join in the conversation with your facebook comments, texts and tweets on in-depth live at noon eastern with max hastings on book tv on c-span2 and be sure to visit cspanshop.org. >> welcome to the national press club, the professional organization for journalists. i'm mike freedman. on the former general manager of cds radio network and a journalist in residence at university of maryland global producer of the kalb report by martin kalb. we're pleased to accept questions from those joining in. i will ask as many as time permits. please email headliners at

prescott court.for 27 years i've had the privilege of working with and introducing this gentleman for 101 kalb report programs at the press club and theintroduction is always the same . please welcome the last correspondence personally hired at cbs by edward r murrow and the gold standard of broadcast journalism, my friend and colleague , armarvin kalb. >> that's the kindest intro. please do it again and again. >> for his 17th book published by brookings press, marvin presents the second installment of his autobiography entitled assignment russia: becoming a foreign correspondent in the crucible of the war. marvin has described the book as a long letter home after an unforgettable personal adventure. it covers the period of his life from his arrival at cbs

in 1957 through his years as moscow correspondent from 1960 to 1963. it's a personal and st professional coming of age story, one that has deep roots in family history and the love of country that welcomed depressed people from around the world with open arms and opportunity. once again, welcome back to the national press club. >> it's a pleasure for me to be here and i think the press club and you especially mike for not only being a gracious producer but also the guy who offered so many. >> he called your professor, you call him sir and he described you to colleagues as our kind of guy. i'm speaking of course of edward r murrow, mentor to you and icon to the rest of us. about the beginning your career at cbs which is where the book begins. >> the book begins with what

may strike people as an odd chapter, but if you have ever been a journalist and you've ever arrived personal point that you know you have become professionally a journalist, what is it likeand i can tell you for me , late june 1957, it was certainly not what i had expected. i had expected of cbs news huge newsroom, lots of people screaming. reporters trying to get their copy in as quickly as possible. editors screaming for a copy. producers getting upset. ap wires, you he wires, everybody screaming news, news. walked in at midnight under a midnight to 8 am shift. cbs 52nd street and madison

avenue . and mike, there wasn't a soul there. nobody. i walked in to an empty newsroom. and there is nothing more empty in life for a journalist than an empty newsroom. i was going for my phd at harvard. i knew i thought i had to write a phd dissertation but no one when they hired me, no one had said marvin, we're going to have to write a three-minute 55 second radio broadcast. no one told me how to do it. i hadn't a clue. i walked in and there was nobody there. i was sort of terrified. and i kept walking around from one tickertape to another looking at news but

the tickertape's were miraculously silent at night. no one was helping me and i began to go into a panic at about 3:00 in the morning. when suddenly bells went off at the reuters ticker which is what happened in those days. those indicated a bullet and i ran over to reuters, ripped the copy off and it read 27 people died when the boat they were in capsized in the ganges river in india and my first reaction i'm ashamed to say was my god, thank god because i have a news story. i had something to write about. and i finally did write something and i gave it to the editor came in at 4:30 in the morning. a bouncy guy with a yankee

baseball. carried his lunch with him in a small bag. he says, you must be kalb i said are you? he said i'm your editor, do you have your copy? i gave it to him and he sat down and looked at it and my heart dropped because i was hoping there would be a osmil . something to indicate satisfaction. but about 4:55, he threw my copy aside, put a fresh paper into his typewriter and a ferocious speed had a whole broadcast and at a minute to five men picked it up, went into studio nine, read it and to my ears it sounded like my earlier vision at cbs.

it was so well done that cause i didn't do it, when the broadcast was over he came over to me and he said marvin, you're a really good writer but you don't know how to write a radio newscast and he explained what it was like and he began became one of my greatteachers . >> there often is a moment in time marvin when you can merge what you bring to the mix with what you learn on the job. and was there, was it evolutionary for you? was there a particular moment and you felt you've got this? i really can do this? >> this may come as a surprise but to this day i never feel that i've got it.

