narrator: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie ose." rose: ted koppel is here. he served as anchor of "nightline" from 1980 32 thousand 5, 25 years and earlier this year became a special contributor to cbs sunday morning. recent book, lights out, a cyber attack, a nation unprepared surviving the is now in paperback. it's great to have you.

we could just get rid of the cameras, we can do what we always do, just sit and gossip. rose: this political campaign -- you have seen a lot of it. does it signal that somehow all of politics is going to change and this is an inflection point for americane play politics and the way we cover american politics? lessl: i think it is but because of what is happening to the political system then what to our business. we have totally democratized in this country,

and that sounds like a wonderful thing. loves democracy, but the idea of a representative government is you have people who spend their entire lives, theoretically, trying to do what is best for the country. what you and i were meant to do as journalists is the same kind of thing. we were supposed to gather information and then process it, give people what was most important. we are way past that. we are a point -- donald trump -- in an interview, and we were talking after the interview, and he said, "i don't need you guys anymore" -- he meant you and me. he is absolutely right. he has 20 million twitter followers and facebook followers and if he wants to get a message out, he can just do it through them. anybody who thinks that this fiasco is going to be over on november 8 is just dreaming.

this is going to go on. we have never had a situation like this where someone like mr. , who i do not believe ever thought he was going to get this far when he started, but who has developed something of a taste for this -- he is not going to go back to just selling real steaks andstakes -- water in college. rose: i agree with you he is a bit intoxicated by the process. here's intoxicated by it because he likes this notion of people who look to him, who believe in him, who stick with him, and who they believe he reflects them when no one else does, so that "ies him a real sense of,

want to be part of this process, i'm here to stay." fact that hehe infuriates so many people in the just inhment, that tears him all the more to many feels followers who just betrayed, who feel the establishment has left them down. this guy comes along and says in effect all the things he is not supposed to say. that is part of his great charm. but it also is a reflection of how a significant portion of the american population feel like nobody listens to them. they do not feel like they will have any impact. they do not feel like their life is going to be better, and they do not feel like the system is beyond theirorces

control. ispel: yes, but donald trump in some respects like a political lottery game. you put five dollars into the lottery on the off chance -- i mean, maybe it is 10 million to one or one million to one, but you could win $100 million, and i think there are an awful lot of people out there who look on donald trump exactly the same way. is he really going to change things? well, maybe not, but we know dam well the establishment has not done any of the things it has said it is going to do. rose: washing -- watching and listening to people who campaign every day, there is a sense that he may not be the change that we want, but we want to cast a protest vote. if you look in the polls, she is ahead. different polls say different things.

it may be a little tighter than it was, and we do not really know. we will find out on tuesday, november, but my sense is hillary clinton you know, recognizes that she has a very difficult time ahead, not only e-mails and who she as but she will have difficult a time governing as anybody has in a long time. is exactly right. the fact of the matter is that some of the republican congressmen are already making noises about the investigations. really? before the investigation is even over, we've got the investigations going? well, yes. the fact of the matter is as long as it was her or donald trump, a great many people in this country were prepared to right, i will hold my nose and vote for hillary

because i cannot stand the idea f donald trump." once donald trump is theoretically out of the picture, suddenly, the limelight falls entirely on hillary clinton. she has pressure within her own party. she's going to receive an awful lot of pressure from the left, i'm not at all sure she is --ng to be a happy later two a happy lady two weeks into her administration. even if she has a senate capacitygive her some to fight some of the battles. even if she has a democratic senate, it will be by a vote or two. it will not enable her to do that much. it will still be largely divided. journalism? koppel: that's a real disaster.

