>> rose: welcome to the program. today, a historic day at the supreme court with important decisions on same-sex marriage. we talk about that with adam liptak of the "new york times" and jeffrey toobin of cnn and the "new yorker" magazine. >> the court didn't say there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage that applies in all 50 states but it sure is a big step in that direction. it delivers benefits to married same-sex couples in the 12 states that allow it it. it basically ensure the 13th state, california, the nation's most populous state, will now have same-sex marriage and the language in the decisions by justice kennedy on the federal law, the defense of marriage act, sure arms proponents of same-sex marriage to go into court all over the country and challenge bans on same-sex marriage. >> rose: we continue with a conversation with bill hader of "saturday night live." >> i mean so many of those-- i mean, if you look at stefan at

least on paper, it's a low-energy character, a kind of-- character talking about things that probably don't exist. it-- on paper tshould probably not work for, like, a bigger audience. for for some reason people liekdz it. >> rose: we conclude with john hendricks, the founder of the discovery channel and the chairman of discovery communications. he's written a new memoir about that. >> and so when i was in college at the university of alabama in hurstville, i was a work study student in the history department, which i was majoring in, and one of my jobs was to get 16-millimeter films for the faculty members to use in the classroom. so in my little cubicle i had catalog of all these wonderful documentaries, and so when cable-- i had the question, even at 21 years old, i-- to myself-- "why can't this be on

television?" i wanted to see all of these documentaries. >> rose: the supreme court on same-sex marriage. bill hader on "saturday night live." and john hendricks on the discovery channel. coming up.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. captioning sponsored by >> rose: today, has been a historic day at the u.s. supreme on the last day of their term. the justices ruled on two major cases involving same-sex marriage. in one they invalidated the defense of marriage act, the 1996 law that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples. the court considered a case involving proposition 8, a state ban on gay marriage. the court declined to rule on the substance of that case but the decision likely allows same-sex marriage to resume in california. the rulings are a significant victory for supporters of gay rights. joining me from washington, jeffrey toobin. he will be with us in just a moment. he is the legal analyst for cnn and "new yorker." also with us adam liptak.

he is the supreme court correspondent for the "new york times." he is also the author of "to have and uphold." welcome, adam. >> hey, good to be here, charlie. >> rose: in a broader sense, how historic is this day for supreme court rulings? >> the court didn't say there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in all 50 states but it sure is a big step in that direction. it basically ensures that the 13th state, california, the nation's most populous state, will now have same-sex marriage. and the language in the decision by justice kennedy on the federal law, the defense of marriage act, sure arms proponents of same-sex marriage to go into court all over the country and challenge bans on same-sex marriage. >> rose: based on the equal protection law? >> it's a little hard to say what justice kennedy was relying

on. equal protection is a an aspectf it. and justice scalia in dissent properly points out the decision was a little muddy but the bottom line was that the federal government sure can't discriminate against married same-sex couples. >> rose: tell me about the case and the woman who brought the case and what the issue was. >> so, ediesprks windsor, married her longtime partner, and when she died, edie windsor got a tax bill for more than $360,000 that a straight couple who was married in new york would not have had to pay. but under the defense of marriage act, the federal law that confines federal benefits to only straight couples, she had to pay that amount of money. and that's just one example of a thousand different federal laws that under the defense of marriage act struck down today treats married gay couples and married straight couples

differently. >> rose: so married gay couples will now have the same rights as married straight couples, entitled to all benefits that married straight couples have. >> that's right. so in 12-- and with california, 13 states they will have full marriage. they won't have the kind of marriage that justice ginsburg called skim milk marriage, married for state purposes but not federal purposes. what the ruling doesn't do is tell other states they have to marry same-sex couples. >> rose: the decision was written by justice kennedy, so-called swing justice. how did he come to his decision? because as you indicated, other liberal judges were waiting for his lead. >> well, he had been the author of two other gay rights decisions so he's sympathetic to gay rights. he also is very sympathetic to states rights. sp here the idea was states should be allowed to decide for themselves who they want to marry. in this case, that was really in justice kennedy's sweet spot, where you haveigate gay rights

