>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, dean baquet, the executive editor of the "new york times." >> one thing people forget is that as the world has gotten smaller, in a weird way, the subjects we take on are larger, companies are bigger, governments are bigger and more important and there is more interaction among governments. i think a great news organization is also humane and feels -- and courageous. >> rose: dean baquet for the hour, next. >> 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.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: dean baquet is here. he is the executive editor of the "new york times." it is the top position in the news room. he took over in may of last year succeeding jill abramson. she was the paper's first female editor. he became the first african-american to hold the post. the digital era has disrupted the business of journalism as many of you know and has presented challenges and opportunities. many traditional news organizations have reduced staff in face of significant competition from digital outlets. the "new york times" has withstood the downturn. last month, reached the milestone of 1 million digital-only subscribers. as it charts its path forward,

the "times" is experimenting with a new form of storytelling. the lathest project a ten-minute virtual reality film that tells the story of children displaced by war. this week more than a million "new york times" subscribers received google virtual reality viewers. i am pleased to have dean baquet at this table for the first time. welcome. >> a pleasure to be here. thank you very much. >> rose: what's virtual reality? >> for me, a different way of telling a story. it's a dramatic visual form of storytelling that makes you feel as if you're in the middle of the field, in the case of these three migrant children, makes you feel like you're walking among them, looks like you could reach out and touch them. it puts you there. it's a powerful piece of journalism and it's a great storytelling device. >> rose: how will you use it? you can use it all kinds of ways.

we've used to show immigrants walking through. >> no you can do it for light stuff. we're going to do it for one of the most powerful stories in the world, which is the way war has displaced children in particular all around the world, told in the eyes of the children and you see the world through their eyes. as beautifully as a story could be written, i don't think you could tell it quite the way -- >> rose: adds to the experience of storytelling. >> it's a new which to tell stories. >> rose: the "new york times" magazine, the displaced, war has driven 30 million children from their homes. these are the stories of three of them. now, this was shipped to what, a million people? >> all subscribers around the country got it. >> rose: in the u.s. yeah. >> rose: this is my -- i'm now on this iphone which doesn't belong to me, but it has the "new york times" app, correct? and if you have that app which gives you access to the digital "new york times" -- >> that's right. >> rose: i'm going to push that now and fold this like

this, and -- >> and i'm going to join you. now we're starting. this is a food drop in south sudan. >> rose: right. i can see the site. wow. >> you have been following the story of this one child. >> rose: as i turn, it's like i'm in the middle of a field and i'm turning around and i see the man with a bullhorn. >> and this 9-year-old child who has been telling you what his life is like in a refugee. >> rose: in this remote camp in one of the swamps of south sudan, one of the only ways to deliver large amounts of humanitarian aid is by plane. >> and they have been waiting for the plain. >> rose: wow. this is extraordinary. watch as they rush to pick up the bags. >> rose: yeah. it's like i'm in the center of everything. >> rose: i can see everything. you parachuted me down and there are the bags. >> and there are these kids, all

of them. there is one bag so heavy that -- >> rose: wow, look at them coming. >> -- the kids need help. it's heartbreaking. >> rose: these are bags of the humanitarian aid? >> yes, food. >> rose: so this is available today or when will this be available? >> hopefully, everybody will keep theirs at home and we'll do more. i'm going to name the two editors who were the leaders. jake silverstein was the editor of the magazine, and sam, a senior editor at the times, this was their baby. my job was to get the heck out of the way. they wanted a subject that would make it so that people would not say, well, this is an interesting gimmick. they wanted a subject that was powerful, journalistic. if it had been a mere feature story where people could feel

like they were walk through a park, everybody would have said it was a gimmick. in this case, it's obviously journal i'm and powerful. >> rose: google is your partner in this? >> that's right. >> rose: what do they provide? the glasses. y provide the glasses, okay. >> yeah. and the remarkable thing, if you think about it, ten years from now, everybody is going to look at, when virtual reality is sort of a part of life, or sooner than that, everybody's going to think of this remarkable moment when a bunch of people put a cardboard box in a bag and delivered it at homes all around the country and they're going to think it was such a rudimentary way to do it, but it was really a remarkable feat to pull it off and, in my humbl humble opiniona great moment for the "new york times" in pushing together with a great storytelling. >> rose: did you have to learn digital? >> yes. >> rose: or was it something you naturally included in your tools? >> no, i started as a journalist

