>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a story of the nsa spying on french president. we talk to david ignatius of the "washington post". >> now we have the new wikileaks revelations that three different french presidents were spied on. if you look at the documents, that wikileaks relaesesed, they're not very surprising or particularly sensitive issues that the state of the greek financial crisis the euro, french middle east policy. but the u.s. is conducting espionage, reporting in in cables. >> nd we move to the story of the greek debt crisis and touk to larry summers former treasury secretary and former head of the national economic council for president obama. >> the way i would put it is this. i could go wandering around the planet. i most likely the car was see me and stop and it would

be okay. but it probably wouldn't be a good experiment. >> and in the same way my best guess is that if greece leafs it will be a catastrophe for greece. it will be a serious security event. my best guess is it won't be a grand financial disaster. but there is a chance that i'm wrong just like the people were wrong about leeman and just like pem were wrong about ltcm and just like people were wrong in thinking subprime was a well-contained small problem. and so there are some experiments you just don't want to run. >> rose: we conclude with michael wolff the writer, his book is you will caed television is the new television. >> this book is really has two stories. and the first story is about the remarkable staying power of television. that television has not only powerful but it has improved its product and changed its

business model. and to enormous, to effective enormous profit. >> and the hardware has gotten better. >> everything. >> an at the same time digital med why which we've been inundated with with promises that it was going to be the future in every way has been relatively speaking a disappointment. sometimes rather a serious disappointment. >> david ignatius larry summers and michael wolff when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by american express. additional funding provided >> 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. >> rose: we begin this evening with the latest revelations of overseas spying by the national security agency, documents published by the web site wikileaks showed that the nsa eaves dropped on the president and senior leaders of france. the white house released a statement saying that there was currently no surveillance on the french president's conversations. francois hollande summoned the country's am was door to the united states and called two emergency meetings. the white house said that president obama spoke to his counterpart on the phone today. earlier the president also announced a change in the administration's policy regarding ransom payments for hostages. family members will to longer be prosecuted for attempting to pay cappers' ran some. >> i'm making it clear that our top priority is the safe and rapid recovery of american hostages.

and to do so we will use all elements of our national power. i am reaffirming that the united states government will not make con sexes such as paying ransom to terrorist groups holding american hostages. >> rose: joining me now from washington, david ignatius. he is a foreign policy columnist for "the washington post" and i'm pleased to have him on this program this evening. david, let me begin with the significance of this. because you know there is some kind of conventional wisdom that all countries spy on all other countries including friends. where do you put this? >> well this conventional wisdom as i guess is usually the case is basically correct. united states and france spy on each other spy on most of the country's around them. there was a big flap during the 1990s about what the u.s. alleged was french

industrial espionage with the united states involving a french diplomat in u.s. involving many u.s. high-tech companies. that episode passed. when the snowden revelations first appeared in 2013 and it was clear that the united states through the nsa had spied on french officials, french president hollande was angry, said this was unacceptable. now we have the new wikileaks revelations that three different french presidents were spied on. if you look at the documents that wikileaks released they're not very surprising or particularly sensitive issues that the state of the greek financial crisis the euro french middle east policy. but the u.s. is conducted espionage reporting it in cables. it was interesting to me carlie, that president obama this time around immediately tried to put out the fire. he called the french president today. he told him that if this had taken place in the passed in

the latest wikileaks document was from 2012, if it had taken place in the past t wasn't taking place now. it was over. he had changed policies. so i think there is an attempt to walk it back as quickly as possible. >> rose: the french prime minister said the u.s. must do everything it can to repair the damage. i assume the president calling francois hollande is a first effort in repairing whatever damage there is. >> i think charlie, the deeper issue for the french is they would like to have the kind of status with the unites states on intelligence issues that britain and the other so-called five,s which are all english speaking countries, close historic allies to the united states like the relationship that they have, the french have talked in fact in one of the cables that was released there's discussion about french concerns about u.s. intelligence policy. germany has expressed the same desire for in effect

