>> charlie: welcome to the program. tonight, mark leibovich, this town, two parties in a funeral plus plenty of valet parking in america's guilded capital. this "new york times" magazine reporter talks about the culture of washington. >> it was intended to be married to a culture. that sounds a little bit pat. i think ultimately people have focused on the takedown elements, right? who really comes off worse: the tidbits. i mean, you know how books are marketed and sort of talkd about these days. i think there is a larger point here which is that washington has become extremely self-satisfied at a time when the rest of the country has been

extremely dissatisfied with it. it's also become an extremely wealthy community. >> charlie: we conclude this evening with josh sapan, the president and ceo of a.m.c. networks. think about walking dead, mad men and breaking bad. those are all his programs. >> on the dramatic content side i think it's probably fair to say that the sopranos was maybe the first show that put everybody's heads upsidedown and was surprising and was dramatic with an antihero. mad men when we did it seven or eight years ago was also surprising because of the nature of the drama was unlikely and people were not as one thought they would be. we thought it was breaking bad. then there was this proliferation of other dramas that were surprising. today there's a whole abundance of them. i think one of the things that happened was that technology, including that which you spoke

about netflix and v.o.d., both on cable and via the internet met quality story telling. >> charlie: leibovich and sapan coming up. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: mark leibovich is here. he's chief national correspondent for the "new york times" magazine. the "washington post" described him as, quote, a master of the political profile with subjects revealing themselves in the most unflattering light. his new book is called "this town: two parties and a funeral plus plenty of valet parking in america's guilded capital." it is a darkly comment portrait of washington culture and pom ticks. it is also unsparing in its criticism of many of the city's power players done with humor. humorous book reviews have asked will mark leibovich ever eat lunch in this town again. i am pleased to have him back at this table in a different capacity. thank you. >> thank you, charlie, great to

be here. >> charlie: i mean this is really interesting from a thousand ways. eating lunch in this town i think had to do with the famous quote in california and hollywood. >> exactly. charlie: never eat lunch in this town again. what's the origin of this? >> the origin of this is, i think, first of all just living in this town and working in this town for a while. i do think... >> charlie: this town being washington. >> this town being washington d.c. i mean after a while, i mean, people say you're cynical, you're a reporter. if you're a reporter in washington it's hard not to be cynical or co-oped in a way. if you were to look at this psycho analytically maybe there's part of me that wanted to check myself before getting into deep into this world. >> charlie: you have been co-opted yourself. >> that would be dishonest. charlie: or live in a cave. exactly. but i do think that the inspiration for this was actually at tim russert's funeral in june of 2008 which is the opening scene of the book and just watching it degenerate

innocently into this networking opportunity and cocktail party. >> charlie: people came to be the funeral to be seen as much as to be seen. >> i think they were paying respect. there was a lot of sadness in the room. there was a quality to it. clearly people were working. you see business cards flying and people congratulating. >> charlie: at a funeral. it was an epic scene. charlie: you talk about so many people. you say about former president clinton and the former secretary of state, that they do funerals well. >> they do. i mean, the clintons are he can betters at mourning and funeral. i feel your pain. that's one of his signature lines. again that sounds cynical. i think it comes from a place of genuineness but clearly if you talk to anyone who knows them, they are pros at sickness, at other people's misfortune. they do empathy well. >> charlie: i guess it was mike allen who said this is a d.c. takedown. is it a d.c. takedown? >> a lot of people have called

it that. i mean, look... >> charlie: was it intended to be? >> i don't think it was intd to be. i mean it was intended to be basically hold a mirror to a culture. that sounds a little bit pat. i think ultimately people have focused on the takedown elements, right? who really comes off worse, the tidbits. i mean, you know how books marketed and sort of talkd about these days. i think there is a larger point here which is that washington has become extremely self-satisfied at a time when the rest of the country has been extremely dissatisfied with it. it's become an extremely wealthy community. >> charlie: and it caused therefore cynicism about washington. >> first of all the cynicism is there and it has been for years. i don't think readers or people outside of washington have a full appreciation for the carnival that this town has become. but, look, i mean, it's been uncomfortable for me as an