at 19, dropped out of college. got a job with the afternoon paper in new orleans. i did cops, courts, city hall, investigative reporting, the whole nine yards. this is new for me. on the other hand, the bedrock of it is what i grew up doing. it's storytelling. it's being honorable. it's being truthful. it's trying to convey news to people in a straightforward way. it's a news judgment. >> rose: it can add to journalism the 15eu78 way internet added to journalism? >> journalism is better now, for the record. journalistic institutions are struggling, but journalism is better than it's ever been. the fact it wasn't that long ago that you would not have been able to see any video at all in south sudan, so be able to see it in a virtual reality tour -- >> rose: that's there. journalism is greater than

it's ever been. >> rose: is the quality of writing better than it's ever been and storytelling? >> absolutely. >> rose: why do you think that is? >> i think, first off, we have to work harder. 25 years ago, if you were with the "new york times" or "the washington post," you had a built-in audience. >> rose: and cbs news as well. that's right. we have to work harder for them every day. so storytelling, i think, is better. now, the big institutions that tell stories the best, i would argue, like the "new york times," like cbs news, like "the washington post," are going to have to fight hard to survive. but storytelling itself, journalism is better than it ever was, and i think sometimes we make the mistake of worrying over our institutions and not worrying enough about actual journalism itself. journalism is thriving. >> rose: tell me about your role as executive editor.

>> if things go well, i get responsibility for them, if things don't go well, i pick somebody else. i run the news report of the "times." so i come in every morning worrying about what the "new york times" will cover. i'm responsible for everything but the opinion pages. >> rose: and report to the publisher. they report to the publisher and you do as well but the opinion people only report to the publisher. >> but i only report to the publisher, too. >> rose: who else would there be to report to? >> that's true. well, the c.e.o., mark thompson, runs the whole business side. >> rose: yeah. separate between business and journalism, church and state. >> mm-hmm. >> rose: you have said things that indicate that you think there is a need for more cooperation -- >> absolutely, i do. >> rose: -- maintaining church and state. >> yeah. >> rose: explain that. well, first off, church and

state -- pure church and state existed in a world in which there was a news room and advertising. there was no technology. the people who helped create this product, this whole world of journalists didn't exist 25 years ago, and those people, the people that sort of plan, you know, what the "new york times" looks like online and on the phone, those people, for my money, are as beholden to me as they are to the person who runs the business side. that's the first thing. the second thing is we are in a tumultuous, difficult time, and the most creative people in any news organization happened to live in news rooms. it would be nuts if those people were not involved in charting the future to have the "new york times" or the washington -- the future of the "new york times" or "the washington post" or whatever, it would be nuts. this, which i hope one day will not only be a great way to tell stories, this is hopefully also a way to make money.

i don't mind that. it was born in the news room. it was created by two senior editors that fought and pushed for it, and i have to create a situation in the "new york times" news room, when journalists feel compelled to not only tell great stories, but think about their impact on the future of the "new york times," and i think i can do that. i think we can do that without jeopardizing our integrity. >> rose: your integrity is jerpisjeopardized when? >> when people think powerful people and enterprise influence the way you cover the news. that ain't gonna happen. >> rose: not as long as you're there. >> and not as long as arthur is there. >> rose: fair enough. and he's been here many times, as you know. >> yeah. >> rose: when you were at the "los angeles times," this is to take the measure of you, they told you to cut the staff and you said, no, i'm not going to do that. >> and they fired me. >> rose: and they fired you. ight. >> rose: you said you weren't

going to do it, as i understand it, because it would go th to te heart of producing a quality newspaper. >> that's right. the "los angeles times," when i became managing editor and when i became editor was one of the greatest news organizations in the world. it still is. to be frank, i thought people who owned "the los angeles times" were not thinking about the impact the cuts would have. we were facing the possibility of closing foreign bureaus. we were facing the possibility of cutting the news report we gave to people in los angeles. i think we were creating the situation where we were jeopardized with business. to be perfectly frank, i don't mind saying this, i didn't quite trust people owned the "los angeles times" to understand what i was trying to say and i think they were severely weakening the paper. as a journalistic institution and as a business. i think i was right. >> rose: when you quit, did you have any idea what your future was? >> none. i was fired, first. >> rose: fired, right.

none. i went home. i was a little bit freaked out. i sort of had hoped it wouldn't come to that point. >> rose: because you believed in the paper and believed it could do -- >> i believe and still believe that a great news organization can survive and thrive, and it broke my heart that the "los angeles times" was being cut to the point where i didn't think it could be as great as it was. >> rose: did they hear you say that? >> you know, i don't think they did, to be honest. i don't think they did. i don't think they did. i mean, there is evidence of the -- as evidence of the fact, when my fights with them first started, jeff johnson sided with me, the guy worrying over the finances of the "los angeles times," he sided with me and he was also pushed out. so it wasn't just me. >> rose: who was pushing? the tribune company.