the-- that is the subtext here. the discussions continue. even president obama in his desire to make friends with a key ally has not been willing to go as far as peither the french or th germans want in that kind of formal pledge not to under-- undertake es meanage. >> what was done here. how is it different from what was alleged to have been done against chancellor the chancellor merkel of germany. >> charlie the only difference i can see from the documents that have been released is that in this case we're talking about intelligence reports that are top secret which is not the highest classification. they seem to have been normal intercepts of exchanges. in the case of german chancellor merkel that was her personal cell phone. those were in many cases personal calls. that was part of why she was offended and wounded. i have not seen evidence

that hollande's personal calls were targeted in this latest set of leaks. and that kind of personal targeting is precisely what president obama says the u.s. is to the doing any more with his friends. >> rose: france is part of p-5 plus 1. the french have been actively involved in africa in some cases in terms of an antiterrorism fight. what's the sort of national security relationship between france and the united states? >> today it's very close is when i asked u.s. administration officials who is really working closely with you in counterterrorism efforts in syria, in iraq in north africa the answer immediately comes back, france sometimes france is cited even above great britain, our traditional closest ally. the french have been quite active and forward leaning in dealing with terrorist groups in the french speaking areas of north africa and central africa.

and have been a key partner. they're also deeply historically involved in lebanon, syria. so that is a relationship that is very important to the u.s. as it tries to deal with the isis problem. and i think it's another reason that president obama was so quick to try to get this back in the box because the u.s. needs and depends on france as part of this coalition. >> what do you make of the president changing sort of the unofficial policy with respect to hossage-- hostages. >> if you try to put yourself in the mind of one of these hostage families desperately worried about their loved ones feeling that the u.s. government isn't doing everything that it could the idea that if you decided to pay ransom you would then be subject to u.s. legal prosecution was obviously an indignity up set the families deeply. and so the president is backing off of that even as he says the united states

government will not pay ransom. it is alleged that some european and other governments do pay ransom directly. the u.s. has always felt that only increases the value of hostages and makes more kidnappings likely. in this case, we'll have to see. the pressure now on families of people who are taken to pay up will be enormous. >> rose: i have always assumed that come june 30th they would have some kind of an agreement between iran and p5 plus 1 and if someone they will be able to wrap it up and make it happen. then i see today and yesterday where the ayatollah came out strongly. does that change the likelihood and the perception of the united states as to what might be possible? >> i think there was a lot of concern about the ayatollah cham eni's comments in which he seemed to be rejecting the basic framework for inspection which u.s. specialists feel is critical remaining part of this agreement to be

pinned down. and i think the dilemma for the u.s. would be if thepiranians went ahead and find an agreement with the basic framework that secretary kerry outlined in his fact sheet when the lauz anne negotiations finished, at the same time that the supreme leader has publicly rejected those conditions, you have iran in effect going in two directions at once. and that presents a really tricky question for u.s. policymakers. and i think they're really struggling with it i'm sure they'll seek some sort of public qualification that the ayatollah's comments are not decisive. i don't know how you could get that given that he is the supreme leader. >> david ignatius from washington, thank you. >> thanks, charlie. back in a moment stay with us. >> rose: larry summers is here. he served as treasury secretary under president clinton and as director of president obama's national

economic council also the former president of harvard and former chief economist for the world bank. last weekend he wrote a provocative comment in "the financial times" on the urging moment facing before the bailout aid is set to ex prior he writes financial historians may look back at the events of next week and wonder how europe's financial unraveling was permitted. earlier today in brussels international creditors demanded sweeping changes to greece's proposed command adding a heighten skepticism to whether default will be a erted have. i'm pleased to have larry summers back at this table. welcome. >> good to be with you charlie. >> rose: so is it likely that they will avert the kind of crisis you suggest by making a deal that creditors and the greek government can accept? >> charlie, we've been in the last hour for about a month now. >> rose: exactly. >> so it's hard to be certain of anything.