insider. i welcome the discomfort. >> charlie: you create a discomfort here. >> it's nonfiction. it's true. it's a work of journalism. it goes after people. i try to do it without crossing over into meanness, but i think that, yeah, clearly it's a tough book. >> charlie: what's the line for meanness? >> i don't know. i mean i think you always have to watch it. i don't want to be known as a mean reporter. i mean, i probably fail on this occasions but i think i probably... i mean, i hope i've stayed on the right side of it. >> charlie: some people think meanness gets you higher than being good. >> yeah. it's true. i think any good journalist will tell you that there's a great deal of soul searching that goes on in the process of a work that takes you a while, right. >> charlie: how long did this take? >> three years which is longer than i thought. it actually worked out well chronologically but it begins in the obama years. >> charlie: it's about the obama years. >> it's about the obama years especially the obama years but the president himself is

somewhat absent from this. this is more about the festival that is gathered around him. >> charlie: but people within the white house are not absent from it. >> yes. charlie: anybody that you pulled your punches because you feared what they might do to you? would you write about the powers to be at the "new york times"? >> probably not. someone else has though. someone else does that. >> charlie: but you probably wouldn't do that because of fear or... >> quon if it's fear. charlie: make life difficult for you if you do that? >> it's not something that i would want to do. >> charlie: because it's what? because i work there. look, i'll be totally transparent about it. if i wanted to write a takedown book about my employer, i don't think it would be very, i mean, smart. i mean i love my employer. i love working at the "new york times." i have tons of friends there. it just wouldn't be something i would welcome. >> charlie: i don't understand -- and i mean there's a failure for me -- the difference in a takedown and a

revealing portrait. >> i don't either. a takedown is an easy headline. politico was calling this a takedown for months. they wrote stories anticipating it and predicting who would be taken down. i mean, look, it's a shorthand mythology that washington is built on. speculation is also a very thing in town. >> charlie: it's also saying what people already know. but for somebody to say it, it's a bit like a satire. says something that everybody is thinking. >> i like to think so. look, the notion that washington is resented both from the inside and the outside is not news nor is it new. i mean, people have fundamentally been very, very cynical about washington for a long time. again i wanted to flesh out the picture. >> charlie: even title "this town" caught some controversy because... >> well, a little bit. i mean, i think first of all to refrain. people always say in this town i've been here for so long and so forth. look, i think it's a good title.

frank sinatra has a song called this town. >> charlie: what have been the reverberations about it in your judgment? >> first of all pretty heady in that people seem to be reading it now and people seem to be enjoying it. the reviews have been terrific. i mean, i think what's interesting about it is there have been a mix of a few angry phone calls and emails. >> charlie: to you? to me. charlie: give me an example. mostly in the vein of, "how dare you." >> charlie: how could you be so wrong. >> what's interesting to me is i would say the bulk of the critique has been aren't you violating an unwritten code of people who are inside the club writing about their own? and i've actually been asked that. here's what i would say. journalistic ground rules are one thing. i honor them like any good journalist would but these unwritten codes that piece theme are talking about i don't quite know what they're talking about.

>> charlie: it could have been in part. >> exactly. it leads to the kind of group-think and conventional wisdom that makes washington wrong. >> charlie: is washington that much different from any other city, whether it's new york or hollywood? i doubt it. >> there's a big vanity sector in every city you described. >> charlie: and power brokers in every city and people who write about power and there are characters and cartoon i haves. >> here's is one big difference. washington is supposedly given over to public service. >> charlie: you expect more from washington. >> i would think so. look, public service is usedded a lot. not a lot in washington d.c. it's almost used ironically. people now go to washington to get rich. this was not true 20, 30 years ago. >> charlie: they go there for their second job. >> they do. if you look at the best and the brightest, the notion of talented people going from, you know, whether an ivy league

school to make a difference and leaving or just sort of making their mark as a public servant has been largely given over to, again, going there to maybe get into office for a few years but then just settling down as someone who can trade off whatever you did in government. basically be set for life. >> charlie: for what purpose? they do this to go to washington so they can get a job after washington so they can make money? >> that's usually how it winds up. that might not be their initial motivation. most people like to say they're going to washington to change the world. >> charlie: is there still a merit october arrest? >> i think there is. one of the points of this book is it's very much a mediocre-tocracy. but there are a lot of extremely mediocre people in government but also in politics and consulting and on toe vee who by virtue of having that brand and having that celebrity appeal

itself becomes and itself. if you're someone who knows this town, you can sell your guidance to some corporation or to some lobbying firm or media outlet. there is an endless market for that. >> you tell the story of people who have servedded five minutes in an administration and spent 25 years dining out on it. in a sense often becoming in the process a pundit as if you know more than anyone else did even though your time in power was limited. >> speaking as a journalist, i mean, punditry has sort of replaced reporting as the gold standard of what i do. >> charlie: has that happened in new york and in other places, i ask? >> absolutely. reporter: the only difference you're suggesting is is that we should expect more from washington because it's the seat of our government which is supposed to do... >> yes. there's an expectation but also these are the people who run... two things. first of you will these are the people who run your country or think they run your country.