>> rose: the chicago tribune? yeah. and i think we just lived on different planets. so, no, i was freaked out. i spent a month leading phillip roth -- reading phillip roth. >> rose: what were you reading? >> i set as a goal to read all phillip roth novels and i came close in a month. >> rose: why did you choose him? >> a great american novelist who wrote about nothing but los angeles. >> rose: why him? i wanted to pick one writer who writes fiction. i spent time with my wife and son who write fiction. arthur sulzberger called the day after i was fired and asked if i'd consider coming back and i told him i just needed some

time. i was secretly hoping that the "los angeles times" would be sold and i would go back. but that didn't happen. >> rose: arthur called you and you ended up at the basht bureau. >> which was a blast. the closest thing to being a city editor. you walk into the room, about 50 reporters. you have a piece of every story. it was the waning days of the bush administration, the big fights over torture were starting to erupt. it was pre-snowden but just before wikileaks, i was involved in wikileaks, and i wa it was a blast. you had command of the room, you had the white house, national security, fierce debates over the wars in afghanistan and iraq. it was just a blast. >> rose: in the south we have an expression for that. >> i'm a southerner, too. (laughter)

but you can't say it. >> rose: no, you can't. the point is here, you were an investigative reporter. >> that's what i was. >> rose: what is it about investigative reporting that you loved? >> i was an investigative reporter in new orleans and chicago before the "new york times" and became an editor. it's really hard. i think my history and background makes me skeptical of powerful institutions, even though i run one now. >> rose: yes. and investigative reporting lets you look hard at powerful institutions. in a lot of ways, i want to say it's the highest -- i don't want to say it's the highest form of journalism because that's not true, but it is a high form of journalism. it's tough, fun, exciting, it's hard, it's mentally challenging. i mean, it's exciting. i started doing it in louisiana which is a great place to be an investigative reporter.

>> rose: do you love politics? i do. i like politics a lot. i like different forms. i like the horse race, but i also like the substantive stuff, and i like underrin understandie candidates are. i do a lot. i always tell the story because i want it to be in my obituary, i am the reporter who got the quotation from edwin edwards when he was running for governor of louisiana. >> rose: it's a great story. tell it. >> i was covering edwin edwards campaign for the times picayune, in the pack to have the bus, i say, governor, any way you lose this election? he says, dean, only way i lose this election is if i'm caught with a dead girl and a laura lie boy. (laughter) >> rose: what's he doing now?

he ran for congress and lost and he's sort of a political figure in louisiana. he just got out of jail a couple of years ago. >> rose: i want to weave the story of journalism and your life. you're at "the washington post" and then at the "new york times" as bureau chief and then you come to new york. >> came to new york as managing editor, brought in by jill abramson, who was a friend and executive editor. >> rose: still a friend? we've lost touch. i still care for her a lot, like her a lot. obviously, we had a disagreement that became public, which is unfortunate, but i still care for her a lot. >> rose: the disagreement was about? >> we had -- i'm going to be coy, if you don't mind -- we had different philosophies about how to lead the news room. >> rose: so it was management style. >> yes, it was management style. our styles are different. >> rose: and the publisher decided it was time for a change? >> yes, that's right. and that's about a year and a

half ago. >> rose: so what's your goal as editor and chief of the "new york times"? >> my first goal is to make the "new york times" better. every executive editor of a big news organization wants to make it better. i want to make it in particular a great investigative institution. i care greatly about investigative reporting and something i made a priority. i would love to have lead a news organization that's on sound enough financial footing so that my successors can keep building the way previous executive editors have been able to build. i would like to leave it in a good, safe place where it can thrive. >> rose: what do you have to do? >> i think that we have to significantly increase the number of people who read us and pay for us. as you said in the beginning, we have a million paid subscribers.

altogether, we have 2 million subscribers, if you count print. i think we have to significantly increase that. we have said, mark thompton the c.e.o. and i have said we need to increase our digital revenue from about 400 million to 800 million. >> rose: by 2020. yeah. >> rose: so you've got four years to go from 400 to 800. >> yeah, which we got to the 400 in about four years, so i think we can do it. but that's going to mean getting a lot more people to read the "new york times" and to pay for it. i actually think we can do that. i think there is a bigger international audience for us. i think about 15% of our subscribers roughly are abroad, but i think lots of people want to read the "new york times" abroad. >> rose: how would you define the best newspaper in the world? what does it have to be to be considered the best newspaper in the world? >> well, there are the givens -- you have to be honest, you have to have great integrity.

