>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the firing of the "new york times" executive editor jill abra abra. we start with ken auletta of the ""new yorker" magazine." >> it doesn't matter if you quibble over how many dollars difference there was in pay, and even if you assume the "times" were right that the total compensation was comparable, the fact that the first female editor of the "new york times" believed that it wasn't comparable, believed she was not getting paid equally for equal work is something the "times" ought to have addressed. >> we continue with-- >> i think a lot of the women at the "times" and a lot of men put leadership,un, something similar

is going to be true for the first african american executive editor of the paper. when you have people who have been historically shut out of positions of power, and there are only a few who attain them they mean a lot. >> rose: and we turn to a look at certain important developments in the world. >> a conversation with a very high chinese authority, and i asked him whether china was prepared to play a constructive role in the governance system. and this was his answer. he said, number one, this is not in our tradition. number two, we understand that we must play a role, and we will do our best to do it. but under one condition. what is that condition? the one condition is you must respect us. >> rose: all about the "new york times," and the

captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the "new york times" announced on wednesday that executive editor jill abramson would be replaced. she was fired. arthur sulzberg of the "times" publisher said in an e-mail to staff members her departure was related to an issue with management in the newsroom. the "new york times" has received a pulitzer since jill abramson became its first female editor in 2011. while arthur sulzberger and jill abramson are not talking to the press, both have appeared on this program in previous years. in a conversation in 2011, abramson told me about her interview for her position with the publisher. >> well, you know, i was nervous. i'll admit. he took me to a very nice restaurant. i kind of picked at my food. ( laughter ) >> rose: and what did he want to know? >> he was very frank with me. he wanted to know, first of all, things about what my vision of where the news report needed to

go. and he wanted to discuss both some of my strengths and some weaknesses, too. >> rose: so he had an appraisal of both strengths and weaknesses. >> he did. and i thought they were quite fair. >> rose: and accurate? >> i thought they were accurate. >> rose: like, what did he say? >> he said that when i am in a bad mood, i can be too brusque with people, and that you can just read it on my face. that there's, like, good jill who is delighted and engaged and wants to talk about a great story, and, you know, who compliments reporters . >> rose: that's good jill. and bad jill is? >> bad jill can interrupt and be bad? >> rose: does bad jill listen or does she have to work on listening? >> she has to work on listening. >> rose: she told me what distinguishes the "new york times" is quality journalism. >> the new place is the old place in many ways, which is

what distinguishes the times as quality journalism, and we do that in print, in the print newspaper. and we do it in innovative ways digitally by the hour. we deepen stories by bringing readers into the conversation, you enliven a story and add new dimensions to it. and, you know, i've been very invested in our digital work, and, you know, we used to talk at the "times--" even arthur would use the phrase, "we have to be ready for our digital future." well, it's not the digital future. it's the digital present. >> rose: it is here. >> meanwhile, we have a print newspaper that is treasured by, you know, hundreds of thousands of readers. we actually have more people who home subscribe to the "new york times" in print for two years or

more now than we did. so we have a very dedicated core of people who enjoy the news report most in print. and so we're going to keep delivering it that way to them. they love it. >> rose: and here is arthur sulzberger, the publisher, in 2005, on the importance of choosing the right leadership for his paper. >> what i think is critical for me to say is that it is my job-- more than anything, it is my job to ensure that when the time comes for the next generation of leaders, to take over the "new york times" newspaper and cism, that they are handed as strong and as powerful an institution as i was handed. >> rose: absolutely. >> in my time. >> rose: jill abramson is now succeeded by her managing editor dean beckett. he is the first african american executive editor to head the paper. earlier today, i spoke with ken auletta of the "new yorker" magazine. he has been tracking this story

from the beginning. tell me about this story. why are we all so fascinated? people in the media like you and i, obviously, are absorbed by it. but it seems to be the talk everywhere. >> the "new yorker" got for the first story i+mjñ posted a milln hits, which is extraordinary. just for the first one i did. i did the second one yesterday. i don't know what the tally there is. but it suggests to me as does my e-mail sp phone calls the tremendous amount of interest in it, and some of it i think is women, the sense of the first female editor of the "new york times." what happened to her? why was she fired? and is it true that her compensation, her pay, was less than her male it's person she succeeded who was mail male? >> rose: even though that's the a crucial issue-- i want to set that aside first pup know more about that, you have been reporting about that almost alone. staying with the management

