♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the aftermath of monday's terrorist attack in manchester, england. authorities say the bombing suspect some other 22-year-old british national summit in beatty, was part of collaborators. salman sh national abedi, was part of collaborators. britain remained on heightened alert as several arrests were made. these included the father and older brother of the suspect. it is believed these men have

ties to isis, who claimed responsibility for the attack. joining me is griff witte and bergen. i am pleased to have both of them. griff, telling what we have learned in this day, which is considerably later where you are. griff: i think there has been a widening and intensification of the investigation today. he started with one additional suspect in custody and we now have eight. five people arrested today in the u.k., most of them in manchester, most of them in the neighborhood where abedi lived. but also in libya, the brother and father of the suspect. the younger brother, was preparing to carry out an attack

in tripoli. authorities in libya say they have disrupted the attack. they say he confessed to being part of both the plot in libya as well as having been involved in the plot in the u.k. and to have helped his brother to carry out the attack we saw monday night. charlie: who else was part of a plot? griff: they haven't said. we know the three relatives of the brother have been arrested. the younger brother and the father in libya, as well as the older brother here in manchester. the others, we don't really know who they are. one of the big questions for investigators and the british public that we don't have been answer to, do british authorities have the bomb maker in custody? i think it is a crucial question. the bomb in question on monday night was a much more powerful, much more sophisticated than , what british authorities are used to seeing here.

i think british authorities are very concerned about that fact. they want to make sure they have the man who created the bomb, who built it, in custody. it does not seem like they think they do at this britain remains point. on a critical state of alert. that is the absolute highest state of alert. we saw thousands of british troops standing out in london today, guarding the most iconic landmarks in the city, including the palace of westminster, downing street where the prime minister lives, and buckingham palace. britain is still a country on edge. the prime minister has said that another attack at this may be point imminent. we just know what does that is in fact the case. charlie: they clearly are planning for it. it sounds like with the alert they have in the rollout of so many police and military people. griff: they are. in manchester, they are known for having a dominantly unarmed police force.

the site of soldiers on the street is really unusual. of armed --ht unarmed police on the street is unusual. here in manchester, you don't have soldiers on the street, but a good number of armed police officers patrolling the streets, especially the major squares, the central square outside the town hall in manchester. it has become a site of public mourning where people are leaving flowers and crying, giving prayers of remembrance. you do have quite a number of armed police officers keeping an eye on the scene, very reticent about the possibility of a follow-up. charlie: peter, what have we learned about the relationship between abedi and isis recruiters? peter: we don't know quite yet what the relationship is, if anything. we do know that isis claimed responsibility for the attack,

and i wrote 24 hours ago that it had some merit because isis is , careful about claiming responsibility for the attacks it either inspires or directs. what is not clear is whether it was inspired or directed by isis, perhaps from libya. i do not think we yet know the exact dimensions of this, charlie. charlie: with respect to isis today, what is a signal to you as they lose some of the caliphate in iraq and syria, that this will become their new mode of attack against the west? peter: since 2014, isis's spokesmen have been calling for attacks on the west. i think it has backfired. anytime there is an attack on the west, it amplifies military pressure on isis. if you go back, once they beheaded jim foley and other american hostages, the united

states amped up the pressure on isis. the turkish army invaded syria. the turkish army is not a ragtag militia group. they have support. they have a strategy that is in conflict. they want to have a caliphate, but by encouraging these attacks in the west, they have much amplified military pressure, which is diminishing the geographical caliphate everyday. charlie: my impression is they are no longer recruiting people to make the journey to syria, but asking them to do things wherever they are now living. peter: we've seen a huge drop of recruitment of people going to syria, for instance in the , united states, where six people attempted to go to syria every month to join isis, that is down to one or zero per month. the same picture is also true writ large. ,2000 westerners at one point were joining every month. the number has slowed to a trickle. no one wants to join a losing