two, it wasn't like this 30 years ago. i think athlete receiptically, washington has been transformed by wealth and new media i would say more than any other city in the country. >> charlie: i don't know that to be true. i think back of people like walter lipman. >> sure. they have always been there. >> charlie: they play the power game extraordinarily well. >> yes. charlie: ben bradlee was a great friend of jack kennedy. this is not new. >> it is not new but all of this has been in some ways democratized and exacerbated by the proliferation... >> charlie: and multiplied. it used to be a clubby circle of a few hundred insiders. now it's a sprawling conversation where again frankly mediocre people can rise to, i don't know if to the top but certainly to a brand which has become a huge word there obviously. >> charlie: why do you stay there? gaws there's no more fascinating place for you.

>> i'm fascinated by it. i continue to love politics. i love my job. my family has a good life there. if i can sort of separate it, it's a very pleasant place to raise kids. my wife likes her job snairms beautiful city. >> beautiful city. frankly, life is what happens to you, right? >> charlie: while you're waiting to do something he is. >> i mean, i have dreams of living elsewhere. i've been there for 16 years and perfectly happy there. >> charlie: here is the other question. will they care six months from now but do they just move on to whatever the book is and whatever the criticism is and whatever it is. >> maybe. charlie: does it have impact? i think it does. here is why. first of all it's a very small sample size but a couple weeks of feedback because this has gotten into your bloodstream pretty early, about early in july. a lot of calls from political science professors.

a lot of younger people from outside the country who have read reviews, read excerpts and who have said this seems to have captured a moment. i think that moment is is is the 21st century in washington. i don't want to be comparing myself to other works of nonfiction. >> charlie: compare for a second. >> michael lewis is one of my idols. things like money ball and liar's poker. they place in a moment in a realm. he wrote "the new new thing" which is similar to. it was a world. it looks at a world and profiles a world. this is not meant as a profile or a takedown of anyone person. it is a profile of a world. >> charlie: when you think about the characters and you think about the way it works and you think about the way washington

works the number one person in washington is the president of the united states. >> right. charlie: he came to washington as a young senator from chicago. >> right. charlie: a few years later he was president. because the time was so short between when he came to washington and he became president, did he believe he would be different? because he was different? >> i think he did. i think he did. look, i don't know the president. but i think there's no question. i mean you don't run for president for as long as he did and for as passionately as he did and for as effectively as he did without thinking that you can be different and you can be the change-agent that washington needs. i mean every president makes change but i do think that one of the great disappointments of this presidency if you sort of look at it from someone who believed the promise is there have been so many never-minds. i'm not going to opt out of the

campaign finance system in 2008. never pine. we'll do that. i'm not going to work with super pacs. never mind we'll do that. we won't let lobbyists into the white house. never mind. we'll do that. i don't want to make any grand declarations about whether he feels overor undercompromised here but i do think there's a sensibility inside the white house or inside people who have been around him that washington changed them more than they changed washington. there is actually a scene in the book in which that is explicitly stated. it's sort of a soul searching. >> charlie: explain it to me. it was a meeting in the middle of 2011 in which there was talk that the white house was not coordinating well with the fledgingalling re-election operation in chicago. the president convened a saturday meeting with about 15 aides including people from chicago and in new york. and the first meeting he said, look, i want to be very honest in here. i want to trust you guys it's a

fairlily big meeting we have a little concerned about the numbers. i want to make sure that we can talk about where we've been, where we're going and get it all on the table. about the fourth or fifth meeting the president said, look, i'm very disappointed that i have not been more vocal in these first three years about -- and then he made a list. gay marriage, climate change, immigration i think was one. and then the campaign manager was approached by one of the change-change authors. i think they worked a lot together. he asked about in meeting or asked about this conversation. massena i think told the president about this. the president showed up at the next meeting which i think was following saturday. it was very disappointed just said i'm very, very... i trust you guys. this is really demoralizing. i want these meetings to continue. i any they've been very

effective but if they do, it will occur without me. vice president biden chewed out everyone around the table and the soul searching took place in which everyone asks why are we cooperating with books but also what happened to us? i mean, this never happened in 2008. >> charlie: all the things we said would never happen happened. >> robert gibdz was very profane about it. i can't repeat it here. did washington change us or did we change washington? the question was raised rhetorically. >> charlie: do you believe what some people have said, whether it's the carter administration, the clinton administration, the obama administration or the bush administration either that in the end the town always wins. >> i mean, this is the story about the permanent feudal class which is a term from the republican senator from oklahoma. he uses this to describe this

