. >> rose: welcome to the program. tonight mark halperin or chris christie and the implications for the 2016 presidential campaign. >> in private conversations, and there is the dirty little secret your viewers aren't allowed zero know, i had a private conversation with any republican strategist or elected official when this became a big deal they said how dare you say they knew about it, quite the contrary, every one said, yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, he better he wasn't involved. if he was involved they better hope it never comes out. >> rose: we conclude with blodgett ceo and cofounder of business insider. >> and now we have 35 million people a month that are reading the content, including lots of very, very loyal users who are coming every day. we have 150 people at the company, and about 65 people in the newsroom, so it really has

evolved into a thriving, growing journalism business, which is wonderful to see in an era where a lot of news organizations have been under such pressure. >> rose: halperin and blodgett next. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. of from our studios in new york captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> i am sad to report to the people of new jersey that we fell short. we fell short of the expectations that we created over the last four years for the type of excellence in government that they should expect from this office. >> rose: narc halperin here, the editor in large and political senior analyst for time magazine and time.com. best author of two best selling books. revelations surfaced chris christie's senior staff had closed lanes on the george washington bridge in order to exact prevention on a political opponent. on thursday the governor held a two hour press conference in question he apologized repeatedly and held his staff accountable. also heard this week from former defense secretary bob gates the author of a controversial new memoir, his memoir suggests the president did not have faith in his own policies in afghanistan, gates reserved particularly harsh words for vice president joe biden declaring him wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.

i am pleased to have mark halperin back at this table, welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: first governor christie. what a performance. now, does it do him well or does it set him up for bad news? >> well, this story has a long way to go, governor christie is a huge personality and part of the fascination of the story is he was on the cover of time magazine twice last year, he is seen as the front runner or a front runner for the republican nomination and in the media market here in new york so he gets a lot of attention as an outsized personality, a lot of people in the media and politics know. >> rose: and he has an outsized personality. >> he does. that performance was, i think, you know, i think people who said this, i am not the only one who said this, he was better off after that press conference than before. abject denial that he knew anything about this, fired two people, which suggests some level of accountability, some what follow gentleman tick and also did not completely eliminate from his performance the traits that people like about him, very articulate, very

fluid, very human. i think that what has been most remarkable to me is the degree to which in many quarters of the media there is the caveat, well, if he is telling the truth, if nothing contradicts what he said, it is kind of remarkable, governor christi has not been meally mouth of denying any knowledge of this .. and even in two organs of rupert murdoch, wall street street and new york journal, articles on friday were laced with clear references to the notion of, well, assuming he is telling the truth he is fine but if he is not telling the truth he is dead. the skepticism comes not from his performance which was absolute at the press conference, from skepticism about the chronology, certain elements of the chronology, which we can talk about if you wish, make people wonder how would that be? fribs most particularly how could this small group of relatively junior people take it upon themselves to do such a thing without telling the boss? and secondly, because people know chris christie, and as john and i made clear in double down he is a few guy who does things his way and

is it impossible he knew about such a thing? no, no one thinks it is impossible, in this case he denied it but that performance gives him the ability now, if there are no new facts to say, i have shown accountability, i have gotten rid of people close to me because they did something wrong and to try to move on, but it is going to go on because the investigation is at a minimum. >> rose: did he say they lied to him? beyond not disclosing but in fact lied to him. >> yes, his deputy chief of staff who was one of the people he fired he said, he asked, she was asked point blank if she knew anything about it in advance of the press conference he had in december, where he said his staff wasn't involved and she, she claimed as did others he says that she had no involvement. >> rose: there is also this question of whether there is a culture out there, not so much generally in new jersey, but specifically in the governor's office. i mean, anyone -- the people who are most skeptical he is telling the truth are reporters and who know how his worlds operate.

>> rose: what do they know about how his world operates. >> if you cross chris christie you will pay a price. there are plenty of governors around the country who do that, there are plenty of politician whose do that and even people in the media who do that but i would say chris christie has a reputation for being particularly aggressive and particularly -- >> rose: and. >> anyone who spent 20 minutes with the guy has seen that. >> rose: so you are saying if he did it it wouldn't surprise you, if he knew about it, it wouldn't surprise you? >> well, in of if this has not become a raging personality and not denied becoming involved it would not surprise me in the least he knew about it or authorized such a thing. >> rose: authorized, not just knew about it. >> and again. >> rose: not the governor of fort lee, the mayor, but the people who -- fury because they were on that bridge for four hours. >> a strange way to exact retribution if that's what it was, leaving the governor's role

out, but, you know, someone came up with the idea. what i am saying is, that -- well, my general view, and it hurt me as a reporter at times, if someone comes out in public i give them the benefit of the doubt. >> rose: until you know better. >> but i am not the least bit surprised, again, even rupert murdoch's paper and he has been a huge champion of chris christie, wanted him very much for him to run as the presidential campaign. even his newspapers, that are pro chris christie are expressing criticism because it is hard to put the chronology in a way that makes sense to say these people acted alone and didn't tell him. >> rose: suppose chris christie went out and said let's look at the facts first and came out and said, you know, we did this, what a stupid thing to do, i have never done anything more stupid than this, i apologize, it will never happen again, would he have been able to move beyond it? >> no. >> rose: it would have been over. >> he certainly would not be the