organization. isis is making a virtue of the present situation and calling for attacks in the west. unfortunately, we will continue to see them. charlie: griff, the fact that they are looking for a sophisticated bomb maker, who made a sophisticated bomb, who may or may not have been abedi, that was killed in the bombing does that suggest it was , a very professional attack? griff: more professional than britain is used to seeing. it was the first successful bomb attack in the u.k. in 12 years. since the july 2005 transit bombings in london. this is the first time attackers have carried out a fatal bombing attack here. we have seen other terrorist attacks here. just two months ago, there was the individual who ran down pedestrians with a car on as mr. -- with a car on westminster

bridge and got out and stabbed to death a police officer in front of british parliament. that is a much easier attack to carry out. that involves getting in a car, grabbing a knife and going out and doing it. an attack like we saw monday night at the building behind me, manchester arena, that is simply a much harder kind of attack. we see this kind of attack happen across the middle east, we see it happen in south asia, but it is very unusual for it to happen here in the u.k. charlie: is manchester a hotbed for radical extremist groups? peter: there was an al qaeda plot that was disrupted in 2009 in manchester. they were planning to attack a shopping center. certainly there has been some history. i would not say it is been a hotbed, necessarily. manchester is a big city. unfortunately, we have seen plots in london, plots in manchester, the people who attacked in london came from leeds in the north. the 2005 plotters. july 7 major british cities,

you've seen small numbers of people being attracted to the theology. one thing i am surprised by, we have not seen that many successful attacks in britain of any magnitude. the british have disrupted 13 plots in the last three years, they say. compared to what we have seen in france and belgium, it is a different story. it has been up until now mostly a francophone phenomenon, people coming out of the french or belgium prison systems. charlie: it raises the question of how do you find security procedures that will in fact try to limit this? my question is, is good intelligence the primary weapon we have against these attacks? peter: i think it is. the fbi has looked at a number of cases since 2009.

what they found is that the most people with information are peers, then family, then teachers or authority figures. people with of the least useful information are strangers. but the people most likely to contact the authorities are the strangers. strangers are producing a lot of false positives. people who really know what is going on are the peers and family members. they arrested three family members already. here in the united states, we have seen repeatedly the people if they domething, radicalization, it is common sense to interact with this individual. getting them to perhaps go to the authorities or go to an radicalization, it is commonislamic organization ti see something going on here maybe it is nothing. , that is really the way you disrupt these things. the focus ofsume

this investigation now is to see him many people in manchester or outside of manchester were involved in the planning, and if there was any direction from outside manchester. peter: yes, and it could come in a lot of shapes or forms. we know he was in libya we know , isis has a fairly strong franchise in libya. was he trained in libya? was he directed by somebody in libya? was a somebody in libya in email contact with him in the days leading up to the explosion? we have seen the story unfold here in the united states where people had been trained by al qaeda. they get trained on bombs. where you are sitting in york, there was a guy trained by al qaeda, an american citizen. he built a number of hydrogen peroxide bombs in a motel room in denver, 2009. he was planning to blow them up in the manhattan subways. it would have killed dozens of people. luckily, british intelligence tipped off the americans. the fbi followed him into manhattan with the nypd and he was later arrested. that is the kind of scenario that may well be the case here.

training overseas, gmail connections of some kind, perhaps over encrypted applications, and direction from the terrorist group. it may not even be isis. al qaeda and the north african group have a presence there. it is probably more likely isis, but we should not discard other jihadist groups. charlie: thank you. peter's book is called "united states of jihad." griff witte was with us, we lost them in a transmission from manchester. we hope to have him here again. thank you for joining us. back in a moment. ♪ charlie: neil degrasse tyson is

here, dr. neil degrasse tyson. he has been described as the most powerful nerd in the universe. also, the sexiest astrophysicist alive. how many astrophysicists do you know? he is director of the hayden planetarium and an evangelist for scientific curiosity and discovery. he hosts a popular radio and tv show called "star talk." his latest book is called "astrophysics for people in hurry." it is perfect for me. neil: sexiest astrophysicist was 40 pounds ago and 17 years ago. just put that in context. charlie: you were a young dude.