my guess is that in the end it will work out. but both sides are playing it very much to the hilt. they both from their perspectives are really in a legitimate place. the greeks feel very correctly that they've had austerity imposed on them for five years. that their economy has substantially collapsed. that they fired 30% of their public employees, that's a lot more than anybody else has done and that they don't need more of the same. that's a legitimate perspective. the central europeans the germans others in europe feel that it's all been money in to greece. and hasn't been money out. that the greeks for many years haven't lived up to all their commitments. and there's merit in that position as well. so it is a moment when you

need to when they need to find a compromise. no one will gain if a deal is not struck. without continued participation in the euro and without continued relations with the imf greece will have more austerity than anybody is asking for. if greece leaves it will be a grievous blow to the european union project. if greece leaves, it will be a major national security issue for europe as russia takes advantage of that opportunity. so both sides are going to get more of what they fear. if they're not able to reach a deal. >> rose: dean rush famously said they were eyeball to eyeball and the other guy blinked meaning kennedy,

crush ef crush ef blinged -- khrushchev blinged so who has to blink? >> i think both sides have to recognize that they can't have everything. >> rose: so tell me what they have -- >> i'm not prepared to regard this as somebody has got to blink and give way to somebody else. i think that is the kind of zero sum thinking that in a way has gotten us to where we are. >> rose: okay, but then both sides have to blink. >> in a sense, both sides have to turn away from confrontation. >> rose: tell me what it is that each side has to give up that they are demanding. in your judgement. >> in my judgement. i have no authority over this. but i've seen these kinds of movies a number of times. >> rose: that's why you're here. >> before. the greeks have to be prepared to accept that they need to make budget adjustments so that exclusive of any interest payments, even if they pay

no interest, they pay no principal back, that they're not needing still more money from europe. they have to be prepared to accept that level of adjustment with perhaps a bit of extra margin. they don't have to pay interest. they don't have to pay most of their interest. they don't have to pay any principal but they have to be in a position where they are paying a little bit of principal back. they have to take steps necessary to spur growth by making their economy more flexible, by making more of it in the private sector. europe needs the remainder of europe needs to recognize that greece is not in any remotely plausible scenario going to be able to pay back all that it is owed. and needs to create an environment in which greece has a chance to succeed by

being prepared to provide further financial support and by being prepared to relieve debt. europe needs to recognize that while hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into greece most of that money has flowed right back out of greece to pay european banks back who made imprudent loans. and so given that they need to make sure that greek's debt position can get to a sustainable place. if we can have those two things, sustainable debt reduction, and meaningful policy adjustment, and that's where we need to be moving, to have a chance with respect to greece and obviously it would be better if it was embedded in a stronger european growth strategy than we have seen so far that doesn't rely entirely on the central bank

and governor mario dragi. >> you point out in your piece that sometimes you don't see the consequences when are you making the decisions, lehman brothers for example didn't see the consequences of not rescuing lehman brothers. long-term capital bank was it, was that the title. >> -- management hedge fund, didn't see the consequences. >> some didn't-- many thought, you know small hedge fund how big a deal could it be. and it turned out to be a very big deal. >> rose: so my point is, is this one of those circumstances where think bet-- they better recognize what the consequences are of greece leaving the eurozone because if know you've got a failed state? >> charlie, i do go-- the way i would put it is this. i could go wandering around with my eyes closed on lexington avenue. >> rose: yes. >> and most likely the cars

what see me and stop and it with be okay. but it probably wouldn't be a good experiment to run. and in the same way my best guess is that if greece leaves it will be a catastrophe for greece. it will be a serious security event. my best guess is it won't be a grand financial disaster. but there is a chance that i'm wrong just like the people were wrong about lehman and just like the people were wrong about ltcm and just like people were wrong in thinking subprime was a well-contained small problem. and so there are some experiments you just don't want to run. >> rose: the ris something too great. >> the ris something too great. and i think that that is that would be for me the controlling reality. now look, of course in any negotiation, you have a problem which is that if you can't live without a deal you don't get a very good deal. and that's why there's a lot

of posturing going on. but i think all of us on the outside should very much want to see is this thing reach a conclusion. and as you were just getting to in your question not just for economic and financial reasons, but sgrooes is europe's exposed southern flank. greece is a member of nato. greece is a is one of the 28 members of the european union which on many questions like sanctions of russia, acts on the basis of unanimity. >> rose: as you know paul krugman has weighted in on this and he said i do think it's worth pointing out that this need not happen the failure of greece, even if it is no deal am what summers seems to portray is an scenario in which greek banks collapse and take down the economy with them. but what if greece abandons the euro and issues its own currency to keep it going.