and state rights on the same side. the second is harder, because california voters said they don't want same-sex marriage and their gay rights and straight rights are on opposite sides. >> rose: when you look at other justices' dissenting opinions in the case, what was it that the justices dissent, from the doma case, what point did they want to make? >> well, they splintered a little bit, and they spent some sometime talking about whether they had the power, jurisdiction to heartcase at all. but when they got to the merits, they basically said congress was entitled to pass this kind of law, that there are rational reasons for the government to have a nationwide rule about what it's going to do to treat all gay couples the same wherever they were. that there's a value in upholding tradition, and it wasn't fair of justice kennedy to accuse really overwhelming majorities in congress who voted for that law in 1996 to be driven by a kind of hostility or malice or animous to gay people.

>> rose: it has a history because president clinton, who signed the law, later came to denounce it and say he wish it would be overturned. >> that's quite right. he's not alone. 1996, in terms of gay rights, is a long time ago. the nation has moved very, very fast on this issue. as you know, charlie, majorities of people across the country now favor same-sex marriage. >> rose: let me turn to the other decision, "hollingsworth versus perry." set up how that case got to the supreme court. >> it basically starts in 2009 when the famous lawyers who had squared off in "bushv gore" the 2000 decision that delivered the presidency to george bush, got together and challenged a voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage in california, pop sition 8. and they won in the trial court, won in the appeals court, but when it gets to the supreme court, the court goes off on a

different ground. it doesn't meet the merits. it said peep who filed the appeals supporters of proposition 8 but not state officials, didn't have the power to file that appeal because they they weren't allowed to step into the shoes of state officials. nobody before the court had standing, chief justice roberts wrote. the court was powerless to decide the case but that lazy in case the trial court victory and that almost certainly means we'll have same-sex marriage resume in california. >> rose: did they use the procedure as a reason not to want to make a larger ruling as they did in the doma case? >> the sense you got when the case was argue argued in march e court looked at the possible consequences of actually saying there's a nationwide right to same-sex marriage, or the opposite, the constitution has nothing to say about same-sex marriage, and they weren't ready to go there. they weren't ready to get out in front of the nation on such a

big issue, and they were looking for an exit ramp and standing was very handy. so staend was a way for them to avoid creating backlash, making law that they weren't going to be happy with one way or the other, and they were looking for a way out and this is what they found. >> rose: even justices like sotomayor. >> yes, at the argument, you had just about every single liberal saying what is this case doing here? why should we decide this so fast? there's a lot of activity on the ground. recall when the case was argued, nine states had same-sex marriage. today, just in the space of three months, we're up to 12. the political process seems to be working to some degree on this question. >> rose: what will scholars say about that? >> i think scholars will say-- will focus on the bigger decision, the doma decision, the federal law decision, and they will-- this will in the midst of time disappear because the issue

will get back to the the court. the issue as with bans on interracial marriage, in its sweet time, the court will decide the bans on same-sex maerm are no good but they're going to want the country to move forward a little bit more. they're going to want the opinion polls to move a little bit more. >> rose: jeffrey toobin joins us. jeffrey, tell me your reaction to these decisions. were you surprised in any way? >> well, given my poor record of predictions, i think i've agreed to be permanently surprised brie anything the supreme court does. but certainly i was surprised at the broad language in justice kennedy's opinion. the implication of his decision-- he doesn't say this-- but the strong implication of his decision is any government rule that puts gay people in one category and straight people in another is unconstitutional. and that's a very broad, frank, "new idea under the constitution, and that certainly

was surprising and leads to all sorts of questions about the future of same-sex marriage, particularly in the 38 states that don't have it. >> rose: so having heard that decision first and kennedy's opinion first, did you expect the decision in "hollingsworth" would go as it did? >> well, certainly there was a lot of speculation there there was going to be a kind of punt on that decision using standing as a ground. the split among the justices is certainly one that i believe-- and adam can correct me if i'm wrong-- i've never seen those five against those four before. i mean, that was certainly a big surprise to me but they want to let california do california's thing right now, and california is going to resume same-sex marriage but they are not ready to do "loving versus virginia." they are not ready to say all 50