who did you write this for? neil: people have jobs, they go to school, they have kids. but if you are still curious as an adult is there anything that , serves that busy lifestyle? i wanted to take the headlines i know you have seen, xo planets, dark matter, multi-verse. these are things you have heard about the universe. charlie: put them together. neil: exactly, i wanted to but them under one umbrella and a get in ando you can out and conserve the needs of the curious individual. charlie: bear with me. astrophysics. neil: we care about everything outside of earth's atmosphere. [laughter] neil: to the edge of the universe, that is us. charlie: no gravity there. neil: it is black holes, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, galaxies.

the entire universe past, present and future. the interesting thing is that the laws of physics is not a given. it is not written in the sky that it had to be this way. but the laws of physics we establish in the laboratory, turned out, they apply across the universe and time. i celebrate that in a chapter called "on earth as it is in the heavens." when you apply the laws of physics discovered on earth to the universe, you are an astrophysicist. charlie: the definition of the universe? neil: that is tough because i want to say is everything, but recent evidence at -- strong theoretical conditions suggest it might be a multi-verse. this entity out of which universes are born. if you are asked what was there before the universe, you would say there was a throbbing, living multi-verse. maybe spawning countless other

universes with slightly different laws of physics. for the purposes of today, let me say the universe is everything that we can receive to our detectors from here toward our cosmic horizon. charlie: what do we mean by the big bang? neil: in my field, we are really into one syllable vocabulary. one syllable lexicon. there are spots on the sun, we call them sunspots. are you with me? [laughter] neil: jupiter has a red spot, we call it jupiter's a red spot. when the universe began, we called it a big bang. it was named it pejoratively by a critic 70, 80 years ago. but it stuck and we take ownership of it. data shows the universe began in infainfant decimal --

spot.ally small charlie: how small? neil: that is the opening sentence of the book. 1,000,000,000,000th the size of the period that is in the sentence i just spoke. you say, that doesn't make sense. before that, there is an opening quote where i let the reader know, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. [laughter] neil: what are our five senses? they were forged in the plains of africa, sharply tuned to not get eaten by a lion. they are not equipped for us to understand what we have received from the universe through science, microscopes and telescopes. our senses are the wrong criterion. you just ask, does the the knownn match

facts? if it matches up, that is the known reality. get over it, is what we have to say. charlie: what is the timeline for the evolution of the universe? neil: as all of our evidence shows, everything we see from here to our cosmic horizon was in the same place at the same time 13.8 billion years ago. that is what we assign as the birth of the universe. what was around before that, we have top people working on that. charlie: was there a pre-universe? neil: no, other than the idea that there may have been a multi-verse. we have nothing for you there. is that any different from saying, we have no idea how the earth got here, and then we worked on it and figured out how planets form. what about the sun? we figured out how stars form. including the sun. galaxies, there are still some

loose ends there. the next generation of space telescope is tuned to observe a piece of the universe when and where galaxies were being born. that will plug a hole in our knowledge when it is launched. charlie: he used to work at nasa? neil: that is it. nasa, the topd of dog during most of the run-up to the apollo mission. charlie: i had him on here with me. neil: good, ok. charlie: beyond being director of the hayden planetarium and a big television and podcast star do you have time for research? , neil: no. hold me back. [laughter] neil: i might put in a few hours a week. i want to boost that number back up. charlie: how do you stay on top of things? neil: it is hard. i have colleagues who are and i attend seminars and speak with them frequently. i am hanging on. charlie: you don't want to just

be a spokesman. neil: no, i don't. in fact, i have a possibly delusional ambition. i am self-aware it could be delusional. that is the first step. [laughter] charlie: recognition is the first step -- neil: to recovery. in a few years, if there are enough other people on this landscape by now occupy writing , books, doing tv, and there are some there -- i want enough so that i can just sort of back away. you won't even notice it because the landscape has changed where no matter where you turn there , is someone available to you to bring science. not even the universe. charlie: i only know two astrophysicists. that is terrible. neil: there aren't too many of us anyway. first i want to go to the bahamas to recover, then go to the lab and you don't have to hear from me again. charlie: would you like to be doing that kind of thing or are you a creature of celebrity?

