. >> welcome to the program. we begin tonight with north korea's missile test and the ongoing global cybersoo attack. joining me are david sanger and ben rhodes. >> the north koreans are just stepping up their testing program an they're stepping it up in the most interesting way. so their biggest concern is not doing something that would prompt president trump to take some kind of preem tiff military action or something that would so horrify the international community that it would actually unify everybody on the saks. and that would be dropping the icbm just off the west coast or something. so instead they're doing a series of tests that are going high up into space. this one went 2,000 kilometers, 1400 miles. and then it's doing a very short

parabel and coming down it landed 400 or so miles from the north korean coast. so that replicates the reentry of an icbm. so they're putting together the component pieces of what it would take to demonstrate that they could send a missile much further, without actually prompting that kind of military response. >> we continue this evening with dr. rock positano who was a friend of joe dimaggio. his new book is called dinner with dimaggio, memories of an american hero. >> here's a man who was unbelievably successful in his career. you know, created many things, created opportunities for people, yet at the end of the day he had heart, he had empathy. he cared about other people. he cared about children. that was his passion. the joe dimaggio children's hospital in florida is one example where joe always said no, doc, no kid should ever not get medical treatment because their family can't afford it. which is the whole mantra of that, which is really one of the

best testimonies of dimaggio, the children's hospital is one of them. the fact that he was so loving an doating to his family. he absolutely adored his granddaughters and great granddaughters, he really did. he had a tremendous amount of love, a teks and concern-- -- affection and concern for them in that respect swroa was able to show that as iconic as he was, at the end of the day what mattered to him most were the things that mattered to most of us. >> rose: finally an appreciation of brad grey, the former c.e.o. of paramount pictures. >> how do we tell great stories? how do we tell entertaining stories? how do we try to make this a great chapter so that when i look back at this period of my life or this period of paramount, i can at least look back and say oh yeah, they did some great work at that time. >> rose: cyberattacks and north korea, din we are joe dimaggio and remembering brad grey when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is 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: we begin this evening with north korea's missile launch and the ongoing global cyberattack. on sunday north korea conducted its 7th missile test this year. analysts are describing it as pyongyang's most successful launch yet, the country's state news agency described the missile as capable of carrying a large size heavy nuclear warhead. they also reported a key united states military base in the pacific is now within reach, a massive global cyberattack also

made headline this weekend, major disruptions originated in europe on friday and migrated to asia monday morning. malware has been loaded in 200,000 computers across 150 countries. russian president putin has blamed the united staights for the attack. the software implicated in the attack was originally developed by the national security agency but was later stolen and released by a group of hackers. joining me from washington is ben rhodes, he serves as the deputy national security advisor for president obama. also david sanger, the national security correspondent for "the new york times." i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. david sanger are you writing about both subjects tomorrow morning, i assume, in "the new york times." let's start first with the north korean missile and exactly what they know about that and how far have they come. and how serious is their success in getting better and better with each test. >> well, i think the most important thing, charlie, to know here is that while president trump has said that

he's getting the cooperation of the chinese, that the chinese are putting new pressures on the north koreans, the north koreans are just stepping up their testing program. and they're stepping it up in the most interesting way. so the, their biggest concern is not doing something that would prompt president trump to take some kind of preem tiff military action. or something that would so horrify the international community that it would actually union fie everybody on the sanctions. and that would be dropping the icbm just off of the west coast or something. so instead, they're doing a series of tests that are going high up into space. this one went 2,000 kilometers, 1400 miles. and then it's doing a very sharp parabala and coming down, it landed only 400 or so miles from the north korean coast. so that replicates the reentry of an icbm. so they're putting together the

component pieces of what it would take to demonstrate that they could send a missile much further without actually prompting that kind of military response. what is interesting, also here is what didn't happen. we reported about a month and a half or two months ago the united states has had a very active cyberand electronic warfare program that you and i have discussed on this show before that president obama accelerated starting in early 2014. it worked pretty well last year when they had a lot of failed mosadon tests and we think at least some of those were because of the program. there could have been other causes as well, bad weld, bad luck, bad parts. but their most recent test using a different engine technology seemed to have gone off pretty well. and this one this weekend appears to have been pretty successful. >> rose: ben rhodes, how

concerned should we be? >> well, i think we should be very concerned, charlie. because as you said with each test they get better at this technology. and of course the principal threat to the united states beyond our allies south korea and japan is if they can miniaturize a warhead, a nuclear warhead to put on an icbm that can reach the united states. and with each of these tests they get better. what concerns me is we have seen a rhetorical escalation out of this administration which often provokes north korea to take actions like this. but that rhetorical escalation doesn't yet appear to be accompanied by a strategy that has been put in place to try to achieve some kind of-- to the north korean program. so we have this steady escalation of the threat and it's not clear what we are going to do to respond to it. >> rose: what was the obama administration's strategy. >> i think, charlie, what we would do, building on what we had already done, so sure, we would work with china to try to enforce more stringent sanctions. we would also deploy theater

