♪ carol: welcome to bloomberg businessweek. trouble for justin trudeau. julia: mess for angela merkel. all that ahead on bloomberg businessweek. ♪ carol: we are with the editor in chief megan murphy. we kick it off, taking a look at canada which i feel has largely escaped the populist movement we have seen around the globe.

megan: what it has not escaped is an economic slowdown or perceived economic slowdown which is really affecting justin trudeau, the prime minister who could do no wrong. his support has slumped a little bit and he is facing an angst among his people not too dissimilar from the populism wave of people saying canada needs to return to its roots. i want to feel like it is supporting us out in the heartland and the western parts of the country in particular. julia: he has had challenges. the paradise papers have been an issue. politically there has been noises surrounding him that have not been very helpful. megan: he has had a few domestic scandals. with both his chief fundraiser and finance minister under scrutiny. the core concern is that, yes they have had this 4.5% growth, but as oil prices have declined in

projections for growth are hovering around 2% he is facing pressure. people are facing the same amount of concerns about their wages, lack of wage growth, how they will afford things going forward with oil prices being what they are as well. there is a conservative movement in canada. justin trudeau is well known globally for embracing diversity and embracing syrian republic and he is a supporter of diversified fema candidates. he is one of the most diversified political leaders in the world. sometimes the rubber will meet the road if you're fulfilling your promises. another big thing is nafta and president trump and renegotiating that. canada is incredibly reliant on the u.s. as a trade partner. nasa has benefited canada and mexico to an extraordinary extent. the longer this goes on with donald trump hanging this sort -- sword over the head leads to angst. it leads to rivals checking to

see if they can unseat him. carol: he is responding to some extent. megan: he has cut taxes, really looked at how i can deliver a more middle-class package, taking taxes down those making less than $75,000. and hiking rates on those over $157,000 a year. those are popular. people like to see a redistribution of income. but whether or not he will be able to put in place a measure that jumpstart growth in falling oil, get the investment he needs with after, multilateral companies are looking and saying, as is where i want to invest and put workers right now? julia: the next elections are in 2019. he has got a bit of time, but he was vibrant, young, a globalized vision and canada was so exciting for the rest of the world. but if you look at some of the rivals, as you have mentioned, there are some similarities

there. megan: absolutely. his main rivals is a person on the left, even implement a harder against the rich platform, and a conservative that supported brexit. these are interesting times for him. what is interesting is he is incredibly popular around the world. he is popular in canada. we should not say he is not. he attracts a lot in a aggregate system, that is not something to sneeze at. offlook, the shine has come a little bit and whether people will start paring down if he can deliver on his promises, has control over his own house in terms of scandals, and whether or not if you look at the economic times, is this the prime minister with the kind of intellectual people behind him. julia: a few concerns about support for justin trudeau going forward. certainly not worrying about any kind of armageddon scenario. that leads us to the cover story.

carol: we love this story. megan: this is one of my favorite stories, the real emergence of survivalist foods. is a juggernaut in terms of business at this movement of people basically preparing for -- we should not pull punches -- people are preparing for armageddon and where that is spread out. what is so great about this story is it shows everyday struggles people and families are facing. every day struggles of hurricane victims. kids stuck in dorm rooms because of severe weather. survivalist foods was to provide foods that provide 300 calories, $7,000 for a year's supply. they are now everyday potential lifelines for struggling families, struggling prices in the country. of course it is tongue-in-cheek.

there are many humorous elements. but it is also a real story of what going on in the country. carol: we have more on this story from amanda little. amanda: he's a 42-year-old entrepreneurial. his company is producing survival food. it is freeze-dried, long storage food you can keep in your pantry for about 25 years, probably longer. he is selling about $75 million of this product a year. he is part of and exploding market. carol: we have a couple of packets. the beef chili packet. freeze-dried. you just add water.