for sure there will would be a sharp devaluation which would lead to a spike of inflation, but would hyperinflation follow. remember greece is running a large adjusted primary surplus, that is given even a modest economic recovery it would not need to roll the printing presses to pay its bills. >> well, as paul well knows, the deficit you have is the deficit you have not the cyclically adjusted deficit you have. the cyclically adjusted deficit you have is an economist's concept. the deficit you have is what controls your pressure for printing money. and perhaps there would be a way of executing rapid switch to a drachma with a substantial devaluation that increased competitiveness, that performed a

basis-- provided a basis for stronger exports an led things in a positive direction. that's conceivable. but given the difficulty that the greek government has had to date in executing much simpler tasks, like the basic task of collecting taxes, my suspicion is that an attempt in that direction would lead to very substantial hoarding of euros, would lead to i pencely rapid turnover of drachmas because no one would really rely on them as secure. would involve a complete collapse of credit as the greek banking system became much less able to function. and that a far weaker economy would mean a far larger deficit. and some substantial kind of

disintegration. we've seen versions of this movie before. this is not unlike what happened in argentina in 2001 and has happened in other latin american countries at other junctures. and it doesn't tend to be a healthy-- a healthy kind of picture at all. things may come to that. and prudence involves recognizing that disasters are not forever. but it seems to me that a situation in which greece lurks into a drachma would be very, very likely to be a situation that involved substantially more economic

pain for a significant interval than what we have now. and we don't know where that's going to go politically. but historically experience with the bottom falling out from a situation that's already in a deep valley is not encouraging as to the political reaction and the parties that wait behind the area are not very attractive. >> rose: the president seems to be rebounding from the defeat he had from democrats in the congress. nancy pelosi included. your position is you support the tpp the transpacific partnership. jeff immelt was on this program from the c.e.o. of ge and said this is catastrophic if we don't have this. democrats worry about loss of jobs and other considerations. elizabeth war en nancy

pelosi and others. why is this essential? >> i think people are worried about trade a right to be wore-- people who are worried about trade are right to be worried about trade. the mistake is to carry or worry about trade into a worry about trade agreements. the truth is that the american market is open. it's essentially completely open to these countries right now. so the question-- they could come in, with or without the trade agreement they are here. so the question is whether we will avail ourselves of an opportunity to open their market for the benefit of our producers. now i have cement pathy with the people who are concerned that we're using too much of this to-- we're using too much polit call capital to gain influence for company who are going to be producing there there rather than here.

that we're using too much influence to reduce regulation in these countries rather than than simply to reduce tar riffs and quotas. i think those are legitimate concerns. we'll have to fully evaluate them when we see the text. but on balance, i think you have to remember that our market is open. and theirs is closed right now. and you also have to remember and that's why i think in the end there was really no other viable choice that the united states has declared itself to be rebalancing towards asia. and it has declared that the major nonmilitary component of that was this trade in economic integration. and if we had fated to carry through on an ability to do that it would have been devastating for our

credibility. and so i think it's a good agreement. i think it's a good thing to be doing. but i also think that in a sense the ship has left and given the commitment given that our partners have been involved with this for years one would have to have an extraordinarily powerful argument to put the united states in the position once again of not carrying through on a commitment. i do think-- . >> rose: don't you think elizabeth warren knows that. i mean they understand the argument. >> yes and i think that they're making-- they can ar particular-- elizabeth warren and many others, many others who have opposed it can articulate, they can be the ones who are articulate their argument.

i think it's hard to trace. i think they-- i understand their frustration because economists some economists many government officials have denied the concern about trade at all. have denied any kind of concern about globalization. and i think that's wrong. so i understand why people are angry. i just think this is the wrong hostage to kill. >> rose: all right. >> that's where i come down on it i do think we need and this was the other part of my column charlie. we do feed to think very hard about our international stwrlt-- strategy going forward. and rather than more trade agreements i would rather see emphasis shift towards making sure we fund international organizations so we don't get caught in the kind of situation we just did where the chinese have to start their own infrastructure bank. that we're not participating