neil: no, a perfect day for me is nothing in my inbox. [laughter] neil: the phone doesn't ring, i don't have any urge to reach out to the public. what has happened is, there is an appetite that gets expressed. in the gatekeepers of news, your morning news, your evening news, what happens is the universe flinches and it is like a back signal the gets sent up to the clouds. and i say there are people that want or need an explanation of things and i get called. i show up for the documentary. i am a servant, that is how i see myself, a servant for the public appetite for the cosmos. this book is an expression of that servitude. it is a gift, really, because you made me -- your collective curiosity honed me to deliver the universe in ways that best serves that curiosity.

in this book, there is no end of mind-blowing knowledge about how we understand this universe to work. charlie: why do you think it is? why are we so curious? is it simply because it is -- neil: let me offer an untested hypothesis. i want to research this, i don't know how, speak to anthropologists. human beings are one of the few animals comfortable just sleeping on our back. you have never seen a horse sleep on its back. most mammals just do not sleep on their back. and we sleep at night. what happens? i will sleep on my back at night and then i wake up. and i look at the stars. the moon was here last night and what happens? it is here tonight, and there are other brighter ones, the planets have moved. you have got to be curious. you have to be. i bet this imbued our species with a curiosity for what is

above our head that a beetle can never have because a beetle is only looking down. birds only looked down. --you turn it upside down, turtles only looked down. charlie: i have a dog called hemingway, a black lab, he sleeps like this with his legs in the air, at night. [laughter] neil: ok. charlie: i always thought it was crazy, now i think it is more crazy. no other mammals do that. neil: i don't know about all mammals, but the ones i know about. ask your dog if he is thinking about the universe. [laughter] charlie: maybe that is where he is headed. you don't mind me mentioning i hope that this book is opening at number one on the "new york times" best seller list. neil: thank you. charlie: i am witnessing the curiosity. neil: first i was like, wow, look what i did. then i said no, that had nothing

to do with me. it has to do with the fact there is a real curiosity that i think have been undervalued by others in media. people have a curiosity into adulthood -- maybe not everybody, but i am privileged to be able to fan that ember that might still be burning and worsted into flames. you say i have got to know. , there are some very competitive books on this list. political books, a lot of good books. this kind of just floated into the top. i say that is an affirmation , that the public does care about science. charlie: an affirmation of the fact that you tell it well. neil: sure, i can tell it well, but it does not have to land on the list. charlie: you can talk about stephen hawking's book, but

-- and bless it, but hardly anybody has read it. this is a very readable book. neil: i hope so, that is my goal. by the way, is not astrophysics for dummies. first of all that title is , already taken. [laughter] neil: it is real astrophysics. open any page, you have to pay attention to that. i am treating your intellect with respect. but there are a lot of fun things in there, as well. i think information can be more resoundingly received if i attach it to some pop-culture things you might already know about. charlie: i think what reasonable success i've had in media is because i have maintained a childhood curiosity. neil: listen, i think if a child is curious and keeps that curiosity into adulthood, that is all a scientist is. i am a kid that never lots -- that never lost curiosity. i say this often what is going , on at home? we spent the first year teaching you get to walk and talk and the rest of his life telling him to shut up and sit down. what is going on there?

somewhere in the school system, we need to nurture curiosity on a level that can be sustained even when you graduate. because how many people do you know that run down the steps of high school at the end of the school year or senior year "school's out." ,i think, you are celebrating the fact that you no longer learned things? charlie: school should ignite your curiosity, to teach you to explore things way beyond what you can do. neil: exactly. you spend so many more years outside of school than you did inside school. if you teach curiosity outside of the base knowledge, you can make us into lifelong learners. and you will be equipped inoculated against people who , are trying to exploit what might otherwise be your ignorance. you are curious and someone will tell you something, you wonder if it is really true. you have a built-in skepticism when you are curious. that is what we need more of in the adult community. charlie: let's talk about more

