>> welcome to the program. tonight nasser judeh the prime minister of jordan is in washington at the whitehouse summit in countering violent extremism. >> there is interest here between us and your country between the united states and europe and everywhere in the world simply because it has an aspect that threatens all of our countries and every continent everywhere in the world so it is a global fight, a generation fight but it has to because it's a fight within islamic at the end of the day or with people trying to hijack the religion so it has to have a primarily must lump stand. >> we end with chris hughes. >> it isn't just to foot the bill, sign the checks and let it

go. my view is, we have to ask ourselves in an active way how is the median environment changing and how do we make sure this brand is relevant from ma lineal annual or college student who can't read a magazine. >> professor: prime minister of jordan and >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we begin tonight in washington and the whitehouse summit for vie length extremism. izes has shocked the world with executions of egyptian in libya and before that the burning of a jordannian pilot in iraq. joining me is nasser judeh. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: what are they accomplishing? >> the more that you find international consensus --

the coalition against adash or isis is now over 60 countries. today represented here in washington at the white house summit on counterextreme s. it's a society media experts so i think it was an international gathering par excellence. but like i said at the end of the day it depends on the practical implementation. you had his imagine tree king abdullah the second on your show and he said this is a third world war by it means. >> rose: tell us about the threat on dash. >> it's a threat against our world order, our civilization, human civilization. it's a threat against different regions, it's a threat against individual countries, it's a threat against individuals. we'r9di think what we've seen in the last few months in particular, and by the way, like i said this

morning in my remarks at the opening session, we're not new to this. in jordan we've been facing terrorism and extremism for decades but look what happened in the last few weeks. look at what you saw. you mentioned burning alive of our brave young pilot. you mentioned the slaughtering of 21 egyptians the other day the slaughtering of americans, british, japanese hostages. you've seen crimes in sydney australia and ottawa canada copenhagen, branded crimes. this is now clear to anyone in case anyone had any doubt this is a global fight, generational fight as the king told you. and it will take all of us together combating for it to be eradicated as a threat. it's very clear. >> rose: is the threat to islam. >> it is definitely a threat to islam because every once in a while you get a terrorist or

extremists who tried to hijack the religion, who tried to distort the image and its central message. islam is moderation, tolerance, coexistence. it has nothing to do with what these people try to propagate or the way they carry out these brutal murders. but let me say it's not restricted to islam. there is terrorism and extremism in every religion and every culture in different ways in different forms and formats and i think that by definition cry length extremism as we were dealing today is concept the motion a sick notion that e all have to combat. nobody's immune no culture's immune, no religion iswe're all threatened, muslims, jews. >> rose: you say that doubt has very much been removed.

>> yes. as king abdullah mentioned a couple months ago this is primarily particularly those who try to hijack our religion and distort its image and carry out these heinous crimes in its names, it has nothing to do with the religion. secondly like i said if there's any doubt they are brutal murderers, satisfy inks barbaric they have to be removed. >> rose: the president has been very careful in his language so much so there's been much press talk about it to say these are extremists and to try to at all costs avoid the idea that this is a war some kind of culture clash of civilizations. >> i'm not one to presume to interpreter what the president meant or didn't mean or to put words in his mouth or try to second guess what he's saying. his message today was very very clear, and i think that it was a prudent extremely pertinent message and talking about extremism wherever it exists and whoever belongs to it. we'veji been very very clear in

saying that extremists, terrorists and those who support them are enemies all of them. nobody should be following that ideology, nobody should be justifying or trying to be an apologists for it. it is our war and we have to take the lead and this is why jordan has been talking to different countries. i tried to say not just like minded countries but exact-minded countries to basically come up with a unified position on what we really believe in. >> rose: tell me what the consensus is coming out of the means in washington. >> the meetings are ongoing charlie, as we speak. but i think if you look at the different sessions, and the way that the conference was organized, if you look at the participation, you don't have just officials and ministers. you have segments but you've got