issues. >> i think that's it. i mean, i think the pay issue feeds into the larger context of management. >> rose: what was the management issue that seemed so severe that the publisher of the "new york times" didn't think he could work it out or make it palatable? >> don't forget, arthur sulzberger jr. had made a really bad mistake when he appointed hal reins as the editor of the "time yes in 20001. he won multiple pulitzer prizes. he was a great editor of the "new york times," one of the greatest after 9/11. but he had a very difficult management style. he was brusque, and he was brulal, and ultimately he lost the support of the staff, and in the the end, arthur sulz berg in 2003, had to fire him -- >> there was a plagiarism issue. >> yeah, absolutely right. when he debated whether to make jill abramson the next editor of

the "times" in 2011, or dean beckett, he worried that jill abramson was like hal in many ways, that she was too rough-- not as rough as hal by any means-- but she had a brusque reputation, and he worried about that. he told me at the time that he was profile abramson, that he decide she had the experience, she was tough, and she had the digital experience, that dean beckett lacked the same amount of experience and he chose her. they had a good relationship for a period of time, but then he began to hear feedback that she was brusque with some people in the newsroom, and their own relationship began to be spoiled, and a little tension existed. >> rose: because of? >> all kinds of things. i mean, among other things, for instance, she was very wary of the new c.e.o., mark tomp sop, coming into the newsroom, with the business side. traditionally at the "times" you have a high wall between the news side and the business side. and -- >> and his job and mission was to fix digital.

>> well, to fix digital and to figure out new ways of generating revenue. all newspapers, including the "new york times," is in trouble. so the business side wants those walls lowered so it can figure out way to make money. traditional journalists-- and sabe a very good juvenilist-- worry about the business side. so something called native advertising, which the "times" embraces. native advertising is basically saying to organizations that want to advertise, we will cam flannel your ads to make them look like news stories. that's essentially it. the "times" has more safeguards than buzfeeds or other organizations that do the same thing. if you're jill abramson you're very worried about that and constantly asking questions on the business side. and they chaise. they say don't you want to make more money? don't you see our circulation is going down and our advertising is going down? and that creates the tension.

on top of that, jill abramson discovers several weeks ago that her pay is less than the person she succeed, bill keller, her salary. >> rose: how does she discover this? >> i know but i can't say. actually. because it would, i think, betray a source. >> rose: okay. >> and-- but she finds out, and she finds out that she is getting paid $50-- her salary is $503,000 a year and when bill keller left in 2011 his was $559,000. she goes to the publisher and c.e.o. and complains-- and she also finds out-- same source, that her pay when she was managing editor, was less than the male who was also the managing editor-- salary-- and she finds out when she was washington bureau chief, her pay was lower than the person who succeed her. >> rose: is there any explanation for that? that point, the salary was less? >> there are always

explanations. in the case of the washington bureau chief, phil tomlin, and he used to be on the editorial board and had a higher rate of pay and was making more money. the salary carried over, so that explains that. i don't think there's a good explanation for why the salary of her comanaging editor, who is a male -- >> you would think someone in the glare of the "new york times" and the most media-savvy town in the world would say, "we can't afford to pay any salary to a woman as editor that is less than a man. it's just-- >> but then what happens-- here's where the complications begin. the "times" says when you just compare valerie and not total comp-- salary and not total compensation you are comparing apple and owners. and after i wrote my first post on wednesday in the "new yorker" he put out a statement saying total compensation was roughly comparable, jill abramson, and bill keller. they didn't answer the question about the managing editor, by the way.

how is that? they say it's because you have to at the bonuses, the stock options, and whether any other long-term payments are made. but they did agree to bump up her $50 3,000 to $525,000 after she protested. but she then did something that offended them. she hired a lawyer to talk to them to try to work this out and they saw that as a kind of war-like action. >> rose: a declaration of war. >> and so that became jill is too difficult to work with it. it fit that narrative, storyline, that was developing. >> rose: which had probably been bothering him for a while. >> it was. and then another thing happened, and that is that they all agree that they should hire a digital managing editor to be the counter-part to dean beckett as managing editor. >> rose: who is "they." >> mary: "they" is not just jill abramson but arthur sulzberger and mark thompson.

