>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin tonight with kurt andersen, a novelist with a new book called fantasyland. it's about truth and whatever happened to truth much let's an excerpt in atlantic this month. >> jeffrey goldberg and scott -- of the atlantic was part of my story this lodges hundred year journey what happened that 1960's. these things that happened in the bohemian left, the countercultural left and the left in academia of you can't judge and the relativism and the find your own truth which came out of that world in the late 60's and 70's, has empowered the far right and empowered donald trump. and isn't that ironic. >> rose: we continue with gil

gillian tett looking back at the financial crises. >> at that moment run into problems with confidence and the financial system began to crack. and it became contagious and it became a bit like the financial equivalent of a food poisoning scam. because what started to happen is people woke up one day and realized there was some dirty love making lack of security in the system. no one knew where it was to use the food poisoning analogy again. when parents panic and kids are eating all burgers just because a few cows got sick suddenly investors began to panic in dealing with the until system and these financial problems. >> rose: we look at full frontal the popular cable television show. we talked to the creator and star samantha bee, joe miller

and executive producer, miles con. >> it gives you enough space from the other shows, you can sit back a little and emerge in different way and a bit of a life which is nice. >> rose: kurt andersen, >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> 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: kurt andersen is here. his new article, how america lost its mind is the cover story for the atlantic september issue. the peas traces the history of today's assault on truth and fact by looking to the 1960's. anderson writes the election of donald trump revealed the critical mass of americans have become untettered. how america went hay wire. that will be published later this month. glad to have kurt andersen at this table. >> glad to be back. >> rose: it goes all the way back to the 1500's. >> it's called fantasyland how america went hay wire a 500 year history back to the pilgrims and i had to go back to mutterren luther king. >> rose: religion is a part of this story. >> it is a large part of the

story as the smoke and mirrors of the american business as a show business, lots of stuff. and we always were big dreamers and true dreamers and this was equilibrium with you know practicality and practical ma advertisal and yankee clarity, and as i talk about in this part of the book that's in the atlantic, in the 60's that balance kind of went kerplunk. we lost the balance and everybody was permitted to find their own truth and create their own reality and judgmentallism was no longer -- >> rose: fantasyland on the left? >> well, part of the, yes, and part of what is interesting and part of what was interesting to jeffrey goldberg and scott of thelet at the atlantic was part of my story this long several hundred year journal e was what happened that 1960's that these

things that happen on the cultural left, bow heanlian left, countercultural left and left of academia, you can't judge and the relativism and the find your own truth which began, came out of that world in the late 60's and 70's has empowered the far right. and empowered donald trump. and isn't that ironic. >> rose: it is indeed ironic. how did it do that? >> it did that by, i mean what start in academia, what start in san francisco, what started in woodstock, all of this relevantivism, hey man that's your truth, this is my truth stuff became the american way of thinking. an american way of thinking. and neighborhood nonsense and preposterous ideas all over the map including some of

alternative health ideas and other things on the quote/unquote left. but i argue, more consequently neighborhood what used to be marginalized far right ideas, the john burke society and more generally say i just want to believe what i want to believe. it neighborhood it on the right. patrick moynahan who i think you adored and respected as much as i did when he was alive began saying in the 1980's and 90's you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. he started saying that at a time when people started acts as if they were entitled to their own facts. >> rose: will there be in your judgment a reaction to what we're going through now, a kind of corrective action? >> we can hope. and i hope. >> rose: what does history tell us to expect. >> well history tells us that in a weigh. >> rose: the silent majority and richard nixon was a reaction to the 60's. >> i worry that we can contain

it but there's probably no rolling it back. the believe what i want to believe to be true that we no longer have an establishment setting down a set of shared factual empirical agreement. there may not be a hopeful end where oh no, it will go back to the way it was. >> rose: i'm not sure if this is new or not. you have the president of the united states saying what people are telling you is not true, it's fake news and you can't believe the media. >> well anything that is inconvenient to me or that which i disagree is fake. >> rose: no objective standard we can look at than patrick moynahan. >> which is dangerous. >> rose: very dangerous. because among other things, and this has been pointed out, what happens when someone like the national security council or the