states have to have same-sex marriage, but the decision in the windsor case, the doma case, suggests anthony kennedy is at least closer to saying all 50 states have to have it than he gave the impression in the oral argument. >> rose: that was my point. adam, what do you make-- as we discussed before we went on the air-- of this collection of justices on both sides. >> jeff expree i are on the same page. this is a scramble where if you threw stuff into the air and it fell down in this order you would say, "that can't be right." there were four justice thes in the prop 8 case prepared to reach the merits. i don'merity. >> rose: who were they? >> let's see if i can name them. thomas, alito, so thea mayor, and kennedy, kennedy writing. >> rose: they were prepared to make a decision on the merits and not punt, as jeffrey said. >> ybut probably if they reached

the merthes, kennedy and sotomayor would have been on one side, and thomas and alito on the other. >> rose: what do you make of this? you've never seen anything like it, but how do you explain it? >> charlie you said earlier, i don't think the standing position is going to be all that important in the larger scheme of things. there are always a lot of standing decisions. the court's doctrine on standing has been all over the place. what's really important is same-sex marriages are going to start probably today in california. once california bye-byes the 13th state, you're looking at approximately one-third of the american people will live in a place where same-sex marriage is legal. that's a lot of people. and it's very hard to envision a scenario where that number doesn't continue to grow over time. i think it's going to take a supreme court opinion before alabama and mississippi and texas have same-sex marriage.

but after justice kennedy's decision in "windsor" again, i think that's a question of when not if. >> rose: when you look at the decision with respect to the lawyers who argued it, what are ted olsen and david boyce saying today in post-decision remarks? ( laughter ) >> you know what? we've talked so much about proposition 8. how about roberta kaplan. how about the lawyers in the "windsor" case? they're the ones who are the big winners here. look, ted olsob and david boyce did a remarkable job. they brought a case that people were very skeptical about. but it was roberta kaplan's case which was the big case, and she's a winner even more than boyce -- >> who is robert kaplan. >> she is not as famous as--

>> she represented edie windsor in the doma case. >> and also, the way, it's a considerable victory for verrilli, the solicitor general, who filed a brief opposing doma which the court very significantly adopted. >> rose: so both of you expect that we will see, except in some places, an immediate move for states to allow same-sex marriage? >> as justice scalia says? dissent, the kennedy decision, the majority decision in the doma case arms people who want to strike down bans on gay marriage with lots of rhetoric and logic, and there will be lawsuits filed, and whether through the democratic process or in courts, you're going to see lots and lots of progsame-sex marriage. but jeff is right, there will be parts of the country that only an eventual supreme court decision some years from now

will bring into line. >> rose: all right, thank you, both. adam, thank you, jeffrey. it's really remarkable to see how this played itself tout, and some combination of the supreme court and the congress and the state of california and politics and a social issue whose time has come. thank you. >> okay, charlie. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> a funky pop jazz number... >> rose: bill hader is here, best known for his work on "saturday night live." his new york city nightlife correspondent stefan became a popular presence on "weekend update. of he is admired to his uncanny impressions. in the end of may, he left "s.n.l." after eight seasons. i am pleased to have him on the show for the first time,

welcome. >> thank you very much. >> rose: you just said exactly what i do. right out of the gate i come out of question on everybody's mind-- why are you leaving "saturday night live"? >> i am leaving "saturday night live--" it kind of came from a really, you know, pragmatic thing of my wife and i deciding we have two kid and we wanted to move to california. we needed more space. and we're constantly traveling to california. she's a director. and then it just turned into a thing of, okay, we've got to move to l.a. can i still do the show and live in l.a.? i actually thought about how i could do that. >> rose: did you actually have that conversation-- >> yeah, with my wife, sitting there going how do i do that. >> rose: you didn't tell lor, in e. >> we could do that, a remote thing every week, right?