first of all, in the years that you and i have been on, there was a day when people in our in of the business -- i'm talking broadcast journalism -- genuinely felt that we had a mission to give the american public the news that it needed, and that has changed in some measure because of the .echnological inventions we did not have cable. we did not have satellite. we did not have the internet. you did not have the blogosphere . it also changed because of the economic dynamics. 40 years ago, 50 years ago, the networks were printing money down in the basement with all of the entertainment programs they were doing, and because there was a certain amount of , the fcct regulation actually had some clout in those days, so the deal was go-ahead, make all the money you want to

make on your entertainment, but make sure you give the american public-- operate in the interest, necessity, and convenience. those were the three catchwords. so we had a commitment to doing that. you and i were talking about it just before we went on the air. abc, nbc, cbs -- among the three of them -- had more than 100 years ago,nts 40 based all around the world gathering information. these days, i would be surprised if they had 20 among the three of them. probably not even close to that. the same time, on the other hand, we have some very brief correspondents covering the effort to retake mosul. you see them every day. koppel: let me just say my hats at nbc, harleyn

williams, liz palmer, doing a brilliant job. you do not have the quantity, which means that whole sections of the world are uncovered. sure a lot of your audience does anyway, but pick up npr at 9:00 in the morning and listen to the bbc for an hour and just take note of how many important events are taking place around the world that are never covered on american radio and television. rose: indeed. back to this campaign. you have a campaign that has -- not on a lot on issues but on assaults on character. have we given enough attention to the issues, or have we been distracted by a story that generates so many headlights --

so many headlines? course we have, but let me tell you a story that seems to be unrelated. at the time of the hostagetaking in iran, i learned that a group of american diplomats, and there may have been one or two intelligence people in the group, maybe five or six, had escaped from the u.s. embassy and had taken up and residence in the canadian ambassador, was turned into a movie -- rose: "argo." koppel: i learned about that at the time. agot a call from correspondent who said she was not denying the story but was asking as a serious journalist to not carry it because it would

jeopardize the safety and possibly even the lives of those people. it is the only time in 50-plus years in journalism that i killed a story. came out,ovie "argo" all of a sudden, the subject was hot again, and i found myself talking to my counterpart over at cbs. out they had the same story, got the same story, got a from the secretary of state and agreed not to use it. killed the story. my point being in those days, you only had the three networks. the fact that the three of us were prepared, without having spoken to one another, to kill the story meant it was dead. the story did not run. you could never do that today, charlie. with theo way

thousands of outlets, the thousands of blogs, tweets, facebook, social media, various channels on cable and satellite television -- there is no way that you could kill a story. long-winded way of getting to -- how can one network --ion, one let's say cbs, for the sake of argument -- if it were to focus on all the serious subjects that you and i in principle can agree -- this and can cover on program. we have the privilege of being on public television. koppel: exactly. but if they were to do that, they would get their butts kicked in the ratings and pretty soon, someone up there in management would say, "guys, this is not a private club

here." rose: something like that happened this year in terms of anyone who refused to do a telephone interview with donald trump suddenly found him doing interviews with other shows. he was so much of a performance artist, an entertainer, he was attracting attention. the complaint that there's this terrible media conspiracy against him, to a certain degree, i even accept part of that as being a legitimate statement. i think the media -- certainly the establishment media -- has taken a position that comes dangerously close to saying, "we feel that donald trump is such a danger to the republic that we are going to do things we have never done before."

the new york times" putting letter f-word, spelling it out on the front page -- could you imagine that they would ever have done that in the past? however, for donald trump, who owes where he is today to the fact that he got the kind of unbelievable coverage on every -- vision station rose: [inaudible] koppel: exactly. refuses tod trump release his tax returns. hillary clinton does not have press conferences to talk about e-mails. what do we do? koppel: that is a perfectly legitimate question. the answer is you try to cover it. do whatever you can to find out. rose: somebody sent them

unsolicited a copy of an early tax return. koppel: who did that? rose: they are not telling. koppel: journalism has always depended on someone with a conscience -- rose: a source of some kind. koppel: or a grudge. rose: do you miss not being part of this every day? koppel: no. rose: not at all? because you have a life that this would get in the way of? koppel: i must tell you, that this campaign makes me very sad. is an extraordinary country. i mean, it really is. i came here as a young immigrant from england. place.this i think it is just remarkable.