i always feel that i'm doing the best i can to convey information to the public. as honestly as i can and as faithfully as i can. but i can tell you right now, that satisfaction with my own work is never something that i have felt. i always have a sense that it could be a lot better and that i can try harder but i can say to you that when i was in for the first time as a reporter which was in may 1960 , i did feel a coming together of the knowledge that i had accumulated about russia, the language, the history, the culture, the economics that i had been picking up in college and in

graduate school and working us embassy in moscow in 1956. and the requirements of taking that knowledge and putting it into a minute radio spot, a minute and a half television spot. somehow or another despite the compression seemed to convey the reality, the substance, honestly to the american people as best i could. so in a sense, the two did come together but never to my total satisfaction. >> i'd like to read you something and get your view of it. our wonderful mutual friend and colleague richard hoplite offered the following description of ed murrow. dick said many years later i think of murrowand relatives . a skilled tenacious reporter

and a brave man, a fine human being. murrow laid down no rules, made no suggestions as to he style and content. he demanded a clear and colorful presentation of facts. he was ruthlessly fair and his colleagues accepted his choices without complaint. he led by example, not command. murrow's usually furrowed brow express a pessimistic side. yet when he smiled which it was like a sunrise. he knew his own worth but was not arrogant or overbearing. he had a sense of theater as in his dress as well as a church alien sin already that marked his speech. his physical bravery was matched by his moral courage that rang out in his documentaries. his style was serious, long experienced at the microphone . he saw his broadcast as a

service heto the american people. an accurate depiction? >> absolutely. that is so beautifully stated only by somebody who worked with murrow for a long time which currently, he saw it with murrow back in london. he was a young reporter who spoke german. we were at war with germany and he wanted very much to persuade murrow who was sort of the bureau treats of cbs london to hire him. and murrow had a doubt about his broadcasting capability. but he eliminated that immediately because he said to his friend, he knows what the story is. he knew the story. mike, i can tell you the first time i met murrow was in may 1957.

i have written an article "for the new york times magazine. i was in the library monday morning and the librarian came over to me and said marvin, there's a guy on the phone named ed murrow and he would like to talk to you. i turned to the librarian and in one of the stupidest sequences of my life said and murrow is not calling me, forget about it. it's obviously some quack, just hang up on him. she actually hung up on him but late that afternoon she came back to me and said marvin , it's that same fan and he's still calling himself and murrow and maybe you want to pick up the phone and talk to him. so i didn't believe he was

calling me. but when i heard his voice, that magnificent voice, i thought what a total jackass i had been. how could i not pick up the phone the first time and i apologized to him repeatedly and he said don't worry about it. can you come and see me tomorrow morning in new york and my office at 9:00 and i said yes sir, i'll be there and he answered professionally, i'll see you. that established that professor, server relationship we had with each other. i was there the following morning. my secretary said to me as i walked in mister murrow was very busy. he's only got about a half hour . i said absolutely, fine with me. we spoke for three hours.

murrow asked me question after question about the soviet union. about soviet youth, their religion, their education. did they have an apartment, what was it like with in-laws ? he wanted to know everything about the soviet union which was our principal adversary in the midst of the cold war. and after we spoke for three hours, he put his arm on my shoulder as we walked out. he said by the way, how would you like to work for cbs? it took me all of three seconds i think to say yes sir. i'll be here and that is the way he hired me and his description of them is so perfect because he did often look as if he carried the weight of the world on his shoulders and he probably felt that wayto .

but he also felt that he had an obligation to convey reality. no matter how tough it might be to hear. and they will decide what it is that has to be done. our job as a reporter was simply to provide them with the information. they can then use the information as they choose. murrow took that very seriously. >> you mentioned he spoke german, you speak russian and are a scholar in russian studies as is your wife. tell us about the underpinnings of your interest in russian studies and your desire to go to moscow. >> that's a long story and i'll try to cut it to aminute and a half .

my mother and father were both products of the czarist empire which stretched then into poland, ukraine. it was a very large empire. my father came here in 1914 just for the outbreak of world war i. my mother in 1913. and this country opened, welcomed, opened its doors and welcomed these two people who had suffered different forms of religious persecution. they welcomed them to the united states and they provided them with the opportunity. nothing is guaranteed but they provided them with the opportunity for personal freedom, for religious observance as they chose. and for economic chances,

opportunities. if you could pull it off great but you don't necessarily pull it off and i felt right then and there as a reporter, i wanted to pay back. that's an expression that is very special to me. the idea is you pay back this country for what this country has done. it had done wonderful things for my mother and father and then for us as their offspring. this is an opportunity in this book to describe them, to describe my brother and my sister in a way that gives the reader an opportunity for understanding payback. iq america for what it is

that you did for my parents and then for us and murrow was somebody who understood that immediately. and i wouldn't talk about this then because i didn't know enough about payback but i do now and i feel very strongly that it is important that everybody have an opportunity to pay back the century that gives them the opportunity or religious freedom, political freedom and economic opportunity. >> let's stay in moscow now and we have a series of questions about your time spent there. your prep for it and the execution of your dutiesthere . from gil klein, you were in moscow during the cuban missile crisis. did you think war was imminent?