collosus. >> he speaks with a certain candor. it's interesting that he and obama are such close friends. my cynical bone does ache a little bit. i do wonder is this expedient? it does seem rather genuine. >> reporter: that's the interesting question. how can you be as a reporter, you know, what if in fact your intelligent happens every day. reporter: cynicism always wins. >> no it doesn't always win. look, i'm susceptible to authenticity. i think people can be very authentic. there's a line in here from henry allen who is my former colleague at the "washington post" who is one of my idols. i'm getting the line wrong. it's interesting no the effect that washington is a constant mix of authenticity and duplicity. there was another word. >> charlie: when i think about that, my first instinct would be that's true. but it was also true in rome. >> it was absolutely also true in rome.

i do think again just the degree to which all of this has changed is noteworthy. i mean, yes, i mean washington does always win. i do think that this moment, you know, needed i mean i wanted to fully capture how that has played out. >> reporter: in fact in the end always, yes, there is something that can be described as a place. it could be a hospital, a law firm, a political campaign. but in the end it is shaped by real live smart cynical treacherous good people. >> it is. and they're caught in their life in a push-and-pull. that affects them. >> people are complicated in washington as everywhere. you know, part of my perspective is unique in that i have profiled hundreds of these people and some of them rather in a tough way.

everyone in washington is sort of constantly writing the story of their own lives whether through some sort of p.r. apparatus. they have their self-images. everyone does but they have a way in which they want to be seen. when i come along and write something it's obviously uncomfortable. but i mean, i have gotten to know these people. that is both an advantage and a disadvantage. >> let's assume all this is true and all this is real and all this is not unlike the the rest of the history of civilization. can something change it so that always your better angels rule? >> i would like to think yes. i would like to think that over time the democratic system can be the ultimate arbiter and the ultimate super ego on this.

one thing you do see as a reporter is you have to leave town. you do get to see that real america is a very powerful force and a very different entity than what we deal with in washington. i think, look, if you look at things like immigration, if you look at things like gay marriage, if you look at things like even gun regulation, i mean a lot of this does emanate from the grass roots. people in washington will work in their best self-interest. so in that sense, i mean the electorate, the customers can be a check on all this. look, i don't know. i mean washington, it does knots seem to be getting any better. it's doing railroad very well form itself. i don't think there's a lot of motivation. >> charlie: just the battle between whom and whom. >> valery jarrett, the royal battle with robert gibbs and rahm emmanuel and resentment with david axle rod and anita

dunn and val real jarrett and david axle rod have crossed and bill district attorneyy and valery jarrett. a lot of dirty laundry has been aired. >> charlie: and think of all the things you just talked about. most people know about that. >> most people inside do. i think it's very inside. >> charlie: inside washington, inside journalists' corps. >> in political class. i think most people don't care about it. >> charlie: most people don't care. i don't care whether it's valery jarrett likes bill daily or not. you're saying. >> i think most people don't. i made very conscious decisions not to include a lot of the white house intrigue and a lot of the intrigue snares because. >> i did not want this book given over to another book about the white house or the inside of the campaign. >> charlie: or another book that was simply gossip. >> yes. a lot of this stuff is real. i mean... snairls it's real but

up don't want it to be considered gossip because everybody wants to know something we don't necessarily know or confirming something we think. >> but i want this book to get out of town. i want this book to get out of the political class. i was worried that because the media bloodstream becomes so given over to the very, very small, petty intraworkplace matters of the white house that people would immediately dismiss it that way. >> charlie: you wanted to get beyond the political class and beyond washington because you think it will do what? >> i want this book to illustrate in living color or if people have their feelings hurt along the way, fine. what this has become. if it incites outrage, great. if it's a shaming device for inside washington great. >> charlie: you just said, that's one thing in terms, it seems to me that's how people

inside washington might read it and it may take off a thin veil they thought they were beneath when in fact they were not. what is it that you want the people in, you know, in north carolina to think about washington and therefore to do what? >> i want them to know what it really looks like, sounds like and what really goes on. everybody is pretending to about what's going on in washington. they bill a lot better. i don't bill. i don't charge by the hour. i to think, look, i've come away from this book with a far greater appreciation frankly for populism, for populism on the left and on the right. i mean, i can sort of... i think the, it's not so much the pox on both your houses argument but the notion that washington itself has become an all powerful entity that i don't