churchill's great line -- "the americans always end up doing the right thing but only after they have exhausted every other possibility." that's true. americans have always done things in a wild, chaotic fashion. rose: you were naturalized 10 years after you came here. anpel: because i had married american woman and we had our first child, so i had an american child. there was no great pressure on me. being a british citizen in this country is no hardship. rose: what do you regret? koppel: about? rose: the journalism career you've had. are there roads you wish you had not traveled? i like to quote old poets when i can. stories iere are

certainly would have done differently, but as i look back, i cannot imagine a more rewarding professional life. go to as when i would college and give a speech, they would ask why i wanted to be a journalist. rose: why would i not want to be a journalist? koppel: my colleagues and i wake up in the morning, get on the phone and ask what is the most interesting thing going on in the world today, who are the most interesting people, where are the most interesting thing -- interesting places we can go, and somebody else pays you to go there. are the most interesting times. not necessarily the most hopeful, but i think it is in the end. let's talk about the book. i just interviewed james klapper, and we talked a lot about cyber security. out.book had just come

lay out the threat of a cyber attack against this country and why it has not happened. look at everything that has happened, and look at in one respect, the most interesting thing about the that in effect has created this awkward situation with hillary clinton and the democratic party. right, and her campaign manager, mr. podesta. our 17 right, and intelligence agencies which are saying essentially that the russians did it and the russians , "no, we didn't. prove it if you can." vice president biden says, "we're going to get you guys.

we're going to respond." the point was they will do something that will be in verisign to prove -- that will and herrassing to putin will know where it came from, and he will think twice before doing it again. that is the operative idea. happened thising past weekend. do you remember what it was? there was a distributed denial of service on the internet, and it knocked out thousands of operations, right? that is all-- and it is -- that that was the russians. with i did an interview was one of theat headlines that came out of it. he said it was probably a nonstate actor. something? you know

a nonstate actor can still be working with the russians. rose: but i think he was indicating it was someone else. koppel: maybe, maybe not, but my experience is in the good old we always knew where the danger was coming from. if rockets have been launched by the soviet union, there would not have been in a doubt in the president's mind as to who did it and against whom mr. viewed of action should be taken -- ibutive actionetr should be taken. in this case, the russians and chinese are already inside our electric power grid and have the oracity of taking down one all three of our power grids -- rose: what do you mean? i mean they have been mapping our grid using the internet to get into -- it gets .ind of wonky

the supervisory control and data acquisition system. it is the system that controls the flow of electricity of this country. if you can get inside, you can cause failure. rose: you are saying there inside and could cause havoc. the reason they do not do it is they know we could do it and they are more vulnerable? koppel: no, i'm not saying that at all. i'm saying exactly the opposite. rose: we do not have the same power to get inside their system? koppel: we do, but what do you do if there is a cyber attack and the president is in the all hisn room with intelligence people around him and asks who did it, and they say it looks as though the attack came from stockholm. "really?" "yes, but before stockholm it was routed through new zealand and before new zealand, it was routed through board srs --

ires, and asos a best we can determine, it came from brooklyn." now what do you do? against whom do you take action? rose: they call that attribution. they tell me they are much better at attribution. koppel: it still takes a long time. rose: they know and spoke out about the north koreans and their hacking sony. koppel: it took them a couple of months. rose: they also suspect the chinese. they have not identified publicly. the question is why do they not do that? the answer is they do not do that because they do not yet know what they want to do. they want to be sure that they have it right and second, they want to know what they are prepared to do before they single them out. that was onlyy,

intelligence gathering. a humongous amount of intelligence gathering, arguably the greatest single intelligence windfall of all time. they got -- what? 22.5 million records. want toght, people they know something about so they can approach them for one reason or the other. exactly. 22.5 million. r,t, you remember, mr. clappe at the time director of national intelligence, almost said, "pretty impressive. if we could do that -- why not?" gathering is ok. economic warfare, less so. taking out one of our most critical infrastructures -- that is an act of war, charlie. i do not think the russians or

chinese are going to do it because it would amount to war once the attribution was made, but as you go down the capability scale, the iranians, north koreans, remember the syrians actually did something a few years ago where they hacked into the associated press and put out a little bulletin, and the bulletin said there had been ,n attack on the white house that someone has shot a gun into the white house, and the president's whereabouts were not known. within something like three minutes, the ap realized they had been hacked and put out a correction. within those three minutes, the dow jones dropped 400 points, and it was simply the syrians saying to the united states, "watch it, guys." ♪