missile defense, the thad system going to south korea, but ultimately you have to put the brakes on this program. because you don't want to get to the point where they have that icbm technology and ability to minimize a warhead. the diplomatic play that you want is to squeeze north korea through the applications of sanctions to get their attention you-- and then negotiate some type of freeze in the north korean program so they are not advancing the nuclear program, they're not advancing their missile capability. then you have some period of time where you can address denuclearization. do i not think there is any indication from kim junkun that any pressure from china or anyone else is going to caution him to give up his nuclear weapons up front. we have to fine a way to pause the program. >> tell me where you think the trump strategy is. >> well, i don't think right now the trump strategy is all that different from president obama's strategy or president bush's

before that. always there has been this reliance on the chinese, as has been indicated to put more pressure on. the deficit is the chinese have their limits. and they've got two major limits. the first one is they don't want to put on so much pressure that it could trigger a north korean collapse that would result in south korea and their fear is our troops or our intelligence capabilities right up on their borders, so while they will certainly do more of a squeeze, an i think they have in recent times, there's a limit to that. the second is, the chinese are interested in knowing what is the end state of north korea when are you all done with this process. because the north koreans at this point are pretty well convinced that they would be crazy to give up their nuclear weapons program. they look for example at libya which in 2003 gave up a nash ent program, one that was just components, nothing put together, nothing as advanced as

the north koreans have. and they believe that when qaddafi got in trouble, the united states and european allies and arab states all ganged up to help drive them from power. so their view is if he had not given up his nuclear weapons program, he might still be in power today. and they i don't think planned to give up theirs. i think the additional problem that we face right now in dealing with each of these elements is that while a freeze as been described would certainly keep the problem from getting worse, and might open the way to a negotiation of the kind that the obama administration did pretty successfully with iran. it also would freeze into place an existing considerably sized nuclear arsenal. and you have to ask yourself the question, are you willing to live with that arsenal if you don't get to the denuclearization that ben described. >> rose: ben, describe what the denuclearization means in your terms.

>> well, you know, over the long-term it's been the pog of all the six pearts in the talks, japan, south korea, russia, china, the united states, other than north korea, of course, that north korea would have to give up its nuclear weapons capability. and like i said, we have to deal with the world as it is. and it does not mere that kim jung unis going to do that in the near term, i agree with david. that is why, i think, you have to anticipate the freeze so that we're at least putting off the challenge of them being able to reach the united states with an icbm, with a potential nuclear warhead that can go on that, i think you accept that in perfect outcome to buy time to then explore what type of progress you can make in a negotiation. i also say just the iran example points to the fact that you do want to deal with these problems diplomatically before you tbet to a country having a nuclear weapon that is one of the reasons we did the iran deal is we did not want a replication of what we had in north korea in iran. >> how likely is it we will wake up and they already have

everything they need to attack the united states? >> well, there are some people in the intelligence community who argue that they already do. that just because they haven't demonstrated their missile capability, and the reentry capability, doesn't mean they don't have it. personally, i think that they probably have a good ways to go. i mean it's one thing to put a nuclear warhead on a short range miss thail can reach south korea or japan. and the intelligence community assessment is that they already have that. when you try to do an icbm it's much more difficult. these leave the atmosphere and have to reenter, there's tremendous heat, tremendous vibration it took the united states years to figure this technology out back in the '50s. and you've got to think it will take the north koreans a fair bit an they're not going to be confident they can do it until they actually test it. so on the one hand you've got people in the intelligence community saying just because they haven't tested it, dun mean they can't do it on the other

hand you have people saying look, we've got diplomatic space in the fact that we don't know and they don't know for sure that they can make this successful. and that's why ben's idea of a freeze may well make some sense. but it's not the kind of freeze we had with iran, as ben points out, iran didn't have nuclear weapons at the time. now you know, the north koreans are up, to debate but somewhere between 10 and 20. and you know, that's sort of looking the way pakistan looked ten years ago. >> rose: they got a lot of help from pakistan, didn't they? >> they did from aq chan, the back stand-- pakistani engineer who helped build pakistan's program and then went into business for himself and sold a lot of designs for the north koreans. they've gotten 1078 missile help to the iranians, given some missile help to the iranians along the way. they got help from the chinese early on. i don't think they're getting help today. but basically at this point they

have mastered the fundamentals of building a nuclear weapon. we just don't know if they mastered the fundamentals of shrinking one to fit inside one of those missile warheads. >> rose: ben, when were you at the national security council, was there a profile of the north korean leader that suggested that he was a sain, rational actor? >> well, the reality, charlie, is that we don't have a tremendous amount of insight into north korea. what we learned, though, over the course of the years that kim jung unwas in power, in some ways is he rational, he wants to protect his regime as david said, he's probably drawn lessons from things like libya that the nuclear capability is his ultimate-- ultimate insurance policy but what we also learn about him is he is highly resistant to external pressure particularly from china. there was some belief early on that he might be more controlled by china because he was inexperienced. we saw the opposite. we saw him ignore chinese