that's the givens, let's knock that off the table. you have to be truly ambitious. >> rose: ambitious for? you have to cover the biggest stories better than everybody else as often as you can. nobody can do it every time. >> rose: and anticipate stories that are around the corner. >> anticipate stories, yes. and you have to take on big, big subjects worthy of their size. you have to write about the biggest corporations, the biggest governments. you have to be really ambitious and large in your goals. >> rose: and do it without fear. >> and do it without fear. and do it without fear. and i think every -- i think people forget that as the world has gotten smaller in a weird way, the subjects we take on are larger, companies are bigger, governments are bigger and more important, more interaction among governments. i think a great news organization is also humane and courageous.

i don't mean courageous in terms of just taking on the largest subjects but, you know, making hard judgments about where to put reporters. i think we have to cover wars. war is hugely more difficult to cover today than it ever was before. >> rose: and more dangerous. more difficult, more dangerous. it used to be, 30 years ago, you covered a war, there was an understanding between both sides that a journalist was there to get both sides. there is no understanding anymore. it's a free-for-all, but you've got to cover it. >> rose: what are you looking for in good reporters? >> i think a really great reporter is courageous, immensely curious, is willing to try new things, has fun. the best reporters i know have a blast. >> rose: i know. and they're as ambitious as the institution. >> rose: you enjoy this.

even in to yo tumultuous times, being a journalist is a lot of fun. >> rose: and you look for those who can write. >> goes without saying. >> rose: but there are great reporters who can't write. >> that's right and that's okay. >> rose: it is because they're reporters. >> sometimes you get the perfect reporter who is an elegant writer and a fabulous reporter. sometimes you get somebody who's a stunning reporter who can find things out and doesn't write as well. but to me that's just as valuable. >> rose: and that's the notion of bernstein and woodward, the bin nationish -- the combinatiof the. >> two you want beautiful writers, ambitious reporters, specialists who have an e per tees. nowadays, you want people who have a much more visual sensibility, digital talent. ben solomon is the videographer

who worked on the video we just watched, has as much journalistic gumption as any of his predecessors who were largely writers. >> rose: who's your competition? >> we have tons. "washington post." >> rose: tough around tougher? oh, sure. they have a really good editor, unfortunately. >> rose: yes, yes. they're much more competition, the "journal" is competition, the "guardian" is competition. the "financial times" is competition. we have competition among specialty -- >> rose: and it's competition to cover the story. >> first and best. >> rose: first and best. yeah. competition is an underrated force, and i hope it's always there. it means you want me and i want marty baron, the editor of the post-, i want him to wake up in the morning worried about me, and he wants me to wake up in

the morning worried about him. it makes us better. >> rose: ben bradley said nothing thrilled him more than to know that the "new york times" was worried about him. >> that's right. well, i worry about a lot of people. he would be thrilled. (laughter) hopefully, they worry about me, too. >> rose: you have said, too, your friend jim amos, former editor of the times picayune, i want to make people gasp over their morning coffee. what does that mean? >> i want people to pick up the "new york times" in whatever form they pick it up -- phone, laptop, print -- and i want them to not be able to put it down. i want them to pick it up, go wholly out, because there is an amazing story, beautiful photography. i want people to gasp and not put the paper down.

>> rose: this is the sports page. how good a photograph is that? >> a great picture. i take no credit for this but the "new york times" in the last ten years went from being not a great photographic paper to being a fabulous. >> rose: who takes credit? michelle mcnally the photo editor. >> rose: getting the ball over the goal, i assume. >> it's terrific. >> rose: yeah. and the color. >> yeah. >> rose: so you want them to gasp and to know the story. >> mm-hmm. >> rose: take me through your day. in morning, you get up, have your coughy, and you know what's in your paper because you okayed it before you went to bed. >> that's right. first i look at the news on the phone. first, things happened after i went to bed, around the world. if i went to bed at 10:00 at night, between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., news happened. i catch up on the news.