national intelligence apparatus, however it might exist recommend something based on its hard nosed reality and the president doesn't believe it because he's created this disrespect for what people we have depended on are telling him. >> right. and there are decent people of integrity on the right, what i call true conservatives who are coming out and have been coming out and saying we are culpable for convincing our followers that to distrust reality with which they disagree. and it really, it's been going on through media, talk radio, talk television, through the internet to enable people to make them think they are entitled to their own facts. and a climate scientist or a national security expert comes

on, no, here are the facts, no i don't have to believe that because it doesn't conform with my opinions. >> rose: climate denier. >> climate denier that vaccines cause autism which is not true. >> rose: i read it a twitter and later on the internet. >> as the president said once or more than once as a candidate, well i don't know, i read it on the internet, i saw it on the internet. >> rose: that's another part of the scary thing. there's so much on the internet that is not believable. >> that is not true. >> that is not true or believable. >> yes. >> and therefore but it gets distinguished from that which is believable. >> right. >> rose: if you have not made a serious attention to facts, you may not know the difference. >> that's the problem. and things on the internet now for 20 years have looked, they look real, they look like, you know, that looks like the economist, that looks like "the

washington post" but it's from fantasyland. >> rose: here is the difference. the 60's is driven by youth culture. what's happening today is not driven by youth culture. >> no, and by middle age people in academia who decided to around to youth culture effectively. no, it's not and that's what's so strange is that it's seeped into all of american culture now for so many years, have your own truth, find your own truth, do your own thing that it's no longer about youth or not youth, it's about, it's part of the kind of american mental operating system. >> rose: so what happened in the 70's to change what was coming out of the 60's. >> it's scaled, instead of being a few thousand or maybe a few million hippies acted upon and a few hundred or a few thousand academics acted upon, what happened on campuses and what

happened woodstock didn't hatch but filtered through the whole world and then we got the internet. we got technology in terms of cable television and talk radio and did he regulated talk radio and the internet that allowed it to, give this sort of alternate facts world their own infrastruck choor, an infrastructure i don't deny all the virtues of the internet. >> rose: there's nothing we can do about that. >> no. i look back at the founders, at thomas jefferson who eloquently wrote he would have nonsense and unreason because reason will always triumph because in the marketplace of ideas, it will push away the bad. well, part of the problem is

that just in terms of internet for starters, the way it's constructed it rewards the excitingly untrue and the excitingly false. it's about conspiracy theories. >> rose: because it's exciting. >> yes because it's exciting, like religion it's more interesting to think there's puppet masters pulling all the strings like god but in this case like the aspen -- >> rose: the whole conspiracy idea there are adults getting together in different places around the world to control the world. >> exactliment and to make it a very tidy fiction in the way that reality very seldom exists. >> rose: because they believe that something, there must be some power that they are not familiar with in control of things. >> there must be some thing, if not god than dark sinister forces in control of things. >> rose: is that why you think in part donald trump had some appeal to people who are of that belief because they believe

that he created his own image that he was rich enough and strong enough and unwilling to back down after saying the most outrageous things, they saw him as a figure to go to battle for them. >> because he was probably, he had been in these cabals where the puppet masters -- and his resentment not being part of that establish many is the precise resentment he in fact shares with his base. >> rose: why does he do it? >> the things that i've always thought about donald trump, long before he was ever -- >> rose: can i inform the audience he was a primary target when you were a young editor -- >> journalist helping --