religious figures social media, experts, people, independents, individuals. i think the make up of the participation is significant and it's quite telling. >> rose: significant in what way and telling in what way. >> significant in the fact that this is an across the board fight. it's not just a military fight. and again i'll repeat what his imagine tree said it's a military fight requests -- global security but equally importantly if not more importantly is the long term ideological fight, addressing the root causes of the problem looking at the reality we're facing today, the challenges we're facing today. unfolding, this military strategy to stop and turn back regain groundxy now occupied by dash. >> there's a clear and present danger and we're dealing with that. but like i said we've had

different extremists organizations cropping up every once in a while under different names on different umbrellas look at the challenges we're all facing, in africa, look at the changes we're facing in our parts on the world. look at the crimes across the globe. at the end of the day what is needed now is to continue along the three tracks i mentioned, the military because of the danger, the clear and present danger, the security because of the threat to global securitiy and ideologic which includes the f;pá.j x 6c0@6cjú>> rose: there were meetings there, are they on board? >> everybody's on board. and i think we have we certainly have a meeting of minds. the core unit, the core structure of jordan, the night emirates, saudi arabia egypt,

bahrain and many other countries representing different continents where the threats exist. these aretalkingyiz and the countries that will represent against the united fronts against extremists newscenter -- >> rose: should iran be involved. >> if you believe in violence and extremism this is why i referred to earlier as a meeting of exact minded countries. >> rose: so iran is not a exact minded countries. >> there are things happening around the world and i don't want to get into discussions what iran should not and should be doing on the air but there are things we all agreed on that need to be addressed in order for exact minded countries to effectively deal request -- with it.

iran does not condone extremism and the brutality we have seen especially in ways in the last few weeks. >> rose: how about turkey. >> my friend, at the end of the day we saw today that there was an agreement signed between the united states and turkeyoõ on training and equipping opposition. there's a serious question that needs to be addressed by all of us on the question of foreign fighters and the financing. we all to be part of an international conversation. >> rose: what is the conversation that has to be had? what are the questions you have to address in order to accomplish the objective? >> this is what i laid out today in my remarks. i said when discussion the military it's the clear and present danger, when it's discussing the security you have to address the issue of foreign fighters. these foreign fighters who are fighting alongside dash tend of the day will go back to their re, is that corrective countries and will become potential terrorists and will threaten the security of these individual countries. they're still flowing into the

theatre, into syria and into iraq. we have to find ways and means to address that situation. there's still adash, isis in control of the military, they have access to funds, they have access to oil. they have access to sophisticated weaponry. at the end of the day i think this information, like i said meetings today, ownership of the effort, implementation on the ground, it's all very very important and it's all very very much needed. >> rose: is it important that the united states support but not lead? >> i said many times and his imagine tree the -- majesty the king said to you on your program a couple months ago it has to be a mostly arab stand. but there is a convergence of interest here between us and your country, between the united states and europe and everywhere in the world simply because it has, it has an aspect that threatens all of our countries and every continent and

everywhere in the world. so it is a global fight, a generation fight but it has to because it's a fight within islamic at the end of the dayúj or with people trying to hijack the religion so it has to have a primarily muslim stand. >> rose: is it record that jordannian and egyptians and saudis and emirates on the ground, boots on the ground in order to stop isis? >> we have to do everything in our power and within our means to stop the spretd of this evil. this is at the end of the day fight of good against evil. there's no way anyone would sit and discuss military strategies on the air. ground troops has been brought into the foreground many times. we're not there yet and certainly no decisions on that.

essential component of the military effort is empowering the troops on the ground right now. whether it's the in iraq or in syria. the population. they're the most+ affected in supporting and complementing the air campaign. but at the end of the day, it's all parallel tracks, charlie. it's the ideological fight just as importantly as the military fight. >> rose: and how do you fide the ideological fight because that really is best and most effective if it comes from within arab countries and from within islam. >> certainly. the ideological fight is the long term fight. again you have to address the youth and vulnerability of the youth, address their needs and what they are suffering from, whether it's unemployment economic deprivation. or again you have to address the