in then be embarrassed as all our friends join china's infrastructure bank. so we need to be generous international organizations in a way we haven't been. and we also need to be fostering cooperation in other areas like making sure they can't-- by moving across borders. >> rose: let me make sure i understand. basically are you saying that we shouldn't have been put in embarrassing position where we not on didn't support the asian infrastructure bank but we urged britain and france and nobody else to support it amount of they said to hell with you, we are going to go ahead with you, we want it do this and believe we should do this. you were suggesting the wider thing would have been to fund it and lead the charge. >> the wiser thing would have been to have funded the reforms that enhance china's participation in the imf five years ago to. have been prepared to support a substantial expansion in the world bank and the asian development bank so there was no felt

need for an institution we couldn't be part of. if we were strong supporters of those organizations, if we were strong supporters of international cooperation in other dimensions dimensions that involve regulating and taxing highly mobile capital then our globalization a againa would seem like an agenda that was pro middle class rather than a globalization agenda that seems like it's for cosmopolitan, for companies like ge. for people like jeff immelt. for people like in many ways you and i charlie but that it doesn't seem to be focused on the interests of most americans. and so its it seems to me that that is where our work on globalization seems to function on questions relating to regulation.

when i was treasury second years ago i expressed concerns about what i called the dark side of capital. >> yes, did you. >> let's see money laundering regulatory evasion, tax evasion of various kinds. and that is where an international economic are cooperation agenda needs to go. i think if people see that they will understand some of the trade stuff more but when the focus is all trade it's understandable why people find that so frustrating. >> i hear you. two quick questions and larger questions. china. is the infra-- infrastructure bank just one more sense that china as it continues the economic growth even though they have platteaued in some ways in terms and they've got huge challenges but at the same time their economy will be larger than our economy, not per capita but larger than our economy soon? >> they are beginning to flex their muscle about the size of their economy and to leverage it.

will there be a double reserve currency in things like that so it's not just the dollar. there will be alternatives so that our economic power in the world will decline as china grows? >> i think-- i think it's very likely that our relative economic strength is probably not going to be what it was. the share of all the world's output that we've been that's probably going to go down. though the fact that we've gained so much relative to europe and japan actually makes that not obvious. i done think we've got anything to fear from the -- i think that --. >> the chinese government. >> i think we should be supportive and coop rattive. with respect to china joining the so-called special drawing right the

combination of major global currencies that the imf is in charge of, i think we've got nothing to fear from that. china continues to maintain all kinds of controls on being arbling to take money in. being able to take money out. and as long as that's true and i think some measure of those controls will be there for while, i don't anticipate that the-- would be a substantial threat to the dollar. and even if it was i don't think u.s. strength derives from the number of people who hold the dollar. i think it derives from the fundamental strength of our economy which goes back to getting our economy moving again and a whole set of ways. >> and a culture of innovation. >> so where i would be focused is on accelerating the growth rate.

and if we do that, i think a variety of the international economic issues will take care of themselves. >> we'll see a growth rate at 4% gdp any time soon? >> no time soon on the current trajectory. break through on immigration, massive increase in infrastructure investments serious tax reform serious attempt at enabling everybody in the labor force to participate with basic labor force supports like family leave, you do-- you do-- all of those things and you could see a substantially faster growth rate than the one that is in train for the united states on the current policy path. 4% is a big big lift in a world where because there is the important thing it used to be that the adult labor force was growing at

2% a year because the baby boom was coming of age. because more and more women were working. we're going to be lucky if the workforce grows at half a percent a year over the next 20 years. age that obviously just makes it more difficult to get to a 4% growth rate. but you do the things i said and you could make a real addition to our growth rate. >> and you are pretty much in concert with what janet yellin is saying about the interest rate? >> i think broadly. i think that there is no reason to raise rates until we see the whites of inflation's eyes. and i haven't seen that yet. but it could happen sometime before long. but if we were to raise rates prematurely, and the economy were to slow substantially we really wouldn't have much ammunition to combat it. and that's why i think the

risks of an error on the slow downside are much greater than the risks of an error on the inflation side because when you're starting at 1% inflation, even if you get an inflation acceleration t only takes to you 2% inflation which is your target. and so that's why i would be very cautious and careful about raising rates. but it's something that will come at some point. >> rose: probably -- thank you, pleasure to you have. >> thank you. >> rose: larry summers, back in a moment. stay with us. michael wolff is here. he is an author and journalist. "forbes" magazine says he has made a career out of biting the hand that feeds him and taking on media power players. his books include burn rate and the man who owns the news. his late cess called television is the new television. it challenges conventional wisdom about old versus new media. i am pleased to have michael wolff at the table.