this is a growing business and is not just about selling it to those folks who had to deal with disasters, which we have seen a lot of because of recent hurricanes. he is trying to get this stuff into suburbia. amanda: i really see it as a suburbanization survival story. i came into this with a lot of skepticism. i have some family members who were beginning to develop their own sort of basement stores of this kind of product. that got me interested in it. aaron had an interesting take. he is not what you would expect to be the kind of prepper guy. as i described, he is kind of a clerk can figure. -- clark kent figure. he drives a bmw. the golfs. he worked at tyson foods, post foods. he's a corporate guy and saw this opportunity to take the

product was a french, extreme, zombie apocalypse product and get it into the mainstream. to my mind i was curious as to whether this was successful and what it says about us as a culture. how the response to this product which he has now got for walmart, target, home depot, bed bath & beyond, home shoppers network, how this trend in sales reflects an area of the culture and our broader anxieties as a culture. julia: i love that. i never even heard of the term "preppers." we build shelters in the u.k. do we don't have same kind of mentality. it is just a tiny portion of the american population buying into this, yet if you look at the number of americans who have first aid kits, that gives you a sense of the opportunity here. amanda: 2% is a small percent, although that is lot more than was buying this product five years ago.

right? so, his sales have more than doubled in four years. i spoke to folks at emergency essentials and some of his competitors and they are also seeing this trend. i mean, the whole category is growing. they are describing it as a response to the increase in natural disasters on one hand and this fear there are diminishing government safety nets. basically that people up to take sort of their own safety and security in their own hands, which is an interesting reflection on both our environmental moments in our political moment. 2% is still a fringe category but growing fast. carol: turning survival foods into a cover image was a job of our artistic director. alexander, the cover story is about survival foods. i did not realize this was an industry.

what went into the thinking? >> we worked on a number of ideas of how to create a bunker scenario, or trying to imagine what kind of context you eat this in. we thought it might be interesting to figure out what it does not look like which is appetizing. like one of the holiday meals. carol: it looks like a lot of dry stuff. >> that is the real food before it gets water added to it and becomes a complete meal for you to eat. carol: very stark and it really does contrast with everything before the holiday. thank you very much. julia: ground zero of fake news, silicon valley, and what needs to be done about it. carol: faqs artists have learned how to beat google. julia: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." julia: you can catch us online at businessweek.com, and on the mobile app. opening the magazine this week in "remarks," paul barrett writes about what google, facebook and twitter need to do to fight their common enemy, fake news. paul: for the first time, there is at least the beginnings of a rift between washington and silicon valley, which up until now has really been immune to a serious regulation. now there is at least, in theory, greater regulation of the big internet platforms. carol: it is hard to believe some of the numbers that up in the social media companies when they talk about russian meddling. the what number, what was it, 126 million facebook users may have seen the kind of content, divisive content created by the russians. paul: you can add 20 million more if you had instagram which is owned by facebook.

the numbers are bigger than we previously understood, than the company's previously disclosed. i think for that reason, we have to pose and answered the question, how do we move forward here? do we have to draft some kind of regulation that causes government control of content on the internet? i don't think that is a promising path given the first amendment and our free-speech values. in the absence of that kind of sweeping regulation, the companies have to step up and do more. carol: let's talk about their responsibility. these are companies that are all about data and data collection, and they use it effectively to make billions of dollars. should they not have had some awareness sooner rather than later about what was going on? paul: i think the obvious answer is yes, they should have been aware that would be vulnerable to being used by the line forces, whether it was

the russians in the 2016 election for the longer-term issue of use of the internet for terrorist incitement. i mean, while the hearings were going on in washington, up here in new york we had the latest terrorist incident involving a guy who mowed down people on a bike path, killing eight people. the authorities could be -- very quickly determined he had been radicalized online, looking at isis videos and other material. carol: what has been the oversight by a facebook or a google and twitter in terms of this kind of content so far? paul: they definitely have some issues. some mechanisms are in place that allow them to take down objectionable content. they have both algorithms that search for the content. they also have human oversight