questions that you answer. einstein's theory of relativity. neil: this was the follow-on, if newtonl, because isaac in the late 1600s came up with a new theory of motion and gravity. this worked everywhere we ever measured it. the moon going around earth, earth going around the sun, the moons of jupiter around suhler -- around jupiter. it was not just a solar phenomenon. the planet neptune was discovered because the planet uranus was not following newtons laws. people say, we found the limit. they do not apply that far away. wait, before you throw it out, maybe there is another planet out there whose gravity we have not folded into our equations. it is a hard mathematical problem. charlie: it was responding to the gravity of the other thing? neil: exactly. it is a hard mathematical problem to invert. you have an object, let's calculate its gravity, and there is a gravity here, where must the object be? it is very hard mathematical problem, some brilliant people worked on it, they made a

prediction, look here tonight. that announcement got to berlin, the observatory there. a person looked in that spot, discovered neptune. newton's laws of motion and gravity were still intact. what happens in modern time, we find failures at the edge of it things are not always working. all einstein's relativity is is an updated version of the laws of motion and gravity. it does not replace newton, it subsumes it. it applies black holes to the beginning of the universe itself. if you put low speeds and low gravity into einstein's equations, they become newton's equations. that is why i say it subsumes newton. charlie: am i right in believing that i have read over the years, that over the years we have found confirming evidence of how einstein was right? neil: well, so, einstein was right on so many counts. here is something interesting. when he wrote down his first equation that described how

gravity functions in the universe, there was a term in their that represented antigravity. mathematically, it doesn't have to match the universe, you can say the rest of this fits the universe, but that, there is no antigravity in the universe. here is what happens. what this term did for him is stabilize the universe to become a static entity. if you take out this term, the universe collapses. why would he think the universe would have any kind of motion at all? there was no premise for that. he puts it in and says, i do not know what it is but i am putting it in. then hubble discovers the universe is expanding, that is ok, too. he doesn't need the term anymore. hubble the man, not the hardware. einstein realized he did not need the term and took it out

and said putting it in was the greatest blunder of his whole life. fast-forward 70 years, we find a pressure in the universe operating against gravity that is making our expansion accelerate. have to go back to that term and put it back in. now we need the term, it is real, it is called the cosmological constant. einstein's greatest blunder? it was saying that this was his greatest blunder. [laughter] neil: his only mistake was saying he made a mistake. charlie: is there a big search for a unifying theory of gravity? neil: yes, einstein was one of the earliest out-of-the-box. not just gravity, but all the forces of nature. there's a philosophical idea that -- it is not unfounded, you go back 150 years there was , magnetism, electricity, these

two forces we were playing with and we thought, wait a minute, these are manifestations, different sides of the same coin. we stapled the words together and got electromagnetism. we found out a week -- weak exertion force and electromagnetism for the same. back on a noble prize in 1978. three of the laureates were graduates of my high school. that school has eight nobel laureates among its graduates, seven of which were in physics. they found out they merged as one. electroweakit the force and gravity. mixas been tough trying to gravity in it. but we have top people working on it. charlie: explain why this is important. can anything or any object ever outrun a beam of light? neil: no. not only experimentally have we

never seen it, theoretically we can declare that it is not possible. charlie: what is the significance of that? neil: it has profound -- it is one of the founding principles that make relativity real. charlie: that einstein wrote. neil: yes. we were discovering this was true in our experiments, einstein said let's imagine that it must be so everywhere in the universe, what would be the consequences? out of this he derives the laws of relativity. every time we tested it it comes up correct. he is correct every time we tested. we have a very deep awareness and sensitivity of the operations of nature, just the way isaac newton did. charlie: what is the difference between dark matter and dark energy? neil: unfortunately their names are similar. dark matter is what we call the gravity in the universe that has no known origin. we should collect our gravity, that is literally what it is.