see how the "times" present itself on the phone. i spend time on the phone, read the print paper thoroughly, then i look at the journal, post-, the guardian. >> rose: those are the ones i look at, too. >> even in the era we're in, those are the ones we look at. >> rose: i look at the f.t., too. >> i look at the f.t. when i get into the office. there is an overnight note one of the editors has left that gives me a sense of how we fared overnight, whether any stories broke at 2:00 in the morning when i was asleep. if they're big stories, i get a call. but generally speaking, you don't get a call if a they're nt big enough. i go into the office. our news meeting is at 9:30. >> rose: what's that meeting about? >> the news meeting is a meeting where the leaders of all the major news desks of the "new york times" sit around the table and talk about the news of the day. it used to be the meeting where

it would start to build the print front page, but not anymore. >> rose: i want to talk about that. go ahead. >> we talk about, this morning, for instance, we talked about -- this is before the president of the university of missouri resigned. so the national editor and the sports editor said here's what we have working on that story. we kicked around ideas for a few minutes. then the washington beau bureau chief on the phone liz bumiller piped up and said netanyahu and obama are meeting in a few minutes. here's our plan for the day. we ran a story early that morning describing the history of their relationship on the front page. we talk about half a dozen stories. mainly we talk about building coverage on the phone and home page. the meeting opens with a report from someone from the audience team who tells us what people red that morning and the night before, which is a great discussion. they usually read the things we expect them to read.

after that meeting, i either have a couple of business side meetings, or the meetings about stories at different desks. i try walk around and visit as many desks as possible. >> rose: it's your management style. >> yes, is to walk the room. usually lunch with a reporter or an editor. the next big meeting of the day is at 4:30, and that meeting, there's a meeting at 3:30 that i don't go to in which the print front page is select. i don't go to that meeting because i have a sensational deputy who is good at seeing what should be observe th on tht front page and she makes a call and we have a meeting an hour later which we talk about the next day. >> rose: this is the front print page version of "new york times." >> i am not in that meeting when those are stories are picked. >> rose: how is it different from the digital?

we know the reporters have been filing stories throughout the day. >> in the old days when i was a reporter and running a desk, you would start thinking about the print front page at that morning meeting. every desk would say here's what we think should make the print front page, and you would start building it through your day. pick your possibilities, start thinking about it through the day. you can't do it anymore. first off, my view, you shouldn't have that many smart people sitting around the table, talking about, to be frank, one platform, because people read us a lot of different ways. secondly, if you only talk about that, it knocks out there. the people who do video, what are they going to say if we're only talking about this. the people who to the great multimedia work, what are they going to talk about if we're only talking about this? so mainly we talk about coverage now. and in the old days, we would have just talked about the print front page early in the morning. >> does it have to be a news story on this page?

>> no. it has to be what? -- part of the mosaic. >> yes, it's part of the mosaic. here's the way i think about it. the print front page is a mix of the most important stories of the day that can be, at the moment they're cap chiewshed -- captured in print. south the most important stories of the day. then from there, maybe that's two or three stories, the rest of it is sort of a balancing act. you really want to have a political story on the print front page. we're a year away from a major presidential election. then you want to have something that maybe just is completely different. you know, a great trial or a great human interest story or the work of a critic, just something completely different. >> rose: is it harder to be a reporter today because you have to file and file and file and file? >> significantly. now the idea of the file and file and file and file, you have to know how to do more stuff. >> rose: you have to have an

internet presence. >> yeah. i think reporters today work significantly harder than i did as a reporter. >> rose: okay, but is the work product as good? >> yes, better. >> rose: because there are more demands on you to be filing because that monster called online is -- >> yeah, they're betting because they have more access to information. >> rose: right. it's harder and i think one of the challenges for my generation of editors is to make it so that it's not too hard. >> rose: and you see more quickly. >> yes. >> rose: you can look at the tweeting and see all kinds of opinions and -- >> but just think about what happened at tahrir square and the revolutions in the middle east, those things could be seen widely because people who live there were sending tweets, sending pictures. the world, there is just so much

more information in the world. that's a good thing, right? it's harder for me to harness it, it's harder for reporters to digest it. but take what we know how to do today and apply it to some of the secret wars of generations ago, whether the holocaust or other events. i don't believe -- i honestly don't believe you could have some of the giant historical events hidden as they were with the technology -- >> rose: and other things, like roosevelt's health. >> that's right. >> rose: like kennedy's health. >> that's right. >> rose: and we have in political coverage the question is raised, you know, nobody wants to talk about the issues. so tell me how you feel as an editor about what ben carson is going through and the points he's trying to make? >> first off, i think the horse race is a blast, and i think the horse race is an important part of the story. i'm not embarrassed to say horse races are great. >> rose: everybody is interested.