candidate of the republican governor's association which in the context of his running for president is a huge perch to raise money. he would not be seen as a front runner for the republican nomination. it is possible under circumstances he could survive in -- as governor of new jersey but i think doubtful because of the performance he gave in december where he mocked the whole notion he was involved. you know, people say how could he lie, you know, how could he lie and again i take him at his word but how can he lie? at this point he has no choice. and there are some -- >> rose: he has no choice but to lie. >> he is the past the point of no return but again, it is fascinating to me panned i have watched cable tv and reading the papers, it is fascinating how much caveat there is, and again in private conversations and this is the dirty little secrets your viewers are entitled to know, i haven't had a private conversation with any republican strategist or elected official since this became a big deal at the end of this week in which they said to me sort of indignantly how dare you say

they knew about it, quite the contrary, each one said it wouldn't surprise me in the least, he better involved he wasn't involved if not it better not come out once he got past the point of no return in the december press conference he would have had no choice, i prefer to think he is telling the truth. >> rose: let's assume he is telling the truth. >> yes. >> rose: could this be a positive for him in the end? >> all depends on how it gets handled going forward, it could be, he has a close-knit group of advisors who he relies on and would rely on to run for president, including one of the people he got rid of, in the last few days because that guy was going to help him with the rga and the republican governor's getting republican governor's raised again and he would be the chairman of the party in new jersey and clearly, you know, probably would have been his campaign manager if he had run for president. losing that guy is a big deal but he is replaceable, you know, he is a young talented man but replaceable. so i think, sure, if there are no new facts and the investigations don't tie him up,

it is a positive in the sense that it is how he handled it, i laugh when people say it is unsurvivable, you look, as bill clinton but you build into that, asked the guy elected president with reverend wright and admitted cocaine user and ask the guy elected president who having hidden the fact he had a dwi with his teenage sister in the car and ask the guy, bill clinton if you want to give me the rest of the hour to do that catalog but ask the guy who got through the democratic nomination process and the general election in 1992, it is, it all depends on how you handle it. >> rose: or how good you are. i said a few weeks ago on television that bill -- there is something about kiss christi that was magical, just like there was something magical about barack obama and george bush and bill clinton and i get beat on the head and shoulders on twitter about that but it is a fact. there are certain politician whose are bigger than life, magical figures and almost no one in our politics today who could have performed like he did for two hours yesterday, fluid,

articulate, humorous, all things that will help him survive this if he does. >> rose: and the second, and the voters say we are behind our guy? >> no so much but part of the why -- >> rose: big punned raiser -- >> ken lange and miller and governor or two have come out in support of him. >> rose: in politics you have to be more careful that finance years. >> i suppose but financier's are often not the best judgment of where the balance is in the public. i have been surprised how little support there is for him because he sort of has taken his position but most people who spent any time with him, a lot who spent time with him know how he -- he doesn't tolerate enemies, he doesn't tolerate being crossed. >> rose: can you make the case you saw the human side of this gay, he apologized and said he had sleepless nights and talked about his wife who was let down will it humanize him and serve

as an advantage for him, one more time asking the question about how he could benefit from this. >> this is leading the newscast, a topic here, but most people are not paying attention so if you are talking about in the context of 2016, most ordinary people, it is not going to matter, i think for insider it doesn't help him, it helps him -- again he is better off after the press conference for some of the reasons you suggested but this does not help him with insider because the one thing republicans want in 2016 without a doubt whether hillary clinton runs or not is a nominee who is not going to let them down, they don't want surprises and weakness, they want someone who is going to be a super strong candidate where you are not risking and one of the things about chris christie, he is volatile, and just no doubt sea volatile guy and even his supporter would have to tell you sea volatile guy, you can describe volatile in other ways, emotional, passion that but he is a volatile guy. >> polls in the last several months, he is even a little ahead of secretary clinton as potential nominees going head to head. >> se poll pretty strong and he has the support of people, a lot

of others who can raise him a lot of men and -- >> rose:. >> the conservatives and the moderate camp. he does and he is a good retail -- and rga perch, going around and raising money and getting chits are governors, he has governor races in iowa, new hampshire, a lot of key states and i think he is one of the top four candidates without a doubt before this thing happened. this thing sets him back and to the extent that he could have emerged as the consensus front runner over the next few months which i think is a real possibility of the establishment, at least, the biggest problem for him is this scandal because it will continue to have, raise doubts about his volatility and maybe his credibility, this thing keeps that from happening, i don't think there is a chance now he can become the consensus candidate. >> rose: let me turn to bob gates. >> another big personality in a different way. >> rose: yes. >> real inside player. >> rose: walk down the street of fifth avenue, nobody would know who he is, maybe now. >> rose: but respected by both

