tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg October 20, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." we are in phoenix, arizona at the walter cronkite. i am pleased to have as my guest senator john mccain. of strongg proponent defense and america's role around the world. he ran for president in 2000 eight. before serving in the senate, he of the house of representatives.
all of us know of his courage and heroism. mr. mccain, it is a pleasure to be in your home state. senator mccain: profound congratulations on being awarded the award for outstanding journalism from the walter cronkite school for journalism. i think it is richly deserved and we are honored you would come to arizona to receive it. charlie: thank you. whenever they put my name in the same sentence as walter cronkite, that is a winning day for me area --for me. senator mccain: i understand. but it is richly deserved. you support the president's decision to remain in afghanistan? senator mccain: i support the decision, but not the number. if we could remain at 10,000, that would barely be enough. but he also says we would go down to 5000. maybe his successor would have a major impact on that that is an
-- on that decision, but to have a minimum number rather than an efficient number -- i know for a fact military leaders recommended a much larger number, but when you go down to the bare minimum, you put the lives of the men and women serving at greater risk. i wish he ever was and more to the recommendations of general campbell and some of the others. charlie: was that number that much larger? was it a question of 2000 or three thousand more? was it much larger? firstr mccain: the recommendation, i'm told, was 20,000. charlie: that's almost double. senator mccain: i would have 10,000 tortable with 15,000. but you need to withdraw on conditions, not on calendar. charlie, what just happened in kunduz is indicative of a fundamental weakness that cannot be addressed unless we stay and give them the support they need. they don't have an air force. they don't have good
intelligence. they don't have medevac capability for example. there are some of the things we can do in support that we would have to do. charlie: but people will raise the question, and you have heard this in the armed services committee, we have spent so much. we have given them so much in terms of treasure and blood and they have not been able to train very effective forces so far. senator mccain: one reason is because of the rapidity of the withdrawal. pakistan.ason is also, there is the zeal to get out. we have troops in korea, we have troops in germany, we have troops in bosnia. we have been leaving troops behind ever since world war ii. american people do not mind because americans are not dying or wounded, but we do spend a large amount of american
maintain stability in those places and olivia is an example of what happens when you don't. and libya is an example of what happens when you don't. i will come to libya and a moment. do you think is a recognition of the obama administration that it was too early to withdraw from afghanistan and iraq? senator mccain: i think this is a contradiction. remember, this was the good war in the president's universe. i believe it is an acknowledgment of the recognition and the need to have an american force their unless re unlessan force the we want to see a destabilization. the taliban have been given weapons by a rant. isis is getting a foothold. the sanctuary in pakistan still
exists. it's a tough call. turn to syria. you have said that the white house has no strategy. that its actions are floundering. what should we be doing? long time ago: a when secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary of defense and the director of the cia, then general petraeus, recommended we equip the free syrian army, that is when the president said it is not a matter of whether, it is a matter of when bashar al-assad will leave. since that refusal, and of course the red line was one of the seminal moments in the history of the obama administration. my friend, that had a profound effect, not only in the middle east, but around the world. the red meaning that line was violated and the president did nothing, even though there was an agreement the russians to get the chemical weapons out of syria? first of all,:
they are still using some chemical weapons. but the point is, the president did not say if they crossed this red line we will intervene militarily. he did not say we would cooperate with the russians to get them out. he said we are going to strike if you cross this red line. and he didn't. that is why -- the saudi's just went to moscow to buy $9 billion worth of weapons. bought $5 billion from the russians. that is inferior equipment. because they are trying to adjust to the dramatic reduction or end of america's serious influence in the region. now we see bladder putin establishing himself as a major in the world, the first time the russians have been able to do that since the russians kicked and martha. out in 1973. -- kicked and marsa. -- kicked
sadat out in 1973. i still do not think what we should give up on the moderates. what putin and bashar al-assad are trained to do is faces with a choice. isis or bashar al-assad. and then obviously would have to make an accommodation with the charlotte side. charlie: that's exactly what latimer putin said to me -- vladimir putin said to me. i'm coming to defend bashar al-assad because that's the only government. senator mccain: i say with great respect, i understand putin's point of view, but what about syrians that have been butchered by the charlotte side? what about the millions of refugees? are we going to pursue