question of deadlocked political crises historic political crises. you can't look at terrorism and extremism in isolation what's happened in the last four years what happened today in yemen. the challenges egypt is facing in sinai, the challenges we're all facing in9again the absence of resolution to that of israeli conflict and the rights of the palestinians and states hotdz and states of the region and people of the region to have most and security, to live in most and security. all of these are components what we're talking about. but at the end of the day, you have to have religious authorities around the world representing all religious not the only denounce but the spread of these extremists and terrorism and dispel what they tried to promote in terms of extremists ideologies. we have to have more initiative such as the ones that have been taken by jordan and his majesty over the years by talking

together. interface dialogue. intersect dialogue. initiatives that bring harmony and coexistence to the world. so it's a multiple track multiple faceted effort that has to continue. this is how you fight the ideological fight by presenting a more convincing argument that reflect the reality not the warp distortions that you see by the others. >> rose: is it fair to say there's never more urgency than there is now especially in the wake of what happened in libya and what happened to your pilot. >> these two ugly incidents brought home the fact that you're dealing with a brutal vicious barbaric enemy. there are people who didn't know who the enemy was or what the enemy looked like. i think again if there's any doubt who the enemy is that doubt has been removed and again it has been proven that this enemy belongs to no religion no

civilized norms whatsoever, and that at the end of the day it's important to knock on their door before they knock at yours. and this doesn't require just the military effort, it requires a lot more. >> rose: have sunni tribes men in iraq turned against them. >> you have different interpretations of what are the differentjisis. some say that there's a core of religious idealogues and other people say you have an outer circle and outer circle to that criminals from all over the world, differ nationalities and different political oarmtations who have found in dash -- so at

the end of the day sunnis and it's very very wrong to just single out sunni as serious component of both iraqi and syrian society. but the sunnis who have nothing to do with this sick ideology if they happen to be this that camp will soon if not having realized that already that they have noticed that. >> rose: that's an important component, is it not. >> of course. i think political inclusivenesst in the countries where you didn't have political inclusiveness will also go a long way towards keeping the sunnis feeling comfortable about their future and stability and security. >> rose: political inclusiveness. >> yes. >> rose: you mean that specifically in iraq. >> well, in iraq certainly. in the future when we talk about

the political solution in syria, there has to be a political inclusiveness. but for the longest time in iraq they said they wereq-marginalized and completely ignored and it's important to have a political process back on track in iraqi. and i think we're siegelments of that already in place where the sunnis feel that their rights are not only secured and guaranteed but they are very much an essential component of the iraqi political spector. >> rose: in syria. >> the political solution eludes us still, but again, and this is not totally divorced from what's happening in terms of the extremism and terror, but we're all convinced and all in agreement we have to come back with clear ideas on how to restore a political process and i'm sure a smooth transition. >> rose: thank you again. it's a pleasure to have you are in the broadcast. >> thank you. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: chris hughes is here. he is a co-founder of facebook.

he's also the owner and publisher of the new republic. he bought the magazine in 2012 with plans to transform it into a digitally media platform. they resigned over disagreements about the publications future they were followed by dozens of staffers and correspondents who left. it's a broader shift taking place in journalism. old institutions confront a new new republic's first issue since the shake up takes a look at the magazine on race. i'm pleased to have chris hughes at this table. welcome. >> thank you for having me charlie. >> rose: very good friend of mine and lot of other people who have been at odds with you over the new republic. but what i want to understand here is your side of what happened because this was a great institution. it may become be on it's way to becoming a greater institution or something else.

tell me what happened and why. >> when i bought the new republic i bought it because i believed in the values of the place. that's quality journalism that goes past the headlines and gets details and goes in depth. that's the value of the institution, the reason that i showed up in the first place a little bit just about two years ago. the over the course of the past two years one of the key learnings i've had and i think as an industry the world has is that the media environment and landscapexç is shifting very rapidly. of course print is very important for a lot of us. it's a key way we sit down and lean back and read long kind of pieces. but the reach we have in a digital environment is broader than it's ever been before. we at the new republic have three millions reader on-line each month who are engag r01 withour content. we have 40,000 in print.