>> rose: all of 25. >> i wasn't 25 but not much older. >> rose: ripped apart donald trump. >> what astounded him and still does is his need for attention like you and i need air water and food. literally like a drug addict needs drug, his needer attention. the thing is he's now getting more attention than anyone on earth perhaps has ever gotten. >> rose: no doubt about it. the most famous person maybe in the history in terms of more people know who he is. >> more people you and i and everybody i know are thinking about him. >> rose: the fact about the youth thing, i mean it's, the 60's, i realized there were a lot of people influenced it whoever it might be and philosophers who were middled aged were looked to and musicians. but today, the youth are a

smaller part of the anti-establishment. >> well no, that's the thing. >> rose: because for example, they assumed the young were going to vote for -- >> they did, just as they voted -- >> rose: the people who want to leave are the populist and anti-globalists. >> and older people who want to be the way it was before. >> rose: and who worry that somebody in brussels was going to take away their pension. >> right. and of course this anti, part of what i'm talking about here in this article in the atlantic and this book is this anti-elite, anti-establishment thing which is always has been part of the american idea and the american character. and that's what i'm saying got a little bit out of control in 9 late 60's and 70's and never got, the establishment basically never regained full control of the discourse of this is true

and this is false of any of it. and that's where we are today. >> rose: you think of the establishment as the universities and academia. >> yes, media. >> rose: mainstream and media. >> yes. and the republican party. the karl rove bush establishment now wing and beleaguered small ring of the product party thought they were in control until the spring of 2016. thought they still had, they were using -- yes, all these people that we riled up -- no, we'll still nominate, you know u marco rubio or jeb bush one of ours. they realized they were out of control. >> rose: doctrine and religion. >> america is exceptionally

religious -- that's a terrible way of putting it. funded by a theocratic cult of religion. we have always been more religious than the rest of the developed more, more than europe back then, more than japan and australia and canada now. we are outliers in our religiosity compared to the world. we are more extravagantly religious, we are more religious. i mean there's no coincidence that we invented mormonism and pentecostallism. our sects of europe, canada, australia, the modern developed world we're not like any of them in our religiosity. so once you are as a culture

more inkleined to believe in magic in the super natural vents, it's not going to stay in its religious realm. it's going to leach out into not believing in climate change. >> rose: what is the fantasy industrial complex, all the things we've been talking about or something else. >> it's all the things we define as the entertainment business, you know, movies, television, and video games and now the internet and all that. but it is the way in which america not uniquely but quintessentially becomes entertainment, restaurants become entertainment, everything becomes a little part of show business. religion from again the great religious entrepreneurs really

starting in the 1700s through the 1800s and 1900s were show men, were impressarios -- >> rose: i mean somebody that can -- >> but justice smith and amy mcpherson and billy sunday. >> rose: they all had personalities. >> and they all in the 20's century began understanding no i'm using newsreel, i'm using tv. >> rose: they really did understand television. they would buy their own television time. >> exactly. >> rose: it wasn't one church with 200 parishoners, it was one church with 5 million parishoners. >> right, it was a virtual church come together on sunday morning on television. when cable came along not just sunday morning but all the time. >> rose: september 5th. and the fashion is.

>> fantasyland how america went haywire a 500 year history. >> rose: from the 60's -- >> you can get a taste in the atlantic monthly september issue out tomorrow. a little piece of it. >> rose: thank you for dropping by. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: kurt andersen. back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: the global economy and financial markets were brought to their knees a decade ago in the midst of the worst economic crises since the great depression. ten years ago this week, francis -- restricted investors with sub-prime mortgage assets. consider that event as a moment the crises began. the following year lehman brothers filed for bankruptcy setting off a cascade of bank failures and bailouts that reverb rated across the globe. the financial times have launched an on-line series looking back at the causes and legacy of the crises. it will run through september 2nd. gillian tett is the paper's u.s.

managing editor. i'm pleased to have her back at the table. welcome. >> great to be here, charlie. >> rose: how did you measure where the ten years should be delineated. >> well the reason where it's important is because that was a moment when investors realized there's a reason why credit markets come to the -- which the rests hopefully on faith and confidence. that moment when the dnd privacy club funds started to rub into problems lost the investors confidence and the financial system began to crack. and it became contagious and it became a bit like the financial equivalent of a food poisoning scam because essentially what started to happen was people woke up one day and realized there was some dirty -- no one knew where the securities were to use the food poisoning analogy again.