welcome. the title of this is television is new television. which comes to a surprise as some, conventional wisdom is future with digital media and digital media is beginning to take all the profit and make it very hard for traditional media. >> explain to me why that's not true. >> you know, this big is really has two stories. and the first story is about the remarkable staying power of television. that television is not only powerful but it has improved its product and changed its business model. and to-- to enormous, to effective enormous profit. and at the same time. >> and the hardware has gotten better too. >> everything. and at the same time digital media which we've-- we've been in you know -- inundated with promises that it was going to be the future in every way, has been relatively speaking a disappointment. sometimes rather a serious

disappointment. >> rose: and so why do you think television has we know it has had sustainability and digital media has not leapt, leapt to the riches we expected it would? >> i think two reasons for television. number one because it does what we've-- what we've always thought after. it tells a story. beginning, middle and end incredibly good narrative. a structure that we want. we just sink into. but also at the same time it's been a better business. fundamentally it's done the one thing that digital the opposite of what digital media has done. it's cut down how it's dependence on advertising. so basically right nowed television business, and remember we grew up with television. it was completely free completely ad supported. >> it created new revenue sources. >> now television is hugely expensive, actually for all

of us. and for itself much more profitable because of that. >> rose: what are these other revenue sources? >> cable. we all pay a came bill. so we are all paying directly for-- . >> rose: we pay a cable bill and cable pays television to rebroadcast on media network. >> exactly. that's it. then there are obviously the netflix. the netflix revenue stream netflix says it's the disrupter of television. but at the same time it's paying television almost $2 billion a year in licensing fees. >> rose: but netflix seems to have, what is it, 35% or some larger percentage of all the on-line downloading going on after 7:00 is netflix. >> huge activities. but-- . >> rose: why is that so hujtsly profitable? >> they get a big subscription fee and they got a lot of members. >> the comparison between hbo and netflix is a very

dramatic one. because basically they have the same numbers. they make the same amount of money. they have the same costs. but hbo makes a $2 billion a year profit, netflix essentially makes no profit. what is the difference? the difference is actually in cable television in the relationship with the cable provider. hbo as we all know is very hard to get rid of your hbo subscription. it's very easy to get rid of your netflix subscription. so it's in that churn that netflix really fails to make a significant profit. >> rose: but more and more people say they get their news on-line. increasing percentage of people say that. >> absolutely. and that's clearly true. >> rose: so what are the implications for that? newspapers are suffering. >> the implications i mean for print and i think it's very important to draw the difference between television and print. print gave its entire

product away for free. everybody went on-line. it was free. it escaped similar to music. television was always if you want our product you have to pay for it. so in the news business it has gotten even worse. not only is everything for free but everybody has access to the same news and they are reopro sesing it. so they are-- everybody is rewriting everybody else so that everybody is essentially offering the same product. >> and people like facebook and companies like that are simply aggregating what is out there. >> yeah, they're just the-- they're just the supplier of traffic. and in the end they win because everybody comes, everybody comes to them and they take a little toll off of everybody who is using digital media. but digital media doesn't win, it loses. >> what dow make of the purchase by verizon by aol.