we see things moving in space, you can calculate how much gravity would be enabling that. then you look at what is there, it is not enough dust of their to account for the gravity that is making this motion. how much stuff is there, about 15%. 15% of what is necessary. it is the largest mystery, possibly in the science. it is from the 1930's. charlie: in all of science? -- dare i go that far? i think i can go that far. how many branches of science that have a mystery for 80 years? i don't know if any. but certainly the longest unsolved mystery in astrophysics. it remains a mystery. we don't know what it is. if you are a betting person, and you bet on physics -- [laughter]

if you are a betting man on physics, people are suspecting it might be a new kind of exotic particle that just does not interact with us in any normal way. this dark matter does not have light, it does not reflect light, bend light or condemn light, but it does not interact with light in any traditional way that matter interacts with electromagnetism. it is a mystery. dark energy, that is what we call this mysterious pressure that is operating against the wishes of gravity. we don't know what that is, either. i joke that we should remove those words, those terms because , we don't know what they are at the most base level, and just call them fred and wilma. something that conjures no image. charlie: or pluto. neil: don't get me started about pluto. you don't want to go there tonight. charlie: parallel universes. neil: if there is a multi-verse, then in principle there are other universes all around us.

i suppose you can think of it as a parallel universe. it turns out, for reasons that are involved in physics at a level beyond i exited the coursework, it turns out the force of gravity can leak out of the membrane that is the universe and be felt in adjacent universes. i kind of like the idea that maybe the dark matter in our universe is ordinary matter in a parallel universe whose gravity is leaking into ours. and we mysteriously say it is a magical, mysterious force of gravity. but it is just regular gravity across the curtain. that would be a concept of a parallel universe, where in principle, we could detect it. but if there are such things the , laws of physics would be slightly different in them and it would be really dangerous to visit. you could collapse into a pile of goo because the laws of physics that maintain your molecular structure would be compromised. you want to bring a penny or

something and flick it over into the next universe and see what happens to it. that would be our closest concept to a parallel universe. charlie: you have more than 7 million followers on twitter. neil: approaching 7.5. charlie: and you hope every one of them wants to buy a copy of this. neil: [laughter] that is wholly unrealistic. one in 10,000 or whatever it is. the book is pretty affordable. the people put it on sale for like $11. , put right into your jacket pocket. charlie: if you have to get on a plane or subway. neil: oh yeah, a plane is ideal. thanks for showing how you would shoplift the book. [laughter] neil: the way you did it look , over there. "steal this book" is a

famous book. i am as astonished as you were telling me that i have that many twitter followers. i want to wake up and say, can i remind you that i am an astrophysicist and you can still unfollow? there is still time. i see it as an affirmation of appetite that is out there. that is not even the biggest number attached to science in the media. if you look at the website, ifrickinlovescience, 30 million people follow that. charlie: i frickin love science? neil: well, this is a family show. i do not want to be bleeped on your show. i am not the only one in this landscape. it was cleared from blood and toiled by carl sagan and others who came decades before. charlie: how important is it

when you look at the support of science, how important is it to have a full understanding of what science does for us and why it is so essential? neil: that is a great question. i will not require that a leader know or be fluid in science. -- fluent in science. i cannot require that. what i would want is that the leader knows when they do not know something and then brings in an expert to advise on it and knows how to trust the advice of an expert. those are the best leaders. not claimeaders do any particular expertise but know how to listen and choose advisors in that capacity. this is the 21st century, innovations in science and technology are the engines of tomorrow's economy. science and technology provide our health, our wealth, and our security going forward. ,as the science community

marched on washington, it makes us look like we're kind of a special interest group. if you want to call is that, fine. what is our special interest? your health, your wealth and your security. it is a special interest that applies to us all. charlie: stephen hawking and others have said we need to be colonizing some planets somewhere and they talk about mars. neil: yeah. i think we should colonize just because it is a cool thing to do. i don't fully agree with their reasons. their reasons make good headlines. we could end up trashing earth and we need a backup planet. or an asteroid could come, a killer virus. something devastating to the human population. in twoe are two eggs baskets, you do not break them all. but is that practical in the following sense? if you terraform mars and turn it into mars and ship a billion people there, split the species, i get that. whatever efforts that takes, it has got to be easier to figure

