a be all and end all. this is not a panacea for crime stop and frisk, but it's a valuable tool for police officers to have in their toolbox. to the extent it is held back and not used as a natural consequence of a police officers encounter, then it's going to bring about more crime. alsoi believe that, and i believe that is the reason you see this increase in murders throughout the country. andrew: i want to go to the issue of body cameras. you initially did not support the idea of police wearing body cameras. what is it that changed your mind? i ray: think it was the shooting of walter scott by a police officer in north charleston, south carolina.

walter scott was stopped for a traffic violation. a policecounter with officer, apparently, he hadn't paid support payments. he thought that was what it was going to be all about. he runs away, and the officer shoots him in the back. i thought, how could any sane person do that if they are wearing a body camera that would've captured all of their actions? the police officer shoots the individual, and then the trial is going to go forward here, but it appears a lot of people planted evidence. think ultimately the body cameras will protect the police more than the citizens? ray: i do. the police -- i say this based on my 45 years in policing -- do such great things, such beneficial things for society everyday that certainly it will untowardutnumber any

events. i think it will also restrain officers from acting in an inappropriate way. people video police all the time now, and they will take that video and put it on youtube, and you will see maybe half of the entire event or two thirds. with police wearing cameras, there's the potential for capturing the entire incident. andrew: while we are on the issue of technology, i want to ask you about apple and this debate that took place earlier this year between the fbi and apple and the idea that potentially terrorists and other criminals are going to use and otherke iphones products to communicate in a way that makes it inaccessible to the police. do you think about that issue, the idea of privacy on one end and the need to know on

the other? the end oftely, at the day, security trumps privacy. we have to have a system that is in place that will enable legitimate law enforcement efforts to capture information, to make it available to them to keep us safe. company,hink any certainly not apple, should be able to say, hey, we are going to make it so you can't access this information. i think congress has to get involved in a decision like that. andrew: i framed it as a privacy versus security debate. say,ology companies would it's an unfair comparison, which is to say, the moment you create a backdoor affectively, -- effectively, you get rid of the it's not and

necessarily helping you. it's helping also the bad guy on the other end we don't know about. ray: this argument is going to continue, but at the end of the day, security has to prevail. we saw the fbi say that they couldn't open a phone until they reached out to an israeli firm, and they were able to access the phone. i would like to see some sort of agreement, compromise, but if not, i think congress has to make a determination here. andrew: talk to me about new york city right now. you have been critical of mayor de blasio. mr. browning is no longer in charge. how do you look at the policing taking place right now? ray: i think you have to look at the quality of life in this city. people are saying -- it's not just me -- that the quality of life has slipped in new york. andrew: how much do you think it has slipped?

5%, 10%? ray: it's much more of a feeling then a number. you can feel it. people tell me they can feel it. andrew: the mayor would say the stats don't suggest that. ray: you can always do things with numbers. the mayor has had problems with numbers in a lot of different agencies. i don't think it's a question of policing. i think the police want to do their job. the chief law enforcement officer in any city is the mayor. the mayor sets the tone. to the extent we have seen slippage in quality of life issues, i think the mayor is ultimately responsible. there is a move to lessen the penalties for these violations. i think that is a move in the wrong direction. andrew: the book is called "vigilance."

charlie: china's rise on the global stage is reshaping expectations for leadership in the 21st century. the success of future leaders will depend on all understanding china's increasingly influential role. the sportsman scholarship program seeks to meet that challenge here at 110 scholars will begin studies next month at

a university in beijing. students will gauge in a rigorous one-your program and pursue degrees in one of three disciplines, public policy, economics, and business, or international studies. steve schwarzman is chairman and ceo of blackstone, one of the world's leading investment firms. i'm also joined by three students will comprise the inaugural class of schwarzman scholars. they are jr thorton, annabelle, and -- [indiscernible] i will have him say it. you pronounced it for me. --it is [indiscernible] thanks, charlie. [laughter] charlie: tell me how this idea came to. say it is modeled on the road's scholarship. how did the idea come to you, and what you hope it will do? steve: the way that it came is university -- i am on the