what were the signs you were seeing? >> let me point out also i didn't quite complete my earlier thought about getting into moscow. my brother bernie who has always been extremely influential in my life, he's the one who essentially steered me in the direction of the study of russia, the study of the russian language . and i then did a great deal of work when i was in the army intelligence so that gave me liclearance that allowed me to work with the us embassy. morrow then offers me the job and he sends me, he's the one that made it clear i was going to moscow and that was in may 1960. the cuban missile crisis isis october 62. by that time i was an experienced moscow

correspondent. i sort of felt i knew what it was the russians were trying to say to the americans as well as to the their own people. and the question about whether i thought we would have wore, yes. that possibility certainly ran through my mind but i did not feel ever through the cuban missile crisis that we were going into war . i felt this was an effort by nikita chris jeff to solve the berlin crisis which he described as a bone in my throat and he wanted to and that crisis by frightening the united states into striking a deal that would lead to russian control over all of berlin and the united states would fall from

western berlin. so i saw this as diplomacy, very dangerous diplomacy that diplomacy and not a step towards war. of course, that made it easy for me but my boss in new york, a wonderful man named brad clark asked me whether i wanted to send my wife off to shopping in scandinavia. he feared that there could very well be an attack. i did not agree. >> there was a question from our friend sam who is a member of the national press club. during the cold war americans tended to think of an ordinary russian as a kind of serious other about whom they knew little. could you share some stories of russians you met and how

they impressed you? >> let me tell you that russians come in many different shapes and sizes. they are not of a standard form. there are russian intellectuals with whom any harvard professor would feel very comfortable spending an entire day, week, month or year with. first rate scholarship, wonderful people and they're also people like putin who run the country and there are many bureaucrats in between. and for russian history there has been truly a sense that the russian people required the strong leader. somebody who will tell them what to do and they do it. and for many years that was

the head but what struck me as fascinating was that first time i was there with nikita chris jeff. chris jeff as the leader of the soviet union wanted to initiate a program policy reform throughout the entire country. he gets some of that but he got into trouble doing that with a lot of consumers who said this far and no further. so in 1956 he delivered a historic speech denouncing stalin and saying in effect let's open the door to a little bit of activity. alittle bit of motion . but the door was shut. that happened after christian , with brezhnev. the whole country just kind of stopped. and then gorbachev arrived and he opened the doors once

again and there was a possibility that democracy under his successor, yells yelton could happen in russia . that people would be able to travel, talk, open up. do things that are exciting. at this time, where we are unfortunately is at a moment when the doors are being shut on russian talent and we think back to the russians writers, the musicians, the composers. you can't be at a concert without bumping into a piece of russian music. it's all over the place so it's there s. it's their but there's heavy hand of oppression sitting on it.

>> there's a follow-up from sam about something you just mentioned. how is the russian concept of democracy different from the west, america in particular. >> first of all they don't know if they can ever get it and what they have in mind is something that is not quite the western style of democracy. they think they have an exaggerated sense ofdemocracy . in much the same way by the way i go back to now a little bit . when people like my father came to this country in 1914, he felt before he got here that this country was in english translated a golden paradise. that there would be money in baskets on every street corner for people just dip into.