and they look for it that way. they are clearly not at a point where the are catching a lot of stuff. much of it gets through. carol: and the technology section, while google is not trying to stop take nudist on youtube. julia: the so-called evil unicorns. mark: facebook is faced the broader criticism, but google has a problem as well. we have seen that after two tragic shootings, las vegas, there was a misidentified suspect. they had these post about him online. information.se i was talking with you know, a former engineer, who said they have dealt with this problem in the past with spam and came up with a term, "evil unicorns." if there are unicorns, they are not evil. but it's a term been developed to say someone has built this website or url page that would blatantly print false information, pernicious but it would only

turn up for obscure queries. there is benefits of child vaccinations, but people are willing to create content about the evils of childhood vaccinations. because the way google search is structured, they tend to crawl survey highy will for some results. carol: how do they fix that? they know their technology, their algorithms can redirect searches. what are they doing about it? it starts withn, breaking news. what happened with las vegas and the shooting in texas, a lot of people are interested in something very newsworthy and searching for it and there is not much information online. what happens is people can go out and create false information that can spread and become very viral and is very high in the search and it spreads on twitter and facebook. it is a vicious cycle. i think google -- one solution

is to give more weight to authoritative sources. if something is a news outlet, it should appear higher in the search. when they first launched google news, their search term for an -- any news related terms, three years ago they opened that wider the blogs. google sees a trade-off between relying heavily on mainstream established outlets and what they see as the wider, long tail of the internet. they want to revise searches for -- they also want to provide searches for someone not just looking for information on a mainstream outlet. so that is the trade-off as far as google season. i don't think they have come up with a solution to the problem. julia: the pitfalls of combining health care and tax reform. carol: and angela merkel plots for survival. julia: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪

julia: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." carol: you can listen to us on radio on sirius xm general 119, york, ame 11 30 in new 99.1 fm in washington, d.c., i and in the bay area. julia: and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. economics editor attests to answer one of the big questions in the senate tax bill. carol: what happens when an individual health care mandate is inserted in negotiations. peter: the senate bill, which the senate will be taking up after the holiday, has in it a repeal of the individual mandate. they are not trying to repeal all of obamacare, what they want to take out a leg of a three-legged stool and some people think spell the endod

of obamacare. the reason for the individual mandates, to make sure everybody including people that are relatively healthy participate in the risk pool, if you take that away becomes much less affordable to provide subsidies to keep everybody insured. julia: they basically want to save money on subsidies, and this is a financing tool to offset some of the other things through tax cuts in the tax-cut package. peter: the byrd rule -- carol: senator byrd. peter: they cannot pass a tax cut beyond the 10-year window they are looking at. if they can't repeal the individual mandate, the bill will not cross that threshold and they cannot pass without democratic votes, which won't happen so it will doom it.

this is an important discussion. carol: not only among republicans, but it is not very popular, this mandate. it is tricky for both parties. peter: the republicans the trick is they love the idea of the congressional budget office telling everyone they can save more than $300 billion, but the reason that would happen is fewer people will be covered according to the cbo. they want to take the savings without technology the expected decline in coverage. carol: an increased health care costs down the road. julia: if they do this to get tax reform passed, it will force us to come back to health care in some repeal and replace obamacare early on in the new year. they acknowledge it is not sustainable if we pull back on the repeal of the individual mandate. given the difficulties we saw

passing any form of repeal of obamacare, the senators said we're not going to do this, how can they swing this? peter: that is been issued for a long time. now that they control the white house and both houses of congress they can't be in a defiant posture of just saying vote no, vote no. if obamacare fails and there is no sustainable replacement, it is on them. i think there are a lot of republicans saying we should be a little careful about pulling out one of the legs of this three-legged stool. carol: also in the politics section, angela merkel is planning her next move after failing to form a majority coalition. matthew: for years now germany has been the center of stability, politically, economically through the european debt crisis, the refugee crisis. that is starting to crack now.