board of their business school. invested $3stors million in the blackstone ipo. i asked me to go on the board. several years later, they asked me to make a significant donation for their 100th anniversary, and that was during the financial crisis. i was otherwise engaged. a few years later, they came back to me again, and i was thinking about, what does the future hold? how can i do something that is consequential? asbegan pretty clear populism was spreading in the united states that eventually it wouldn't just be directed against 1% or financial people or other types of groups. it would eventually reach china, because china appeared to be the .inner

historically, in 12 of the last that a challenger country was challenging an incumbent power, there have been wars between the incumbents -- i guess it was graham allison who did that at harvard. the deck was sort of stacked against a peaceful world, at least probability-wise, and that is not possible to happen in the modern world. i thought we needed to do something that would be a bridge that could take what china is doing, explain it to the rest of the world. if it was being marketed into a populist situation, it could hopefully diffuse those tensions. if china was doing something that in effect didn't really feel right, you could go and talk to them.

the idea was to form a group of students, and then i looked for a model, and i like to be rhodes model, because i knew a lot of people who were rhodeses. charlie: you had a couple working for you somewhere. steve: that's different. people like bill clinton and had theirle really lives changed through the experience of going somewhere else. i thought, wow, if we can do something similar, select amazing people who have the capacity to be leaders in their fields of interest, and if we can assemble 200 a year, so we end up at a steady state of 10,000 students over a lifetime who become grown-ups, have influence, whether it is political, whether it's media, whether it's business, whatever their field, that we can help create a network, which in the modern world, unlike when you

and i went to school where you lost track of your classmates because, how do you keep in touch with people, but in the internet world, you can keep track of everyone. we formed this network of students, not just in your class of schwartzman scholars, but across the years, and this could be a very powerful group for change. charlie: what happens as you went in search of the best and who are 20 years old and find them and take them and give them the opportunity to go to the university for a year? steve: it's more of a business year than an academic year. not that much happens in an academic year. this is pretty intense. part, wehe academic will be studying all things chinese, chinese culture, chinese history, as well as the .ype of area of specialization

what will make this truly extraordinary for students is that they will get to meet the leaders of the country. they will get to go to different parts of the country. they will have people come in from around the world, people you interview on a regular basis . we will get to spend time with them. mentors from the top of chinese society, whether it's government people or business people or diplomats. they will get to have an exposure to china, which will be truly unique. nobody else will do that. charlie: tell me about you and what you hope to get out of this. why did you want to do it? >> i studied engineering at college, but in high school, i had the opportunity to study chinese, and i continued at college. as part of my program, i spent some time in china.

i fell in love with the chinese culture and people. after graduating, i worked in consulting, but one thing i found was i missed working with china in some way. in addition to the degree and meeting everyone, the opportunity to reintegrate into what is going on in chinese culture and society is a big draw for why i wanted to participate in the program, and getting exposure is a big thing. charlie: whatcharlie: is it about china? what is it about the culture and the place, other than its size and growing impact, and also its growing problems and challenges? >> they do have those. however, it's the rapid pace of change, which is most exciting to me.when i first went to china eight years ago, i used to have to take a scooter ride and then a bus ride and a change and a walk. when i went back to years later, there was a high-speed subway that took me to the center of the city. visitedher place i have has there been that much change that quickly, and that pace of

change is only accelerating. >> why you? why china? you have already written a novel. while i studied creed of writing at harvard, i was primarily a history major. going back to what mr. shorts men was talking about, i think this is a unique moment in time where this relationship is going to be defined for the next -- i think it's going to define our lives. charlie: the relationship between china and the united states. >> yes. i do feel like there is a real need for people on this side of the relationship to be engaged with china, and going back to what you said about studying i think studying there, we are operating with a dearth of knowledge and understanding. to be a part of that, i think, is something that seems very