pressure. so i do think it's dangerous to put all of your eggs in one basket here with the chinese. i do not think that there is something they could do that could compel him to give up his nuclear weapons in the near term. in fact, he's defied china just as much as he defied the united states. i think we have to be cautious. i think is he rational, he wants to stay in power but genets' impetious, young, he responds to perceived slights. he responds to rhetoric against north korea by escalating his behavior in these tests. that's why i would be concerned about the type of rhetorical escalation we have seen because all it does is poke a hornet's nest with someone we have seen respond by escalating his provocation. >> so charlie, this has been an area where i think president trump's been on a prtee steep learning curve. i did some foreign policy interviews with him last year, with maggie haberman am he said to us definitively, the chinese can solve this problem. then xi jinping went to visit him at mar-a-lago and came out

saying mr. j stat me down and explained he doesn't have as much influence with the north koreans as i thought, sort of like who knew, just like who knew health care was this complicated. and so i think he is now discovered just as ben suggests, that the chinese's ability to pressure the north is not quite what it seemed. now the chinese also do provide them with oil, and they could turn off that pipeline. they've never really been willing to do that for more than a couple of days. >> rose: there's also the question that goes to his profile as well. how willing is he to let his own people suffer in order to resist sanctions. and if he, that's one half of the question. the other half, you know, is there ever a level in which sanctions will cause so much pain in the country that they will turn against him or is his power just too strong for that

to happen? >> well, charlie, i mean yeah, i think he's shown that he doesn't much care about the suffering of his people. he's willing to sink more and more resources into his nuclear and missile technology. at the same time though, what i would like to see is if we are able to get a freeze in place, if you are able to essentially put the pause button to deal with the worst outcome which is their ability to hit the united states, and i think you have an incoming south korean president by the way who has been elected in part on a platform of dialogue with the north, i think that combined with the pressure david describes could do that, then what you can explore is over time what type of pressure could emerge in north korea. there is some nash ent black markets there that connect people economicically more to the external world. there is the potential to get more information into north korea. i think for him to feel pressure from within his own pop lus, there is going to have to be more openings, more connections between people who live in a very close society with the

outside world. the move people understand how bad they have it in north korea relative to the south or relative to china, the more that could potentially create the type of pressure you talk about. thus far it's clear that he is not yet feeling that pressure. >> rose: david let me turn to cyberattacks. what do we know about them and where do they come from, and will they continue. and what is our capacity to resist if they come to the united states. >> well, charlie, one of the interesting things is it hasn't affected the united states very much right now. i think that is a good sign. it indicates that the u.s. has probably done a better job than most countries at actually executing automatically the patches that microsoft and others send out. but still it is a very imperfect process. but what has made this attack so interesting, and such an interesting story, i think, about the future is where these tools came from. these were not tools that were simply developed by a group of

hackers who then turned it into ransomware, you know, where you freeze up somebody's computer and say send me a ransom payment in bitcoin to get it unfrozen. instead, the origin of these tools and vulnerabilities came from a vulnerabilities that were discovered by the nsa, the national security agency, in the development of american cyberweapons. and then leaked out through this mysterious group called shadow brokers that first appeared last august. and has continued to leak out some of these tools. so these are basically american order nansz that have gone-- ordnance gone loose shot around the world. and yesterday the president of microsoft brad smith wrote a really fascinating blog post in which he said you know, if the u.s. military lost track of its tomahawk missile, and suddenly somebody was getting ready to shoot them off or holding ransom

to not have them shot at some city, we would be looking at the u.s. military and say what gives here. how did you lose control of these. but because cyberweapons are behind such a classified veil, u.s. government is not acknowledged that these are u.s. origin vuller vulnerabilities. and today tom boss ddz art who had been in the bush administration, back under the trump administration, very knowledgeable on cyber, came out to the press room and described the steps being taken to try to limit this. but when he was asked where did these weapons come from, he said you know the providence of them isn't all that interesting. what is interesting is what you do to stop them. well, i think the providence of them is pretty interesting. >> rose: ben? >> i having recently been in government, not going to talk about the providence at length. what i will say is that this is all new space for the united states, other governments, outside of government.

what i think what needs to happen is a a parallel track, there needs to be more dialogue between government and industry. we focus on that a lot in ot bama administration. how can we work with industries to develop better information sharing, about vulnerabilities, about protections, about how we are looking at the threat picture but also there has to be dialogue with other countries. and what's difficult for the united states is that often means dialogue with our cyberadversarieses like russia and china which gets harder in the type of environment we have been in recently where russia has used cybermeans for all kinds of attacks on american democracy. what we do need to do is establish essentially a new set of international norms around cybersecurity that can have the buy-in of the principal governments active in the cyberfield and that can work with industry. and we're not there yet. i think we came a long way in the obama administration in the united states working with industry. we had nash ent cyberdialogue, the chinese and russia but this needs to be formalized multinaturally with industry or

else will you see more incidents like what we have witnessed the last couple of days. >> david, maybe in the piece that you guys had in the times today, somewhere, the pient is made that this attack should be, should be a warning t should be a wake-up call. wake-up call to what? >> well, for a few things, first of all, that if we can't control the stuff that we develop, it's going to get shot back at us. the analog here is if you-- if you put a landmines in cam bodia and you don't have a way of figuring out how to make them go inert later on, kids are going to step on them. if you develop cyberweapons, pieces of the code are going to be found by someone and refashioned into a weapon that can be used against you. that happened in-- to some degrea t has really happened here.