i published an e-mail from mark thompson showing how involved he was in that search -- >> but they failed to tell-- >> what happened was they arranged for her, janine gip gibbs son, who is the editor of the "guardian u.s." to come in a week ago last monday to meet with arthur and thompson and go to lunch with dean beckett. she didn't tell dean beckett she was recruiting him to be managing editor, the same title he had, but digital. and who told dean beckett? janine gibson. he was really upset. so he happened to have dinner with arthur sulzberger the following wednesday, two days later, may 7. and at dinner with salzburger, dean beckett did something very uncharacteristic-- he's a very gentle, thoughtful, very popular figure in the newsroom and a good journalist.

but he blew up, and he told arthur it's unacceptable that this happened this way. and in fact, jill is very difficult to work with, i find. so arthur then was confronted, arthur sulzberger, with the question, this fed into that sense that this-- that jill was too difficult, and it wasn't a team that he felt comfortable with. so oned from, he asked jill to his office, and fired her. and she-- he said, "would you like to announce you're resigning to do other career activities" which is the normal. and she said, no, no, we're going to tell the truth. and she did. >> rose: don't expect me to come to the announcement, either, by the way. >> can i add one more thing, charlie, about the pay, which i think is really important. it doesn't matter whether you quibble over how many dollars difference there was in pay. and even if you assume the "times" is right that the pay-- total compensation was comparable, the fact that the first female editor, jill

abramson of the "new york times," believed that it wasn't comparable, believed that she was not getting paid equally for equal work is something the "times" ought to have addressed. and that's an issue that led her to hire a lawyer and ultimately contributed to her -- >> do you think that the publisher of the "new york times" thought that he shouldn't pay her as much for the same job because of some-- because of gender? >> no. i don't believe that for one minute. listen, this is a publisher who hired first female editor. >> rose: exactly. so what was in his mind? >> you know, it it may be that they're saying because of the economy and decline of advertising at the newspaper we have to reduce the salary. it may be that they're justifying that keller had been at the times a longer period than abramson, and he gets a little more on the step-ups. they're saying they made it equal. on the other hand, if they said they made it equal, why did they agree after she protested to raise her pay from 503 to 525.

>> rose: what's interesting in your reporting, also, is mark thompson, the one she feared was sort of barging in in his role to look after digital, had said, "we want to keep you here forever." >> right. this is on april 28 in an e-mail which i publishe publish, to hes talking about jenine gibson, trying to recruit her, but jill -- >> this is an e-mail to jill about jenine. >> and then about jill, as you point out, because what he said in the e-mail was, "jill, janine adores you. she respects you. i think the way to clinch the deal and get her here is to reassure her that you will stay for a long period of time as the editor of the "new york times," which i want you to do." and then yet, 10 days later, she's fired. >> rose: do you think that the "times" will be affected by this in the following way-- she

clearly was a magnet for young women who are reporters. >> right. >> rose: foreign, domestic, business, science, politics. will that change? >> i don't know. i mean, i know that one of the things that dean backet and arthur sulzberger did yet was go around and meet with women on the staff to assure them -- >> that sounds look a dean beckett move to me. >> he's great at that. one of the unusual things-- normally when an editor is replaced people are full of anxiety-- what about my job, who is going to come in? when they look at dean beckett, there's no anxiety. >> rose: i thought of this analogy, when stan mcchrystal was fired, i wonder when that took place when it did, if the president of the united states didn't know he had david petraeus to go over there. would this have happened if the publisher of the "new york times" didn't know he had dean beckett to go to? >> i think that's an important

point. dean beckett of the person he considered rather than jill in 2011. so, yeah, that was-- he knew that would be-- settle things down choice. >> rose: what are you looking for now? where is your reporter's eye searching? >> one place you search is the question you raised a moment ago which is what impact will this have on the the "times?" in the business when we talk about the brand, which means what does the "times" stand for? and the fear is that it will harm the "times'" brand, and it will impact the ability to recruit women, or lose some women. i think it's important not to be unfair. the "new york times--" arthur sulzberger, who i think you can fault for the way he's run the business side of the paper-- the "times" is not in great business shape and that's part of his