out how to deflect the asteroid. it has got to be easier to come up with a super viral serum where no virus will ever infect you. those have to be easier than terraforming mars and shipping a billion people there. not only that, if we trash earth and we want to go to mars after we terraform it, if you can terraform mars into earth, you can terraform mars and back into earth. why not? i think in practice, we should do it because it is a cool thing to do and it is a scientific frontier, but as a solution to saving our species i don't , see it as realistic. plus, you're going to watch 4 billion people go extinct and do nothing about it? we are fine over here, we are the half that is going to survive and propagate the human species. i don't see it as realistic. so yeah, i say let's do it, but not for those reasons. charlie: these and other questions are answered in "astrophysics for people in a

hurry." by neil degrasse tyson. thank you for coming. neil: you do good by science. keep it going. charlie: we will be right back. ♪ ♪

charlie: jeff pegues is here, he is the justice and security correspondent from cbs news,

where we are colleagues. in a new book, he explores tensions between law-enforcement and communities of color. "black and called blue, inside the divide between police and black america are good i'm very pleased to have jeff here at this table for the first time. welcome. jeff: thank you. charlie: the origins of this book? jeff: covering ferguson, baltimore, covering chicago, i felt compelled to get facts out there. on both sides. ofis easy to tell one side the story. what is harder is telling both sides of the story in a manner which you are being fair. and open-minded. that is what i saw to do in "lack and blue." charlie: what did you think was missing from understanding? jeff: just an accurate per trail of what is going on on each side. police officers who feel underappreciated, underpaid, overworked, and who feel they are on the front lines of having to solve all of the social ills.

i talked to the head of the saide union in chicago who we cannot raise your kids or , cure your psychosis. people are asking us to do too much. on the other side, you have black americans who feel like police don't treat them with respect. you have stories in these justice department reports of people being strip-searched in their neighborhoods. said we cannot raise your kids or , cure your psychosis.how demeag is that? i wanted to get to the bottom of all of these stories, rip the band-aid off, and talk to these people about what the real story is, how they really feel. these police officers go to community meetings and are in their uniforms and they cannot really tell people in the community how they feel. in a way, i went behind the scenes and allow them to open up. i took my iphone, i did not take a camera crew, i took my iphone into these neighborhoods and talked to police officers who are frustrated and wanted to get their message out, they'd do not

feel that they show us respect. you have the same thing on the other side. while there is this divide, there are people on both sides who have more in common than they would think. charlie: what is the breakdown? what happens? is it fear, the lack of training, the lack of something? jeff: the lack of both of those things, i think. fear, let's take that for example. if you are police officer and you see images on tv of african americans yelling and screaming at police officers in their neighborhoods, that can create of fear. on the other side if you are a , black american and you have grown up with parents like i did who have lived in the south, birmingham, montgomery, alabama, marched in the south and were confronted with water hoses and billy clubs and dogs that , creates a fear. then you have more contemporary

issues with ferguson, baltimore, what is happening in chicago. that creates another type of fear. this is what people in the black community grow up with, and some police officer's, they see these images, as well, and seek the black community doesn't appreciate them. in a way, that creates fear, as well. charlie: what we need is people to talk to each other, clearly. people to talk to them like you and report back what we have found. but also, i would assume, some sense of understanding the difficulties that the police officer faces, and understanding what it means to live life in a neighborhood where, as you say you are strip-searched in your , own neighborhood, where you believe the assumption is that , you have done something wrong rather than you are a citizen of this neighborhood. jeff: yeah. charlie: and there's no reason to believe you've done anything.

jeff: exactly, that creates a divide. some of it is zero-tolerance policing or stop and frisk, when it existed in cities across this country. a judge ruled it was unconstitutional and a lot of police departments are moving away from that kind of tactic. when you have police departments, in an effort to crack down on crime, pounding people in a neighborhood, harassing them essentially without probable cause, that creates this risk. -- this rift. how would you like it if every time you went outside your door, you had a police officer looking at you in a way they are suspicious of you, even though you were just going to the corner store? all of this leads to this divide, this rift. it is a problem on both sides, because as you say, they are not communicating. in the society we live in with social media, people rather talk

than listen. however, over the last couple of years, there has been an effort police leaders and community leaders to reach out and break down those walls to get to know each other. we talk about some of that in the book. there are a lot of people on both sides who know this is about lives on both sides of this divide, and how you bridge that gap? sure, it is something that has been at issue for decades in this country. some people in the black community say it is systemic. but it is the type of problem that people on both sides are trying to work through, and trying to make better. charlie: what do the people in the black community say in terms of what they think is necessary? jeff: part of it is investing in these neighborhoods. a lot of it. invest in the neighborhood. put money and hope and opportunity in some of these neighborhoods. because they are not seeing it.