the second thing is that while i agree completely with ben that you are going to need international cyberforms, it's a difficult thing to do if it turns out that this ransomware is out in the hands of criminal groups because we don't know where the criminal group is or where it's located. and criminal groups don't sign on to norms. just as they don't sign treaties, so it is a more complex problem than we had in nuclear or even conventional weapons where the state pretty much held them. >> there is a heard issue thats could am up, charlie, which is there was a fascinating debate that took place when ben was in office. ben you and i discussed this some at the time about whether the intelligence community should have access, a back door into any encryption system so that if we think the terrorists are using cell phone conversations or enkrimented email, there is a way to get into it well silicon valley is going to come back from this

experience and say you can't even hold on to the weapons you develop. what makes us think if we give you the keys to getting into our system, that you're going to be able to hold on to that. every adversary will want that and will try to steal it. so i think the u.s. has lost a little bit of credibility in this case with the argument that it needs and can be trusted with a set of back door keys. >> may i remind you what i said in my introduction, 200 computers in more than 150 countries. more than-- 200 networks, i think, and so i think it's a lot more, i think it's thousands of computers. interestingly, russia has been very heavily hit. which is curious. a lot of places that used pirated versions of microsoft windows have been hit because pirated versions don't get patched. >> so where do we go from here? >> i think that first of all, david raises i think very appropriate questions.

i mean you have to assume sometimes i think in the united states we're at the leading edge of a technology. you have to preseum that others are going to be able to steal or develop that type of technology. it's not unlike the nuclear weapon where we had it first but we had to anticipate that others were going to develop similar capabilities. so the first thing we have to do have have our own security house in order. and i do think there needs to be a constant look at how are we lance and david, we talked do we about this, how do you balance a develop and use of any potential offensive cybercapabilities against the vuller in ability that that presents. so one, there has to be a very tight look at our own security. i do think going forward there does just have to be a very deliberate focus in trying to find the common ground with countries that have been essentially cyberadversaries. but the global economy is wired in such a way where we are all

vulnerability -- vulnerable to this cyberattack. wile david is right you are not going to have criminal under-- if we can at least establish some base line for cyberdefense mechanism, that we're working with other countries to implement, and then some type of governance around how each country is using this like we have arms control regimes from other unconventional weapons, i think that that will be essential. frankly while that may seem like a difficult thing to accomplish with countries like china and russia, i think the imperative will grow because there will be more and more of these types of attacks. so there has to be that type of common effort with the variety of the key governments around the world. but it's got to take in industries because ultimately so much of this is in private hands as well. so around sec hold on to your on

secrets, than why should we give up these encryption codes as much as you say you need them in certain kinds of criminal cases and terrorist threats, that you want ---- does that argument resonate in you that comes from silicon valley, ben? >> i don't know. i think that frankly, anybody is potentially vuller in able-- vulnerable. i do think we have to do a better job. on the obama administration the snowden disclosures alone showed a series of vulnerabilities in our own stvment i was sceptical about the encryption debate for a different reason which is that if essentially it is known world wide that the u.s. government has a type of blanket capability to break encryption of all these different technologies, i think that disadvantages u.s. businesses. and frankly, it's going to attract people to other technologies that will

encrypt-- enkrpted that are developed elsewhere. better to do it through the rule of law and the type of process that americans are familiar with, where you seek access to something and you work with the legal system to get it. i think that to me is at the ert of the encryption debate. >> david one last question quickly. it is, how far ahead is the united states in the whole world of cyberspace? >> well, we're certainly well ahead in offensive capability. i mean think of just what we have reported in the past couple of years, or what the u.s. government has admitted to. so there was the olympic games attacks on iran. there were the attacks on north korea, ash carter when he was secretary of defense talked openly about using sieber against ice is and we-- cyberrer against isis and we think there have been other cases. but as ben points out, the nuclear example tells you that lead doesn't stay around for very long. we exploded the bomb for the

first time in hiroshima and nag sacki in 1945, and the soviets had the weapons by 19496789 and the amazing thing is that there are only sort of nine nuclear powers is today. in cyberrer it's much more compressed and the other thing that we have learned is the most of entry is so low that poor po-- powers, weak powers can develop these, the sony attack was done by north korea. if i was the north koreans and 50eu78's looking at the flot ila off of my coast and the american overwhelming presence, military presence in asia, i think i would be thinking that cyberattacks on the united states would probably be the moos effective way, not any missile you could shoot off or a nuclear weapon you could threaten. and they already were pretty successful in the sony case. i mean a broken, bankrupt country halfway around the world