that three million is bigger than 40,000 and therefore they should take priority, it's that we have to take about the journalism that we do the concept that we produce and how people are going to interface with it today in 2015 tomorrow and into the future. so to answer your question at the moment of transition we had a fundamental disagreement about the role of the new republic and what it's going to be like in the future. what should have been in my view an editorial leadership transition mushroomed into much bigger question of is it possible to hold on to these values of quality, depth, smart criticism, and at the same time adapt[t to the emerging technological landscape that exists. my answer to that is not only yes but it's also essential if the new republic is going to be relevant to audiences ten years from now 20 years from now and even further into the future. >> rose: when you arrived

there, we'll talk about all this, there were in many pockets enthusiasm among some of the people that came to a bitter disagreement with you. evidently you arrived with an understanding that the new republic was a great institution, that it played a prominent role in america, you had a hundred anniversary to celebrate that. i don't quite understand what happened between that relationship and what people perceive you. what did you do to make them so angry that you didn't tell them at the beginning? >> i think one of the key things about my own biography is that you know i do come from silicon valley background as the co-founder of facebook and brought the obama's on-line campaign in 2008. that is the background that i have. at the same time, i have been a student of and admirer of not just great journalism but great

literature, great criticism, the kinds of things that the new republic is really one of the key institutions of in the united states. and has been over the past century. and on that point i connected and still connect deeply with, you know, some of the staff who left and the staff who stayed. that's the reason that i bought the new republic and invested it, the reason i show up to work every day as early as it is for them. now that doesn't mean that we totally were in alignment how best to spoarlt those values so that in 2020 and in 2030, thosecore ideals were reaching newer audiences in a broader and deeper way than ever before. there is a view that the new republic should just be a small print circulation magazine for a group of insiders. that's in many ways what it's been in the past. that's not my view. i think not only is the world changing but this brand and these values deserve a larger

audience. >> rose: but wasn't it your understanding that you promised to keep the magazine as a small small sector -- circulation magazine and sustain visibility and retain audiences because what you knew about the digital world and without compromising their values. >> absolutely. that's what i believe. >> rose: why don't they believe that? >> well i don't know, charlie. you'd have to ask them. i think it's certainly true that in the months moving up into december, you know, i take full responsibility for failing to communicate that these two things are not in conflict. that the values that have been behind the new republic institiw)j z not need the newcosts or aren't in conflict with updating into the world that we live in, in 2015. over the course of the fall i brought in new business leadership into the new repping. or ceo is guy, his background

was running yahoo news, he was at "the washington post" before that. i think there was a sense that the place wasx,> rose: that -- >> i will take a hundred percent responsibility for the fact we did not communicate copierly as effectively. just because we want the double down on our investments on new tect nawlings and new audience doesn't mean we're not going to do long term journalism. that communication there was something that very real and i take responsibility for. i don't think, though it's important to note that the vast majority of our staff of the 55 we started in december with, 12 left. the vast majority of our staff stayed and since then we hired a great team of junior editors and more uphand bloggers who are part

of the new republic's brand moving forward. >> rose: what does the understand of media -- transform themselves into silent sweat shots in which words cannot wait for thoughts and first responses promoted into best response and patience as a professional liability. as a frequency of expression grows the force of expression diminishes, digital expectations and terseness confer the highest prestige upon the twittering of one line promotional. it's always the case all things must pass but this is ridiculous. >> you're quoting from an essay in the times which i really liked a lot. he has been a friend and i think a brilliant writer thinker. it's truly without parallel in its history. he was incredibly talented. >> rose: what did you do to

keep him there. >> we invested in the institution in a way it's not been invested in frankly in decades. since i came on board the new republic we doubled the size of the editorial staff. we have significantly invested in our digital products and in the print magazine. and everything from you know the feel of the paper stock to the size of the magazine. owe4h all of these things this has been a process of investing in the values of the place so they come to greater fruition. now early on we did not see eye to eye. his belief that the same kind of values that he talks about in that essay is humanist ideals which is incredibly important that we support must move into the 21 if century. if we're honest with our serves and we walk down the middle of a train or plane, we think about how we read today we spent an enormous time on enormous amount of i'm on our moral