know if it needs to be swept out or what. but i just think that there needs to be a fuller sense of what it looks like. >> charlie: let's assume it's someone who goes there to become as a political person, as a staff and then maybe wants a presidential appointment, doesn't get but gets to be a lobbyist and makes a lot of money. is it money in the end what it's all about. >> a big part of it. it's all rolled into the vanity sector that we're talking about. it's all part of the same thing. i mean robert gibdz had a pretty mixed ride as the white house press secretary for a couple of years. since he left the white house in early 2011 he's made about $2 million in speaking fees alone because his fame just from being... this is not something that bill moyers could have done. >> charlie: the market wasn't there. >> the market wasn't there. again, i don't fault him for this at all. i would love to make that kind of money.

the fact that he is someone who knows how washington works, that is a recognizable face. it makes him a celebrity. i think when you have the celebrity culture that has grown up inside of politics job if wealth is the initial impetus but a nice sweetener. >> charlie: you can argue that he does have something to say. >> he knows the president pretty intimately. as well as almost anyone. i'll give robert credit because i think he has probably done more soul searching and probably been more outspoken about the disappointment that he has experiencedded within the idealistic bubble of the obama world than i think others have. >> charlie: who was kurt bardella. >> who is he? kurt was the former press secretary for darrell issa. very powerful republican

congressman. kurt... >> charlie: with an instinct for investigations. >> yes. when i was reporting this book i asked kurt, look, i would like to maybe follow darrell issa around. that was a nonstarter. kurt was very compel to go me. he was this sort of a sandy glick type. he just was shameless in his self-promotion and dying to get attention. very, very transparent, very, very good at his job. darrell isssa was getting mostly good press in 2011. kurt let me follow him around. >> charlie: him or darrell? this is an emblematic sort of washington staffer. he has no college education. he sort of had his ticket to washington punched by hooking on to the campaign in 2008. he might as well have been a lottery ticket. he watched west wing growing up. he idolized jeb bartlett and ronald reagan. he basically said i'm not a democrat or a republican. >> maria: the character played by marten sheen.

>> i'm an opportunist. kurt started sharing emails with me. >> charlie: he would give you emails that were sent to him. >> to get a window into how his days worked as a josh type, right. >> charlie: you weren't unhappy to she have soas emails. >> they were mostly boring. politico a few months after it started kurt was thrilled about it. he posted to it. a lot of reporters and politico heard about it. it became a scandal, a mini-skeineddal. all of a sudden he was fired for sharing other people's emails without their consent with a reporter, i.e., me. so kurt was fired. i felt really badly about it. he was back and got a job in a you foo months was asked to be a pundit on cnn people forgot what he was infamous for. they figured he was a strategist. he had a name and a face. he wound up back with darrell issa again.

no- real fall from grace. >> there's the story of washington. >> you will always eat lunch in this town again which is actually the full circle portion of this. >> charlie: was that a title once? >> it was one of the things i was kicking around. it felt doo derivative and was too long. we kicked around a few titles. >> are washington egos different? >> from new york egos in probably not. human beings are human beings and they're complicated. >> charlie: the book is called this town, two parties and a funeral plus plenty of valet. the funeral would be tim russert who you called the mayor of washington. >> the mayor of official washington. >> charlie: which meant? he was the most respected news man in town. people, i mean, he... i don't know if that would have been true. would sarah palin have bothered? would they have put her anywhere neer him. >> charlie: he was as ambitious

a man as i know. >> he was a master. i mean this will sound cynical. he was a master marketer. tom brokaw said he made himself a spokesman for americans. tom himself didn't say that. essentially his talking about fatherhood, buffalo. it was a very effective message. >> charlie: its said i'm with you. i'm not not of these rich cynical people. i'm your representative not theirs. >> tim straddled his world quite effectively i thought. i mean his loss left a massive void that i don't think has been filled. >> charlie: this book called this town again. mark leibovich chief correspondent for the "new york times" magazine. thanks, charlie. >> snairlts back in a moment. stay with us. josh sapan is here, president and ceo of a.m.c. networks. the networks has helped make cable television a destination for high quality scripted shows.

a.m.c. made its name with a critically acclaimed series mad men. it has since built on that success with shows such as breaking bad and the walking dead. the company includes several other entertainment brands. they include the sun dance chargeable. he has drawn praise for expanding the boundaries of the cable television industry. he was an early champion of video on command and other distribution channels. he also sees greater opportunities ahead for television and a.m.c. networks. i am pleased to have him here at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much, charlie. charlie: as someone who is passionate about television and quality, you know and narrative, i mean you have done it there, my friends. i am pleased to have you here. >> so i just returned from a conference where there was much talk about video streaming, future of cable television and all of that. where is cable television today?