managed to destroy 70% of the computers sat on sony pictures because they didn't like a movie about kim jung you know, a bad movie but they didn't like the movie. >> that was pretty good. >> david sanger, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank, charlie. >> rose: we'll be right back, stay with us. >> rose: joe dimaggio's widely considered one of the greatest baseball players in history. in his 13 years with the new york yankees he won two batting titles, three mvp awards, hit 361 homeruns and played in nine world series. his 56 game hitting streak in 1941 is a record that still stands. while the legend is well-known, joe dimaggio remained a fiercely private man revealing himself to only a few. dr. rock positano was one of them. he first met dimaggio in 1990 when the exball player visited the foot specialist to treat an injury that plagued him for decades. over the next several years the

two men became good friends. positano looks back on that friendship in his new book, din we are dimaggio. memories of an american hero. i'm pleased to have rock positano back at this table. i'm pleased to consider him a friend and pleased that he mentioned me in his book. why din we are dimaggio? >> charlie, first i have to say it took me 17 years, two days and 15 and a half hours to make it back to this table. thank you, thank you so much for allowing me to come back. that's a long time. >> rose: well, you finally wrote the book we wanted you to write. >> that's true. that is exactly true. i'm sorry. >> rose: and we're glad to have you back. why the title din we are dimaggio. >> again, charlie, dinner with di najio-- dimaggio speaks about how important the dinner table was to joe dimaggio. being a person of italian extraction, many conversation was happen at the dinner table. one of the things i found over the years my spending that really quality time with joe while he was in new york city was that he would love to speak with his friends, myself at the

dinner table. and talk with us about just about anything. about baseball, about people, about friends, about relationships. so i said what would be more appropriate than din we are dimaggio. >> rose: and in fact that is where a lot of the great conversation took place as you suggest. >> well, again, you happen to be one of the recipients who also had din we are dimaggio at one point. you remember it was a special sit down. >> it was, indeed. how did you meet? >> you came to you. >> he came to me through bill gal owe of the new york daily news. >> and i see one of the few journalists that he really had an affection for and trust for in addition to david anderson from the times. and he had complained at one point, to bill that he was having some issues with his famous heel spur, that everybody in the world knew about. and the rest was history. i mean bill said drop them a note, see what happens and one night next thing you know, the office manager says you're not going to believe it. there say man out here dressed impeccably in a long coat that looks just like joe dimaggio. >> rose: what did you say, show him in. >> show him in.

of course he was so formal, he said dr. positano nice to might. i said of course plrks dimaggio, a pleasure to meet you as well. i heard stories he was very proper and a gentleman as he always was. i didn't feel at that moment i would call him joe like everybody else would do. >> rose: was he a hero of yours. >> interestingly, charlie, i think what made the relationship interesting was that most people looked at joe because they saw him play. they saw him hit in 56 straight games, nine world championships. but i didn't have that advantage or this advantage, in certain respects. and i think bun of the things that i learned about him was basically through our family get togethers. my family was a big fan of dimaggio, my grandfather. so we would always hear about joe dimaggio at the dinner table on sunday. of course my brother, myself, my cousins would say who is sth guy joe dimaggio. pie brother would say that is the guy always on tferlings doing the commercials or mr. coffee. so to many of us, he wasn't the joe dimaggio that we got to know later on when hi the pleasure and honor of meeting him. >> rose: you write that for

dimaggio life was a jig saw puzzle and only he had all the pieces. >> totally true. what made him so brilliant was that joe was like the ultimate general. he compartmentalized his life. there was a new york life, there was a florida life and there was a california life. and it was interesting because not at any time would one life know what the other life was dg. so things he may have told someone in florida, he may not have told someone in new york and vice versa. >> rose: no one really knew him completely. >> not really, exactly. i think that is what made him so brilliant. i think that was by is had own design, of protecting his privacy. 245 is what made him so interesting because he was pretty much able to trangs end all these parts of his life. >> rose: certain things you never brought up with him, what were they. >> basically the typical things, when you sat at the dinner table with joe, you let him lead the conversation. one thing that was sensitive to him was speaking about his secretary wife marlin monroe, other was maybe speaking about

his relationship at one time with mr. frank sinatra, and the course the third he did not like to talk about politics so he wouldn't bring up the kennedys or anybody he had any dealings with. those were pretty of the three topics. >> bill galo taught me that he said rock, whatever you don't, don't bring up marlin, frank sinatra or the kennedys, so i took bill's advice. >> rose: and wait for him to talk about it. >> if he wanted to, exactly. if he said something, i would just sit there and stair into my coffee and say okay, i'm going to ignore it and pretend like i'm not hearing a word that he is i sag. because we just like to talk about anything. one of the things i found interesting about him, charlie, is that everyone speaks about his heroism and the fact that he was an american icon and legend. but he was just as interested in everybody else's life. when we would sit down with the bat pack, a group of us that would get together with joe in new york city, we ask them what are your-- what are your kids doing, how is your restaurant going. he was very interested and engaged in knowing what the people around him were also doing. he wasn't self-absorbed. he wasn't self-selfish.