♪ accusationere is the that the russians, that they are hacking because they want to question the credibility of the american election system. that was quite a different thing that had been done. although it was said that vladimir putin believes the americans are trying to undermine him all the time. ted: i think he is right. charlie: and that we try to

create problems to him. he believed in ukraine that it was the cia that created the problems that led to the president of ukraine having to plea to russia. ted: we are old enough to remember that back in the 1950's, the cia was extremely active in central america, undermining governments we did not like. -- 1960's, 1970's charlie:. protectingn dictators. ted: they were simply different tools of that time. we now have new tools that are far more dangerous. charlie: what do you think vladimir putin is up to in the broader sense? ted: i think he is restoring some of russia's greatness.

people it hit a lot of in russia very hard that they were now considered a second or even a third rate power. i don't think you can overestimate how important that is. charlie: has he played his hand well and has he made russia relevant? .ed: look, you are his pal the two of you looked adoringly at one another. charlie: those were some of the hardest questions he is been asked. i would like to go tomorrow and talk to him. ted: so what i. -- so would i. no, you did a brilliant job of interviewing him. clearly had a fairly warm

relationship. charlie: i got him to be engaged. you want to engage people so that they innocence are trying to be -- so that in a sense they are trying to be as open as they can be. ted: that is your great skill, you engage everyone. charlie: it is like the sun and the wind. ted: exactly. i was far too windy in those days. charlie: you were far too brilliant. should we expect -- what, we have three electric grids? should we expect one of them to be attacked? the intelligence people seem to be surprised that there has not been a successful attack

against the united states on our own soil. there is been isolated attacks. attack on the grid would be an act of war. an attack on the grid would have wrapping in way of the subject we were talking about before, the campaign. when donald trump talks about building a wall, we are living wallsage where roles -- are truly irrelevant. you don't need a wall -- charlie: the wall would not prevent you. we know the israelis believe that the wall they have built has made the more secure. ted: that is true, but it is a

very small country. you can do that more easily in israel and the israelis have to be more concerned about a physical attack, but i guarantee you the israelis have spent as much or more time on cyber defense and worrying about the ability to respond to a cyber attack as we have. the point i was trying to make before is that we end the russians, we and the chinese have so many interlocking interests, i think it is unlikely that an attack, a cyber attack from them, would come in the next year or two. iran, a little more likely. north korea, much more likely. if they have a capacity to do it. i think they would. certainly an outfit like isis. higher can certainly someone was sufficient cyber

expertise, the hardware can be bought off the shelf. charlie: you know what is amazing about covering international affairs, war and peace, nations in competition for good or evil, it is certainly in the middle east, how relationships are constantly changing. turks are that the saying to the united states, let us go after rocca together. ted: it is incredible. and if they happen to knock off a few kurds -- charlie: it is amazing inside of syria. supportinge are people that our friends are against. ted: that shouldn't surprise us, the germans in the japanese used

to be our enemies. in a long lifetime. charlie: have you ever lived overseas? ted: yes. charlie: after you came here and started working, i know you covered vietnam as a radio correspondent. as a television guy, that is how i made the transition to tv. you were the correspondent, but you lived overseas? ted: yes, i was based in southeast asia or 3.5 years. my family lived in hong kong and i spent most of that time in the anon, laos, cambodia. charlie: i have never lived overseas. i have covered a thousand stories in a thousand parts of the world. overould just take this while i go away. ted: and there will be a

national campaign saying bring charlie home. charlie: no, it will be like, who is charlie? "lights out,"ck, by ted koppel. it is all about the new threat of cyber attacks. you will understand more about cyber espionage and that the world we live in is vastly different than it was five or 10 years ago. thank you. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

♪ is here, hec kandel is a former nobel laureate. his new book explores the relationship between art and science and considers how science can help us perceive, appreciate and understand great works of art. it is called "reductionism in art and brain science, bridging the two cultures." eric: thank you for having me. charlie: both of them are concerned, science and art, with the deepest questions about human existence. they sure that concern. -- they share that concern, but we think of them as separate.

eric: this book is designed to show that it is not a separate as we think and why it is not separate. the point has been made that with arts concerned and literature and science is concerned with the nature of the universe. that is because scientists have different aspirations and goals and use different methodologies. in this book i make the point that in certain instances, this is not the case. for example, in brain science, and we have seen this in the program we have done together, the goals of the scientists are very humanistic to understand consciousness. these are all important humanistic questions. artists,on, teachers, often use experiment approaches.