we saw the early fissures in september with a german election in which chancellor angela merkel's party lost a significant number of seats in the lower house. she tried to form a government over the weekend. those talks failed. it is unclear what will come next in germany, whether she will be a will to form a government. what is clear is this age of merkel at the unifying force in europe seems to be in the rearview mirror now. carol: what is interesting in reading some of the coverage, she has been in power for 12 years. this is her fourth term. some have said she has gathered a lot of political baggage along the way. matthew: this is somebody who has over 12 years formed three or four governments now. she has done very well to build coalitions and form compromises. she is seen as a nonideological politician.

as she has been able to form the government inside germany that has allowed her to look outward and a focus a lot of your energy and foreign policy. meanwhile, inside germany, she has made a lot of enemies, carries a lot of political baggage. parties have formed government with her and felt earned. -- burned by those. the free democrats for example are putting the screws to her a bit right now and not coming to the table in a way that is allowing her to form a government. right now it is very unclear whether she is going to stick around. she has said she would rather have new elections rather than be part of a minority coalition. carol: they will potentially have this play out, with implications for germany and obviously for angela merkel. what does it mean for brighter europe?

she has been a crucial figure coming off the crisis and in terms of dealing with broader europe and with the world as a whole. matthew: think about the last 12 years, going back to 2005. i mean, angle of merkel, when you think about this family picture we get out of all these g7 meetings, she has been this reassuring presence both for americans who are familiar with her and also a lot of europe. especially against the recent aggression we have seen out of rush of these past few years. that is on the wane. it is not surprising to look back and the battles she has fought through the european debt crisis, austerity, the wave of immigration that has come out of the syrian crisis when they took in over one million refugees it did her a lot of harm domestically.

julia: how macy's plans to survive the retail apocalypse. carol: and hbo after "game of thrones." julia: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save.

choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. ♪ julia: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i am julia chatterley. carol: and i am carol massar. macy's plans. julia: and the ceo of hbo talks about the future and sexual harassment in the workplace. carol: and a sign we all may all be drinking a little too much. julia: all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

>> we're back with bloomberg businessweek editor-in-chief megan murphy. i love this interview, the ceo of hbo. megan: hbo we all know well as one of the best and first supreme outlets of content, but as time has gone on the brand has really faced challenges. you have the amazon in this space. you have netflix in this space. you have hulu in this space, and these are all content studios. we did an interview earlier with richard deniro and where you go with these best products, so the fear is competitive, and hbo is working to maintain premium content. "we still want to be the premium outlet." and when i talked to richard, how they go about to be the culture that celebrates talent and how you do it in this kind of environment where directors, actors, authors, writers have so many places to take that content, how do you expand and thrive and maintain that brand

integrity? it is a fascinating, fascinating time for them. julia: he also names the time warner ceo as a key mentor. he has learned a lot from. what are the key takeaways you got from how that relationship evolved and what he learned from him specifically? megan: what is interesting is when you look at his trajectory at hbo, he started -- his first big break with one they gave him the co-presidency and being in charge of hbo. how he took that rant. whens right at the time they had several big hits like "sex and the city." then you fast-forward and he became ceo, it is an entire new thing. it is a mobile platform, where you put the thing, how you're going to be competitive. this over-the-top, breaking free from the cable delivery system we have now. richard plepler has been saying for 30 years that when he

of separate sort from the subscription package, he thought it would be complementary to cable delivery. it was controversial at the time. you are encouraging cord cutting. you are encouraging millennials to not buy cable subscriptions. he has been a passionate advocate that that is in fact not the case. just 1% ofs business. that number is going to change radically and it will be interesting to see how they can balance that weak cable companies, particularly tying up with at&t. this is a big issue, and it is going to determine what their future is. carol: it has been fascinating to watch with the justice department, obviously the at&t-time warner tie up -- with hbo being tied up with time warner, but marrying a content creator, hbo-time warner, and a distributor in a form of at&t, and i do not think people thought it would be a concern.

megan: a very similar type of deal went through. now the justice department is suing to block the deal and richard plepler and others in the time warner family have been supportive of this deal. they believe it will increase the power to get hbo into the home of more consumers. the issue with that is this is exactly the kind of deal that the justice department sees as problematic. that the existing antitrust framework does not work. that it will eventually drive prices down. for example, let's hbo says we are going to limit access from other distributors and not particularly on mobile. at&t has such a large percentage of the mobile phone networking market. it is not good for them.