then it became maybe it's time to leave. the people i came in with, andy sandberg, and writers like simon rich, and matt marie, all these people left -- >> seth is leaving. >> seth is leaving, which i didn't know at the time, and fred armson. it's a natural thing that happens with the show, where a new group and also new sensibility kind of creeps in, and you go, oh, well it's time -- >> di can you define the sensibility of your time? >> we had-- i don't know. when i think of my time at "s.n.l.," i think of the digital shorts. we saw "lazy sunday" it was kind of like, all right, i'm glad i'm with this guy. ( laughter ) and kristin wigg, definitely. and i felt like we were a good

ensemble. and i felt there was great kind of premise-drifep sketches that people kind of knew what to do with that. you know what i mean? it wasn't a lot of-- there was also great character sketches, but i like that aspect of it. and i also-- i think we're all not take-- not taking anything from past seasons on the show, but it seemed like because of of the digital shorts there was more acting o acting on the sho. do you know what i mean? they were all great actors before us. that's not saying that. >> rose: they went on to be big stars. >> some of them are huge stars and doing great work. but there was this thing because of the digital short, when you do the live show, it's like doing-- you know, you play to the back row. it's a different kind of acting. and you're performing. steve higgins, goes when you're

on the show and it's a live show you're performing. you're not acting. >> rose: do writers write the scits and you perform the scits or is there input from you? >> both. other people, like fred armson, write by himself. mike myers would do that, and will farrell. cow bell was written by him. it is a very-- they'll write things for you. i'll come in on wednesday of our table read and people will come in and say, "hey, we wrote this thing for you where you're a guy in grenada and taking a puppet class. and we did that with seth mcfarland, and i go great! i'll figure that out. or impressions, i show up, and they say, ," you're going to do charlie rose." great, i'll figure that out. you have 10 minutes, and i'll

figature out. everybody goes through that. and then there are things like stefan or herb welch, characters that i've done, i'll go-- i'll have an idea and work it out with the writer. >> rose: you owned that character at some point. >> coowned it. >> rose: what's interesting, too, as you talked ao't will ferrell and so many other people we forget how many people have come through "saturday night live," and it's been an important step in an evolving career. >> yeah. it's a huge thing to have loare, ne say, "you." >> rose: i want you. >> and your whole life changes. >> rose: how did you get there? >> i got there because megan mallaly saw he in a show in l.a., and she went to go see her brother-in-law, ned offerman, nick offerman's brother, and saw

the show at second city l.a. and said, "you're really funny." i said, "thank you." i was an assistant editor on "iron chef america" and i was working and got a phone call from the head of the talent department saying lorne michaels would like to meet you. i thought it would be a story i would tell me kids, you know. i one time met him. and then -- >> does he come to see you perform? >> he saw me perform in l.a. but we totally packed want house with all of our friends. so the empty the lights went down, people were standing up and applauding. and he knew-- he gz you have to come up to new york where no one knows you. we came and did the exact same show and in the front row was

tina fey and amy pohler, and seth. i was about to pass out. they very much knew it was for me and i've always appreciated that. i remember i came out and it was quiet. it was the opposite. everything was going, "who are these guys?" >> rose: show us. >> show us l.a. boy. and amy pohler laughed. and i relaxed and the room relaxed. i don't even she found it funny. she laughed to kind of-- you could sense the tension, there was a lot of stake for me and it calmed everybody else. >> rose: was vinny a great character from the beginning? >> yeah. that was a character-- so this happened, i get this phone call and i don't have a manager and i know a friend who works for

naomi odenkirk. i met with her and she said, "do you do any impressions?" i said, no, i don't know. she said, "do you do request voices?" i said no. i did do this italian voice in my last show in an improv scene. she said that's great, let's figure that out. if he wants what you do and wants an example do, that. i don't care what you say, it's all jibberish, just do something. so i went and did that and, you know, i it was a fun character. i always liked doing vinny. i was always eye would always do these pieces, and then lorne michaels would say, "great, but what does the host have to do?" and i'd say, "i sit there and make fun of them.