responsibility-- but journalistically it's in very good shape. and that's his job, too. and the fact he chose the first female editor so the notion he is somehow sexist is preposterous. >> rose: thank you. >> my pleasure. >> rose: we continue our conversation about leadership at the niement. joining me from cambridge, massachusetts, is anne marie lapenski, former editor o editor-of-the-"chicago tribune." from washington, dylan buyers of politico. in new york, rebecca traifter of the "new republic" magazine. let me begin with you, marie, tell me what the issues are as you see it in the much-discussed firing? >> i think there are a set of issues, obviously, around jill, and what happened at the "new york times," and that has been much discussed and much reported and i think probably much more to come. i think for me and many of the people that i've been speak welcome and hearing from in the

last several days, there is this looming question about where women stand in this industry. when i became editor of the "chicago tribune" in 2001, there were quite a number of us, and a growing number of us, who were holding the senior-most leadership positions in newsrooms. we used to have a dinner once a year, actually, and we could actually fill a dinner taib of those of us who were doing this work and now with jill's dismissal we have no women lead anything newspapers in the top 10 markets. and in the top 25 we have only two. and so i think this question of whether women in journalism is not just a question of where's the progress but it's actually a story of a lot of regression in recent years. i do think that we place demands on women in these roles that we

may not even be consciously aware of. but this balance to be-- you know, you need to be assertive but not aggressive. you need to be strong but not too strong. you know, and you need to be human but not motherly. and i think that's a really, really tough, tough balance. and when somebody doesn't play that kind of preprescribed role and is seen as-- some of the language we're hearing "abrasive, bossy," i think it creates-- i think it creates a challenge for that woman to succeed. >> rose: let me set aside the conversation issue because that's an issue unto itself, and talk about this. if a man-- do you think that arthur sulzberger would not have fired a man in the same circumstances based on what appear to be the-- quote-- management issues. >> i don't want to-- i-- i have a lot of respect for arthur.

and he runs a very-- a very accomplished company. and the work that they do at the "new york times" is extraordinary. and he deserves some credit for that. whether or not he would have done something different in the case of a male editor, i have no way-- i have no insight into that. i do think, though, if you look at eye mean, again, just apart from jill's case, any of these cases with women succeeding in their jobs and then somehow failing, you do have to ask questions about, you know, was there mentoring? was there support? was there guidance when there were fissures or fault lines that we were identified in someone's performance? and i think that's a question for the "times" as it has been for any of these women. i had that at the "tribune." i was extraordinarily fortunate. there is not a the the lot of training for these jobs. it's sort of on-the-job training. you're appointed editor one day, and suddenly you're responsible

for this massive institution, and if you don't have the scaffolding, the kind of human scaffolding in place at the very highest echelons of the company, it's going to be much harder to succeed. >>ob, we don't know yet all of the various management issues that will be reported eventually, probably within the next few days. and all of the specifics about why arthur sulzberger decided to fire jill abramson, but if we're going to talk just about the way that her manner of characterized, in the press, by sources who spoke to dylan buyers last week-- i mean, last year in his story about this, she has been characterized as being brusque, short-tempered, scolding staff, being very short with a photo editor that was in dylan's piece from 2013, you know, why haven't you fixed the photo? why are you still in this meeting? go fix the photo? there's certainly a long and storied history of executive editors at the "new york times," editors at the "new york times," editors everywhere, bosses

everywhere in high-powered positions being ill tempered, staff having big complaint about their management style. hal reins who was editor of the "new york times" until 2003, was a famously pretty terrible, abrasive manager who employees said ruled the newsroom by fear. >> rose: it probably contributed to his downfall. >> it does d, but over a long period of time, and what did him in was a very specific error and scandal in that he was publishing reporting that it turned out had been fabricate bide his reporter jason blair. >> rose: and this evidently had nothing to do with jill's journalism. >> apparently. and in fact if not offering the specifics -- if salzburger had provided a sort of run-down of exactly the relationships he fired abramson, we might have a clearer version-- we knew with reins because the scandal was emerging, but reins exhibited many of the same qualities that have been reported about abramson. his staff, the newsroom didn't like him.