just like a food poisoning crises where are parents panic because some cows are up set they began to panic with these financials systems and these products. >> rose: in annual 2006 u.s. house prices had reached their peak. >> it's a classic example where the cartoon where someone goes off the cliff and their legs are running is and people keen wondering why they're falling. they look down and they crash. it's really from middle of 2006 the housing mush was overextended, some dangerous things happening in the financial system. i've been running -- complete madness and yet we all keep dancing until suddenly he they look down, confidence began to evaporate and the system crack. >> rose: 2007hsbc announces tied to its u.s. sub-prime mortgage business. that's when you knew you were in

deep trouble. >> the real problem was people knew there were problems in the system. they couldn't identify where exactly they were because essentially finances build such an incredibly complicated system that no one actually knew how the inner workings actually operated. if you ask the average investor how to explain how the etf works, wouldn't have much idea. so it's really about a panic about what you didn't know rather than what exactly you did know that started the whole crises. >> rose: if you don't know what you don't know then you have a problem in terms of trust, credibility and everything else. >> absolutely. as always the thing that cause the biggest crises not the investments everyone knows are risky it's the things that come with the triple a label so boring and geeky and dull everyone ignores it. the thing amazing looking back a decade ago, this stuff wasn't

hidden by any kind of master plus. it wasn't a james bond banker trying to blow up the world. this is actually happening in plain sight. everyone just chose to avert their eyes. >> rose: because they never seen the prices go down. >> yes. >> rose: in april new century sub-prime leader lender filed for bankruptcy in 20 07. >> it was happening to all of the loans that were extended. because people were too busy dancing to the music and making money. >> rose: two bear sterns hedge funds were in trouble. that's when i gab to notice it because it was main stream media not just the financial press began to talk bit. >> when the mainstream media begins to talk about it what became clear peas pull didn't understand what was exul actually happening in the system. one thinking i remember very clearly was that you know i would have central bankers call me up and ask what i thought was going on.

>> rose: central bankers. >> yes, several times on both sides of the atlantic. because i think covering the -- >> rose: covering janet yell i been calling you up -- >> wasn't janet yellen but i was running the financial market for london. it's looking very closely at the weeds of the financial system. i was one of the few system bragging about it and there was lack of knowledge what was happening in the weeds where central bankers were calling up saying do you know what these weird products with funny acronyms like cpdo and things. extraordinary. >> rose: in august 2007 they shut off access to certain investment funds who had large holdings of sub-prime mortgages. >> the other reason why that ran its course because that was the moment when the central european bank stepped in to quell what it

thought -- if you look back now this was the beginning of a decade long experiment and central bank action. they never done that emergency crises fighting plan for quite a long time before that point. they step in very badly in fact and really set the stage for a lot more action by central bank. >> rose: after that it was too late. >> after that it certainly wasn't too late because essentially -- >> rose: it wasn't too late. >> no. in the summer the market then comes down in the autumn and in the uk, in europe, you had collapse, you had beginning of the problems. but the real form in the u.s. happened the following year in 2008 when there was a series of missed opportunities by the government to do something and quell the panic. and essentially the problem was what happened in the u.s. after the initial loss of confidence

was the authorities tried to sweep it under the carpet. the federal treasury. they said don't worry on 20 billion worth of sub-prime mortgages is not big enough to solve problems. they tried to divide these vehicles to essentially squeeze the bad assets in the system. and to avoid having to face up to the scale of the problem and writing it off quickly. it was ironic because the japanese has been through the crises a decade of their own. they came to me and surely the americans have to wake up to the sceal of the problem and actually write them up in the pack. essentially washington tried to sweep it under the carat. >> rose: some people did try and speak out. >> some did try to speak out but there was an overwhelming belief of the superiority of the american financial system. i was working in japan a decade

earlier and seen what happens when a financial system cracks. and it's the worst enemy of the financial stability. they were convinced they had a small problem they could contain and it would all be fine. >> rose: most people believe paulson, bernanke and -- saved the american economic system. did you not believe that. >> i think maybe they did a good job a year after the event started. it took them a long imtime to act. if they acted earlier they could have saved off a lot of of the damage. but they did come in in the end and by the early 2009, after the collapse after the aig fiasco they were actually stepping in decisively to do things like put money into all the banks to pay government funds. they were supporting the financial markets. >> rose: even though some didn't want to like j.p. morgan. >> exactly. they were forcing all kinds of things. now today from the vantage point