one of the things that people always say is that you know, he was so aloof and so, this well, no, the man was extremely caring, extremely qulowt going. when he was in the right group of peevment of course as you know, when he sat at the dinner table with dimaggio, you never know what was going to come out of his mouth. >> everybody you say started in the negative colume. they had to prove themselves to him, to be in the positive. >> always, that was the first thing he said to me. he said listen, doc, i start out everybody in the negative colume. irsaid okay, yoa, i think i know what you are trying to hell me. we use that as his guide line with just about anyone. people had to prove themselves over time to be worthy of his friendship, worthy of his confidences, worth of his ability to sit down at the dinner table with him. because that was such a huge, important thing to him. sitting down at the dinner table with dimaggio was so important. >> rose: of all the things you have done in your life, what does the friendship with swroa di imagine jo mean. >> the most important thing is that it shows me how here is a

man who was unbelievably successful in his career, created many things, created opportunities for people. yet at the end of the day he had heart and empathy. he cared about other people, he cared about children, that was his passion. the joe dimaggio children's hospital in florida is one example where joe always said no, doc, no kid should ever not get medical treatment because their family cannot afford it which is the whole mantra of that hospital. which i think is really one the best testimonies of dimaggio. the children's hospital is one of them. the fact that he was so loving and doating to his feavment he absolutely adored his granddaughters and great granddaughters, he really did he had a tremendous amount of love, affection and concern for them. i think in that respect, i think joe was able to show that as iconic as he was, at the end of the day what mattered to him most prt things that mattered to most of us. which was family, friends and doing the right thing by people. >> rose: he was prowfd his italian-american heritage. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> rose: yet. >> yet he would never, ever use that on his arm.

he was very careful about that. he believed in being very happy that his parents were from italy. he loved the fact that as italians we were very lively people. we were concerned about the arts, literature. but at the end of the day, dimaggio brought a whole new other dimension to the italian american culture which was that of a sports hero. >> rose: you tell the story about i guess in the yankee clubhouse you could never invite dimaggio to dinner. >> no, absolutely. >> rose: so go ahead, and billy martin said, to hell with this, i will ask him. >> and billy martin was one of the few yankees that joe really had a real affection for. and basically martin was the one guy-- . >> rose: could not seem like two different people. >> complactly, they were completely, completely opposite ends but there was something about martin that joe liekdz. i think at the end of the day joe felt that martin was a stand-up guy, he was a straight-out person. there was never any agenda with him. and joe loved hanging out with martin which i always found to be amusing as well. yet on another instance, once i was on madison avenue with dimaggio and we bumped into sal

rizuto. i said why don't you join us for dinner. he said no, dock, i can't do that even 50 something years after playing with him, i still have that type of respect for him. can i still remember vividly him telling me, you know, doc, i will always remember no matter what the score was, if i turned around and saw that joe was out in the center field i know we had a chance to win. >> rose: world war ii came. he wanted to go into combat. was turned down for combat. at the same time he spent two years in the army and i think said that he wondered what his career would have been like if he had those two years back. >> he felt he lost a large part, a large part of his numbers, his homerun title, obviously, his homerun to the el alls, number of hits, et cetera. he definitely would have won probably another two chips. and in that respect, of course, he felt bad that his career was affected but at the end of the day, joe dimaggio was the consummate a american, what was

most important was to set the example. he wanted to make sure he was able to contribute in his way to the war effort back in world war ii. >> rose: much has been said about the difference in the personality and how they felt about each other, ted williams on the one hand, joe dimaggio on the other. >> well, tremendous amount of respect between the both of them. and despite what people thought, they actually did like one another. but they liked each other at a distance. you know, joe always felt that ted was the best natural hither ever. and ted always felt that joe was the best all-around player ever. that is pretty much what kept the two of those guying to. it was interesting because you never new at any one time what would happen, there was still that rivalry, 50 something years later it was always amazing to watch the two of them interact. >> rose: there was always this, fai benton, who you knew well, a good friend of yours told me a story once that he took dimaggio and williams to the white house. i think it was to see george bush 41. >> uh-huh. >> rose: but maybe someone

else. and that the president was delayed. and so he sat there with these two guys talking. i said what did they talk about. he said it was a lot about things like bat size, 34 inch, what was the bad side, things about the game that they loved. just the sense of ted wa, do you think about this, that was the conversation. >> well, they loved baseball. their life was about baseball. >> rose: and they were great at it. having a person as a moderator like fai vincent is no short order. he had an unbelievable understanding and appreciation for the game of baseball. so i remember fai telling me very frondly about that as well as joe that they were heading, i believes to. all-star game in toronto, that was the year that was the 50th anniversary of the 56 game-hitting streak and ted hitting over 400. so yeah, that was always quite a memorable occasion. but not only for fai but also for joe. joe really was amazed about that trip. he really enjoyed himself. >> rose: let's talk about marilyn a bit. he was what, what did she mean to him?