he had lost the newsroom. abramson herself may have had to do with the optics of how should went down. she may have choseep not to be there. it's been reported that she chose to be fired rather than resign. and yet, sulzberger' sulzbergerf to her, showed no acknowledgment of her historic role at the paper, no real acknowledgment of her accomplishments as the editor, whether diversifying the masthead, bringing more women of color aboard, the individual achievements, the snowfall story that got so much attention and surprises, the dasani series, no rundown of her accomplishments or acknowledgment of her historic role, and it's a very different message that's sent oit. but in terms of how we talk about management style, she and reins, i think, are comparable, and we're not used to the difference. and the reason gender comes into it is that we are accustomed to the idea of men in power being

unpleasant in many ways. it doesn't mean we like them. it doesn't mean we like working for them. we may hate them. we may think they are terrible managers. but it doesn't strike us as inherently-- as a reason to disqualify them from their powerful positions. our ears are not tuned to women exhibiting the same kinds of professional power and attitudes, so that strikes people who work for them, peek poom who are their bosses, people who read about them. it hits us wrong, all of us-- women, men. you know, their subordinates, their superiors, we're not used to those attitudes and that kind of voice coming from a woman so we respond to it differently. >> rose: dylan, you've been on this story. go had. >> i was just going to say, to that last point, i think there are always questions to be raised about the differences in how we treat women in power versus men in power. certainly, there's a different attitude towards a woman if she is "brusque" than a man if he is

"brusque." and those have sort of been well documented over the last-- or explored over the last 48 hours. i would say that there are things that happened behind the scenes which we know about from our reporting, while they don't amount to overseeing a jason blair-like scenario, where you have somebody guilty of serial plagiarism, which is a fireable offense, there were things that happened behind the scenes that are larger than just somebody who say is cold or difficult to deal with. she did make moves to try and hire a comanaging ededitor without telling her current managing editor. she went to hire a lawyer to address her concerns about her salary, you know, and that was viewed as sort of a combative move by the publisher, arthur sulzberger. so i do think the question of sexism is a fair one to explore. i would just add that it's not simply due to, you know, her attitude in page 1 meetings. >> rose: there is also this-- would this have happened is it

there was me-- someone as strong, prepared to take over who clearly had himself some conflicts with jill, according to what we read, and someone that the paper valued as a future editor, and probably jill thought of as a future editor in chief. >> certainly. i think having dean beckett, who is you now executive editor, in that position sort of created some new pressures. we certainly know that he was trying to be poached by other news organizations. and that might have played into this as well. what we know is that abramson does dnot have a great relationship with sulzberger. she did not have a great relationship with beckett. her relationship with c.e.o. mark thompson is a little more complicated but there are areas where she butted heads as well. when you have those dynamics going on, added to the moves i

mentioned, behind the scenes, maybe behind people's back, added up to a general frustration with her management style, with that brusqueness. you add all of that up and it becomes very hard, i think, for the publisher to not look at that number two figure, dean beckett, who is very well liked in the newsroom and say it's time for a change which is what he said to abramson when me informed her he needed to make that move. >> rose: is there any news in terms of what kind of settlement there is between them, what both sides, the "new york times" and jill have agreed to do or not do? >> there's certainly a nondisparagement agreement. so it is very-- the two organizations, the two parties, let's say, cannot talk about the terms of her termination, which makes things very complicated. now, at the same time, we are seeing salary figures about her salary versus other people's salary coming out in the reporting of ken auletta of the

"new yorker "which certainly works well for abramson and her defenders. taint, we seeing leaked memos-- i myself reported on a leaked memo just this afternoon coming out of the "new york times." so there's sort of a proax war, i think, being played here between the two parties as a way to sort of add3s an issue that they are contractually obligated not to5c1k address in public. >> rose: it should be pointed out because you heard this time after time after time since the story broke, that jill was enormously popular with the women at the "times," was viewed as a role model and almost as a hero. >> with some of the women. i wouldn't make that a universal-- i think there are also women who had trouble with her, you know. but, yes, there's been some very good rank on how for, especially some of the younger women at the paper, she really took time to mentor them, to set an example for them. she also promoted a lot of women. she put a lot of women at the head of sections that had not

been the case before. she made the masthead almost half female, unprecedented in a very male-dominated institution. and i think that there are a lot of women who were sort of shocked by this, both women who liked working with her, and who had trouble working with her because one of the things anne marie was talking about how few women there are at the top, and one of the problems when you have such a paucity of women, those who are there come to mean so much. they to represent so much, right. if there were more of them, we couldn't care as much when one of them got hired, when one of them got fired. i think a lot of women at the "times" and a lot of men put a lot of meaning on jill's leadership. un, something similar is going to be true for dean beckett, who is the first african american executive editor of the paper. when you have people who have historically been shut out of these positions of power and there are only a few who attain