it's an exaggeration of freedom and democracy and i think the russian people today essentially that same idea . putin and his people are trying to paint the west and american democracy as bad stuff. poisonous. that democracy is them. we are separate, we are great and he's trying to draw a distinction between us and them. and i have to quickly add a distinction that many american politicians who call themselves conservatives, trump followers tried to say essentially the same thing . that it's we against them, the bad guys. they're saying essentially the same thing. >> there's the question from l mccarron, executive director of the nationalpress club . can you discuss the process

you used to meet with russian sources? did any of these come into danger because of contact with you? >> i was talking to somebody yesterday trying to explain what would it be like for an american journalist working in russia today as opposed to when you were there? one of the points i was trying to make was in my time, things were so quaint in the middle of the cold war , communism in its heyday. if i went over and talked to a russian citizen on the street, asked him a question where is red square? it is likely, not certain likely that some kgb person, some police person would go over to that russian citizen

and begin to question him about what is it that foreigner wanted from you? in other words, in asking the simplest question of a russian, then you could get that russian into quite a lot of trouble and if i got information from a russian source, and i'd have to be very clear about this, they didn't come dangling like fruit from a tree in springtime. they were very rare indeed because everybody was in a frightening environment. but those that i didn't know and those that did talk to me , they took huge risks and i took a risk to in possibly opening them to a kgb crackdown on them and their family.

it was always on your mind as a reporter and should have been that you could get these people in terrible trouble so be careful. >> an interesting follow-up from bill mccarron. the russians ever try to recruit you when you were there and what was that like if so did you report it ? >> i'm sorry to disappoint you but the defense to my knowledge, maybe they tried iand i wasn't even aware of it but to the best of my knowledge e, nobody ever tried to recruit me as such. you did get into conversation with russians. you would have to inin which they would try to try to persuade you that there's this element that was better than yours. maybe that doesn't effort to win me over to their point of view but was, and i'm not aware of any serious professional effort to hook

me into their system? >> much you shared in your first autobiographical book, the year i was peter the great and what you share an assignment russia. we learn more about nikita chris jeff and about your most interesting relationship with him and his relationship with you from the beginning with the title of your first book. talk about that relationship with nikita chris jeff. >> i'll do it in 2 stories. the first story is after july 4, 1956 the us embassy actually the ambassadors residents and nikita chris jeff arrived with the entire

politburo and it was a big deal because it indicated he wanted to be friends with us and there were only four people who spoke russian. there was an ambassador, two senior officers and me and i was the kid on the block. i had no authority, nothing of any real importance. i was a translator, i was an interpreter. kind of a junior press officer. but ambassador boylan said i was to look after the defense minister. marshall shook off loved to drink. i did not. and i was there while he sucked back eight launches. and when the party was over, he kind of sidled up to christian and said i was drinking by the way water while he drank vodka and he went over to chris jeff and he said i have finally found

a young american who can drink like a russian. chris jeff burst into laughter and said i'm three centimeters shorter. he loved that line and to this day i have a quote. i said it and he then always associated with me with peter the great. and the second story, on my first big story which was in paris, may 1960 there was a summit meeting that would happen supposedly devoted to berlin or a division of berlin and thedanger of berlin . and 2 weeks before that some, our u2 spy plane was shot down over russia.

so when we arrived in paris because of the summit and it was my first big story, my responsibility was with chris jeff so i knew him from this experience, several experiences similar to that in 1956 yin my peter the great mode. so my foreign editor asked what marvin are you going to do with chris jeff? i said i know that he normally goes out in the morning for a walk. a brief walk. let me have a crew at 6 am in front of the russian embassy. it comes out, maybe i can get aninterview . he was reluctant but he said the following day i was there h .

he said it's absolutely as quiet as can be and 6:30 comes around and the cameraman says, steve was his name. are you sure? nyi said i'm not sure of anything but he often comes out at 7:00. large iron doors at the embassy open up. chris jeff emerges with two bodyguards and i looked at him, i was thrilled and i rushed towards him and he looked at me and he said well, he says here comes peter the great. and his two bodyguards immediately reach into their jackets to pull out what i assume was a weapon. and chris jeff says no, no, he's okay. he's peter the great. we walked down a block and

there was a french bakery producing the most magnificent croissants. the aroma filled the air and i looked at him and he looked at me, chris jeff and he said have you ever had those? i said yes, they're wonderful . he said you think i would like it? he said i'm sure you would. i ran into the bakery. gave him a bunch for him and his two bodyguards. he and my crew. the minute i saw his face, just corrupted into slavic .eaven >> ..