, ay much like scientists painter can try different things in order to see whether they are getting exactly the kind of impact -- charlie: i think it was richard art isaid to me once, at about -- that art is about making choices and moving on. choosing this color and then moving on, and then to make another choice about what this line does. science is about making choices. eric: solving problems is the way he puts it. i try to makeint here, that it became very clear with the abstract expressionists. charlie: what you mean by reductionism? eric: i mean taking a conflict problem and selecting one component, that you want to study it in great detail.

many artists study one particular thing, color or flatness. charlie: how does that relate to what you did in terms of memory? eric: what i did was to take a conflict problem like memory and say to myself, you know, studying your memory would be very difficult. but what happens if i take a memory in aof simple animal, i might be able to make progress that way. i took a marine snail that had very few nerve cells, each of which was large, and i could work out a neural circuit of behavior and induce a change in the behavior as result of learning and see what happens. found that learning involves changes in the strength of synaptic connections.

that is a simple example of a reductionist approach. this is been used repeatedly in biology. it is all based in a reductionist approach. science istionism in nothing new, and it is also nothing new in art, but people have not thought of it in those terms. charlie: specifically abstract art. why specifically? eric: because in some ways it is more experimental and it allows the artist to play with your imagination and focuses on certain aspects of things. art, and artist might focus on color, jackson pollock might focus on the splatter of paint on canvas. they focus on simple things, simplifying the test and allowing the imagination freedom to wander. one of the wonderful things about abstract art is the viewer

response to it very differently. charlie: you say that abstract art and science address questions and goals that are essential to humanistic thought. what are those questions? science, particular brain science, we want to understand how the human mind works. in art, we want to understand how people respond to works of art, how the imagination works, how we should stimulate the imagination. one of -- what are the things that are pleasing to people? those are the important questions. charlie: i want to take a look at some slides. this is a turner. eric: i love this turner. this next sequence really outlines the whole task before us. turner was interested in ships at sea and how they confronted the natural forces, the storm at sea, the clouds, the waves, and

these ships struggling to handle themselves under the circumstances. and this is a very figurative, beautifully detailed depiction. we now return to this theme four years later, and he has done away with much of the detail. you barely recognize that it is a ship because you see the mast and see that a lot of the detail is gone, but you still see that the strip -- ship is struggling against the forces of nature, and in some ways because it leaves more to your imagination, it affects you more powerfully. this is a very interesting thing about this work of art and abstract art in general. processes involved and how you when i look at art -- you and i look at art. when i look at you, for example,

all o my retina sees is the art -- light bouncing off your face. that is clearly insufficient for me to recognize charlie rose, so there must be other sources of information, and there are. bottom-up and top-down. our visual system is involved over hundreds of thousands of years, and it has brought to bear many built-in clues it uses automatically. if i see a source of light, i assume it is above because the sun is above. there is a built-in mechanism whereby we make a lot of essentially guesses that make them correctly 90% of the time. that is why everyone recognizes you. in addition to this built-in mechanism, there is a top-down mechanism.

we learn different things, we have a different experiences, we have seen different works of art, different people, and that acquired experience enriches us. is, in abstract art, the more you rely on top-down processing. one of the reasons abstract art is pleasurable for people is because top-down processing involves your imagination and creativity, and that is pleasurable for most people. aarlie: the next slide is decoding -- eric: he is considered one of the great artists of the 19th and 20th centuries. he painted this in 1940, it is of a woman he was to marry later. if you look at her right arm, you can see it is quite abstract.