of europe, if europe had done that at the same time the americans european banking system today would be much healthier. it's not because they delayed even more than the americans. another big lesson is you have to act decisively and quickly and early and that makes the crises a lot of less. >> rose: that's the lesson of the u.s. and japan both. >> japan took a very long time to realize that. japan basically delayed for about a decade. >> rose: where do you think we are today. >> we have a financial system that's a lot healthier particularly in america. >> rose: you have more regulation. >> we have more regulation. >> rose: the president wants to regulate more of the regulation. >> i don't mean -- the problem is that we do have a financial system that has become addicted to incredibly cheap if not free money from central bank. it's entirely unclear how it's going to go back to anything

resembling normality. we have a system where a lot of these are not happening inside banks it's happening outside banks. in the banking world, exactly. it's still a very very thwarted financial system. the big question with the federal reserve, it wasn't going to happen as those rates began to go up and the terms, will there be a smooth landing or are we going to turn around like a decade ago the whole system is propped up on confidence of central banks. >> rose: confidence in central banks when the chairman of the european signal bank make that famous statement we'll do what it fakes to gain confidence to that system. >> last ten years is propped up confidence of the central bank. it turns out to be a lot more durable than privates more than a decade ago. >> rose: china is a big

problem. support of central banks is a big problem in terms of its dependence on central banks. what is the other big problems. >> the other issue which is still very much out there is cyber security and the financial system is dependent on cyberspace and cyber links working. and nobody has tried to work out what would happen. >> rose: why did they do that. i don't understand why as smart as everybody is why they can't figure out what to do if there is a hacking of some significant financial institution. >> because it's a very unequal paradigm. the banks are doing jobs in dealing with the cyber security problem. >> rose: there are attacks all the time. >> absolutely. but the reality is that the world is becoming a lot more one stable and frankly we should be grateful there haven't been more shocks thus far.

the other question is what is going to happen if we see more geo political defragmentation. it's entirely discounted and we have flowing stock market -- >> rose: explain that to me. all these things you're suggesting are there and very very dicey. the stock market is exploding. >> the financial system is a lot more robust than it was a decade ago. >> rose: people have sat at this table, paulson and bernanke, and i remember them saying this to me the thing that stunned him the most was how fragile the financial system was. >> as i say, they're the reason why the roots of the credit market, what credit comes from the lacking of who to believe or trust. credit markets don't work -- >> rose: it was dependent on trust. >> absolutely. and when we work up you couldn't value anything. everyone is today just as in

2006, everyone had investment portfolios which were indirectly dependent on essentially the sub-prime mortgage market. today they are dependent on china which is very opaque and people depend -- >> rose: why are they can't even china. >> everybody has the element of a chinese exposed asset in stocks and big companies. if you own bonds you are indirectly exposed. we live in a very directed world where connation can spread very quickly and that's opaque still. a lot we don't understand. but the other really big issue we keep coming back to is the bond market. we have bonds now at great prices. i'm so confident the economy's going to stay stable. i will lend the government money when i buy gruft bonds and get almost no returns back over five, ten, 20 years. that requires an extraordinary

leap of blind faith that everybody's taking because bond prices are so low. again, that's another potential risk when you think about it. >> rose: explain to me, equity markets are hot like they are today, what generally happens to the bond market. >> normally when equity market has been rising, that implies it's going to be growth so bond prices go down. and bond yields which moves in the opposite direction go up. so it's basically growth. one of the remarkable thing is essentially equity markets are high while bonds stay high as well. right now there's a lot of money swelling on the es tell looking for a home because what snral banks have done pushing up prices. >> rose: do we have a -- >> i would argue definitely yes. the problem is after the prices it's like throwing fuel on to the fire to try to get the pilot