obviously, he has a lot of money at stake in terms of share options as well. so we will have to seal it plays out. he is remained steadfast throughout the deal that whatever is good for time warner would be good for hbo. julia: you did talk to them about the industry and scandals we've seen, and obviously harvey weinstein has been very much a prevalent subject. how has it evolved now? megan: i'm glad you brought that up. he said one thing i surprised him with how many have come forward, we're not talking about just ashley judd, we are talking about reese witherspoon, gwyneth paltrow, and i think for richard plepler and others, they realize how deep that rot was, and he wants to be part to bring a balance supporting female writers, authors, but i do think it was an extreme eye-opener for him about how pervasive this kind of behavior was.

carol: so disturbing. megan: incredibly. julia: also, macy's new ceo is trying to reinvent the department store in the digital age. carol: so far, they have not accomplished much. here's reporter susan berfield. susan: a lot of people say we do not need a department store like macy's. because isn't that sort of what amazon is? so you know, the way i look at it, macy's has closed 100 of them, but still, they will have a number of stores, and what can they do with them to draw people in? ideas, but most people i spoke to thought he needed to have much bigger ideas to save macy's in the face of amazon, but also a lot of the other retailers, you know, that macy's placeaking

at the lower end. the off-price. kind of tj maxx and like that. so macy's plans to do a lot, but it has not done much yet. carol: do we need department stores? what do experts say, susan, about department stores? do we need them anymore? susan: one way to think about it is amazon is very convenient, or shopping online is convenient, as we know, you can buy anything. you can do it from anywhere and you can buy anything. but what we've also seen is that some newer brands that do not have any physical presence want a very small physical presence, and why is that? people still do want to touch things. they still do want to try on rings. they might want advice from somebody. so, they might just want to be around other people. crazy idea, but you know, it's the still be true. be true.ld still

but some newer brands that is not have any physical presence want a very small physical presence, and why is that? because people still do want to touch things, they want to try on things, they might want advice from somebody. so they might just want to be around other people. crazy idea, but you know, it could still be true. malls used to be that social experience. malls, as we know, are shrinking. there are still some super malls, and macy's is still in them. but the idea is to make macy's an experience. that is a very hard thing to figure out these days, and macy's has not done it yet. julia: they own bloomingdale's stores, and i was just saying before whenever i go into bloomingdale's, is something is not on sale, and as a loyalist customer, if i cannot get 20% off, i will not do it because i know the next weekend or the week and after, they will be on sale. the general payoff is something being a problem for them. i know they are trying to get away from the idea of being permanently on discount because it is a race to the bottom if they are permanently on discount. susan: and i know we feel kind of like a sucker if we pay full price for anything. how do they get out of this? they can't.

julia: does he understand that? susan: yes. julia: you spoke to him, didn't you? does he understand that? susan: yes. they are going to continue to try to discount, but what they are going to try to do is simplify it a little bit so there are not discounts on top of discounts -- i have this 40% coupon, and i am shopping on wednesday after 4:00. so i've got a 10%, you know. they want to say here is the price, it is discounted by this much. here is that kind of fictional suggested price. and you're getting a deal. i think they have to embrace that. at the same time, they are doing trying to push themselves, and they are also trying to cater to those who want even more of a discount. carol: up next how the mobile home industry went upscale and left low-end customers in the dust. julia: and its stock recommendations courtesy of artificial intelligence. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ julia: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i am julia chatterley. carol: i am carol massar. you can also find us online at businessweek.com. manufactured homes, leaving many with no options. prashant: mobile homes, or manufactured homes, as they are now called, have been a key source of affordable housing in america, but now, manufacturers are building an sort of interior designer touches, and the costs have increased as a result. julia: warren buffett has been at the forefront of upgrading these, and they are upgradable,