democrats and republicans. >> that's why this is a huge deal. there is almost no one else in the country who could write a book like this who would get the he inception it has. >> rose: because he is credible. >> because he is credible and so measured and you saw in the white house, this book represent as huge threat to the president, and the vice president, and secretary clinton, because of his credibility and yet because of that credibility, they push back, but in a pretty tepid way. >> rose: they didn't push back in a tepid way because of his credibility? >> yes. you cannot take him down the way some authors can be taken down. >> rose: let's talk about what he said. on the one hand he said about joe biden as i mentioned. >> wrong about everything. >> rose: wrong about everything in four decades on national security issues. wrong about everything? >> well, i have to say if you look at the willist, and i am a huge fan of the vice president, i think he contributed to public life is great but he has been wrong about a fair thing of public debates. >> rose: well he hey have been right about one, that he was

making afghanistan was, before the so-called surge in afghanistan, is that we ought to make the a counter terrorist organization, not a counter ininsurgency an that came around to be a view held by many people who think that was a smart thing to do in the first place and again he lost that argument to the president, by the way. >> correct. but i will say clearly he wasn't wrong about everything but if you look at the items on gates' list and people put this list together before he is not the first person to make this point he has been wrong about a lot of policy debates. >> rose: but looking at the president and saying the president didn't have his heart in this war, it was not a mission that he believed in. uh-huh. >> rose: he had some question about the commander in chief, i mean the commander on the ground he chose, david competent address because they had been at it beforehand but find somebody because he just fired stanley mcchrystal. >> there is not a word of that narrative that surprises either of us, or the viewers of this show.

>> rose: who knew the president's mind. >> correct. >> but it is a respected guy in the room who is, whose willingness to render that judgment for history about his commander in chief that he served is just a huge deal, because we can say it based on our observations and even maybe contact with people in the administration, but for a principal player of bob gates' stature to say that the president's heart was not in this, his head and his heart was not in that mission is a historical judgment that -- as president. >> rose: a lot within him said we should just get out of there? >> well, you have seen some conservatives and some independent analysts say it is not pair to the troops if you don't believe in the mission, it is not fair to the troops and their families. >> rose: and bob gates has always made a big point about his commitment to the troops. >> as he does in the book. >> rose: and talks about jogging around and looking up at lincoln and all of that. >> i think, look, very few people have read the book, right so far so we are all going on one excerpt within the wall

street journal and news accounts and my sense is from the totality of what i have read, including the review in "the new york times" is this is a more nuanced thing. >> rose: very much so. >> the news will tease out the most positive, he says positive things about the president. >> rose: and hillary clinton. >> and about the president as well. >> rose: mart and savvy and politically astute. >> and all of that but i don't think you can minimize the things that have been cherry picked out that are negative in terms of bob gates' credibility -- >> rose: and is it your experience, because you just had a big book, you know, and people pick things out of that book. >> yes they do. >> rose: about chris christie for example and his going through the vice president selection process and it got lots of attention, does that mean that in the end what happens in the first 48 our seven, or 72 hours of a book's public, public appearance. >> yes. >> whether it has been released or not defines the book? >> it does to a large extent, in

my experience, and in watching this i am a bit of a student of these things, i think those cutting elements in the book and those judgments he rendered that are more negative will probably be associated with this back without a doubt, no matter what happens going forward. there will willable will be a lot of people who buy this and doesn't read it or give it as a gift that doesn't read it but secretary gates wrote those things with knowledge of how they would be treated i am quite certain. >> rose: he is too smart not too. >> and the public i am not exactly sure the, publicity i am not sure how "the new york times" got that book or it was done on purpose or not but no doubt they could have done something to try to steer it in a different direction and did not. >> rose: how is the president doing? >> . i think he is, i think he is having a better start to the year than i would have thought, because. >> after a terrible year in 2013. >> a terrible year in 2013 and came into this without a lot of momentum. what i think is positive for him

is there is some indications that the health -- three things, one the healthcare plan is working a little bit better, fewer reports about the web site being a problem, more focus as there should be, some focus on people getting coverage and what that means to their lives. two, debate about up employment insurance and about raising the minimum wage, which is a fair amount of, a fair amount of bandwidth, those are good issues for the president not politically but things he believes in and my sense from the reports reporting i have done is the state of union is getting a lot of attention internally and a lot of focus and gives him a chance to have a big megaphone against an opposition party which still has not found leaders, ideas, energy except being an anti-obama party but make no mistake i think unless he has a big breakthrough he could have four years of getting nothing done. >> rose:. >> four years? >> could be, could be. >> and is the era of shutting down government over? >> for the next couple of years and i think that is to both

sides, that's why the deal got done and not passed neither party -- >> rose: paul ryan -- >> the budget deal. >> we still have a debt ceiling fight and that is not exactly the same thing. >> rose: you can negotiate on that. >> he says he won't, i expect republicans will cave on that, i think the republicans will cave on a lot of things because they want this elections to be a revenue up on healthcare and on the president's general competence and leadership because that is what the debate is about, they will pick up seats, and that is what they want. >> rose:. >> rose: take 90 percent of democrats you know, what is the single thing they are most do you wanted about with this president. is it that national security is hot as where they thought he might be with respect to these important issues that certainly the left of the democratic feels is important or is it that he just hasn't handled the job the way they had hoped he would when they were so inspired by his

rhetoric? or speeches? >> it is funny i am not sure you get a consensus of anything like 90 percent, i think you get a variety of answers but i think there is kind of a disa nance with a lot of dissonance with a lot of democrats the disappointments stems from two things which seem contradictory they wish he would fight hearters against republicans and critics and more firm for fight, for things they think he believes in and share with him but they wish he could be a more unifying figure and bring the country together more an get more done. >> rose: does he have the potential to do that? in other words he hasn't done more is because of his own skills? >> well, no, a lot of tells would say it is because republicans -- >> rose: i know they say that uh but i am asking you, are you saying yes the republican factor was there but in fact if he had different kind of skills and a different mine set, a different experience, experience he may have been able to pull it off.