them, it means a lot. >> rose: there was a lot of celebration her coming to this position. >> tremendous. she had a remarkable career-- has -- >> the "times "s praised because they hired the first woman editor of the "new york times." >> yes, yes, it was a little late, but yes. >> rose: i'm just saying, at the time. anne marie, when you look at the compensation issue. i talked to ken auletta about it for my 8:30 show, but how do we get our hands around that issue of equal pay for equal work? >> so we know from an industry perspective that women throughout the journalism industry are earning about 83% of what the median salary is for men. in similar jobs. and that women represent only about 35% of most newsrooms,

which is almost identityical to where it was 15 years ago. what you have is this small group of women who know the national statistics, and particularly when you're at the top, who are you going to ask and who are you going to talk to, and who are you going to compare this to, and there is this general sense because it's true nationally in other jobs and it's certainly true in this industry that the question is going to occur to you, "am i being paid, am i being compensated, am i being treated as my predecessor of or as my successor will be?" you can't live with these statistics your entire working life, which jill would have, as a woman growing up in this industry, and not at some point ask the question, "am i being fairly compensated?" so i don't think it's unusual to wonder that. again, i don't know exactly how she articulated that with her

publisher or her attorney. but the general context in which she would be operating, you know, is one that would certainly underscore the possibility that, perhaps, you were paid less than your predecessor. >> rose: dylan, what do you know about this? >> first of all, i would like to say it's impossible to look at the data and not accept the fact that women are paid less than men for the same positions. that's just a fact, and it's an unfortunate fact. at the same time, it's important to remember that there's not a sort of set salary for certain positions. salaries are something that you build over time through your experience at a news organization, throughue know, you get other offers, you come back, you you get counter-offers, and you sort of build that salary over time. now, what we do know is that her predecessor was naiking-- ken auletta has the exact figures and it was in the high 500,000s. jill sort of had to fight her

way in order to bump her salary up into the low 500,000s, and then just a little bit closer to about 500 and a quarter. and i think by granting her that salary, there's a little bit of acknowledgment that maybe she deserved to be making more than she was. >> i want to respond to that in a couple of different ways. first there are always-- when it comes to issues of equal pay, there are always reason to justify unequal pay, and some of them are very real. it's about seniority. it's about where you came from. it's about how you negotiate. those are real. but those are the relationships that are always offered to contextualize why women are paid less. they work fewer hours. there are structural reasons women work fewer hours. again, these issues are really complicated. it doesn't make it less real. but on the other hand, that's always the context brought out to justify unequal pay. >> you're shiewlts right, and i

just think it's important to get there on the record for your viewers, charlie, well, her salary was lower. we do know from the "times" certainly there was a memo from the c.e.o. of the "times" to a small group of his colleagues assuring them that her total compensation package was bigger and that gets into a whole sort of muddled area about different issues like bonuses and things like that. will be. >> rose: and the "times" has been having a good year reasonably over the past 12 moks. >> she presided over a good period of financial growing for the "times." the story of her fight to bump it up closer to what keller was making is fascinating to me because you mentioned how excited the "timeses" was and either to herald its first female executive editor. this speaks to some of the poor judgment and poor management we've seen on display from sulzberger and the "times "as an

institution this week. you would think when it comes to common stens and what the "new york times" should understand about issues of equal pie, and given that it knows it has a historic figure running the paper, that as soon as the first woman executive editor comes to management and says, "i'm concerned about equal pay," you would not think this would have to be a fight. from a purely p.r. optics perspective, why do they not say, right, that's a problem. we have to bump her right up? >> rose: more than that, when you hire her, say we want to be, as they say purer than somebody-- >> this speaks to a deep problem in their misunderstanding of these issues. >> rose: anne marie-- go ahead, dylan, first. >> i was going to say it speaks to a deep problem with the way they've handled the p.r. surrounding this and the optics in general. for what we (our reporting, sulzberger wanted to have abramson at the meeting where he handed over power to dean beckett. he wanted to have a more graceful exit. she said no, i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to fake it. but at the very least, you could