>> at a great place. charlie: easy for you to say. easy for me to say. 100 million homes in the united states are connected to some form of pay television. a substantial number of those, cable 60-plus million. all these great and famous and important channels coming into the home and channels that people know and love and cherish not just ours. so i think it's a big part of people's... >> charlie: but if i am streaming netflix. >> yeah. two things i guess. one is net knicks has around 30 million subscribers. the great majority of those are cable television subscribers by deaf thinkings. so most of those people have both. a lot of those people find it happy and compatible and complimentary. in addition just on behalf of the cable television industry i don't work in that part of it

they're using the broadband type to bring netflix to their home. so it is certainly a rich subject to think about how it all goes but at the moment i think it's a pretty little complimentary system. >> charlie: what happened to cable television? was it hbo and then everybody else said look at the sopranos, why can't we do is that? or was it a smarter explanation. >> on the dramatic side, on the dramatic content side i think it's probably fair to say that the sopranos was maybe the first show that put everybody's head upsidedown and was surprised with a peculiar antihero. mad men when we did it seven or eight years ago was also surprising because of the nature of the drama was unlikely. people were not as one thought they would be. then there was this proliferation of other dramas

that were surprising. to there's a whole abundance of them. one of the things that happened was that technology, including that which you spoke about netflix and v.o.d., both on cable and via the internet met quality story telling. i think that's perhaps a little under recognized because it allowed people to catch up in between seasons and it allowed them to do it at their own choice and allowed them to do in their own environment that was at home like a cinema. you do it when you want. if you're watching a nuanced drama you are all in so when the next season comes on you sort of can't wait. >> charlie: some say it's a golden age for television because of that. do you believe that? diswroo if you try and count historically it's probably the third golden age. i do think it's the golden age because of that. i do think that the technology really does allow somebody to

say use social media. i'm going to tell my friend they should watch this show. they should go catch up. when they do, they do it in an optimal environment. they're hooked because the story telling is spectacular and then they watch it on linear. >> charlie: what's interesting is to me is now because of twitter and because of realtime communications people in different locations are watching it at the same time. so they can talk about it. >> it is a little bit of a crazy ten onnom of social media and this robust on-demand and then of course the love that people have for great story telling in any form. print and it comes together really enabled by this cool technology. >> charlie: it will be interesting how many people are are talking about mad men when they watch it as it's rolled out. >> you can actual he'll track that stuff. we do track it. you can get the stats on it. we've gone so far as to make what we call second screen

experiences. we actually have literally what to do on your tablet while you're watching your television theft because it just enhances the whole joy of it. >> charlie: mad men changed the game for you? >> yeah. mad men probably did set off a bit for us of change in reputation. as they say an invitation. we followed it with breaking bad. we developed a reputation for good drama. then we had some sort of runway and economic invitation to do more and so we did. by the way behind it two things worth saying. one is that this technology was wind it because people did have have an opportunity to do it at their own design and time. the second was that there were this abundance of creative people like vince gill began and matt weiner who were creating stories but not yet finding a home necessarily. >> charlie: there's also this phenomenon of, what do they call

it splurge viewing. >> binge. charlie: i watched three seasons of breaking bad in one weekend. >> no you didn't. charlie: yes, i did. how did you feel. charlie: did you know day one that this is going to be a break away hit. you never do do you? >> i think you never do. i remember looking at the pilot of breaking bad and at the time our company was operated by cable vision. we took it off cable vision to show you a few people. we thought this is more like an infilm than it is is a tv show. this has exquisite story and character. >> charlie: exquisite acting. exquisite writing. wonderful dialogue. >> yes. charlie: a sorry that just... i think what makes it a little hard... >> charlie: ... it's so crazy. but what makes it a little hard to tell is of course it

doesn't all happen in 42 minutes. the reason it's fun and good, the same with mad men and other shows is they happen in multiples. >> charlie: but mad men was turned down. >> for seven years. charlie: seven years. i think i have the number right. it was in matt's briefcase. he had it. he believed in it. hits brilliance was on that page. we were fortunate enough, i mean it, to be hanging around the hoop and to read it and to take a shot. i will admit that i showed the script to a couple of people who i trust. they said don't do it. >> charlie: why? it was consistent with the other people who didn't love it. they said not much happens and characters are not terribly revealed. not enough to keep you there. >> charlie: does this prove that if you produce high quality television an audience will come