that night the evening news program and that was myor openig as a foreign correspondent and it was exciting, terrific. >> more questions have come in. covering the soviet government has been described as reading signs i who appeared in the lineup of leaders atop lindens to him during official event. is that whatt you found and how hard was it to get any kind of context within the government? >> extremely difficult to get contact within the government unless it was set up in advance by somebody in the government who wanted either to win you over, to make you more sympathetic, to go back earlier

maybe to make y an effort to win you over completely. but it was always their decision to try to reach out to you and to get you so you would have been an opportunity of talking to people in the government. but that was rare. that was pretty well set up in advance. it was very difficult for you to meet a government official on your own. no, that didn't happen that way. when they lined up on the lenin mausoleum at a very major may first holiday, for example, the person who stood in front of the microphones to speak, you knew, was the single most important person in the soviet union. and in my time in the '50s and the '60s it was nikita khrushchev or leonid brezhnev.

and then as you went down from it in the picture, let's am looking you now, mike, but let's say iik was looking at nikita khrushchev, lenin mausoleum, front of the microphone. to his right you knew was the second most important person in the soviet union, and that was called criminology. you read signs and pictures in newspapers, who was covered, who was not, who was given positive coverage, who was ignored. it was exciting, fun. it really was. it was an interesting challenge the chat to meet if you were to be a successful journalist in russia. >> how challenging was it, marvin, to get your reports out of russia when you're fighting for whether it was the world news round on radio or cbs evening news, on television?

did you ever have to write in some code in order to ensure that your messages in your stories would be received and understood? >> yeah. until april 1961 there was direct censorship of all copy from foreign correspondents. so you would have to find a way of saying something that would convey reality and somehow get the words through the sensor. and and i can give you one illustration, i could give you many but one that was very funny to me.t the russians wanted to prove to the rest of the world that they're interested in disarmament and they wanted to show that the red army was being disarmed. and they took a a group of reporters, me included, to a base outside of minsk.

and when we arrived there, there was one smallhm detachment of russian soldiers who raised the rifles in the air and threw them down on the ground and shouted, two-piece. the guys from government was telling us what was happening. he said you see we are interested in peace and we're giving up our weapons. i've broadcast -- our broadcast that evening was 20 -- no. a group of western correspondents were taken for a ride today. this time to minsk where they were told they were watching the disarmament of the o red army. now, i was saying exactly what happened. i didn't put in any fancy words. that phrase, taken for an

american right. they would instantly what was going on. but the sensor in russia didn't know that phrase, size able to get away with it. and that was the test, the battle that you had with the sensor every time you wanted to get something across. it was always, what kind of phrase could you use that the american audience would understand but the russian sensor would not? that was our daily challenge. it was very fun, , too. >> thank you. another question. tell us about your contacts with the dissidents, particularly the jewish refuseniks. did you have special affinity for them? how did you cover the issue? >> i would've especial affinity for them but they were not a was there.i they became a story later in the

1970s.50 i was there in the '50s and '60s. i returned many times to the soviet union but briefly may be for two or three days for a story and then i was out. so i did not have an opportunity to cover other dissidents as well, people who were by the 1970s fed up with this stuff a fine, oppressive, timing system, and had the guts to stand up and join others and actually express their discontent and disapproval of their political system and they were called dissidents and refuseniks, and a number of them who were t jewish and wanted too to israel tried v very hard to t out of the soviet union.

most of the time they failed but when the russians want to make a point, they sent thousands of russian jews to israel. not certainly being nice to jews. it was making a diplomatic point so they in a sense got rid of those people they didn't like anyway. >> host: a couple of then and now questions that have come. in due jo see the current russian misinformation campaign as an extension of the propaganda you saw there, or something entirely new? there's some followups, was the audience different in your day? it was to make the rest of the world doubt america, now it seems to be designed to pit us against ourselves. >> guest: it's a very good question, and the first part of the answer is that the russians have been engaged in this kind

of -- what is called straight outpropaganda for many, many, many decades. they're very good at taking ideas and twisting them and then putting it out into circulation. what they are doing now is using this old technique, pinning it to moderna -- modern technology and then aiming it at a target, this time the american system. what is amazing to me how could so many people in this country raised in an atmosphere of redom where you're supposed to be aware of truth and know the difference between truth and a lie, how could it be that tens of millions of american citizens

bought into the russian propaganda system, that is astounding to me; to this day i don't quite understand how this could be but there's no doubt that it is. tens of millions of americans are prepared to accept a russian version of reality than they are to accept an american version. that's astounding. >> host: it's interesting because it brings us back to journalism with that, and of course, within our country, we have spent the better part of the last five years or so with journalists being called the enemy of the people by former president donald trump, the title of a book that you had published during the trump administration, and it seems that the role of the journalist today has become that much more