devices, on our tablets and on our computers. and the kind of journalism we do have to adapt to those formats. that doesn't mean we don't do long form. doesn't mean we stop doing criticism. we continue to do those things. in addition to that we also have to think creatively about audio. interactive graphics, time lines, different forms of pieces that don't just conform to the traditional 5,000 word. these things don't come at a cost. and i think it's important that we invest in that so that the new republic is relevant to a new generation of people who will be in the corridors and power in 10 years 15, 20 years. >> rose: "new york times" has adapted. >> they've moved significantly. even in the past year the "new york times" have made really smart investments. the up shot in particular is a vertical they have invested in which has done well. there are several legacy media institutions that have thought

very creatively. npr is another one i think has7s done a great job. they just released another app which is a pandora for npr which is great. so the idea that legacy. >> rose: that's a long term journalism magazine. >> it certainly has adapted somewhat. i would say in terms of the pace of the adaptation they wouldn't be at the head of the pack but of course the journalism is still incredibly influential. >> rose: i'm still struggling with why there has to be a conflict between keeping a great magazine and honoring its tradition and entering the global marketplace that you get from on-line participation and on-line presence. do you see the conflict in that? these smart people did. did you fired franklin ford. >> we did make a decision in

late november to change editorial leadership. >> rose: why was that? >> i'll answer your question but first i have to say that frank, i mean i count myself incredibly privileged to have the opportunity to work with frank for two years. i got a small brief view into his tenure at the new republic and he was without question from my view and view his mirrors one of the most influential editors the magazine ever had. you had to look at michael before. he had as much of an imprint and been so successful in the role. we did make a decision which was a very difficult decision to make in late november to change editorial leadership. i made that decision in conjunction with our ceo guide deed raw because we are entering a new era at the new republic where we have to think of2courselves as a digital media company that produces a print magazine as one of several different products and points interface with our readers

rather than a print magazine that happensw to do digital work. just as any other company there are great leaders at certain times and at other times8ri"b9z you need new leadership. guy made a decision to make that change after the end of november and bring gabriel schneider in as editor-in-chief. >> rose: what would you have done differently other than the language that guy perhaps used. >> the top line thing today i've already spoken about but i think was a really important learning for me personally and i think for many of us. which was communicating much better with our team and particularly with the editorial team that the investments we were making evolving as a company into a digital brand didn't mean that we weren't going to do big idea journalism. in fact, if anything the big idea, we start with the idea and the idea ends up being a 5,000

word piece which might appear in print but it might take all of these form video damage visualization, etcetera. but it doesn't go away.v the new republic is going to be successful five years from now ten years from now into the future is going to be because of the journalism. the technology is to get that journalism in front of people. i firmly believe that. >> rose: maintaining could journalism, quality writing. >> without adapting to how people read today you could run the risk of doing fantastic award winning journalism that never sees the light of day. for us half of our readers digitally read us on our mobile phones. that means that we have to change how we think about the mobile experience and people can and do read long term but they're much more likely to be reading on the go. you have to think how do people stop and pick up when they're

interrupted, is there an audio component what we do, is there a short version or medium long version you can choose based on how much time you have. again the journalism story underneath is what matters and it's what is ultimately going to be the barometer of our success.p,0@6c0@6cjúbut we have to invest in these technologies if we're going to be relevant in the future. i take responsibility to answer your question for not communicating how important that journalism and content is. in a very sort of specific instance, after we did make this decision to make an editorial transition, i wanted to have a conversation with frank in person and ended up being a few days off and we got scooped. it was an embarrassing. >> rose: you got scooped. >> we got scooped. the news that we were going to switch editorial leadership leaked out on the internet. >> rose: he found out somewhere else. >> he found out. it was embarrassing for me and for him and for everyone. we had a phone call which i

immense here regret. >> rose: what happened to -- >> decided at the same moment it was the right time for him to move on as well. he made the decision on his own. >> rose: was money becoming an increasing factor for you? i mean you're an enormously wealthy man. if you read the reports of what happened there, it was not at the beginning but it became more and more a topic of conversation for you. is that a fair appraisal of how you remember it? >> well, from the day when i bought the new republic i treated this as a business. it's not a charity in my view it's not something that should in my view be supported or needs to rely on the largess. he'll a single owner and i can talk about why i believe that. from my perspective, the money we're putting in is absolutely necessary to invest in the institution so that it can drive and survive two years, three years fiveit's no secret that we lose