there is a mixture of abstraction and figuration. becamea short period, he extraordinarily powerful and abstract. this is one of his most powerful excavations. and abstract is him -- abstract. a causes you to spin around and move. you can see figurative elements. and paintses back women, but you can see figurative elements even in the abstract painting. charlie: the next is jackson pollock. guy, he extraordinary was trained by a midwest painter and started off doing reasonably

interesting work, but then he saw picasso's work and was interested in doing something more radical. he decided he wanted to paint in a completely new way. he took the canvas off the wall, put it on the floor, and started to splatter paint on it. he could walk around it and splatter in different directions. no one had ever done this before. this blew everybody away. kooning who was both his rival and friend said that jackson pollock has really blown the conventional idea of a picture completely to hell. this is a completely radical depiction of a work of art. charlie: the next is mark rothko. eric: what is so interesting about all of these people, you can trace them as they move from configuration to abstract. look, everyone is

paying attention to line inform, what about color? he began to play with color. you have to really see it in real life, you can see there is depth to it. of paint, and the translucent layer on top. as you look at it you can really see the depth of the painting. i had a spiritual reaction, everyone has. this is extraordinary. the physical response someone has to something like this, i don't know if you've ever been to the rothko chapel, you see these paintings he made when he was quite depressed at the end of his life. nothing, andically then afterward you see a little movement and you don't know if it is movement in the painting or movement in you.

charlie: the next one is alex catz. eric: not only did they influence each other and the world, they influenced each other. katz was very much influenced by the abstract expressionists. the paintings are completely flat, a very simple background. depiction,ested in not in conveying a message, he just wants you to get the beauty of the painting. , who didnced warhol repeated images as katz did. what about other aspects of art like music and writing, d.c. reductionism

there? give me an example. example, a composer simplifies -- simplified music great deal, and that was not merely from a perceptive point of view. that form of music has not caught on, but certainly people simplify music in a variety of ways to make it more attractive. artlie: you have said that has made you a more sensitive human being. eric: absolutely, it enriches your life a great deal. you see people, you see scenes he would not formally experience, and it allows you to get more insight into yourself. i don't know whether you finalists -- find this, the idea, one can get

pleasure out of this. we look at an abstract painting that allows you to put your own ideas into it, i think it is very satisfying. the people who enjoy abstract art, i think they do it because it encourages the creative processes. government were a trio of the emmys artist -- artists. the problem they wanted to address was how you that the holder respond to our. he said the painting is not complete until the artist paints it in your response to it. put this soeally you thought about it. how does a beholder respond to a work of art? chris took that on.

we see a painting differently. each of us is undergoing a trade process. creates to a modest degree the image they see and that is why it is satisfying to the viewer. was one of the ones who -- he was the one who said we should pay attention to bottom-up and top-down processing. looking at our from an experiment of psychological point of view. the next step is, and people are starting to do this, and i'm starting to explore this with colleagues, is to see what person if you image a while they are looking at these paintings.

what is happening in their brain is a shift from figure is him to abstraction. you ask them what their responses, and then you image their brains. as they are looking at a work of art. charlie: in a museum? eric: no, you take these images and project them. charlie: and what you see in the brain? eric: we haven't done it yet, this is what we hope to do. charlie: how much of a role does the subconscious play? eric: in honestly. ernst call this a regression in the ego. we in creative elements when we are more relaxed allow unconscious processes to come to the fore. charlie: how you incorporate your sense of art into your life? i have aollect art,

very nice collection, and i get pleasure out of going to museums. charlie: have you always liked the new york abstract artists the most? eric: i wrote a book on this, i -- t started to collect charlie: they are pretty high. eric: they share features in common eared alike looking at collective because they influence each other, and these people influenced each other in enormously. not only that, but they had an interesting philosophy. they said look what happened in the second world war, there was the holocaust and the destruction of lives, the atomic bomb. how can one deal with the art that existed before in the face of these catastrophes? we have to look at the world a new. that was a very bold thing. as result, they moved the art

scene from vienna, from paris, to new york. charlie: here it is, "reductionism in art and brain science, bridging the two cultures." see you next time. ♪

mark: i'm mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. and "with all due respect" to october, you better hold on to the sugar is been a whole lot than tree. ♪ john: happy halloweener, sports fans. in our pillowcase of candy hillary clinton hits a sour snickersdonald trump, and the fbi throws out a , fireball. but first, federal agents in a whatchamacallit. fbi agents now have a warrant to two searchers is 650,000 e-mails found on the computer of carlos danger, the former husband of