important as well as perhaps dangerous. talk about that. >> guest: there is no question that it is a danger from a number of points of view. when a president of the united states links free american journalists to enemies of the state, enemies of the people, was he aware that expression was one of the favorite expressions of joseph stalin and the soviet union, of mao in china, mussolini in italy. a favorite of dictators? often either communist or fascist dictators and an american president uses that kind of expression, to define an american journalist, i found horrible and felt the need to write a book, "enemy of the

people." but even more terrifying than that, the president used that expression very effectively and many, many, again, tens of millions of american citizens, believed him, and that result right now is that many people in this country, 60% of people in the republican party, according to recent polls, do not believe that joe biden won the election fairly. 52% of republicans believe that the press deliberately distorted the result of the american presidential campaign. why would they believe that?

because donald donald trump said then a lot of people who represent part of the american press corps, who simply feel that it's in their interests -- i'm not quite sure, maybe they mean only financial -- i hope nat political -- interest to propagandize this idea. so it's dangerous no the country and democracy, it is dangerous for journalism, and very dangerous for the american people. but i sincerely hope that more and more of them with understand there is a distinction between a free press and a press that is married to a particular political point of view. >> host: this past year has been a head spinner for all of us,

between the pandemic, the politics, the protests, the presidential election, the failed insurrection the u.s. capital and the skewered security laden inauguration, but we have found in record time the he effective vaccines to combat the coronavirus and we appear to be on the cusp of a recovery. based on your experiences, inclusion those articulated in these two autobiographical volumes, what is your view of the state of our democracy today and the state of the world? >> guest: fragile. fragile. i think that our democracy today has demonstrated a fragility that perhaps many of us did not quite appreciate until it was challenged so dramatically during the trump era.

when as i said before, facts became weapons of war, and denounced as weapons and not accepted as truth. we are at a point now, i find myself in absolute agreement with president biden when he describes the political atmosphere in the united states today as a war between democracy on the one side and authoritarianism on the other side. those are the words he used to define the state of american political life today. in other words democratics who believe in throughout and can accept truth, and awer to tareans who believe they -- authoritarians who believe they control truth and can impose

truth on the american people. that battle is being fought right in front of us. anybody who picks up a newspaper or watches the evening news sees it. it's right there. what do they do with it? are they so wedded to a single political point of view that they cannot accept a wider judgment of reality? that question mark is very much in my mind, and i think stares the person people in face idon't want to allow the hour we have together to end without offering you an opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the people that are so important in your life and who are critical players in your books. so, if we can engage in a lightning round here i'll ask you to offer some thoughts about some very important people, and let's start with mad

mcdonald's lin kalb. >> we have been married for 62 years, i can only say i fell for her the moment i saw her, and she remains beautiful in my eyes to this day, and she has been with me all the way, my closest buddy and adviser, quite a girl. >> host: and your big brother, bernard kalb. >> guest: enormously influential in my life. he -- i think more than anyone else, steered me in the direction of russian studies, to pick up the language. he thought all languages incredibly important. a journalist can go into russia -- an american journalist speaking russian. imagine how the advantages that

you have. as opposed to going into russia and finding yourself with a russian interpreter. an average russian is not going speak to an interpreter. so, the language was essential and bernie pointed me in right direction. >> host: i didn't have an opportunity to know your parents, but i did get to know your sister and at the time we first met 27 years ago, your mother-in-law, bill green, was living in your home, and talk about your parents and madeline's parents. >> guest: well, my parents, my father was born in a small polish textile town. he was by craft a tailor. he came to this country in 1914. win a brief period of time

became a great fan of this country, and really ended up believing we could probably do no wrong. however, i stressed earlier that the country gave him the opportunity to flourish. economically he did not. quite the contrary. but he was given the opportunity and he never forgot that. he thought that was the key. what do you do with the opportunities that are given to you? my mother was born in kiev, the capital of ukraine, came here in 1913, was a -- was sort of a mixing of genders here but kind of the kingpin of her family. she was always the brightest,