down to burn. the central bank is putting more fuel on the fire trying to get it to burn. now we have the beginning of a flame and the risk is you end up with too much fuel, dramatic that they can't control. the question really is the central bankers themselves know about the problem. they want to adjust a more normal situation but nobody in history has ever done anything like this before, anything like this. federal reserve went from one balance sheet to four trillion balance sheet. can you -- they're trying. they want to start trying next month. that's where the rubber hit the road and work out where they actually get away with not just stopping the financial crises that started a decade ago but getting back to a more formal world. >> rose: is it likely. >> i think they've done a pretty good job so far with their experiments. i have a degree of confidence

what they call normalizing the balance street. but i certainly wouldn't bet on that has noting without any more mini schools. >> rose: mini squals. >> yes. in some ways i often argue the best way to geurd against a really big financial kriebtsz is to have lots of small regular crises. tiny crises are not big enough to blow up the entire system but not so small that no one knows it's there. it's human nature we all have very short memories. you have to have a limits bit of a shock every two three forefour years to keep everyone on their toes and not back complacent. >> rose: like getting a shot when you go to the doctor for an examination. >> exactly. we want the crises over two years not too big to burn the whole house down. >> rose: imagining editor of nancial crises.at thethey began and the present state of the

global economy. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: the presidency of donald trump has led to a wealth of opportunity for political satirists and late night tell vision programs. full frontal with samantha bee has received critical and commercial success with decise sighive commentary on donald trump as president. the new yorker calls samantha bee america's new comedian in chief. ian crouch writes in the new yorker one of the trump's few awe sense to the white house is the fact that bee is there to hold him and the rest of us to account. the series nominated for seven series awards including outstanding talk series and writing for a variety series. full frontal's not the whitehouse correspondent dinner is also nominated for outestablishedding variety specials. and last week's episode samantha bee traveled to kurdistan where she found a surprising amount of public support for president trump. here is a look. >> do you think donald trump is

your best chance. when donald trump went to black people and said what have you got to lose. no one else is going to do it. why. >> i believe -- >> what. >> is the reason. >> i can be. >> rose: joining me now is the creator and star of full frontal samantha bee, head writer joe smirl and executive producer miles kahn. i pleased to have you all at this stable. is the success of this thing just making you giddy and you're loving it and having too much time to yourself or is it so damn hard to be funny even 30 minutes a week when you have no time to do anything but comedy. >> all of the things you just said.

it's amazing and fun and of course we're giddy and we also work incredibly hard. i mean yes, it's difficult because anything is intensely difficult, charlie rose, you know that. >> rose: yes, i do. but does donald trump make it much easier. >> no. we close up our show every third day. >> rose: even better than -- >> it does something. gosh, he had a show in the can it was like :00 p.m. thursday night is the earliest we'd ever gotten one done. done. >> rose: what did you do -- >> we were going into the control room for rehearsal and pat comes into my office and goes trump just tweeted a ban of transgender soldiers. >> rose: but has satire changed? is it different than it was because over trump because of the times are changing because we have so much late night

comedy today. >> there's certainly more people. i don't think that satire has, i don't think that satire has changed. i think our process has intensified. i think that our level of fear and anxiety of intense fide. >> rose: near and anxiety. >> we were screaming. >> very long time before the election. brexit, remember our screeching. >> nobody listened. >> nobody ever listened. >> rose: you tried to warn us about brexit but we didn't. was that because of your european audience you were tune in to brexit. >> yes, nobody ever listens to us and this is the result of that so people should get on the ball. >> rose: where do you draw the line? there's always a definition on this side is satire, on this side is activism. on this side is people with an agenda, on this side is people

who want to make you think alike. >> there's a very fine line. we write. everything in show is very very intentional. it's not free falling, okay. >> rose: it's not like free lance. >> no, no. we're on charlie rose, of course we are. but no, i mean i think that you really, we walk that line very very carefully. we do an aspect to the show -- >> do you submit to the committeor journalism. >> we do a lot of campaigns to raise money. if there's an opportunity to raise money for causes. >> we raise awareness that teaches. >> rose: how do you do that. >> we do it in so many different