>> i think he could have been done stimulus and healthcare in a bipartisan way an gotten significantly less or some what less and the presidency of this president -- >> rose: why didn't he? >> in the case of the stimulus because he wanted to do it fast and he assumed more republicans would vote for it and the democratic leaders at the time, who were both the majority in the house and senate says we can do it and healthcare he wanted universal healthcare an could not get republicans to come with him on that but i think his chief of staff, widely reported rob em manuals and other, almost a lot of people with a big bipartisan win and come back for universal and he said, ben, as a student of history if i don't do it now, never going to happen, let's do it now. .. i think it is clear to me that history is going to record that, if not as his biggest mistake, his most momentous decision in terms of you might the country and getting things done in a bipartisan way and the impact of that may be, as i said, he may get nothing done this term, both the way he ran

for election which we write trying to mak make it a referenm instead of a mandate on the second term and healthcare decision may make it impossible and he faces a choice this year, does he run to try to win back the house, which is a very, very big long shot or do you try to work with republicans? so far it seems like he is trying to do politics, as he did in 2011 and 2012, and i don't see where that leads except maybe having his party be slightly better in the mid terms. >> rose: and now in the area of pure speculation, former secretary of state hillary clinton is better off today in terms of her decision to run, which we assume would happen, unless she finds a reason not to, unless something is compelling for her, whatever it might be. is she in a better position today than she was a year ago. >> i think she is. there are some things that can't run the other way, but the movement of the obama political family to her donors, activists,

is extraordinary, one of the super pacs that supported the president and may select hillary clinton, it is an inside became, money game, as the huge deal, the unwillingness of anyone in the party of any stature to make the case that there is a rush to judgment, quite to the contrary, they are comfortable making her the consensus and no the republican field, not just chris christie's problems no one is emerging in a way, if you look at the 20 names most mentioned i don't think any of them have a particularly good last year. >> rose: is there a barack obama within the republicans? someone who is not well money could come forward because -- >> not that i see and people say well people didn't see barack obama. >> rose: that's a good point. >> but they did in a sense as early as 2004 and even before that -- >> rose: the speech in 2004 brought him to the attention. >> but they looked at him as a talented guy who some day might be president and who had special

political gifts, i don't see anyone in that list list of 20 with special political gifts of that caliber, chris christie, again, the reason i think he is among the strongest is he has a lot of -- >> rose: do you believe someone can become president of the united states who has not had political experience? >> no. i mean, sure, i think it is impossible, i don't see anybody like that today, it is possible but it is just too complicated, you know, it is not for on-the-job training and it would take a really special person in a queer when that is what the country wanted they wanted a complete outsider and where the opposition -- >> rose: a proven record of performance in whatever the field was. >> in a field that is extraordinarily weak. >> rose: you just said the opposition is weak within the republican party. >> hot weak enough. i just don't think you can put it all together. now there may be somebody like that but i just don't see the person. but i don't rule it out but i would take a specific person who could -- and in the republican party who could deal with the establishment, and as i said before, right now, the party

wants a safe choice, they want somebody who is not going to explode or collapse and someone who had never run before -- >> rose: safe doesn't normally get you there, does it? >> well,, you know,, george bush in 2000, 1988, was kind of a safe choice, you know,. >> george bush was kind of a safe choice. >> rose: bush 41. >> bush 43. >> rose: oh, sure, that's what i thought -- >> both bushes were kind of safe choices by some standards. >> rose: thank you, thank you, charlie, mark hall rin/written, back in a moment:within business and professional coverage, people are very willing to pay for helpful information, the ft has built a wonderful business bays based on business and a lot of trade publications are doing incredibly well, it has to be somehow differentiated but subscriptions are real and a big promising opportunity i would suggest there is a big enough

market for advertising supported journalism. >> rose: henry blodgett here, editor in chief, ceo and cofounder of business insider, the online publication created in 2007 has prone into a top destination for millions of unique visitors each month and pursuit of the internet's most compelling content, the site increased original reporting beyond the bite size summary that is characterized nontraditional medias on the web, business insider represents a second act for henry blongt, in 2003, following the dot-com crash he was fined by the ftc and given a lifetime suspension from working on wall street, ten years later he is considering an effort for reinstatement, i am pleased to have him here at the table for the first time, welcome. >> thank you, it is a privilege to be here, charlie. >> go back on that history for me and just talk about what happened to you and the 11 learned and how does one go through that lifetime suspension and say i am going t to take an assessment of myself, i am going