>> i think it's a curious purchase. i think they want to be in the advertising business. they want to be in let's put this another way. they want to be in the traffic business. they want to do what facebook and google are doing since they control large amounts of traffic. they are what they're saying is we'd like to take pennies, find a way to take even a greater number of pennies off of that traffic than we are now. >> and then there is the big story about comcast wanting to buy time warner and being denied and then john malone and charter are coming in and looking like they'll get it. >> and it does seem like they will get it yes. i think that is indicative of a what i might even characterize as a war to control video. it is so valuable. and i think everybody is in this game. >> define video in this case. >> television. >> any kind of a -- >> television, television

basically but you know it's-- the words become hard because we no longer watch television on the television. we watch television on on all of the other screens. but. >> but that's the crucial points. how we receive, i mean that means that television, media companies are simply content companies. that's what they really are. content companies and therefore how they are distributed whether their traditional method or through new media, they still generate revenue. >> exactly. >> what do you think about the president and net neutrality. >> i think net neutral sit one of those other issues in which the smoke the smoke hasn't cleared. and i would say that when it clears the digital guy guise will be surprised. because what they have done is digital has always been an unregulated business. by creating this net neutrality laws they suddenly become regular lated. and regulation then becomes

a game of who has the best lawyers. and i'm going to tell you. >> rose: and lobbyists. >> and lobbyists. and i'm going to tell you the media companies have been doing this for an awfully long time. >> rose: but at the same time, everybody is getting in everybody's business too. >> i would even put it in a different way. everybody wants to be in the television business. >> but you mean by that everybody wants to be in the video business. >> yes. >> rose: not some of they want to own television stations but they want to have a television network, they want to be in the new definition of the video business. >> exactly. they want to be involved in the business of getting you what i think we can still call and understand tvrx shows. >> rose: but i means that's what i have a hard time understanding if everything is now video and that's the content that everybody wants is that, and it is the premium content too it's no longer cats walking on a wall. >> no, an premium content. i have heard a new term. there was premium content

and then there was premium plus and new there is premium plus plus plus. >> premium triple plus. >> what that describes to me is the kinds of productions netflix is doing. house of cards which is again very traditional television product. they go to hollywood to get this made, of course. >> rose: somehow in your life you convince rupert murdoch to let you do a biography of him,. >> inexplicable. >> rose: it is. i want to know how you convinced him. >> because he regretting it. >> deeply, deeply deeply. >> rose: and i think we argue you betrayed him. >> i think he does he does. but i don't-- . >> rose: i'm not getting into the merits of that. but the question is how did you convince him to let you do this, what charm did you prevail. >> i'm very charming. >> rose: show me some of it. what did you do-- how come

share everything with me. let plae on the inside rupert and i will write a book about you that nobody has ever seen. what was it you said. >> you know, the truth was, it was all a mistake and a misunderstanding. i think that you know i said-- . >> rose: this is different from a lie. >> probably. and it wasn't-- it was i went in and said d -- and rupert and i have known each other and i liked him. >> rose: he probably liked you before this. >> he does like me because he likes to talk about media. and he had lost everybody else. and here i'm talking about it and i said-- and he had just succeeded in taking over "the wall street journal." and i said you know, i would like to write a book about this. >> rose: he thought it was about "the wall street journal". >> i said i would like to write a book about you and the takeover of "the wall street journal." and he said oh and then-- . >> rose: was that, in fact the truth, did you intend to write about "the wall street journal" or did you really intend to make this a book about -- >> i said its with about your life how this came

about, that this was the ultimate-- and that is what the book is about. >> rose: the ultimate acquisition for him because he loves -- >> yeah, he said-- . >> rose: newspapers. >> he said fine, come in. and is. >> rose: did the family tell him it was a good idea? >> no, because nobody tells him anything. so anyway i go in. i go in and we state down-- sit down and tauk for about an now half. >> rose: this is before the deal was made. >> no, this is after the deal hi sold the book and so i'm off and running. we have our hour and a half discussion. at the end of it he says do you have enough. and i said, i actually don't have enough. i need to see you again. and then he-- so he brings out his book and he writes it he writes it in. and a week later. >> rose: his address back. >> a week later i come back. and we go through the same thing again. do you have enough.