accommodation with this guy? right now we are training and equipping young men to go into ofia to fight -- in the case the one program run by dod, it has been a complete collapse. why did that collapse? because they made these young men swear they were only going to fight against isis when these young men think their enemy is the guy who has butchered ierybody and their family -- and her family. now we see the dod sponsored program, which has some viability -- excuse me, the cia-backed program. guess what? them.ir putin is killing so, what is the message to young men in syria? train -- we train you and you go back in, but we will not protect you from vladimir putin slaughtering you? charlie: what would be your message to vladimir putin if, in fact, you knew the airstrike killed people the cia was
supporting? senator mccain: i would say as hillary clinton has recommended and david betray us recommended petreaus recommended, we have a no-fly zone. charlie: and if they shoot that down? senator mccain: that depends on how they did it and what they did. if they come in with evil intentions to destroy these people -- if it is an overflight, it's a different scenario, but after we declare a no-fly zone to protect people and we allow the russians to and bomb? but i will bet you $1000 to a doughnut that they never would if they thought they were going to be responded to. charlie: so, you think they came
in because they sensed a vacuum? senator mccain: -- thetor mccain: i think primary reason is bashar al-assad was very, very weak. moderates are a major factor there. he wants to maintain his base in the mediterranean, which have been in jeopardy if the charlotte side was overthrown -- if bashar al-assad was overthrown and he was to be a major player in the middle east, which he has obtained that role. charlie: he is going to be a major player in the middle east now. he has that based there. in syria, what is the solution with all of the tragedy that has happened in that country? is it to find, as the administration suggests, some kind of transition government? is it necessary to figure out how we will work with the russians to defeat isis?
because the director of the cia said we do not want to see isis marching into the mask is. senator mccain: do you know how many times they have floated this idea of how are we going to work with the russians? isyou think latimer putin interested in -- vladimir putin is interested in removing bashar did,sad? and even if you do you think he would not have someone who is not his close ally? of course not. charlie: do you know what the administration says about that? he is going to fail. it's going to be an embarrassment. he will fail the way that they failed in afghanistan. senator mccain: i certainly hope they are correct. in the meantime, how many thousands innocent syrians have to die while he finds himself in a quagmire? of defense, who i like very much, says it is unprofessional. the major goal is to keep our
airplanes from flying anywhere near russian airplanes while they kill the people we are training. there is a certain immorality here, charlie, the likes of which i have seldom seen. charlie: where would be the ground forces you would think the -- would be effective and would they need some kind of additional help from american troops, one way or the other. i think in the no-fly zone, yes, they would need american troops, some trainers, that kind of assistance. and that would be perfectly legitimate to me. also we would need a lot more in iraq itself. i'm sure you have seen this new -- and theon between russians, the "intelligence sharing." of iraq isinister
that he would like to see russian airstrikes in iraq as well. charlie: is the risk a wider war? senator mccain: there are risks in every thing we do. but the path we are on will lead ambitions and the continued growth of vices and continuing russian influence in the region, which cannot be good. it charlie: -- which cannot be good. charlie: brzezinski said that there is one option. demand that russia sees and -- cease and desist. senator mccain: i'm a big say we, but if you could are going to defend these areas, we are not going to let you barrel bomb these people, we are going to train and equip these people and this is a no-fly zone and this is a buffer zone and we are going to care for these people -- then if latin america
argue also, let the russians fall on their own sword. that if they are there, they will find out they are no better at solving the mess in syria than anyone else and it will end up the same weight afghanistan ended up for them when they went home and had been defeated by the move -- by the mujahedin. senator mccain: i might remind you that we supported the mujahedin. that's something we have not done. how many men, women, and children are we willing to watch the russiansd i and bashar al-assad -- by the russians and bashar al-assad? charlie: you are saying we have to do what ever is necessary including boots on the ground -- senator mccain: i'm not talking about 100,000. i'm talking about some boots on the ground. when you look at libya, what happened -- charlie: we supported going into