ways. we did do it in the live show. we did that one in the field department so kind of put a package together in the feel that said we need to do something for these people. with a he have to amplify the message, we have to tell the story make it funny. we can't do the activism part of it if it's not funny. >> rose: is that an expensive item. >> no. >> if we do something like that, it has to be for the show, it has to come from a really organic place if it makes sense for us to put something in the role -- >> rose: what's the line? what is it you try not to do. not be preachy for example, you don't want to be preachy. >> no. >> rose: that's what amateurs do. >> it's not fun. we don't send a partisan message

because that's tedious. >> rose: isn't it a partisan message in the end because there is a kind of edge that says left of center. >> there's a lot of things. it emerges the way we want it to. we don't care what other people think. >> rose: do you think of yourself as a let cull analyst. >> not really, no. >> we have to be political analysts now. what wasn't political in the last six months. >> i have not. a concerned citizen. >> rose: when you get into the cab what do they say? >> nobody's really, i love talking to people. >> rose: nothing surprises you anymore, what you just said. nothing. >> i always get surprise. i'm surprised by the depth that

we can descend to. >> the surprising is what makes it difficult. it's like sort of standing on a log that's rolling. and i never realized before how much predictability made our job easier because we've been doing this for years on the daily show. so we've seen how things go, we knew where things had land. we'd seen the show before. >> there's a cycle to it. you can you can take a breath, you can roost one thing at a time. maybe the accidental of this administration is every two hours it's a breaking news store. >> rose: it may be breaking. >> no, i have. you sent out -- >> it's raining now. >> rose: what did he say. >> blumenthal. >> the new york times. >> it's raining out. it's tea time, charlie. snrievment having to go through

a filter of some kind. >> >> rose: kellyanne went on vacation with him. >> that doesn't help anything. >> rose: it's only general kelly. >> i don't believe like we found the bottom. i don't think we've come close to finding the bottom. >> rose: kurt andersen is coming on the show talking about fantasyland, his take on the trouble administration. can imagine what it's like at the bottom. >> no. i have a complete failure of imagination. >> rose: who wrote the -- >> before the election to see what the bottom might look like and she said you're not even there and it will become normal. >> rose: because she had seen what happened with putin she was saying you can't imagine before until you see it. >> yes. children lure born now. >> they think it's regular. >> because he's been in power for 17 years.

so it's normal. >> don't even have the language to talk about -- >> he's a real -- >> rose: tell me about this. i think within maybe the nixon administration was a young aide and then became a congressman from california. >> via moscow. >> rose: what did he do in moscow. >> remember at the republican meeting when somebody quipped there are only two people in the pay of putin -- and paul ryan said just kidding don't ever say that outside this room. >> rose: here it is. full frontal. >> we turn to forty afternoon c-span to hear dana articulate the party line on collusion. apparently after a liquid lunch at the old debit grill. >> if someone says to you that they want to give you information, there is nothing wrong with that.

this was a legitimate thing to ask and determined there was absolutely nothing wrong, by the way i am the chairman of the europe, asian, europe and euroasian subcommittee including emerging trusts. >> you are. jesus someone get him out of here until he starts to drool -- okay you slurred your pc. i'm sure the rest of your colleagues would like a turn. >> i would yield to my colleague. >> i appreciate so much my very good friend from california. >> hey, nice crowd you guys have there. haven't seen that many empty seats since ted cruz's birthday party. >> rose: you still happy that is a 30 minute show. >> oh, yes. >> rose: once a week. >> oh, god. yes. i keep putting it out to the

public. we never want to do more than one show per week. can you imagine. >> rose: what about it was an hour because some of your specials people see an hour and they say it would be so good if she was on for an hour. >> nobody wants to watch an hour of me four times a week. even 30 minutes four times a week. it's a perfect. it gives you enough space from the other show. you can sit back a little. you can see it emerge in a i did way. you can also have a bit of a life which is nice. >> rose: you guys have a life. >> well, you know. >> rose: what is she talking about. >> you can go to kurdistan. there's a little bit of leeway to do a few more things. >> to do things more in depth and to digest them. news week is a good thing. >> rose: it could be the size of a postcard. >> show him a hot take not hot