or not? >> i think today it proves that if you produce high quality television in today's technological environment and you have reasonable resources, yes, you actually will find the audience. you won't get lost. >> charlie: cable television hassles had thal toking thing that attracts me. it is interesting people. john malone. a genius. i just interviewed him. as you said to me, as someone had noted he has, he's a ph.d., he has the quality of explaining complicated things in a very smart way. comparing him, say, to bill clinton who could do that in public policy. >> yes. charlie: he's back buying television and wants to believe that cable television because of broadband, bought of broad want because that's what he's in love with broadband.

societying up this sort of wonderful resurgence. >> i would always bet with him. their comp fea used to own... their company usedded to own half of a.m.c. he's certainly the smartest guy in any room. >> charlie: smartest guy in any room he's in so far. >> i was in a room with him and chuck dolen. chuck was the most creative business guy and malone the smartest guy. >> charlie: he was in with a lot of smart people. chuck dolan is another one. >> he's the founder of cable vision. perhaps he's the person who started a.m.c. and started bravo which we operated for some time before we sold it. he's the person who started the regional news business, new york one here in new york. and a whole host of them. he's the person who started the regional sports business which

is the subject of today's wall street journal cover story about competition and price. he's probably the original, one of the most original he and jim the most original thinkers, the most audacious. i think and risk taking. group around in the cable business certainly among them. >> charlie: and at the same time has that quiet demeanor. that sense of almost humility too. >> absolute gentleman. absolute gentleman. >> charlie: what happens to satellite television? i mean by that direct tv and dish tv. >> yeah. charlie: because charlie is trying to buy all the spectrum he can find. >> what are the limitations of satellite television. >> i hope i have enough information to be daing you arous. >> charlie: you didn't come here to talk about satellite television. >> it's true. there are today 30-plus million

satellite subscribers in the u.s. that's a lot. >> charlie: direct tv is second. direct tv is number one. dish is number two. >> charlie: it is second to comcast in terms of number of subscribers. >> there's direct and dish in the satellite category they have a pretty big fan fantastic business. >> charlie: that's why john malone who use sdz to own direct tv and ten had to give it up said in the end that he thinks cable and its broadband is the key to the future. so you'd assume he would think that. >> that's certainly his point of view. his initiative -- he's been a partner and friend of ours for a long time. >> charlie: i know. he suggests he wants to go in that direction snares but can they ever real he'll compete if they don't have broadband? >> you know, i'm not sure. i really mean it. i'm not sure that that wireless which does have capabilities that are changing are not

competitive today with a pipe with a hard pipe, what its future is i'm not exactly certain. >> charlie: you don't know the future. is that what you're saying? >> that's exactly what i'm saying. >> charlie: what core competence do you have. don't be modest. >> i think we have a great company. a.m.c. network. >> charlie: you do. i think we've assembled i really mean this, i think we've assembled a great burchl of people. we're developing the sun dance channel. i don't know if you've paid much attention to it. we just put on this series called rectify which i think is... i can't say enough about it. perhaps that's the most exquisite slowly paid. >> charlie: the your core competence the sense of... i mean, if you talk to a guy named jeff fager at 60 minutes and chairman of cbs news he would say my core competence is i'm a great story editor. a great story editor. now, you are a great programmer like les moon is a great

programmer. do you have a gene for that? >> if i have a core competency it's that i can create a plan. i hopefully have good taste. i can put together good people and get out of the way at the right time. >> charlie: netflix is making deals. it's financing things. hastings is not a dummy. >> yep. charlie: they made a deal with you about the killing. >> more than the killing. netflix we remade a deal on the killing but netflix is the distributor in the second window, if you want to call it that, on a number of our shows including mad men. sniem you can get them after they've aired on a.m.c. >> generally al year. that's the phenomenon i spoke about when you mentioned your friend who is about to catch up on breaking bad. i hope in anticipation of the premiere. >> charlie: what is the appeal of breaking bad.

i'm obviously there. >> i just think, when story telling is so, so, so many todayed good and this characters so well developed and they're so fully articulated as they are in that show then it's just irresistible particularly wonderful about that show, however, is that he breaks bad. he goes from good guy and he turns into mr. chips as it's been often described becomes scar face. >> charlie: and as bad as he was good? >> maybe worse. maybe much worse. maybe, i don't know what the words would be. amoural, diabolical. >> charlie: to get to know him, mr. white,. >> you said it very well, a little bit like aaron paul. >> charlie: i heard it in my head when i said it. >> by the way that's a particular steal because i just jumped a little bit.