of no one wants that. and i did herb welsh. that was my learning curve, figuring out what is fun for them. >> rose: where did stef an come from? >> john malaney, who i write it with, had gotten an e-mail from debate of somebody talking about a club, and the e-mail was kind of that rhythm of those update features. i had met a guyitate-- a barista at a coffee shop in chelsea. i would walk in every day and he would serve me my coff. >> rose: and you were taking notes. >> i was trawg them out. y. >> i go, what's going oman?

what's going on with it? i'm not very good at it. i would be a terrible spy-- "what why your secrets! ?" he said,"my mom is staying with me right now it's really hard." i live on the lower, lower east side. >> and i went okay. then i went to john i met this guy, and he goes i got this thing. she is the one that really put those together. >> summer is right around the corner and what places should people check out if they're looking for a classic new york weekend. >> if you're look the n.y.c., i know just the place for you. located on that fake street from

"seinfeld." "seinfeld." sm this place has everything-- hop scuch, double dutch, ugi love, sling and mesh bladder implant. the table from "charlie rose." ( laughter ) and this weekend, i'll be having my college reunion there. >> oh, wow. what university did you go to? >> u.t.i.we tried to do it as a piece, an actual sketch, and it never worked. there was too long of a walk to getting to what the piece was about, what the comedy was. it was like me and ben affleck were brothers and we used to write movies together but now i've been lost and now i've come back and we write kids' movies but i'm steffan and pitching this-- just explaining it now. there were like five steps.

they said why don't you do it on update and go right to the camera and get to the funny parts. it worked great. it really surprised us. >> rose: when you do an impression, whether me or somebody bigger what, do you look for? a gesture, or a voice or-- >> yeah, the writers of the show say handles. like certain people have handles you can grab on to. the old actors had a certain rhythm, speech, or big handles. watch "charlie rose" and i'm a big fan of the show and you have two rhythms, the opening rhythm where you introduce something-- "tonight on the program"... "martin scorsese." when it gets to the interview, you slow down, and i notice when

you have a book like this, you move it. he also says things which i like, which is someone will come on. the twitter guys will come on. here's what we're going to do. and you'll go why? or what is that? and i'm like exactly. what is that? i didn't understand what they just said. >> rose: what? and what does that mean? >> what does that mean? i go, okay, there are those two different rhythms. and then we figure it out. and john malaney, we did it once i think on the show with-- i think it was like with rupert murdoch and ariana huffington. i think i said the opening music was a little ditty called "sedona som ba."

that's a john malaney joke. we watch the show all the time. so, yeah, that was fun. but that's what i mean. you kind of find handles, like a rhythm to someone's speech or just the way they talk. fred armson and i talked about this sometimes, where we sometimes don't hear what people are saying because that rhythm, you pay attention to that rhythm of peach or some gesture they have or whatever. >> rose: what's fred going to do? >> i don't know. you have to ask fred. >> rose: is there a limitation on what you can do while you're doing "saturday night live"? >> there is. >> rose: how many movies you can make. >> yeah. that said i did three movies this past season. but it-- i mean -- i mean, i was so burpd out afterwards, but, you know, what lorne will ask-- you're there for the table read

on wednesday, and friday blocking and saturday's show. you kind very far to earn that. the first season you don't usually get that. he trusts you and likes you and understands . >> rose: he'll give you more freedom. >> he'll give you more freedom. and you want to be part of the show. i did this larry david movie. >> and would go out to boston, work monday, tuesday, tuesday night fly back, do the show. wednesday right after the table read gback, shoot. do thursday. it's thursday and i'm on the phone with writers on the-- talking to writers about a sketch -- >> lorne is the glue that holds it all together. >> he understand understands thd audience, and understands what they want. "they won't go for that." really?