there was a short lived marriage. >> again, the most famous nine month marriage in the history of man kind. i think at the end of the day joe was a very caring, considerate person. i think he felt that marilyn was a person that was maybe in some type of trouble. maybe not able to get along with people because people were always trying to take advantage of her. and joe never liked when people took advantage of other people. and a big part of what he shared with me, his allure to her was the fact he always was protective of her. >> rose: they also liked the sexual relationship with her too. >> well, again, i guess, being married to one the most sexiest women in the world, i'm sure has its advantages. but as someone once told me you don't marry the most sexiest woman in the world to take her home to make meatballs, the same thing, you know what i mean. >> rose: he is very proud of that when he talked about her. did he for a long time put a rose on her-- grave site. >> i don't know, again that was one of those topics where you didn't go. >> rose: didn't tell you so you didn't ask.

>> again, if he mentioned it it was fine. but he never really mentioned it to any of us in our group. he never said anything about his, you know, his post marilyn monroe days, about what he did. and that was something very private to him. and it was something that was clearly very hurtful as well. so i think he sort of stayed away from those types of subjects. >> rose: sinatra was a pal. >> sinatra was a pal. interestingly, they were friendly up until, you know, probably the late 60s, early 70st. again that was one the most tragic relationships ever because these two people from so iconic in their own way. sinatra the greatest singer, dimaggio the greatest baseball player. and to have an understanding, to realize that they mr. no longer really friendly was very difficult for all of the parties involved whether you were in the sinatra camp or dimaggio camp. it wasn't a good feeling. people felt the two of them should have gotten together. one of my dimaggio bucket lists was to try to get the both of them back together again. but unfortunately it didn't work out that way. as we lost mr. sinatra in 1998 and of course mr. dimaggio in

1999. but that remains a tragedy in many respects. because here were two people that really cared about one another initially. and cared about each other's families which i always found to be amazing. >> rose: you say the very important characters in the first, you talk about the time that you and dimaggio went to a batting cage, i think it was conee island. he picked up a bat. >> he didn't do very well. he wanted to show me, we were practicing for the artist writer softball game. ken o leto and mark glummerman were kind enough to include me that year. and of course it was more about giving me batting instructions. and of course he picked up a bat for maybe a few swings but at the end of the day you can clearly see it was no longer part of his strong part. >> but did he insphruk you how to hit. >> he gave me some pointers. of course it was a very difficult time. he was like the full professor giving the amateur instruction but at the end of the day it was a beautiful day, it was conee island. and i will never forget that. and the interesting thing about it is that nobody recognized him. because they would never expect to see someone of his stature in

a batting cage. >> rose: in conee island. certainly true, on that bucket list also, he never did a great interview, did he? >> yeah, i think he did. >> what talked to him that made a defining interview. >> it was the greatest interview that never aired it happened right at this table. >> that conversation we had-- that was not a leading question, cuz i wondered if anybody ever sat down with him and aired an interview that was a defining interview. because i talked a lot to ted williams as well, all of that aired and one of those interviews that i loved a lot because ted williams was so open with me. >> rose: right. >> and this very table, tell the story, came to, well, you brought him here. >> i said you know, joe's granddaughters were very big fans of yours. and i said joe, why don't you stop by to see charlie. >> we had dinner several times before that. he said i don't want to bother him, i said no, joe, exarlly-- charl yea loves you. and your lovely executive producer said okay, i can't believe this is happening.

i said look, it's happening. but let's at least get limb 20 sit with charlie at the table and he did. of course as you know, i think you have a picture. >> we do. let me show the picture. the two of us sitting just as we did at this table. we had a conversation about baseball, hoping he would say it's he okay. he would say look i will give you my consent to air that. and but he didn't. but he said look, i will think about it. >> but did he mean it and i remember when he left the studio, he said to me you know, doc i'm really comfortable with charlie. i would do an interview with him. i said that's great because we dot right thing by you and he would never, ever in anyway disrespect you or disrespect your family or any of your memories. so the answer was yes, he would have definitely sat down at this table with you charlie and probably done the best interview ever. >> rose: and then he went back to california. and then he got sick. >> well, it was a horrible thing. nobody knew what was wrong wih him, including me.

none of us knew what was wrong with him until all the reports came out inside the associated press. again he was very fiercely private as was the people taking care of his business affairs and at the end of the day, you know, he went back to california for awhile but of course ultimately he went back to florida which is whereas you know he was not able to sustain his life. >> rose: what is the biggest misconception about dimaggio that you would like to recht? >> i think what people don't realize-- . >> rose: from your vantage point. >> from my vantage point is that i got passed the icon. i looked more at the man. and the man was kind, considerate, sincere, caring, and cared about people. and i think people really nevevr got that impression, for whatever reason. you know, one of the things he said, i think he said in richard ben cramers book is basically how could people write a story about me when they have not even sat down and had a cup of coffee with me. >> rose: it wasn't because he didn't try. >> exactly, exactly. i think one of the things i