incredible from what i have seen from the inside. carol: they are incredible. prashant: yes, someone took me around the high-end communities, and you cannot tell that they are manufactured homes. pitched roofs, even from the outside, you cannot tell they are manufactured homes. they have custom bedrooms now with, you know, benches in the showers and you have vaulted ceilings and kitchen islands. courts countertops. everything you can imagine you now have been manufactured homes. julia: a lot of the elements you're describing have been price rises. you mentioned a 25% in the last five years, which is ok until you have your home destroyed by a hurricane, and then they come back to the market, and they are like -- prices have just moved away from

them. carol: like judy goff, who you write about in the story. prashant: in the 1970's, her mobile home was actually ripped apart. i walked through with her, the ceilings were gone, the walls have folded in, it was a complete disaster. she paid $48,000, including the land, back in, i think, 2000. now she needs to by anyone -- buying a new one because her community requires anything going in is brand-new, and it has to be double wide, it has to have a carport -- there are a lot of guidelines that the communities have because they do not want to be the cheapest trailer park on the block. right? but to her, it is a disaster because she went in looking for what she could afford, and they priced it out at $140,000. she wants something basic.

and that is kind of not what they are peddling now. julia: a veteran internet analyst has created a self learning program that can do his job better than he can. >> we talked to alistair barr about having ai-recommend stocks. alistair: downgrading facebook to sell, which is pretty unusual, and the more unusual thing is it was done by a robot, an ai analyst. [indiscernible] carol: tell us about this robot, what is it called and how does it work? alistair: it is called aeira, and it scoops up 500 models each day, and it uses a lot of the machine learning techniques, one language.s natural

it basically takes the words and no stories and turns them into a sentiment score. one being really, really great. zero being absolutely terrible basically uses those sentiment scores and checks the stock market to see if that ortiment moved the stock not. if it toothache relation, it uses those patterns and correlations to make calls on stocks whether to buy, sell, or hold. carol: it is interesting. what is interesting about the downgrade, as you mentioned, it feels like nobody on wall street or financial analysts ever seem to put a sell rating on company, certainly not on something like facebook. if you go to an analyst like wells fargo, they have a sell on -- did not have a sell rating on it. alistair: only three have a sell on it, if you include aeira, so they have to be ready to explain

to clients what this meant, and basically the main reason for the sell was that there were so many stories about russian ads on facebook and google trying to influence last year's presidential elections, so basically the system sucks those in, and they were so negative, in that they outweighed all of the other stories that were written during that time so they made a call, which is to sell. errol: well, it is interesting. here is this man, this is what he does. he researches companies, makes calls, makes recommendations. was instrumental in creating this artificial intelligence analysts, it if you will. alistair: that is right. basically ken came to this about a year ago. he became very interested in artificial intelligence because google and others were improving their own tools must be felt like he needed to understand that, so he put together this ai conference in 2016, and where

one of the people who came to it was brian healy, who helped develop alexa, digital voice that goes into the amazon echo speakers. they really hit it off, and then brian started helping ken advise wells fargo clients on ai. the more they got into it, the more they realized to really learn this and improve some of the benefits to this, we should build when ourselves. carol: up next, legendary music executive irving azoff tells bloomberg how he plans to get musicians bigger paychecks. ♪ >> and big expectations for britain's new museum and why britain's famous bartender is pushing for an earlier last call. this is bloomberg businessweek. ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar. julia: and i am julia chatterley. you can also catch us on the radio, 106.1 in boston, 99 .1 fm in washington, d.c., and a.m. 960 in the bay area. carol: and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. in the business section, bruce springsteen and jon bon jovi have signed up with irving azoff in hopes of earning more money every time their songs are played. juliette: we spoke to editor chris about the new scheme. chris: irving azoff is a legendary manager. he got his start in the 1970's with the eagles, and he has always been one of the toughest guys negotiating in a difficult business. he is now tackling radio because he sees the format is being outdated.