>> that's right, but i don't think you can run for president of the united states and not assume that people are going to parse every word you've said and written. >> rose: ever. ever. i just think those days ended before bill clinton, but they completely died during bill clinton. i mean, i think it's interesting that the candidates are all blaming the media, but -- >> rose: and in blaming the media, they believe, are enhancing their own viability with their constituency. >> yeah, but i think that's disingenuous, to be frank. >> rose: they believe it, though. >> maybe. >> rose: does ben carson believe it? >> i don't know what ben carson believes. i could also make the case that people who run for office have always sort of sincally blamed the media when things didn't gonary way. i certainly have been blamed enough. >> rose: i'm coming back to

the coverage, but you're not satisfied with diversity either. >> no. i think the "new york times" -- this is an industry-wide problem, for the word, but all i care about is my paper. >> rose: it's a countrywise problem. >> yeah, but the "new york times" does not look like america and i think we have to fix that. gene roberts, one of my mentors who was a managing editor of "the los angeles times" was once quoted as saying that the biggest -- he was asked what is the biggest story newspapers have missed -- in his era, it would have been newspapers -- he said it was the migration of black people from the south to the north, which is one of the most transformational events in american history. newspapers missed that because they didn't have anybody related to anybody who was migrating. i think that's the best argument for a diverse news room. newsrooms have to be able to tell the story of america and

the world and you've got to sort of look like it if you're going to tell the story. i feel strongly about that and we have a lot of work to do. >> rose: is every great investigative inquiry underway at the "new york times" or do you have a limit on resources and you can't do stories you want to do? >> we have limits but i get to do stories i really want to do. it's the privilege of being the editor. >> rose: and having a flock of reporters. if the editor wants to do the story, the story will be done. >> yes, that's the one prerequisite of being editor i would like to hold on to. >> rose: you were a reporter, now an editor. >> yeah. >> rose: when did you decide editing is my thing? >> i did not want to be an editor. i was forced to become an editor, i guess i was in my late 30s. i was the national investigative reporter for the "new york times," i had the greatest journalistic life imaginable and

the executive editor and my close friend told me i had to be an editor, told me i had to at least give him a year. >> rose: why did you have to be an editor, in his words? >> i think he thought, and i don't know if he was right or wrong, i think he thought i had the temperament to be and a editor and he believed in taking successful reporters and making them become editors. shortly before i became national editor, bill keller -- >> rose: yeah. and told me i had to give him a year. >> rose: you said race is a factor in my decisions because you have been shaped by the color of your skin. >> sure. i'm a black man who grew up in the southern united states. i think it affects the way i look at the world -- i think in a good way, by the way -- i think it makes me determined to tell stories like the stories of the migrants that you read. i think it makes me probably 5%

more suspicious of power and authority. i think it makes me believe there are two sides to every story. i think it makes me empathetic to people who have less power -- either people who work for me or people out in the greater world. >> rose: it was a story about the "times" and hillary clinton and her email server story and said the "times" -- talking about "times" mistakes. >> we make them. >> rose: i would hope so because -- >> yeah. >> rose: i don't hope you make mistakes but i hope you are willing to acknowledge. >> yeah. >> rose: that nobody is perfect. >> yeah. >> rose: said there was a criminal inquiry. what happened there? >> it was a mistake. it was a bad mistake. there is an inquiry, there was an inquiry into her e-mails. we went farther than what we knew at the time to say it was a criminal investigation. the f.b.i. was conducting the

investigation, which made us jump to the conclusion it was a criminal investigation. >> rose: their investigation was primarily about national security? >> yeah, and we were wrong. and we -- you know, we sort of -- why were we wrong? oh, i think -- i mean, i blame myself. that's my job, right? i didn't pay enough attention to it. it got online, it got into the print paper, the clintons called us on it, they wrote me a long letter. i talked to them by phone, i said they were right. we crafted an editor's note that said we were wrong and made a mistake. and i believe in that. you're supposed to own up to your mistakes and that was a mistake. >> rose: has she received fair coverage in the "new york times"? >> i think she has. and i've gotten notes from them since complimenting stories. i think she has. not a lot. (laughter) i think the coverage of hillary clinton over time has been

completely fair. i think what they've struggled to understand sometimes is she and bernie sanders, they're essentially two candidates -- forgive me, mr. o'malley -- they're essentially the two candidates for the democratic nomination. there are ten or twelve for the republican nomination. of course she's going to get more scrutiny just because if you put energy on the democratic nomination, the people running for the democratic nomination, she's going to get more as will bernie sanders, by the way, and you can never give as much ink to all the republicans. plus she has been a fixture of american life for generations. >> rose: do you think the ticket of marco rubio's is the story. >> i do. first, it wasn't like we made it a huge storier. >> rose: you ran it before the story about his financial. >> right. >> rose: some say when they saw that story did not agree with you that that's a big story.