to learn from what has happened to me, both in terms of factors beyond me and to me, you know, and rebuild? >> well, they always say you learn more from mistakes and tough times than you do from the successes and i learned a huge amount from that, a lot of which i didn't want to learn, felt unfair at the time, but wanted to get through it and ultimately wanted to come back from it. the moment it happened i had this reputation i had developed somewhat unfairly, i had been knighted as this stock market visionary, an people knew me all around the world, i had millions of people listening to me, i went from that, which but a little bit ridiculous, that was the dot-com hype to being hated by the allegations and what came out, and i just -- as soon as that happened i wanted to get through that and rebuild and rebain the trust that i had lost. >> rose: how would you do it? is it just time or what? >> i think it is -- at the time, i felt like my professional life

is over, and something that was incredibly important to me, which sound ironic, given the allegations was being straight with people, and suddenly i was accused of not being straight with people, in fact, hot telling them about the risks in the stocks and things like that. so i wanted to simply do what i could do to regain that trust, and what was that? afterward i couldn't work in the securities i have anymore, i could write, i had done that before, i had been a journalist before, port patly there were a couple of people in the journalism i have who sort of said, hey, this person has been through a lot, maybe he has something to say and that was when martha stewart got in trouble. >> right. i saw thought and i have a sense of what he is going through, maybe i can add something to this and fortunately one publication was kind enough to give me that short and, shot and -- >> rose: and that began the whole thing. >> that's right. the whole allegations that you brought up were started by eliot spitzer,. >> rose: right. >> and when i -- after him

knocking me down, came back through slate, he got knocked down himself and he came back in slate and eliot spitzer and i have had this weird relationship ever since then and one thing that somebody said to me at the beginning of the process that i was going through is, don't husband yourself in the moment, life is long, just continue to move forward and what is remarkable is eliot spitzer and i have sort of become friends ten or fifteen years later and so it has been amazing to see that. >> rose: you start business insider and where is it today? >> today? > how has i evolved. >> we started three people in the loading dock of another publisher we started publishing the first day and first day 2000 readers came to the site and overjoyed and it sort of ginled down to 1,300 and said we are in trouble but then it began to climb and now we have 35 million people a month who are reading the content, including lots of very, very loyal users coming

every day, with stress 150 people at the company and about 65 people in the news room so it really has evolved into a thriving, growing journalism business, which is wonderful to see in an era where a lot of news organizations have been under such pressure. >> rose: and what is your ambition in. >> >> rose: what is the plan? what is the vision? >> well, i think stepping back i think that what is happening in digital media and journalism in particular is we are seeing a replay of what the cable news let works went through when you had cnn was formed people said could you have a network that was just devoted to news 24-hour or sports, exactly, ten year later it becomes obvious, of course, ten years after that, cmn is totally a household name and many networks who go the same thing, digital is going through the same process and i think there will be some brands built, hopefully business inside search one of them that last 20, 30, 40, 50 years and really become the new brands of this new era of journalism, but i am thinking of a brand, but -- so

what is arriana creating at huffington post? it is now probably, it is local,, politico, just opened in new york. what is the direction here? >> every time a new medium has come along, it gradually has evolved its own native form of story telling, when tv came along, initially the attempt was okay this will be just like a newspaper and do just what we do in newspapers and read the stories and then you began to see the power of images and having people on sight and the live broadcasts became incredibly different, the same thing is happening in digital over the last ten years, a lot of innovation, people thought it is just going to be like a newspaper or just like a tv station, and, in fact, the whole editorial approach is very different, it is an incredibly versatile and rich medium and as companies get scale as we are starting to get scale, buzz feed and huffington post as you mentioned you can be very

diverse and have report whores do long new yorker type articles and the folks who do short pieces and a regional photography and video, all built into the same site so it combines all of that and so what is evolving is really a native new form of journalism and it is tremendously powerful, it has taken a while to get the scale necessary to be able to do it but i think over the next ten years you will be amazed by -- >> rose: because? >> because you can do anything in digital, whatever the best mode of telling a particular story is, you can do that, if the best mode is a 45 minute interview with you, we can go that, we can post it. if it is just simply a single photograph with a quote, we can post that. if it is a 3,000 word investigation or 7,000 word piecing we can post that, we can send somebody in a plane to canada to fly over the tar sands and take 75 pictures of that and come back and say hook this is why environmentalists are so crazed about this, look what is actually happening up here and you can tell stories in a way

you just can't in other media so it is very, very flexible and not going to replace print or replace television, which have obviously still incredible story telling capability, but it is a new medium and amazingly versatile. >> rose: interesting you say that because just a couple of days ago you had an editor to the wall street journal today and people make the mistake of thinking all you have to do is take your content and put it online. you have to understand the culture of online. what do they mean when they say that? >> it is a different medium, people can consume information very differently, many, many differences. one is, we are all consuming it all day at work on our mobile devices, it is not that we get it delivered in the morning and we have a few minutes on the way to work to scan it and then we dump it, we are getting new information coming in all the time so it has to be in a form we can difficult jeps in that period, we want to be able to share it with other people, so sharing is a big form of tricks, you want to be able to find