if you look at the unemployment rate in some of these black neighborhoods in chicago, for example, inglewood, austin, unemployment is in the 20% range. nationally it is 4%. these are communities where there were at one time in history factory jobs, but those jobs have left. there are no real jobs. there is no real opportunity. when you talk about rising crime and the rift between police and -- police, who are facing these social issues head-on, not that it is part of their job, but it is what they are confronted with you have to talk about the , entire picture. maybe part of that is investing money in these communities. that is what people told me. charlie: what causes a police officer to shoot someone running away from him? jeff: could be a number of things. to be a lack of training. could be that he panicked. could be a number of things.

charlie: could be racism? jeff: could be some sort of racism. it is hard to tell, and that is something that has to be investigated. are you referring to the dallas case, the 16-year-old? charlie: if someone is running away from me and you shoot them in the back that doesn't seem , like a threat. at the same time, and all of -- i have learned, and all of these cases understand all the , facts before you speak. jeff: that is a good point. in the dallas case, the chief came out and it first defended the officer. but then there was a check of the body cam footage, and there was a reversal. and so, you know, part of the problem is training. you talk to police chiefs across the country and they will ignore it -- and they will acknowledge they need to do a better job of training. more transparency. the body cameras are helping the situation. at first, there were a lot of rank-and-file police officers they did not want the body

cameras. now, a lot of them are finding they are helpful. for their own defense, exactly. what we are finding, according to a police chief i spoke with, community members are coming to complain about an officer's action, what they do is they go to the camera, the footage, and they say, is this what you saw? most of the time it actually clears the police officer. there are a lot of rank-and-file police officers who are now welcoming these body cameras because it is backing up their side of the story. charlie: do we need truth and reconciliation processes like they had in south africa? jeff: i talk about that in my book. south africa, that was a unique situation. but truth and reconciliation, it is something the chicago policing task force recommended, some sort of cleansing process. i think in some way, that might be good based on what i found in my research and interviews, but

all it means is acknowledging what has happened and how you move forward. there is a police chief, a former police chief, terrence cunningham, who is president of -- who was formerly the president of the international association of the chiefs of police. he came out last fall and give a -- and gave a speech where he apologized on behalf of police officers who were enforcing laws that were at times discriminatory. but it was a way, he felt, to get this conversation started, to spark a conversation where you acknowledge, ok, there is a history here. there is a history, and once we acknowledge that, we can move forward. i talk about that in the book and how we came to the decision to make that controversial speech. and it was. he was hoping it would spark that conversation. maybe it did, we will have to see. charlie: why did you become a reporter? jeff: well, because like you, it

is fascinating to figure out what is going on in someone's head. charlie: what makes them tick. jeff: what makes them tick. and, to search for the facts. right? defector,ou become a in a sense. jeff: in a sense, but you just chase the truth. i think our democracy is built on that. we are searching for facts, and that is what is so great about this job. charlie: facts are in debate. the idea of fake news, alternative facts. jeff: that is a problem i think our country has to grapple with. thanks, charlie. charlie: the book is called "black and blue." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ ♪

alisa: i'm alisa parenti from washington. you are watching "bloomberg technology." nato has agreed on a plan to step up the fight against extremism. the secretary-general spoke after a nato meeting in brussels. he said nato will expand support to the coalition but will not engage in combat. meantime, president trump concluhis participation in the nato summit and is on route to sicily. he is scheduled to participate in two talks with members of the g7. sicily is the fifth and final stop for the president overseas. his executive order barring entry will remain on hold. a federal appeals