the compensation for artists was really has to out in the 1930's and 1940's, and that has not changed at all. that is his push lately. carol: what is his push specifically? chris: he has a group of artists -- some of the biggest names in the business, pharrell williams, bruce springsteen, bon jovi -- and he says this is a key part that radio stations play, this is where you are generating your advertising. and instead of the 4% you're collecting for songwriters, we want a lot more. maybe as much as 25%. carol: let's go into all the streaming services that are out, right, because it has been contentious about what they should be paying. whether we are talking about pandora, spotify, apple music. how does that fit into it, because we think it does have several different avenues today? chris: it does fit into it because azoff has said he has been able to get deals he is happy with because of the new streaming services.

we are seeing the powershift a bit. the music industry was on its back for years, when a cd cd collapsed. but now it is growing again thanks to spotify another streaming services. the artists are seeing they have more leverage than they used to. carol: the radio stations play music, they need the content, and the artists want to be play because that is truly the biggest audience. chris: yes, it has always been a sort of love-hate relationship with radio. i mean, this sort of issue of payola going on for years and artists always felt like they advantageknow, taken of. so you know, think with this new deal, it is actually creating, you know, a competitor in radio that radio has to take notice of. juliette: in the profiles -- ion,

julia: a profile of maria balshaw, the new director of britain's tate museum. here is james tarmy. james: we are at a bizarre moment in the culture wars where things that would normally not be noticeable in museums or galleries are suddenly getting picketers and people trying to shut them down and national and international press, so at this particular juncture, a lot of museums are looking for directors who can release tear them and respond to the public but also guide the public. so the new director, maria balshaw, is sort of tailor-made for the times. she is an incredibly savvy, engaged, thoughtful person who has pioneered this methodology of integrating art and politics in really novel ways.

carol: one of her missions is to bring art to even more people. how is she going about that? james: she is talking about expanding museum hours. she really wants to bring in diverse artists or artists from diverse backgrounds, because she firmly believes that will attract a more diverse audience. most of the famous artists in the 21st century are white men, so that is a pretty specific demographic. she thinks that by acknowledging many other different timelines and groups that there can be a kind of bigger impact. carol: also in pursuits, it may be another sign of the times. julia: we may be drinking too much. here is editor chris rouser. chris: pdt stands for "please

don't tell," and he opened it in 2007 before the financial crisis, and over the past 10 years, he noticed the way people have been drinking have changed. around the financial crisis, people were sort of, you know, drinks. these $15 it really started cocktail culture in new york, people wanted to cozy up and really experiment with these fine drinks. now that the economy has recovered and it is sort of go-go time, people are not just sitting down for one or two of these cocktails but five or six. his thing is, let's enjoy these drinks but let's back up a little bit. julia: some of the strengths are really fierce. carol: potent. julia: yes, potent is the word. 125 proof. chris: yes. 125 proof. it is navy-proof rum -- for sailors.

but yes, it is those kind of old-school liquors and spirits are coming back in style. used to be you could not get anything over 100 proof, and now these are really trending. the same sized cocktail really packs more of a punch, like double ipa's our popular, the -- thed winds are prettyd wines are boozy. julia: he is not saying don't come, he is saying just come and drink less. chris: exactly, bring a friend, introduce them to cocktails, but don't have five drinks. drink together. carol: what used to be maybe a nice environment has gotten messy because people are getting drunk. which is actually kind of vulgar. chris: it is true. he wants his place be a safe space and a fun place.

he wants people drinking, obviously, but he does not want it to be out of control. and he sees that happening. carol: "bloomberg businessweek" is available online. julia: and on mobile. more bloomberg television starts right now. ♪ .

. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

♪ emily: i am emily chang. this is the "best of bloomberg technology" where we bring you all of our top interviews from this week in tech. coming up, the former chairman of the fcc, tom wheeler, slams the plan to roll back net neutrality. wheeler joins us to discuss what he calls a shameful sellout. plus, another huge setback for uber. the company concealed a hack affecting 57 million accounts and then paid the hackers to delete it and keep it quiet. hpe announces meg whitman's departure.