money. we lost money last year, we'll lose money this year probably lose a little bit of money next year. >> rose: 2017 you think you can turn the corner. >> listen i would love to turn the corner by 2017. it's premature to make a pick prediction when that will come. my point is we're going to lose money. i knew that in buying the institution. i'm not naive. this whole industry is in a time of incredible transition. i wasn't big the new republic quite frankly to make gobs of money off of it. i know it's not going to be the next -- >> rose: in fact some people ask themself why didn't he simply start a new magazine rather than buy the new republic. so why did you buy the new republic. >> when i decided to become the steward of the place in 2012. i knew it came with the responsibility to respect a lot of people who came before me in this entry that has existed and flourished. but i also knew it meant

bringing change to an institution that might not love change. my view of what it means to be a steward of a place like this isn't just to foot the bills, sign the checks and let it go its own way. my view is we have to ask ourselves in an active way how is the media environment changing, and how do we make sure this brand is relevantthrough ma lineal or through a college student today who is unlikely to read really any print magazine. 20 or 30 years from now, i want her/him to think about the new rippic -- republic and when asked what are the media best conversations -- >> rose: what will it have that you believe will make them say that? >> it should have several things for years getting back to the point the content and journalism is what's most important. it has to have big ideas in

germannism that often holds people in power accountable. investment in journalism that's difficult to do, takes time to invest in but can have incredible social and political rewards. commentary, analysis, opinion. this place has never been one that's been shy to have strong forces being primentd in the pages. that makes it unpredictable, that makes it interesting. it has to have that and it has to cover culture in the arts and how we live today in a way that is, that's in touch with contemporary culture. that doesn't mean just reviews of the opera at the met but it also means interfacing seriously with television. and the next wave of the arts. >> rose: it's both high and low culture they say. i'm reading tough appraisal here because i wanted people to respond to them and understand your stand on the future. "the washington post" was sold to jeff bezos because a very

proud family felt like it needed extra resources so it could go into the digital age and prepares jeff would be able to do that in a way the family didn't think it might be able to do that. this is not the first case in which people in great journalistic institutions have grappled with what the future holds for them and with great sad anything and pain it had to make choices they did not necessarily want to make. >> wepart of that moment and part of that tension which is why we become a target point. >> rose: you're tough enough to handle this. the 31 year old hughes halves never a creature of the tech world and who claim to hit silicon valley didn't really know what he wanted to do with his new toy. he spent money on some of right things wasted money in the usual ways with the usual overcomplicated redesign alternated between interfering and editorial and backing off the incident with the husband thrashing in an up state new york congressional rate.

seems to have grown inpatient with the then but not great web traffic and mounting losses of his legacy publication. herbert crawlly, wilson -- may have lost -- decided to get rid of his leading editors and did so in such a crude way everyone felt obligated to leave with them. that too was probably unintentionally. i highly doubt he wanted this debacle. he didn't plan a change at the top to expose the emptiness of his commitment to the hard work of journalism. davidsuffered a great law this year with the destruction of the new republic at the hands of chris hughes. it was owe -- obliterated a couple weeks ago. award winning writer author and journalist and david brooks

equivalent columnist for the nobody times. what do you say to those people. >> i think that our plans to some extent are misunderstood. i think that george manager, david brooks and a whole holes of other people feel very strongly about the new republic. whether it's them or some of the other people, it's been an institution that has cultivated a whole, you know, not just generation but a whole sort of sensibility in journalism as a field. it's hard to trace the new republic alumni and where they went. of them when wehh did make the editorial leadership change were upset and they were upset rightfully because of the way that it happened because we did make a mistake there. but i think they also see this as a change that is indicative of what's happening in the larger media landscape. now their read, which i don't agree with is is that moving at an increasingly digital

direction means the destruction of the quality of the journalism that we do. and i think it's only been two months since dave penned those words but we're already seeing that is not the case. we've put out a leader high with gabriel schneider a fantastic print edition on the web. we have actually more readers than we've had on average in the past year. we're still convening really quality conversations about policy issues, about culture and we're going to do that in a way that's increasingly digital. anyone that's claiming that is the death of the new republic is claiming something a little bit prematurely. >> rose: the death or destruction of the new rippic in your judge is at hand. >> in my judgment and the judgment of the other 50156 --50 staff working there every day. they have to come down to our