>> i know people thought that. i guess -- i mean, it's a tricky calculation, right, i actually think that stuff like that is fair gain, as long as you keep it in perspective and are doing other stuff, as long aseth not the dominant part of your coverage. i think it's fair game. and the test for me is always, when you learn something, the act of not publishing is to me almost like a political act. so if you learn something like that about a candidate or a candidate's wife, candidates take their spouses, you know, shanshine 'em up, man or woman,d say this is my perfect partner in this election. it's interesting. people can make their own judgments. people can decide that it hurts him or helps him. that's not my call. >> rose: does the fact that you printed the story mean that you made a judgment about the relevance? >> sure it does, and i think

it's relevant. >> rose: yeah. and in this case, i would say it was not a giant story, it was not a monumentally significant story, but it was an interesting story and it was a story. it wasn't played like -- you know, it didn't lead the -- i'm not even sure it was on the print front page. it didn't blow out the print front page. by the way, i would say that the reaction justifies it. some people didn't like it, some people liked it and that's what a story is supposed to do. >> rose: why do so many people think the "new york times" is a liberal newspaper? >> my own theory? because i actually don't think that's true. >> rose: i think that their reporters have -- have a cultural leaning in the same way -- >> i'll till you why i don't think it's true and why people think it's true. i don't think it's true because i think when you look at the whole of the "new york times" and not just the front page, look at the whole of the "new york times," i can make the case that the "new york times" writes

a lot of stories about business, and some people even think we're pro business. i can make the case that some people will look at our feature sections and say our feature sections extol wealth. we're going to have a story tomorrow about big auctions. i think if you look at the whole of the "new york times," that's not true. i think the reason people think it is, first off, our editorial page is liberal, and i think some people can't distinguish between the part that i run and the part andy rose upthat will runs. and the reason is we're a new york urban paper. we drink the waters of new york and it influences -- you know, we have same-sex marriages in our wedding announcements which if you live in certain parts of the country feels uncomfortable. that's why i think it is. the best evidence, the liberal democratic likely nominee for

the president of the united states thinks we're unfair to her as do the most conservative candidates running for the republican nomination. they can't both be right, right? >> rose: that is true. then there is the amazon story. >> mm-hmm. i love that story. >> rose: why do you love it? i think that the hardest stories to do are stories about big business. they're hard to do because, if i want to do an investigation with the department of agriculture, i walk in the office, slap them with the freedom of information act request, they give me everything, nobody ever complains when you do an investigative story about big government, right? everybody assumes that big government, you know, gets things wrong. i thought the amazon story was based on tremendous shoe leather, dozens and dozens of interviews. i thought it was fair. i i mean, i've had friendly back

and forest with amazon, i don't expect them to agree with it, but i thought it was fair, ambitious and hard to do and we were one to have the few that could do it. margaret sullivan said the article was driven with a damning result presented with so much drama that doesn't seem enough. >> i disagree with margaret even though she's great public editor. i disagree with her. margaret wanted what she could only get from government investigative reporting which is documented internal records that show they're viewups or that raise -- screwups or that raise questions. if you do a story about a company, it will be driven by anecdotes because you can't get the internal documents. to be honest, i think this is a case where margaret didn't understand this is a different kind of investigative reporting target because it was about a company and it has to be based

on interviews. by the way, countless interviews. and the heart and soul of that story has stood up. amazon's complaint largely has been that they say a handful of the people we quoted were not credible, particularly one gentleman. the story quotes a couple dozen people by name and is based on interviews with dozens and dozens of people. >> rose: and what they're testifying to is that there's an atmosphere at amazon that's driven by -- >> yes, essentially -- and by the way, this is a story that's larger than amazon. this is a story that says, in an era of metrics, and when you can measure the success or failure of individual workers, does amazon and other companies in silicon valley go too far? they deny it. >> rose: then there is national security which i assume is a very tough call.

>> the hardest. >> rose: how so. you get calls from the government, and the biggest mistakes i've ever made are in cases like this, you get calls from the government -- >> rose: not printing or printing? >> not printing. i don't think i've ever regretted printing one. usually -- >> rose: so you allowed government to convince you that it would be against the national security of the united states for you to go ahead with that story? >> yeah. here's the scene. i'll give you an example of one i made a mistake on. you're on deadline, you get a call from the head of the c.i.a. or the president's chief national security advisor, and the one that i made the mistake on famously, it was the case in which the american-born yemeni cleric al-wwa al-awlaki was kiln