take it's good to sit back a little bit. >> we have a social presence. >> rose: does the internet make it so much easier and so much more because of twitter because there's a class of people who knows what everybody is saying. >> it is much more engaging. >> it makes it more terrifying. i wake up and scare the hell out of myself. >> rose: same things -- >> our writers and staffs with nurses because you're constantly bombarded with information. it's fun and terrifying. >> i feel like i can't go to bed while twitter's still on. but it does mean that we can expect a level of base knowledge in our audience. people used to say they got their news from the daily show which they shouldn't do but

people did and now they're getting their news from twitter so they have a base of knowledge and we don't have to tell the story. we assume they've done the reading and we can just make te rose: is daily show perfect training for what you do. >> of course. we all come from daily show. we were all there for a very long time. >> rose: what do you learn. >> you learn how to tell stories you learn timing, you learn the stories you feel passionately about. >> rose: do you learn the difference in what's funny and not funny. >> don't get the job unless you know that. >> that comes from within. >> rose: is it changing. is full frontal changing other than the writings. i thank you you're traveling, kurdistan, moscow. >> that was always a part of it. >> rose: was that a part where you sat up one day and says let's go to russia. >> for the first few shows for

sure. the big part of the thought process behind creating the show for sure. >> that's what she's so good at. >> do you not like us? >> everybody's getting better at their job. >> rose: there are new factors. the whole idea that other things are flowing into the stream. >> we did a musical. >> rose: so tell me about not the white house correspondent's dinner. is that the title? how did that come about? >> i was sitting in my office, another one of our producers and we were just having a fun conversation and newt gingrich said something about how the whitehouse press corps was an

an -- i wonder if the whitehouse correspondent dinner will exist, what happens. that was november. and then almost at the -- >> we were not going to be asked to host it. >> we were not going to be asked to host. >> we sort of taken it for granted. >> rose: why wouldn't you pea -- be asked to host it. >> because donald trump as president would never ask. >> rose: are you saying that colbert and everybody was asked to host. >> that was a decision instantly regretted i think by the administration. >> i think there was research -- >> rose: you were never asked -- >> we were laughing about it and simultaneously we thought we should have our own. we should make sure. >> it would be something nice to do that night. >> yeah. and so we got so excited about it. sometimes we can get very excite about something right in that moment you know it's just the

right ... we were all smiles. we needed something. we had just come off of the election and we needed some joy on the calendar and we landed on that idea in that moment we knew we would do it. >> rose: what is amazing, we do the same thing we see something on the paper we love that person, somebody we'd like to have as a guest. from small acres big fields grow. that was an idea from newt gingrich. >> thank goodness. >> i think that's where the show arcs. >> rose: take a look at samantha's opening monologue. >> i know your job has never been harder. they have convince the 88 percent pfer of his fans that you're an enemy of the people. you basically get paid to stand in cage where an or rang tan screams at you.

it's like a reverse zoo but you carry on and you continue to fact check the president as if some day he might get embarrassed. [cheers and applause] so tonight ... [cheers and applause] tonight is for you. tonight the president screams at a he pen that katie is not in, sears. >> rose: writing about her experience on the campaign. >> i can't wait. we'll have to fight over it. >> rose: put them up. so, when you sit in the room talking about these kind of things, do the ideas come flowing out. >> they do. they come out of our computers too.

people have ideas all the time. it's a democratic experience. >> it's like a creative incubator. people are constantly throwing likes out. they find their path if they work and sustain. >> rose: thank you. it's great to have a you. full frontal with samantha bee wednesday night. thank you for joining us, see you next time. 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: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

this is "nightly business report" cwith tyler mathisen an sue herera. they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. >> temperature rising. the president ups the rhetoric over north korea and sends the dow down. its historic win streak is over. the big question is what's next. zblncht co freedom of speech or crossing the line? why google finds itself at the center of that debate. and street fight. an exclusive san francisco street sold for $90,000. its wealthy residents aren't too happy and the matter may be headed for court. those stories an more tonight on "nightly business report" for tuesday, good