i can't do it. but that sounded very good. >> charlie: that's exactly what i was hearing this my head. so good. enough of that. what did you do when you were a teenager? did you go around selling something on campuses like old films, classic films? >> yeah. so i had a film society at the university of wisconsin. when i left school, we showed art films and weird films and refer madness. we thought we could set up mobile movie house around the country. wee quiched a moving vehicle with projectors and the ability to print and then drove around the country and set up mobile. >> charlie: i'm interested in the fact of where people came from too. doing concert promoting and it came to entertainment that way. you were sort of doing. >> film distribution. charlie: sort of the same

thing. all of it springs from some love of the sort of glamor and sort of something about the business. >> i don't know if it's glamor. its cultural impact and its intrigue and it's just its creative juice. when you're proximate to it, there's a great experience of being anywhere. if you're emancipating it, if i can use such a fancy word or helping to make it happen. >> charlie: you can use it. here's the last thing i want to talk about. the international, the whole notion. is breaking bad popular. >> it is popular around the country. around the world. for give me i just spoke. sony distributed it around the world. it is quite popular. sony is our studio partner in the show. they distributed it around opul anded mad men is very popular and the walking dead is particularly popular around the globe.

>> charlie: why? i think in the case of the walking dead it's zombies as you may know and post apocalyptic world with great characters so i think its access inlt is easy. it leaps over culture. >> charlie: for a long time people said that film was our greatest export. certainly our greatest cultural export. is it still because china is developing a huge chinese film industry. >> i want to know where we sit. it continues to be in american television although british stuff is pretty wonderful. certain things work better. >> charlie: the cards came from britain. >> that's right. i think homeland was original. and the killing was called for bid. it was a dinish drama. >> charlie: do you like that? i didn't love borgen.

charlie: tell me what you dream about. what do you vizzialize in the future when you think about maybe. >> well i think about global, inherently global. reach to owe think there's six billion people on the planet. the number connected to pay television. the number connected to broadband is growing really rapidly. >> charlie: and the number who have mobile devices. >> what i do think about because it's an intoxicating and fut that is if you can bring that resource into the production of new material in a number of different areas this documentaries, in dramas, then you can actually feed a production pipe that would be terrific. if you make the distribution efficient, if you can figure out what makes it literally business efficient, then you can actually increase diversity of voice.

i know that sounds like a polite thing to say but it's a pretty wonderful thing. >> charlie: i don't want to let you off on the future. where do you see it? just take five years which is an eternity. >> five years. so i think that the pay television system, as we call hasj been much :. discussed in the united states i think will be in pretty good shape. >> charlie: they essentially mean what? >> cable. cable, satellite. that's the broad business term. i do think that there will be this thing called tv everywhere which is the ability to access your subscription on multiple devices that comcast, cable vision and others are deploying. that means that you can get all the stuff that you're paying your bill for on all your devices. with all that... >> charlie: you can take it to gym with you. >> everywhere. i think there will be a proliferation of internet, delivered individual dwroa that may become a little bit more niche meaning netflix, amazon. >> it will thrive.

charlie: yeah, yeah. significantly. there may be more defined services, wref a little service called sun dance now. you can get this group of documentaries on an internet subscription. so that's interesting. >> charlie: i want to sign up for that. >> good. we'll take your order. >> charlie: $8 or behalf it is. what does it cost us? >> about $6 a month when it's discounted. >> charlie: can you imagine $6. for $8 a month this is netflix you can access all those movies all that creative power. >> it's wonderful. it's great. but the cable subscription is pretty cool too because you can watch all this. you can watch three channels of c-span. >> charlie: exactly right. that's your argument. >> no joke by the way. charlie: that's your argument for bundling and not al a cart. >> if you look at the last 20 years this is not to be an add roact for the cable television business but it is the engine. it is is the engine that has given birth to all this stuff

and economically created a possibility. it's created four news channels tooking all day long and all this great drama and transparency to the u.s. government's proceedings, et cetera. >> charlie: meaning you had to also get this other stuff and like c-span. >> so it certainly is historically it made it happen. we'll see where future goes but we did make it happen. >> charlie: can't wait for breaking bad. thank you for coming. >> it's been a pleasure to talk to you. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org