content, so search is a big form of distribution, and you want to know where to go to find the latest and a newspaper is set up to deliver everything at the crack of dawn after working the entire day and the best brains in the building are focused on that, whereas a native web site is set up with the best journalistic talent you have got. >> rose: when you look at mobile cloud a couple of other things, video is one of the most -- >> absolutely. iai if you go back to the beginning of tv, there were a few print journal lists who made the switch, everyone who stayed in print, what are those people doing? and it was talked about talking heads and you don't have to be a great writer, it turns out you have to be great at other things, you have to look good on camera and it is a different skill set. >> you have to listen. >> and the same thing with digital, it is a different skill set and it is a very tough transition and it turns out that a lot of our best folks came out of school, they have been texting and using facebook and

using twitter for year and come to us, it is completely natural, they know how to tell stories this way, they know how to interact with readers this way, it is second nature to them, whereas you have someone who has been writing for a magazine for 20 years and it just feels like a fish out of water, an to a lot of people it feels like it has to the woul worse and a lesser n and i think overtime i think this year people really will start to appreciate how incredibly rich it is and how overall charlie, the world has never been better informed. we have never been better informed. for a while we were handwrit wringing about journalism and so forth. >> how do normal consumers make sure they are reading is not just opinion or not just supposition but has some authority and credibility? >> i think brands matter, it is the same, cbs, bloomberg, these brands mean things, and there is a lot of credibility that comes with that, and the same thing is happening online, though brands are developing, and i also think

consumers are very smart, there is this idea that oh somebody tweeted it and it is not true and how will anybody ever know? if you actually watch the way fact get introduced on twitter for example, a fact gets introduced and immediately gets dissected and debated and within minutes we have often narrowed down to the truth, and i think consumers are adults, they can figure that out and know what that is, and so i think that overall brands do matter, credibility matters a lot and i think you are seeing new organizations are getting better every day, that is our goal is to do the same thing. >> rose: it is arguing aol offered you $100 million for your company, whether you kid or not is your business, not mine but it suggests if it is true that you think you can build this thing into something bigger and bigger. >> we definitely can, no guarantees. >> rose: so what is that plan? is what i am asking, other than being one of the principal players in terms of the aggregate, development, creation of, in story telling about your

own domain? >> well, we compete in the business, there are many various accomplished publications that do that, most of them are ported, with newspapers, with tv stations, first and foremost so we are the only digital native company coming up in business, competing against the wall street journal and others and my hope is that overtime because we are so focused on that, we will ultimately be the biggest and best in dental business -- >> rose: essentially is that a transition from aggregation to individual reporting? >> when there were three people on the loading dock we did a lot of original reporting and schools, and building on other people's content, that is what people do all day, that is what twitter is, you are sifting through and figure things out, telling stories and so that will always be a piece of it, just the way on tv, and chn, cnn is consistently reading the headlines that router has produced and others, media has always worked and built on other people's stories, that is all a

part of it but the harmer we get the more we have the ability to have reporter who do nothing but research and write very long stories, for example, earlier this year we had ten our team, nicholas carlson wrote a 20,000 word by ography of marisa mire, the ceo of yahoo, that is something you couldn't do in a magazine, it is too long, longest magazine stories are 7,000, 10,000 and yet we have unlimited space, we felt people were so interested in marisa and he is so interesting, we can devote six months to coming up with it, and so when we see the opportunity we do that. >> rose: let's start with some of the companies you cover too and starting with yahoo, she just made a speech out at ces conference, room, consumer electronic show, and she said basically that we are a place that provides entertainment, is yahoo becoming something that it was not or is it simply learning how to do what it always intended to do? >> well, i work for yahoo, i am a host on their morning finance show so i am marisa's employee

and i am not going to -- >> rose: so in transparency. >> i will say she bought a new wonderful new excitement and energy to the come, she brought that and watching her from afar without talking to her about the strategy, she is focused on technology first, the product, and now she is gradually moving into media and yahoo has an audience of 700 million people worldwide, i think almost a billion now with the addition of tumbler, so media is going to be a big part of what they do and i think .. that is the new focus. >> rose: and does apple, has it passed through the transition there steve jobs to tim cook and proved that it has the capacity to continue as leader that it has been? >> i think that apple is certainly demonstrated it can continue to iterate the products that were developed under steve's watch, the i-phone, the ipad. >> they have not yet proven it had -- >> that's right. >> to create new products. >> a whole new category, exactly and that's what even has been

waiting for and been the story that -- >> rose: what that might be television? >> it might be tv or a smart watch, and one of those already has been released by samsung, a lot of reports that apple is working on it, people are very posed on that, you can just see them going in a lot of different directions. >> how do you think about samsung. >> they have been incredibly successful in taking the number one in televisions and they spotted the money opportunity relatively early and now sort of a legend tear story about how they bet the company and focused on that one opportunity, and they have had remarkable success in taking advantage of google android, building a range of products, pal always has been very focused on just the high end, samsung makes the high end phone and they make a full range and they built he a tremendously powerful and difficult verse portfolio. >> apple stayed at the high end. >> yes and what people are worried about now is always in tech there is pressure to commoditize and drive prices