and "they want to do this." a lot of it is logic. >> rose: a lot of it is experience. >> a lot of it is logic in the scene. like the first vincent price sketch we ever did, oh, i loved that. >> thank you. he was just mean he was vincent price from all those edgar alan poe movies. he was just like a possible person and berating all the guests as they came in, and we thought it was funny and we did on wednesday and people laughed and i thought it was great. it was my sixth's show or something and then we got a phone call at midnight that lorne wants to see you. i'm reading this and why would anybody go on his show if they're just going to scream at them? >> because it's funny. and know. >> no, he's trying tob have a good show and these people are

messing it up sork they have something to play and you have something to play and it has a loblgic to it. and everyone had something fun to do. before it was people watching you be funny which i always felt was my problem. the thing i find about lorne, the guy at the stop is really, really funny. and was a writer. and understands comedy, and he surrounded himself with people who are really, really funny. warren, the guy who has seen every joke, he's going, uh-huh,. yeah, i remember that. bill murray did that in '77. you have that happen. but then he surrounds himself

with great talent like seth myers and tina fey -- >> is he still chief writer or not? >> yeah. >> rose: you're going to need a new chief writer over there, that. that can be big, can't it? >> yes. i don't know how seth does it. he makes it look eefortless, doing updates, and being involved with everything and somehow being in a good mood. setting is the same kind of guy who can zero in. >> rose: has lor, in e ever said to you, "do you think that's funny?" he doesn't have to. you'll be at the table, and-- have you ever seen the show? have you ever met a human being before? i don't know. i think it's funny. >> you think this will be on "saturday night live." have you been here before?

>> yeah. >> rose: you have heard nothing th. >> i mean, so many of those-- if you look at stefan at least on paper, it's a low-energy character, fringy character talking about things that probably don't exist and, you know, it on paper should probably not work for, like, a bigger audience. for some reason people liked it. where i tried to genetically enhance some perfect "s.n.l. " character. >> rose: anybody on the show you identify with? you see something in their rhythm, their instinct, their sensibility that you feel closest to? >> probably phil hartman. he was the guy growing up they really always liked. i love dana carvey and jan

hooks. that was my groove. >> rose: it's almost mike the generation before you came in, right? >> no, they're like '66. about 20 years before they showed up. phil hartman, whatever scene he was in, he was committed to making that part believable, and that didn't always mean you had to be the funniest guy. phil hartman is so commit, and him being committed made it really funny where he's like,"well, we always encouraged his writing." and he would make me laugh. and then he would do unfrozen cave man lawyer, he was the lead and it was hilarious.

i would watch that and my dad would say,"-- >> it seems to be, whether second city or wherever it might be air, lot of you guys have known each other before. in some way, you passed each other's path or not? i mean second city-- how many people had actually worked together? >> for people like jason sedaikis, second city chicago, he que a ton of people coming in. >> rose: or seen people at the comedy clubs. >> yes, that is 100% true. i went second seed. i didn't really know anybody. i knew fred armson because i was a production asaifnt on a short

film he was in. and i just thought he was very funny but i didn't know him in any sort of comedy way. >> rose: tell me about the film you and your wife are making? >> it's called the "to do "list. it's about my wife's... shierks she wrote a movie about a very type girl who is going to college and has no sexual experience so she decides-- i mean sexual appearance before i go to college so i'm prepared. it's all about being prepared she decide to approach sex and losing virginity as a "p" course, basically. >> rose: when does the "s.n.l." season end? >> may 18. we're all done

this table is in a club. john pla laina always switches the card. and we were going along, and that was during rehearsal, and put the table from charlie rose and i started laughing really hard but it was at rehearsal, and i walked off and seth said you have to keep that charlie rose table. dliferredz havew a very dire emphasis. one was a woman with nowhere to turb. and the table from charlie rose. >> rose: thank you for doing this. >> thank you very much. it was a big deal for me, so thank you. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us >> rose: john hendricks is here. he is the founder and chairman