office in union square. >> rose: you moved to new york. what was the reason for that. >> with a opened the new york office the first year i bought the magazine in 2012. over time it grew to be roughly the same size as our traditional headquarters in washington. and now it's a few heads larger than the original office in washington. we're absolutely committed to having a robust office in new york he had storm wise technologists, designers, advertising partnerships, salespeople and similarly in washington. i think the new republic could be interesting and vibrant. it's got to have a bit of ingredients. we necover washington inside but now we've got to have some of the great creativity and some of the actors. >> rose: you are saying you one to enlarge the cultural coverage of the magazine. >> the cultural coverage is one of the, listen i wouldn't have come to the new republic, i wouldn't have bought the new rippic if it weren't for the history -- >> rose: leon was the editor.

>> absolutely and leon was a storied editor was -- >> rose: you wouldn't have bought it because it didn't have the kind of cultural commitment it had but i hear you saying you want to expand that you want to have a presence in new york. am i wrong? >> well the cultural coverage is something we've always done and will continue to do. whether or not it's the balance of the politics, how much culture, how much society, that will be a decision that gabriel schneider our editor-in-chief will make over time. but culture isn't going anywhere in the new republic. you can see it in this print edition and on the web. we are critical about events, engaging with contemporary fiction. music has been a(÷ topic that we covered. do you want to do it a little bit differently and a little bit more openly. i think there's question that a piece like ann friedman like the lead singer of sonic youth which was a popular band in the 90's, a review of her autobiography

might not have appeared in the new republic before 2015. but i think that that's the kind of journalism that can engage new volumes, can hold true to doing it critically and lawfully. but do it in a way that adapts to the culture conversation and where it's happening. >> rose: any effort to bring back some of the people that left? >> you know i talked to some of the people who left to understand what their issues were, what they were upset about so that i can think of how to be a better leader. >> rose: [ -- conversations that surprised you or did you learn anything period. >> i believe i did. it goes back to this communication point. i developed what i felt were good working relationships with several of the people who left but it turns out that over the course of the three months leading up to the their departure, they felt like they couldn't approach me to talk about their worries, their concerns for the direction of the magazine and that's

something that i regret immensely as a leader because these were people i cared about and these were very talented journalists that i would have preferred not to leave. i think as a manager, it's been a useful moment for me to be much more focused on communicating with the vast majority of the staff who stayed and the staff as a group. >> rose: here's the cover story. whitewash a liberal magazine on race. at its best moments the magazine has been a beacon of enact base reporting and a forum for which to base over racial issues. at its worst periods the magazine has fallen under the sway of racial theorizing and crack pot racial lore. what is the magazine saying in this article about the new republic. >> well gabriel gave permission to run this piece on the cover for a lot of different reasons. i talked with him after the fact to just understand why.

from his perspective -- >> rose: after the fact you talked to him about why he wanted to have this article in this magazine at this time. >> he's the editor of the magazine he makes all the editorial decisions. my role is working with guy or ceo to bring great leadership in and after at that time the editor -- >> rose: were you at one time editor-in-chief. >> i did have that title initially. to be honest charlie it wasn't appropriate for the role i was exerting. i never edited a piece. i read the bulk of the print magazine when it got in my mailbox just like everybody else. i was focused much more on the business side the technology side. it wasn't something i was pinning articles with any degree of frequency as previous owners had so it wasn't a title that felt appropriate to the role that i had. >> rose: so you made the choice. >> so i made thexo choice with guy dietrich came ins our ceo to change that title and remain the chairman and publisher.

to your question i think this was a powerful piece to look back on the history of the institution and to say quite honestly that when it comes to race the new republic hasn't always been the best. it's been a bit of an understatement if you take a look at the piece from the early founding days all the way up through the 90's the new republic isn't a brand that led the way on racial equality. in some in some moments it's ushered in conversations like with the bell cover took us backwards. so this kind of piece was an opportunity to look back on that story and to be honest about. from gabriel's perspective, i think this is a tron cisional moment for us as a journalistic brand, as an outlet. and it's a unique opportunity to take stock.