a drone strike. the call says, if you put that in the paper, the saudis will shut down that base and we'll never be able to use that base again. and i folded, and it was a mistake. >> rose: why was it a mistake? because, you know, the saudis knew they had a base there, it was going to come out anyway, and that's not a life or death issue. my new rule, my rule since i have been executive editor is the government's got to make the case to me that somebody's going to get killed and they have to make a convincing case and they have to tell me why before we hold stuff out, because i made too many mistakes. every editor's made mistakes over the years. after 9/11 and the whole world changed and the government would call up and say, if you write this, something bad's going to happen, i bet every editor in

the country has a story like that. i have more than that one in which we folded. now my view is proof to me somebody's going to get killed. >> rose: but that's a hard case to make, isn't it? to prove somebody -- well -- >> you should have -- it should be a hard case to make. there are cases in which we've not published. >> rose: i know there are probably than we know. >> i'll give you one we didn't published that was a classic one because now it's come out. i was one of the editors involved in our wikileaks coverage and we were going through all these wikileaks cables, and one of the most dramatic cables was a description of gadhafi while he was still alive was about to visit new york, and it's a richly-detailed diplomatic cable describing what he would need for his trip. he couldn't have a room with stairs because he gets out of breath going up stairs. he travels with these two nurses

that go everywhere with him, just richly detailed, and i looked at this and said, this is a great story, we'll make it its own story. the state department said to me, if you publish that, gadhafi will know where it came from. look closely at the cable. sure enough, if you read through the cable, it was very clear it came from one of his aides. we didn't publish it. julian assange didn't publish it, the guardian didn't publish it. that was an easy call. >> rose: because he would know where it came from. >> right, and somebody would get killed. >> rose: supposed ward snowden had -- edward snowden had gotten on the phone to you? >> i would have met him anywhere. i would have done whatever he wanted. >> rose: because? because i think edward snowden's revelations were

really important to an international debate and i wish they had been in the "new york times" first. >> rose: about how how far we're prepared to invade privacy in the interest or guise of national security? >> no matter what anyone thinks of how much surveillance a government should be able to do, president obama himself said, affidavit snowden revelations, that there wasn't a debate about it. there wasn't a debate. government made a giant decision with no debate and no discussion, and edward snowden's revelations revealed that. >> rose: when you look at national security, do you believe this administration -- i think you have said their attitude of the obama administration in its stance on leaks is "disturbing."

>> yes, they investigate jim risen, one of our best reporters. it is disturbing. >> rose: more so than the bush administration? >> you know, here's what i -- the reason i'm not willing to go there is the whole technology and the ability, every day, every year, it started with bush and continued through the obama administration, more foreign policy and national security and warfare is conducted in secret than ever before. it's one of the great stories of our time. it continues today and it's probably accelerated because of the availability of drones. i think, when that happens, governments inherently become more secret, and they prosecuted leaks more. so i don't know if that means that the obama administration

does it more because they want to do it more or if we just conduct more war and foreign policy in secret every year. >> rose: here's my last easy question. >> i'll take it. >> rose: here you go. you're an investigative reporter of great, great respect and achievement, and you want to do an investigative report on the "new york times." >> you said this was going to be easy (laughter) >> rose: what do you want to know about the "times"? do you want to know why they don't have a better section here, whether there is somehow a kind of bias that kind of is not readily available? do you want to know whether they're influenced by forces that we don't recognize, having to do with training, experience? what do you want to know in an investigation of the "new york times"? >> i think if i was in outside

media journalist and wanted to do an investigation of the "new york times," i would probably examine how fit the "new york times" is, how well built it is and its strategies for the future, to survive in the future. >> rose: this is about survivability. >> yeah. >> rose: this is not about report. >> i don't think there are any -- i don't think most people who are honest -- >> rose: you've got to. here's why. because you want to make the paper better. >> yeah. >> rose: to make the paper better, you have to find the weaknesses in the paper and fix them. >> that's a big chunk. >> rose: exactly. that's right. so that's what i would investigate. >> rose: where would you go investigating the weaknesses of the "new york times"? >> i would probably start in my office. (laughter) i would ask hard questions about the strategies of the "new york times" to make sure it's going to survive into the future because it's important that it does. >> rose: thank you for coming. pleasure to have you here.

>> great to be here, thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ >> announcer: this is "nightly business report," with tyler mathisen and sue herera. rate hike reality. stocks fall sharply as investors adjust to the likelihood of higher rates. is it time for you to shift your investments and your stock market expectations? retail in focus. with the next couple of weeks will be a key for a sector that helps power the economy. what's old is new again. the comeback story of vinyl records. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for monday november 9th. good evening, everyone, and welcome. glad you could join us. reality bites. at least it did today in the stock market. there's a new realization among investors that the federal reserve is close, very close, as in december close to raising interest rates fhe