this goes on pretty much like this for every meeting for nine months. >> rose: so he's trying to be as good as he can for you. >> he is. >> rose: . >> and he was incredibly accommodating. i think he liked the discussion. and in the en, i remember when they saw the book his his guy gary againstberg his sort of chief handler pr guy called me up and he said and he said, he said the book is all about rupert. and i said well, it's a biography. and then he said but it's so personal. >> rose: because it was supposed to be about the deal. >> and i realized that's-- i realized that these guys don't read a lot of books. when i went and saw rupert's moth never australia, i said it's so interesting that he-- . >> rose: she had to be 104. >> that he's doing this book

with you, because you know he's never read onement and i think that there is an aspect of that that they really didn't know what to expect in terms of a modern biography. >> rose: did he ask roger ailes about there? >> i'm sure he probably didn't. because actually one of the-- you know because there is always fights within that company. and one of the things that i had to agree to is not to speak to roger ailes. >> rose: way, explain that to me. you had to agree not to speak. >> yeah. and this is partly because of gary ginsburg who was always having a fight with roger. so i don't think that they wanted roger to get-- find his way into the story of this book so anyway i agreed to that. which was-- i only reluctantly did. because i actually like roger a great deal. >> rose: did he find his way

into the book. >> he didn't, well only from rupert who said sort of unkind things about roger. but that let roger go back to rupert and yell at him and get more money. >> rose: roger yells at rupert. >> well yes yelling is, i think, overstated. he goes in and he-- well i don't know. i don't know. i think-- anyway. >> rose: he would differ but i don't think we yell. >> they have their way of negotiating. >> rose: yes. and so the book is published. everybody gets a chance to read it or whoever read it. was day best-seller, i don't remember. >> yes. >> rose: and they were arrange ree about it because it was too personal. >> apparently. >> rose: and they felt like it was a book about "the wall street journal" and it turned out to be a book about rupert s that a fair summary. >> yes yes. >> rose: age the relationship today between you and rupert.

>> terrible. i actually ran into him in news corp. and i had come-- i came down in the elevator. the elevator was empty and the doors opened and rupert and i were standing as far from each other as you and i are now. and we looked at each other. and we had no idea what to do. the both of us just frozeen. and then i finally put out my hand and i said-- and i said hello rupert. and he threw up his arms and bolted by me into the elevator so that he wouldn't have to shake my hand. >> rose: did you write things that he ought to be angry about that was really bad? >> no actually. i would say it is an incredibly respectful pore tlat-- pore traits. >> rose: for get all the book and the misunderstanding characterize him as a dominant media figures of his time. >> he is the shaper and the

maker of media in our age. there's nobody more important. there's nobody more central often nobody more brilliant. >> rose: and his genius is he knows what? >> i think his genius is the ability to take risks. the willingness to follow his own nose, a kind of remarkable fearlessness to try, try this and try that and try what works. >> rose: brian williams, a friend of everybody who does what i do. people admire him as i'm sure you do is now going to msnbc we think. that's what they -- >> you wrote a column saying this is good for brian this is good for msnbc, this is good for everybody. >> win-win. >> rose: win-win. >> i think they have to portray it as louisiana but i think everybody understands it as win-win. >> rose: because?

>> because msnbc is so important from a news business standpoint. msnbc is-- . >> rose: important because it makes as much money as fox news does, it will be a huge contributor to the bottom line but it doesn't now. >> even now it makes a lot of minute for the network. i mean it makes significantly more money than nbc news. so it's a reality and illusion issue here. everybody still thinks nbc news nightly news is the prestige appointment. and i suppose because people think it, it is. but the truth is that the future of the television news business and the financial interests of nbc and its parent comcast are all with msnbc so brian williams moving there is much more valuable to the network and to comcast than

he is at nbc than at nightly news. >> rose: because he can make it better. because he's a superstar and can turn it around and make it stronger and bigger and better than it is without him. >> totally. msnbc i think everybody agrees has a problem and is drifting and whatever. it's positioning was t has lost. >> rose: how is cnn doing? >> cnn does financially very well. for the basic reason that if you are a cable provider and you carry fox you have to balance it with cnn so that means lots of revenues. it also, the fact that literally nobody you know the audience of the prime time audience of cnn has dwindled to a shadow of its former self doesn't really have a financial impact. >> rose: this book is called tfertions the new television unexpected triumph of old media in the digital age michael wolff, he is

obvioused-- obsessed by there so therefore what he says is always interesting. thank you. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you incomes time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. worldwide within on tomorrow's pbs newshour how a troubled school turned around by adoptinged international baccalaureate or

announcer: a kqed television production. man: it's like holy mother of comfort food. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.