of discovery communications. in 1982, he hatched a bold idea for a cable television channel focused on documentaries. three years later, the discovery channel made its debut. discovery communications has grown to become the world's number one nonfiction media company. i am pleased to have john hendricks at this table. welcome. >> delighted to be here, charlie. >> rose: it's a great story. >> thank you. it's been quite a jurn gle it sure has. and i've watched it with great interest and applauded as you have done it. tell me how it began. >> i think as with all entrepreneurial journey it starts with some moment, some spark of curiosity. it's a puzzle. for me i had grown up really transfixed by television. i was born in west virginia. grew up-- we moved to alabama. and television really connected

me to this bigger world outside of the south. and walter cronkite was one of my big heroes. really, he had such an influence on me because he das you know, the 20th century series, in addition to the newscast, and he did "are you there." so when i was in college at the university of alabama in huntsville, i was a work study student in the mystery department, which i was majoring in. one of my jobs was to get 16 millimeter films into the canisters. i had catalogs of documentaries, and so when cable-- i had the question, even at 21 years old, to myself, "why can't thisob television?" it wanted to see all of these couplaries. couplaries. so the laws changed. hbo, asun, challenged the

existing f.c.c. laws in 1975. prior to that, capable systems could only retransmit broadcast channels. and the laws changed. the supreme court ruled that entrepreneurs or would-be network owners likeinize, we have first amendment rights, and no low of law could stand in the way. hoe hbo, challenged the law, and cable was born in 1975. so i was kind of waiting as consumer for someone to watch my kind of television. after hbo, as you recall, bill rasmussen in connecticut created e, is pn. ted created cnn in 1980. we 1982 i became obsessed with this idea that a cable network like this could exist. i set about doing it myself. >> rose: where did you get the financing? >> that was a huge challenge and

one of the reasons i wrote the book was to write a book i wished i had had. how an entrepreneur withoon idea, a dream-- especially one that requires a lot more money than you have? your banking account. for me, in the business plan i wrote in 1983, i was convinced i would need at least 25 million. so you have to get connected with people that can provide that kind of financing and companies. i had borrowed everything i possibly could. my wife and i got a second mortgage on the house. we raised dwl 100,000 and we lived off of that and hiring staff to provide some of the content perfect we went on the air. through a series of connections in washington, i got an iptwo duction to alan and company, the investment bank in new york. so that was something i worked

very hard to make that happen. once i had my hrg at alan and company-- every entrepreneur has to make that first pitch to either a venture capital firm or investment beaneer. >> rose: what percentage of the ownership did you keep? >> when you start, you have 100%, and when you go through many round as i dic i ended up with 7% after all was said and debate. in recent years, that's down to 2% of the company. >> rose: what's the market value of the company? >> today i think it's $27 billion. >> rose: is 2% of 27 billion snuff for you? >> i think that's another fork in the road every entrepreneur has to go through. if you go equity financing, you have to give up why you were ownership. for me, i felt like it was well worth it of creating something like discovery. again, there's a lot of people

out there that have dreams. >> rose: that's the story of this book. >> that's the story of this book. >> rose: so walter cronkite played a role. >> yes, he did. >> rose: so what did he do as i finish up the business plap. i started fund raising. and before i met alan and company, there were dead ends. there was a cancellation at cbs, water after he sat down at the anchor's street, and on saturday he looked over. cbs canceled it after a couple of years on the air. i kept hearing from would-be funders, john, if cbs and walter cronkite can't make science and programming language work what, makes you see. i set about to try to do to the

worthed that, really. in the papers, in the muse reports, it was the needlesseb ratings. >> rose: how long did you run it yourself as c.e.o.? >> from 1982-2004. and then judith mchale, my longtime chief operating officer took over and she resigned in 2006. >> rose: where did you find david? >> diefd was at nbc. i had known david early on, so in the early days, after he had gotten on the air, we needed to do such a vol iewsm contractes, not only with the programmers but also cable descrgz contacts. so i met this young lawyer who worked for richard berman.