>> rose: only in terms ofxñ its business model and in terms of its desire to reach new audiences on-line. >> i think that's certainly been the engine of the transition. when you have as many senior editors leave as we did bringing in the kind of talent that gabriel's already been able to hire will mean a different kind of editorial voice for the institution. when you talk to him about a voice perspective it's been much more deeply engaged with the new generation if you will of readers and writers who are a little bit more diverse, a little bit less, who are able to think a little bit more creatively about domestic policy, foreign policy who are able to write in a way that uses the first person. >> rose: both in terms of content and in terms of

distribution. >> any time there's an editorial change ask when the editor-in-chief turns over i think it's always different at new republic. >> rose: than just simply the change of an editor. >> i think the audience gabriel is looking to appeal to is a broader audience the new republic has spoken to in the past. again i think over the past few decades it's generally been satisfied to speak to a relatively small elite group of thinkers and it's done that at times extremely well and other times it's been weaker. but i think there's an opportunity and a responsibility to expand that audience and stay true to those values in 2015. i mean a great example of this in this particular issue is a piece by one of ournbf sjueditors, rebecca tracer is one

who stays through the transition. it's a perspective what does it mean to be present in the work place. she talks from paternal leave to maternal leave and what it leads up to the nine months having that baby and how do we think of public policy and how out of step -- >> rose: that article appeared in the old new republic. >> listen. i think the roots of the idea would be something the new republic would have covered in one way or another. it's a social issue that's lasted a long time. but the way this is discussed and audiences can reach and how this piece is written matters and that piece in particular of all the pieces that were in this print edition on-line brought in the largest facebook audience and seemed to spark a conversation on the network because it was like yeah i identify with this issue or no i don't think this is actually fair at all. but sparking those kinds of

conversations is what we want to do and there's an editorial component of that certainly and there's a technological component and it all hasív to come together. >> rose: ruth bader ginsberg i think canceled her subscription. not to say why this supreme court justice canceled her subscription is to raise this question that you talked about. what is there the risk of losing that might have been important? are you going to lose an opinioned leader in wash and part of the conversation in the political economic sphere because you're changing the new republic. >> we haven't yet. in december. >> rose: you will take that risk. >> in december we had a hundred subscriptions can -- can summed. by the end of the month we had 400 whole new ones come in. when you have that many editorial people leave our traffic was done by 15 to 20% in

january. it's already back abovehaverage for 2014. people are very curious about what we're doing. i think as long as we do quality journalism that this place has been known for and do it in a way that holds fast to those values and yes to experiment to bring in new audiences i don't think we have to say oh it's either out with the old and in with the new or something else. i think we can do these things in conjunction with one another. >> rose: i would assume all the people who left, i would assume and one of them said that they wish great success in terms of being able to do that. if you can somehow create a model that will both reach a newer audience and at the same time which is not a big if, a big question mark and not do

damage to what had been best about, can you do that is a test. >> there's also a big question of what's best about the magazine and who gets to decide that. if you're talking about the values of doing really impactful journalism that holds people accountable that starts these vibrant conversations then i'm with you a hundred percent. if you think what's best about the magazine is only one way of doing storytelling. you can only do cultural criticism if it's 5,000 8,000 words and if it's about the ballet or the opera then i would say let's keep doing that but let's think creatively about what else we can cover and particularly for those that what we've done before let's think about how we can layer on in or layer in audio video, the kind

of slide shows that can engage 1ñwinto the long term big idea criticism. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: chris hughes of the new republic magazine. thank you forasee you next time. about this program and other episodes visit us on-line at cbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. pay raise. walmart long criticized for not paying its workforce enough will spent a billion dollars for wage hike increases for half a billion employees this year. swipe. sending companies of the share lower with the major setback with a company in just a week's time. and driving into debt. american automobile buyers are borrowing a lot. it's a cause for concern. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday february 19th. good evening and welcome. glad you could be with us. i'm tyler mathisen. sue herera is off tonight. we