the most sensible, most responsible, a terrific person to have for a mother. i speak with authority on that. my in-laws, rose and bill green, rose was one of the smartest, most sensitive, intellectual people i have ever met. she was also a fabulous cook. and bill green was a stock analyst, a marvelous he sense of humor, died at the tender age of 96. and even as he went out was cracking jokes. >> host: two professional colleagues, walter cronkite and bill small. >> guest: walter cronkite was the greatest an forman i ever worked with. he -- anchorman i every worked with. he sort of just knew when you ought to do a story and how to

lead into the story, his kindness, i thought cronkite was outstanding. bill small was the bureau cleave for cbs in washington. one of the toughest guys i've ever had to deal with and one of the fairest, most decent men i've ever had to work with. bill small did more to bring women into the industry than any big shot i know. he was the one who introduced people like leslie stahl and connie chung goo the top ranks of cbs, diane sawyer. yeah. >> host: there's a poetic irony in the book.

your beginnings were mr.ow's conclusions and you in some many ways became his legacy at cbs news. the last correspondent personally hired by murrow in 1957, and you were a newcomer what turned out -- in what turned out to be his final broadcast, the year-end aroundup of 1960 called years of crises. her invite outside join him when he became director of usia in the kennedys a, and the most poignant response you said you needed to carry on his work in journalism and you did. and in fact, the book begins and ends with murrow if have you consciously felt this sense of irony, being their hand-picked, hand-select as the final laster day murrow boy? >> guest: that is a question i can answer from the current vantage point. i can answer now because i'm

able to look back. at the time it was happening, i knew that he was special, he was for me an idol. i listened to his 7:45 newscast every night. i watched his broadcasts. his broadcasts bringing down senator mccarthy, who was one of the most historic pieces of the television news i've ever seen, or perhaps there ever was. i was filled with admiration for what this man was able to do and did. but at the time it was happening, i was not able fully to appreciate the impact he would have on me and many, many, many thousands of messed that have come along over the decades. wherever you are today, you will

bump into a journalist who knows about edward r. murrow and wants to be like edward r. murrow and if they could be like edward r. murrow we would be a much better country today but that's hard to do. that's why he is held up with the kind of esteem he is and deservedly so. he set an extraordinary example of courage, of professionalism, of decency, of fearlessness, if he had to say something he knew was going to offend a senator or even a president, he said it it -- because it was true, believed to its be true. when murrow left cbs and went to be the head of usia invited me to join him to be his specialist on communist affairs.

i was obviously flattered but i had to say no to him and it broke my heart. i didn't -- how could i say no to murrow. that was ridiculous. ... and who we want to be. yours is a life well lived rich and full and you always seem to

be looking ahead. gi you always seem to be looking ahead. give us your thoughts as you y look back, , you look around and you look ahead in april of 2021. >> let me try to look ahead for a moment. i am a very proud grandfather. [phone ringing] and i have a grandson 15 15 d aaron and a granddaughter of 12 named eloise. they are both incredibly special to me. i knoww they are the brightest kids in the world, and anybody else knows that, too. but i but i would love for s country to be as open and rich in its potential as it was at different stages off my life

helping me along. i would like the good angels of america to in effect bless these kids -- [phone ringing] -- all of those kids who represent the future of this country. it is a very complicated, messy world and there aren't many examples around. this is the best example, in my judgment, the best example in the world in the midst of very difficult times and this fight between democracy and authoritarianism is a real one, a dangerous one. [phone ringing] but at this particular time we have the chance to see democracy when. and i want it to win for eloise and for aaron and for all of their buddies.

because then we can all sit back and say we did a good job. >> marvin, i would be the last word today, and it's a good one. the book published by brookings press is entitled "assignment russia." marvin kalb, thank you so much for joining us today. >> my pleasure, mike. thank you and think the national press club. >> we are pleased to present you virtually with our national press club coffee mug, along with our hope you will join us again in in the future to ver future. >> i hope so. >> will

>> booktv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. today live at noon eastern on "in depth" a conversation with military historian max hastings on his more than two dozen books on wars in the 20th century including a soon to be released operation pedestal. watch booktv today on c-span2.

>> here's a a look at some ofe best-selling nonfiction books according to the strand bookstore in new york city. >> some of these authors have appeared on booktv and you can watch the programs anytime at booktv.org. >> i am rory martorana, adult services librarian here at the new haven f