important and valuable. your mother was a novelist, and your father was a businessman, and at the same time, they have an ongoing relationship with china. are you set in your mind as to what you want to do with your life? are you a confirmed writer, and that is what it is? i am deathly going to continue writing fiction my whole life -- definitely going to continue writing fiction my whole life. i don't think i want to limit myself to just doing that, and i think this is part of that. i'm not sure exactly what direction i will be going in, but potentially journalism. charlie: journalism-- >> i'm keeping my options open. [laughter] charlie: it's a wonderful way to spend a life. what does this mean to you? >> this program is definitely on

unparalleled opportunity to improve my understanding of china, and having been born in mongolia, a place that is always in the back of my mind a matter where i am, i've always understood that china is the central figure in mongolian history, mongolian politics, and mongolian economics. it is a question of, to what extent is it a positive role? in the past 20 years as my goalie has transitioned to a democratic free market, there's been a growing push for chinese investment in mongolia, what it has been hindered by populism and a sense of fear among mongolians about what china represents for the country. charlie: a lot of neighbors feel that way about china. >> exactly. charlie: vietnam and others. it's understandable if you look at history, but for the countries to both develop and maintain a positive relationship, there needs to be a foundation of mutual understanding, and i hope to do

this with the program. where is your professional interest at this time in your life? >> i'm an aspiring entrepreneur. charlie: you've come to the right place. >> having worked on several on-campus ventures in college, i hope to make entrepreneurship more accessible to mongolians and people in the developing world. charlie: deuce bleak mandarin -- do you speak mandarin or cantonese? >> no. charlie: it's a difficult language to learn. you can tell us. you certainly can't do it in a year. >> it's just the tip of the iceberg in a year. charlie: are they primarily going there to develop a sense of china, its culture, its politics, its economic base, how it is changing, how it may become a stakeholder in the world, to use robin selleck's famous phrase, or are they going

there to learn something specific in terms of the curriculum like a business degree? steve: i think it is more the former than the latter. arestudents in the program substantially advanced in all types of areas. the kind of thing you can't get from any other program that is dealing with china is the kind of experience you will get with this. the curriculum is roughly taught by half native professors and a professors from around the world. all the courses are uniquely designed to be at the highest level. the students who are coming here have all been super successes academically. personlearned, just as a , to have good lifetime success, you need to have good experiences.

is great at input all the places where they are. where, if youing finish this program, academics will be excellent, but what you are getting is a unique look at a unique country that is the second biggest economy in the world and inevitably will be the largest, the largest population in the world. this is not a normal place, and it's quite alien for other people. we will have 20% chinese students, leaving aside all of the other people at the university. roughly 40% to 45% u.s., and roughly 35% from the rest of the world, and just in our first class, we have 31 countries represented and 71 universities. what we've got, charlie, which

is amazing, could only happen in the modern world, our world -- we've got the most selective program in the world at 3.7% of the people who applied and were offered the opportunity to calm, and 95% agreed to come. that is just year one. this year, our applications will probably be up around 50%. charlie: you've desperately wanted this year it fair to say? >> absolutely. remarkableis is a opportunity to see part of the world. >> it's an amazing opportunity. charlie: how was the interview process? >> oh man. [laughter] charlie: i kept getting these notes from steve schwarzman saying, i want you to sit on this board and interview these kids cute i said, that sounds like a great thing to do, that i am pursuing four jobs. bad job att to a interviewing. i also realized he had such an