at least champion what she's done. she has overseen almost three years at the top of the "times." the "times" is an extraordinary paper, the best paper in the country. you could herald that, release statements commending her on the work she's done, and instead they chose to focus on dean beckett and coming around to it later releasing a statement championing her work. >> i think it's important to say, also, that dean was not well served in that transition. he's an extraordinarily accomplished journalist, and a terrific manager. very, very well liked at the "times." i worked with him as a reporter in chicago, and to have this other historic moment be clouded bow her exit, which, as rebecca said, you have to anticipate-- i mean, there was such extraordinary, charlie you used the word "celebration" when she was named editor, and i think

the disappointment is what we see is in proportion to what the celebration was. and this is an historic moment for the "times" and for dean personally. and i just-- i would have wished him a better inaugural moment. >> thank you very much, anne marie, thank you, rebecca, thank you, dylan. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> the president of the french institute for international relations, the founder of the annual world policy conference series. the meetings bring together global leaders to talk about geopolitics. he is the author of "action, reaction in the world system: the dimeibs of qk and political power." henry kissinger said it may well become a standard by other other works on global glorchance is measured. i am pleased to have you here at the table for the first time. >> thank you, charlie.

>> rose: let me start with france. tell me about francois holand. and with the low public approval numbers he is rethinking what he wants to be and do as president. >> two things. first, he said, quite recently, he made a very surprising statement. he said that he understands that he has not really been elected for himself. but he was elected because people voted against sarkozy. so the fact that he says it is quite impressive. now, the problem is that the french socialist party has evolved these last few years, but it is still divided between modern social democratic wing, which starts to exist, but there is also leftest wing which carries the ideologies of the past. so it's very difficult for him

to have a majority to conduct the reforms that we need to do. the good news is that i think that now in france, there is recognition that those reforms have to be done, but it's a bit slow. >> rose: has he changed his mindset about what's necessary in terms of-- france has obviously a heavy dose of statism. >> yes. yes. but i think he's understanding a lot of things. when you can talk with him in private or in small group, you see that he understands quite well what the situation is. so i think the problem is much more political. and france is not-- has not been in trouble at the same point as italy was, for instance, or, of course, spain or greece.

and sometimes, it's more difficult to do reforms when you are not forced to do them. but all that is more about politics than about economics, i would say. >> rose: and his foreign policy seems to be activist. >> in fact there is a lot of continuity with sarkozy. i have been involved in the business of foreign policy now for more than 40 years, and as you know very well t, charlie, the french-american relationships are cyclical -- >> but it seems to be at a good time now. >> this time is a very good time compared, for instance, in 2003 situation, at the time of the iraqi invasion. but the remarkable thing is that sarkozy and hollande, frankly

speaking, i don't see much difference from the two from point of foreign policy. >> rose: you don't? >> i don't see much difference. they are very much pro-american. if you take the example of iran, i will say we have been perhaps more tougher vis-a-vis iran than the americans. and this is something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. >> rose: you think they'll make an agreement. >> yes. for two reasons. one is that the iranians-- rohani badly needs the agreement. but i think-- if there is one, it might be his only clear success in foreign policy. the real question is will that agreement be a good one--

particularly in terms of nuclear issue? and the risk is that rouhani's position in iran is not so strong. so the worst-case scenario would be rouhani being overturned in iran which is not impossible, but i would say the -- >> most people believe there's a strong reform element in the body politic of iran. >> yes. i believe so -- >> which elected rouhani. >> yes, in fact, my personal conviction is that the election of rouhani has been well prepared by the guide-- i mean khomeini-- so that all the other candidates where-- were reed by

the population because the regime is not popular today. so the only one who was acceptable for the majority of the people was precisely rouhani. that point, i think most experts, i would say, did not understand beforehand. they understood it only afterwards as it happens. but the conservatives, all these people are still very much there and they hold, also, some strong positions. but nevertheless my best is there will be an agreement, and that will change potentially the whole situation in the middle east. >> rose: because they will agree to reduce their enriched uranium in the end? >> yes, but cannot tell exactly the technical aspect of the agreement, but they will find some face-saving device to do

so. in fact, fundamentally, what to they want? it's a little bit like russia in a way. they want to save the regime. the regime is condemned in the long term, but there are several ways to die, so to speak. so the question is not to die too quickly. that's the fundamental objective of the agreement agreement. >> rose. >> and then there is ukraine. how supportive are the various governments of tougher sanctions? >> well, first of all, before talking about sanctions, it's important to understand where we are and why we are here. i think that we did not clearly understand that for the russians, ukraine is in their own minds, you know, ukraine--