always found out to be very interesting was that he was very, very, very careful about who he sat down with. to have dinner with, and of course as you know, many people tried to have a cup of coffee with him but they were not successful. >> rose: was he happy when you saw him? had he come to terms with his life and who he was and what he had accomplished at the same time? >> you know, charlie, he loved new york. new york, that was his life line. he used to love to come to new york, especially in the last eight, nine years of his life because the town was his. he can go any where nobody would bother him or they would treat him with respect. he had a chance to hang out with his friends, to go out to nice restaurants, to go to the theater, movies. that was something that i remember he really wasn't able to do during his heyday with the yankees, in many respects, dimaggio is a snap shot that that 8 to 9 years where he was able tone joy the town that made him the best in the world. >> rose: i want to show some photos the first with and his

brother father an brother, image two. frank sinatra and at a famous restaurant here admired a portrait of joe. image three, yankee manager casey looks on as dimaggio receives treatment for his problem heel in 1949. that was-- did you cure this problem for him? >> well, i helped him get tuned control, charlie, at the end of the day. >> rose: made life better for him. then this is di paj why and marilyn monroe celebrate in l.a. after she left her hand print 234 the cement at the chinese theater, 1953. that is marilyn monroe's funeral. let's just go to the next one with dr. positano in the 1990s. there you go. that is the one. >> that is a scary picture, charlie. >> rose: look at that. >> and then there is one in which we posed for a photo in the studio. rock, congratulations, this say book you should have written, i

book you have written, people who care about sports, people who care about heroes will want to read this because it is really a first person account of your life with swroa dimaggio. >> i appreciate that. charlie, just to quote the great dimaggio when he signed your base ball, he put to charlie rose, the best of the best. and this is the reason why. you are the, you will always be, charlie. >> rose: thank you, rock. back in a moment, the book is you will cad din we are dimaggio, memories of an american hero. a friend of this program, brad grey died sunday after a bat well cancer. he was 59 years old. he had served as a c.e.o. of para dndz mount pictures from 2005 to earl-- earlier this year. during his tenure he oversaw several billion dollar franchises including transformer, star trek and mission impossible also green lit several smaller academy award-winning fim ams such as there will be blood, no country for old men and the big short grey also left his mark on television serving as executive producer on such acclaimed hbo series as the sopranos and the

larry sanders show. brad tbrai appeared on this program three times over the years. and here is a look at parts of those conversation. >> i grew up in this town. that is how i started. i have been very fortunate. i have a management division, a management company that was the base of our company, company is about 35 years old now. founded by my old partner. and that is the business i grew up in. so i continue to love that business. >> rose: the management of people's careers. >> i love the access, the conversations with talent, real fall ent. because that's a gift i don't have. what i do is i try to nurture talent. in any number of ways. i try to nurture it either through our representation company, to achieve the goals that any of the talent and business want to achieve or we try to nurture it by financing their ideases or our ideas that are pop lated by different talent. whether it's in television

business or developing in the movie business. i like the talent, i like that access and i like that dialogue every day. and it's a treat it is a treat. and some people believe that it is a burden, and like anything else, anything can be a burden at times. but that is where it all comes from, you know, without david chase, without brad pit, without nicholas cage, without any of the wildly talented people that we are fortunate enough to be in business with, none of the real fun happens, the real entertainment which is what we are supposed to be doing. we're supposed to be entertaining people. >> rose: what part of it do you like the most, television, movies, records? >> well, i'm paying attention to the movie business because i have i have had, when i think about t i have had unusual success in the television business n that i have been involved with some of the, i

think, some of the best shows of the last 20 years. when you look at the larry sanders show, you look at the sap ranos or you look at news radio, i'm very proud of these shows, i think they are really wonderful shows. have i not had this success on the motion picture seed and i would like to because i love the motion picture. >> as a producer. >> as a producer. i would love to aake some great movies. so i'm paying attention to that. but i enjoy the frankly the business of running an entertainment company where we have some control of our destiny in all of these areas. i really do envoy that. and i'm fortunate to be in that position. there aren't a lot of people that really have some sense of control at this point with all the vertical integration and all the very large companies of what it is they get themselves involved with. >> now you came to paramount,

what, eight years ago. >> eight years ago, yes. >> who did you find and how is it different now? what have you done with this? >> well, i mean, when i got there, the studio was, as you just mentioned, was a hundred year old studio, almost a hundred years old so they had their ups and they had their downs. they had their great periods and periods that weren't quite as strong. and when i got there, they were in a place where they didn't have much development. there really wasn't much product. and so we had a pretty much start from scratch. we had to take a look at the business and really understand what was coming. really look at where the business would be. was it to be an international business, it was to be a business clearly that had to move toward the next distribution front in terms of digital. where were they we? and then how do we tell great stories. >> how do we tell entertaining stories. how do we try to make this a great chapter so that when i

look back at this period of my life or this period of paramount, i can at least go back and say oh yeah, they did some great work at that time. >> brad grey, dead at age 59. for more about this program and earlier episodes vits us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. #r 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. producti.

♪ ♪ sbrocco: another umami bomb. o'brien: umami bomb.