down and that is what is happening to smart phones and tablets and that's where amazon spotted an opportunity saying, apple has this tremendously huge profit margin because they charge so much for the product, let us see if we can come in at a much lower price point and as jeff bezos puts it, their margin is my opportunity, they are trying the to come in underalternative and disrupt that profit margin and that's going to be a challenge for apple going forward. >> rose: and jeff bezos says someone will disrupt me? >> he did i was very surprised to see that, yes, it is inevitable and take longer than he might be suggesting there, amazon is a tremendous company, and i think that one thing that is hot appreciated about jeff bezos enough, i don't think and he is an vessel sorry in our company, i have huge respect for him. >> rose:. >> the way he has run amazon is really a model for a sort of new view of capital him, i think that the u.s., in the u.s. capitalism, the pendulum has swung way too far toward saying that the purpose of companies is simply to create profit for

their owners, it is all about profits. >> rose: it is all about profits. >> cash flow, exactly, we have gone way too far in that andful we have for gotten another purpose of companies, great companies is to pay the people who work for them relatively well, give them good lives and so forth and i think that jeff bezos, people loved to dump on him, dump on amazon for not being particularly profitable he reininvested every dollar he has that the company has generated in the future, in hearing more people, in experimenting. >> rose: with delivery. >> exactly, and that is wonderful for the economy admission to customers because you are cycling all of that cash back into the economy, you are hiring more people and paying them as opposed to letting mountains of cash pile up on the balance sheet which is a what a lot of corporations are doing. >> rose: is there news in. >> i think elon musk is gradually sort of becoming views viewed that way, the founder of tesla and space x. >> rose: and paypal.

>> yes, he is one of these people who has a remarkable anti-, there are lots and lots of incredibly smart people out there, relatively few who are incredibly smart and can also make things happen, and what elon musk has made happen with those two companies at the same time is remarkable, and it is so inspiring to people, we had him in a conference he came down off the stage afterwards, crowd of 50 people just came up and asked him wes for an hour and a half and just so inspiring what he is doing for people, and steve obviously had the same impact, so i think elon is inheriting that mantle. >> rose: when you look at the future, there was a.com crash, which you remember. >> yes, i do. >> what could call it again? >> i don't -- people talk a lot about a tech bubble and the thee are always a couple of companies in the middle of that that are held up as the example with no revenue and several billion dollars of evaluation, i think if you look across tech, valuations are nothing like they

were in 1999, the 2000, there is definitely a boom going on that will bust at some point, tech is always cyclical, i don't uh have got investment chasing lots and lots of companies are created and too many of them and there is a big shakeout but i think the idea we are going to have a repeat of the dot-com come bubble is crazy, if you look at apple, google, less so amazon because of the profit issue but there is cash flow to support the valuations of these companies now,. >> rose: back to you. was it important that -- i could find quotes in which people said i don't trust him based on the experiences of what happened, i don't trust him. i think people suffered loss in jobs because of some of the things he done. does he mean because of what he writes, because of his convictions or he wants attention. trust is important. you hard is it to regain that? anand how do you regain that?

>> it is hard. obviously. given the allegations and just to be clear, the allegations were ultimately with eliot spitzer that on wall street research analysts were working with investment bankers. >> rose: right. >> to take companies public, and that was absolutely true, that was in the 1990s that was just part of the job, and there was a conflict there, but the idea was you would manage that conflict and sift through all the bad companies and you would say okay these are the companies i like we will take them public but you wouldn't be taking them public if you didn't like them, eliot spitzer looked at all of that and says this is terrible we have to separate it completely and the whole system is corrupt, and with spitzer, i respect what he was trying to do, and the system but tense, there were a lot of conflicts and so forth, in that, but i think ultimately what he says is, look here is some e-mails i made some comment in the e-mail that seemed to be different than what i was saying in the public, published

research report, that -- we categorically deny the allegation that it mattered but i wrote the e-mails, they were incredibly scandalous a at the time, they looked terrible, i had no idea what the e-mails would look like from my perspective it is like people on the sidelines of a football game chattering back and forth, the coach is a jerk and ian bremmer am going to kill that son of a bitch, oh, is that when you entered a conspiracy to commit murder when you said that? there is a let of that, so that was our take on that, an i felt myself that i never wrote a record in a research report that i didn't believe, and so i felt that, i felt like i had gone out of my way to try to represent the risks in the stock, i felt like an absolute idiot that i missed the top. >> rose: yes. >> all the way up, it looks like a bubble, i was thinking i will get it right before the top and i will be a hero in doing that, and i nicked it and it was such a classic mistake and it was a staring lesson and, steering

lesson, searing lesson, stocks are looking expensive an oh,. >> rose: what they are saying now, help me unpack some headlines from your recent blog post. >> january 2nd, all your folks snickering about the idea of a stock market crash should read this. >> yes. exactly. so let me punish the other questions and ah and i think it is important. so, yes, after the allegations, i felt, i can't describe it other way other than a physical weight of public disapproval and hatred, after the bubble, so much money had been lost and i just felt it was -- >> rose: and responsibility. >> exactly and i felt like, i don't want to go hide, i want to come back and i want to earn one person at a time, gain back the trust i lost and i understand it is not going to be everybody, but if people will give me that chance to do it, i will try to do that, and i am just so grateful to so many people who have given me that chance and i try to earn that every day and so in particular point about