especially the eastern part of ukraine, of course--sh-- is reaf russia. that's how they look at it. we may disagree, say whaef we want but it is a fact. i think we made big mistakes in flirting, for instance, where the idea that ukraine could become in the foreseeable future a member of nato. there was in bucharest a nato meeting where this was said explicitly. >> rose: when was that? i think it was in 2008. >> rose: they used to say that about georgia, too. >>, of course, the georgia thing. another time, by the way, the first edition of the world policy conference, a speech was made where he proposed an updating of the helsinki conference.

the helsinki conference is what is none as the o.a.c.e.. and the west did not react to that proposal. i think it was a mistake. and i think it's not too late because we need some updating. the situation has changed a lot in europe. and, also, we have been-- we, the west-- inconsistent, for instance, in my judgment at least, to recognize kosovo as an independent state was to open the way to russia about, for instance, georgia and even the libyan thing, the responsibility to protect, the argument was used-- wrongly, but used by putin for instance. so we have made a number of mistakes. but today, we are there. what could we do? i think sanctions, yes, but i think it would be better to look

positively at what we could do. and we could-- the crucial element would be the future constitution of ukraine. there will have to be a federal solution-- not necessarily in the way putin is talking about it. but there has to be some kind of a federal solution. we can also update, as i said, the security situation in europe. sanctions, yes, but we have to be very careful because today the mood is extremely nationalistic in russia. and we need, also, russia-- for instance, we need russia for the iran deal. >> rose: and syria as well. >> and syria, as well, and potentially, other parts of the world-- korea and who knows? >> rose: what do you, putin wants? >> well, putin-- i would say it's a little bit like in iran. the regime, putin, i think, is

mesmerized by-- he was mesmerized by the orange revolution. therefore, for him, the short-term goal is to maintain stability in russia. but i think he is fundamentally a patriot. some people say he is a better tactician than a strategist. it depends how you define that. but he fundamentally thinks that russia has been humiliated. and today, you see, the problem is-- he's an autocrat. no doubt about it. the greater danger in my judgment, is there are probably very few people who can talk to him frankly and openly in his own neighborhood, and when these things happen, it becomes dangerous because they becom@ñ7ç

too self-confident, and when an autocratic leader becomes too much self-confident, he can make huge mistakes. >> rose: misjudgments. >> misjudgments. that's the risk. he is a very good technocrat. if you talk to him about military situations, he knows everything in details. but judgment is the key issue. i'm afraid he might be too much isolateed. >> rose: what do you think most of the european countries and most of our friends in asia and in latin america and in africa want from the united states? >> well, "first, i am not sure that most of the people you could interview on this object could be able to answer properly your question because what do they expect? do they know what they really expect? they would like the u.s. to be--

to be the leader, but at the same time, if the u.s. was really the leader, they would complain for other reasons. but i think that the u.s. remains, by far, of course, the number one country in the world. maybe, you know, the problem is, again, a problem of!#uy÷ cycles. the u.s. constantly oscillates between too much intervention and too little. so after the bush, george w. bush activism, now, of course, the pendulum has switched in the opposite position. the title of my work book is action and reaction. the cycle will continue. you used the word "respect." i think every country expects

the west, the u.s. to respect-- to respect them. i had recently-- i mentioned i had read recently an interesting conversation with a very high chinese authority. and i asked him whether china was prepared to play a constructive role in the governance system. and this was his answer-- he said, number one, this is not in our tradition. number two, we understand that we must play a role. and we will do our best to do it. but, under one condition. i said what is that condition? the one condition is you must respect us. >> rose: thank you. the book is cape and the islands "action-reaction in the world system. the dynamics of economic and political power." we see it happening as we speak in europe and also in ukraine and georgia and lot of other

places around the globe. thank you for joining us. see you next time. the follo

production was produced in high definition. ♪ ♪ ♪ every single bite needed to be -- >> twinkies are in there! >> wow! >> it's like a great, big hug in the cold city. >> that food is about as spicy as i can handle and my parents put chili powder in my baby food. >> i have french fried bits all over the table. just a lot of