i was so impressepressed with d, and i think i spoiled him for suinpursuing a law career. we were clearly on a decision of what we were trying to do. he later wrote a letter to bob wright, touting his experience at discovery and was hired by bob wright at nbc where he spent 20 years getting great ge training. back to the walter cronkite story, though, because it was important. i got to meet walter, and he told me this story of why this programming wasn't working on cbs. this was a time, charlie, you recall, when the networks were dividing up i 90 share. so to win the night was a 30 or 33 share would get you close to winning the night. so cronkites universe to the a 26 share, and it wasn't good for

audience. they wouldn't stay on for a sitcom. with kalter's indoorment. cvs hoe intreeded with the discovery idea here, got involved, wrote lettered to venture capitalists . >> rose: why didn't you get him to come over there and be your principal? >> we did. as soon as we got funding he was one of our first executive producers. he produced "cronkite reports." , was he a writer as well? >> on cronkite produces. so he played a critical role at giving someone outside the lewis early credibility. >> rose: where is it now? what is discovery today? >> discovery it worldwide, 223 countries and territoried around the world.

we have 64 brand of network that we distribute publicly. we're more than the single chabl that i was trying to get carriage for in the united states. we have animal plant, t.l.c., the science channel, which i'm proud of. and here in the united states, more recently we've done a partnership with oprah for own. >> rose: how is that working out? >> very happy. it was a rocky road. i think people from -- >> no, oprah told me it was rocky on cbs. >> i'm talking about the economic-- of the network. in my experience, it takes three to four years to get a network like animal planet to operate and break even.

>> rose: tell me what whatyour philosophy is about what discovery does? what i do? what television people who realize we're not providing mass entertainment, which is always going to generate the biggest audiences, correct. >> that's right. what is your philosophy. >> there's about 25% of the viewership out there that is curious, and they're information seekers, so they see television as a medium that can satisfy their own curiosity. some turn to television for amusement or entertainments. disoaferg what you do. the great projects we can victim to love on public television, for example. programmed to is that 25%. they love news.

so they're news consumers. so discovery and science channel serve that audience. but as a global media company now, we're branching out to make sure we can capture revenue for the other 75% for the views we do on t.l.c.-- >> therefore you, say, look, we have a distribution system tow you go to the people you cater two, and i architecture to reach out. >> exactly. we have a portfolio of networks globally -- >> is this reality television we're talking about? >> yeah, reality television, and i think some day we'll number sport. we invested in sports in europe, for example. i think to be a global force in television, to be as big and meaningful as we can see, and have the kind of resources to

sustain this long term. we need more than 25%. >> is it better to be in in cont or distribution gilove being in the content today. if you own the content, then you're i think in a good situation. >> rose: because there are so many different ways. an increasing number of ways. we have to do that being mindful of who brought us to the dance. the cable operator operators and distributors gave us the brand of cable television in the united states. people, the consumer are driving toward getting what they want when they want to watch it and they'll go to any program.

alan and company did my first round of financing. we couldn't get the whole $25 million. cable was self-regulated. we had $5 million and i knew i was burning about $1 million ray month so we were going to run out of money, and john-- four large capable contributors had carried it on their channels. the industry that-- the cable act of '84, wouldn't be implemented until januaryef '87. as we are able to adjust our rates up as the market will repeer. so what did john do today?

>> john right-hand ricks is alaska. working in the future and my partner, and guiding the company to the nbig steps in our company's evolution. >> rose: john hendricks, the book is called "a curious discovery." thank you for joining us. see you next time.

>> this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you by -- >> thestreet.com. interactive financial multi media tools for an ever changing financial world. the dividend stock advisor guides during a period of low interest rates. real money helps you think true investing stocks. action alerts plus is a charitable trust portfolio that helps with trade by trade strategies, online, mobile, social media, wearethestreet.com. watershed moment, the supreme court rules on gay marriage and the impact on business big and small may be far reaching. >> why adjustable rate mort badges may be on the verge of a come back. >> and financial fraud. why today he's