impressive group of people doing the interviewing that i might not shape out. >> the adrenaline was certainly flowing during the interview process. there was a group component and a luncheon, but there was also a six or seven on one panel with me on one side and them on the other side. charlie: what did they ask you? >> they asked us about what we had written about in our essays in our application, our experience of what brought us to that point, what we wanted to get from the program, and they threw in a wild-card question about something else going on in the world -- charlie: to see if you can think freely. charlie:>> to see if we knew about other things other than our scope. charlie: political institutions have to have a broad sense of the way the world works. we are so interconnected by the shortage of time and distance, as well as the internet. professors --rom we are having a joint leadership

and wewith the rhodes, are quite friendly, but another way you learn is by being around people who are natural leaders. i remember when i was younger person -- i still think i'm a younger person, but when i was, you are always looking to pick you thinkm people who are terrific and incorporate that knowledge and modify yourself somewhat. because the group of students is just by being on their own, let alone other types of instruction, they will learn things from each other in terms of what becomes a successful. charlie: what do you think is the most significant learning experience you have had so far? far, you could say a lot of the experiences i've spent abroad away from the classroom. i spent a summer in bolivia on

my own roughly two years ago. charlie: traveling or working? studying? >> studying. it was essentially a language immersion program with a home state component. i was basically on my own for two months in this beautiful city. in a city that wasn't necessarily the most international or cosmopolitan, i learned a lot about how people have preconceived notions about who you are and where you come from. these preconceptions don't have much basis as long as you contacted them and extent of them where you come from. charlie: what has been your most maturing and shaping influence? when i was 14, i lived in beijing for a year, and i spent a year training with the chinese junior national tennis team. that was experience that led me .o write this book

at the time, the sport system was trying to carry over from the soviet union in the 1970's .nd 1980's they practiced eight hours a day and didn't have a chance to go .o school my teammates had to worry about things i never had to think about. i don't throw this phrase around lightly, but it really changed my life. that is why i would like to go back there and engage in china again. charlie: was china one of the more interesting and shaping experiences of your life? >> it was definitely shaping and influencing. it for methat changed

was my undergraduate experience. i studied engineering at m.i.t., and i had to work really hard when i was there. learning that discipline -- i was a student athlete, as well -- meeting people from around the world who were studying there, that rigor gave me the motivation and made me feel like, if i can make it to m.i.t., i can apply and seek out other things. it's one of the things that helped me apply for the schwarzman scholars. charlie: do you have a sense of the five-year plan announced early this year is the right direction for china? do you think china is prepared to take a full role in the world in the sense that china appreciates its power? steve: i think china is one complicated place. to break this into pieces, charlie, economically, they really had no choice but to emphasize the consumer part of their economy and internalize it.

just exporting, when the objective of the president of the country is to make everybody have a better life, better , and so ifter wealth everybody is becoming more wealthy, then you can't be a low-cost exporter. the economic model needed to change. this is like a hard thing. , atall, economic growth least as they report it, is in the 6%'s. it.id, as they report the consumer side of their economy, which is about half, is doing quite well. they are hiring a lot of people. charlie: there is a huge overcapacity in real estate. it's the business you are in. there's a shortage of warehousing space because of the internet. there is always some way to make money.

it's really important that they do pivot their economy, and it doesn't come without friction, but the consumer part is holding up quite well, and if more people are being hired, and higher wages are being paid, that will be somewhat and during. it is interesting that the world declare that china had a huge set of problems in january, and the markets all went off, and that didn't come to pass. element, which is a core part, will continue to have excesses and other problems, but the chinese are so adaptable and energetic. change happens so fast. they are sort of like dog years. one year in china is like seven years somewhere else. they've got political issues that they face.

charlie: issues of authoritarianism and human rights. issues, aariety of whole different model of governance. it's never a smooth ride when you are the world's fastest-growing large economy, unprecedented growth in the last 30 years. it's never happened in history. charlie: it is a fascinating price -- place. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

john: i'm john heilemann. donny: i'm donny deutsch. with all due respect to those mocking trump's assertion that campaigning his exercise -- mr. trump: i guess it is a form of exercise. donny: who are you to judge how a man uses his hands? ♪