stocks, there are many, many very valid valuation measures that have been valid for a century or more that are suggesting that stocks are very over-valued right now, doesn't mean that the market is going to crash necessarily, but we only have been in this position a couple of times in history, charlie, 1999, the 2000, and mean 29, and. >> rose: where we are now -- >> in terms of valuations of stocks using long-term valuation measures, not this year's earnings, i don't want to get too wonky about it but this year's earnings, the profit margins are very high and often tend to drop, so if you look at long-term that is where we are, so in the position i am in now i can at least discuss that, i fell like i missed the top once, i am going to be out there this time, but of course, everyone is making money, including those of us who are invested in the stock market, which includes me and nobody likes a bear, nobody wants to think the party can end so i am getting attacked for

that. >> rose: need a catalyst for a market crash to brush up on their history. >> exactly. so that is one of the arguments when you say stocks are very expensive, getting worry some but what is the catalyst? everything is great, the economy is getting better, and one thing i learned so much in 200 2000 ws what i was telling myself was, at some point there is going to be a light that is going to turn from green to red and i am going to see it and i am going to down prayed and that will be that, and that was a fiction that i told myself and a lot of other people believed, and not just me, by the way, a lot of people much smarter than i was were trying to figure out the markets in 1999, 2000, who got burned on both sides, it is very difficult to do it. but the idea was, there would be a sign, i don't think there is a sign until after the fact. i think something changed and six months later it is very obvious what it was but the right does not just turn from green to red. >> rose: yes. >> and then there is this now and i will ask you, i wouldn't be surprised if stocks crashed next year this was on

december 24th, and you shouldn't be either, my question is, these are provocative headlines. i mean, i think of drudge and what he does. now, is there similarity here? you have to find a way to define the question so that it grabs attention. and is there any risk in that. >> ? >> >> rose:. > business we haveto tell storio hear l is no question about that, but there are many, many people out there who are not in the media business who look at all the valuations measures i am looking at who say exactly the same thing and i think actually the problem is, and i remember this very clearly in 1999, especially, there was so much anger directed at anybody who said anything cautionary, if we ever said anything the slightest bit unenthusiastic about a stock, hate mail would come in and how dare you, everybody wants the party to continue on

and i looked back at that and i look, you know, we should just have the balls to say, we can beat armageddon but i didn't see how you could get there, it is so good so how can you get there. >> how much of this is just covering your bases, though, by saying that? >> you know, i know donald rumsfeld showed me a memo he had written at the time of the invasion of iraq and it just simply listed all the things that could go wrong. >> yes. >> rose: and he could always say look i pointed out things that could go wrong and in fact they did. but he wasn't waving that, he was showing that after the invasion and it was stuck in his office. >> right now. >> rose: you are putting it on the headline. >> absolutely, i mean, and i believe it, charlie, i don't know what is going to happen, nobody knows what is going to happen, this is another thing -- >> rose: but the responsibility -- ten years these are things you should look at. >> be aware of it, be comfortable with that as a stock market investor that stocks go down and i am in the stock

market and i hope it continues to go up but i will not be surprised if it does not. >> i ask this often. what has become more important, facebook or twitter? >> i don't think it is either or. i think there is room for both. and twitter is real-time. it is about news, it is about following people in the news business following celebrities, very real-time, facebook is much, much more mass market, twitter is actually a relatively small slice of the population that uses it, media and information centric, facebook is very mass market, pin test, dominate by women .. a different democrat photographic, linked in, business, there is not going to be one that takes everything. i think there are going to be a lot of companies that are very large. >> rose: how many people follow you on twitter? >> i think about 100,000 now. >> rose: yeah. >> including a lot of botts botts. and who do you look to in the morning? in the morning where do you gond and when do you get up. >> 5:00, 5:30. >> rose: where do you go, what

is the first thing you do? >> i get my caffeine and go online and immediately load our site and see what a couple of our editors. >> rose: before anything, your site. >> joe rosenthal, a wonderful editor up at 4:00 and will have a lot of stuff up already so i see what is there and go right to twitter and see what people are saying in europe and go from there. >> rose: twitter is your second look? business insider first and then twitter. >> yes. i am on all twitter all day long, both sites. >> rose: what else? what else informs you? >> everything. the great thing about twitter is it is just a buff pay, of waiters and you feast all day long, and in real-time you see things pop up and e-mail links all the time and visit other web sites. >> rose: people saying take a look at this, take a look at this? >> absolutely. >> rose: what follows the internet? >> what follows the internet as we know it today is the internet of things, it is everything in your house and your life is

online and available to you through your smart phone. >> rose: it is still the internet, though, isn't it? >> it is the internet connecting everything, but like electricity, it is you being able to control everything, devices talking to each other, that is a huge opportunity now. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me, charlie. >> rose: pleasure to have you. henry blodgett. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is nightly business report with susie gharib. >> our rating service provide objective independent ratings daily on over 4300 stocks. learn more at the street.com/npr. business miss. december created the fewest number of jobs in three years as the workforce shrank dramatically. what's causing people to drop out? in the bull's eye. up to 110 million people now impacted by target's security breach. what it all means for the retailer. and defying gravity. shares of a little-known biotech are doing something few if any have done before. gaining more than