libya to overthrow gadhafi, and now you have a failed state. a failed state with isis making gains. what are the lessons of that? senator mccain: the first step is the changing government. we still have 30,000 troops, but the important thing is you have to help them build the nation. we walked away. we completely walked away from libya. and joe lieberman and lindsey graham and i wrote a piece right after it and said, you've got to help them secure weapons caching. got to do things to help these countries make the transition. if you walk away from any country that has been governed by nothing by a dictator -- look korea after the armistice in south korea. i called up leon panetta and i
said, leon, send a hospital ship. they have 20,000 wounded in libya. send a hospital ship and help them treat their wounded. that would be the greatest pr thing you can do. no, they could not do it. they did not do anything. these things into the wrong way, they end up the wrong way because we do not follow through. charlie: and you have said, everybody knows russia is winning. in the shortn: term, he clearly is. look at vladimir putin. he has been able to insert himself in the middle east in a they have not since 1973 and he is playing a major role in a lot of places. he has been able to dismember ukraine. he has been able to take crimea. he is putting enormous pressure on the baltic companies -- countries. charlie: there are those who argue what russia is doing --
notwithstanding is economic circumstances -- it is building up its military so it has a more effective military than five years ago. senator mccain: his goals are much larger than a well-trained military. charlie: but it is a recognition he has a stronger military than he has ever had. senator mccain: absolutely. look at their latest aircraft. look at their surface to air capabilities. look at when they invaded georgia. it was ham-fisted mistakes. compare that to what they did with me up. -- what they did with crimea. they've gotten a lot better. and their economy is fundamentally weak. in history, when dictators have weak economies and problems at home, what do they do? .harlie: benghazi speaking of libya. has the committee been totally discredited in your judgment? think therein: i
has been an attempt to -- and i cannot judge what this committee has done until the final rendering of their conclusions, etc. i know trey gowdy. i know you is an honest man and a man of integrity. before i make a decision and before anybody should, let's do the result. not aboutt's benghazi. now it's about her e-mails and everything else. senator mccain: every major investigation you and i have seen leaves in different directions. certainly watergate was a great example of that. but is republican credibility on trial here now as secretary clinton comes to testify? i think thein: conclusions at the end of all of this -- because the conclusion he reached, whether the american people believe they are legitimate or not, will be the ultimate test. charlie: what do you believe? senator mccain: i know this. come too not
spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and rpg's. i happen to be on a sunday morning show right after susan rice was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. i said, no one brings an rpg and importer to a spontaneous to miss ration. even when the bodies came home, i was in amherst, and hillary clinton told the families, we will get the people who made this hateful video. by that time he was obvious there was no hateful video. this was a planned and well carried out attacks. a hatefulhere was video, but you're saying notwithstanding, it was not that. they clearly went there with weapons in the beginning -- senator mccain: absolutely. absolutely. i know that. it is well known that chris stevens sent back many warnings, severe warnings --
clinton'secretary response is it was not my responsibility to be in charge of security. senator mccain: when the ship runs aground, the captain says i was not in charge of navigation or the navigator was. charlie: if it happens on your watch, you are responsible? therefore, how should she be held accountable? senator mccain: what did she know, when did she know it, why didn't she know it, all of those .uestions the usual. you and i have seen these investigations before on occasions. watergate. nixon, what did he know, when did he know it applies here. so, we will see. what i would ask is let it play out. believe they have been pretty well in controlling leaks. i think they have done a pretty
given the sieve like nation of washington. charlie: it will be interesting when she testifies. senator mccain: i was there on the foreign relations committee when she went through that tirade about what difference does it make? that was a disgraceful performance on her part. precededshe basically that by saying americans were killed, so who cares? that is what she said. to rid the to iran arena's are beginning to dismantle. what is your expectation -- let me turn to iran. the iranians are beginning to dismantle. what is your expectation? senator mccain: they are pouring into iran -- charlie: to have the capability to do what? usuallymccain: in icbm carries a nuclear weapon. they are pouring into syria to fight with russian airpower -- charlie: you're saying
irradiance, not have a lot -- iranians, not hezbollah? they areccain: supplying the duties in yemen. charlie: what should we do about iranian behavior? senator mccain: i think it is very wrongheaded to take an arms can treat it like -- especially when everyone knows that barack obama's ambition from the beginning was there was no arrangement with iran where we would have a whole new changed landscape in the middle east. and obviously when you see their behavior, that is not happening. they have 100 billion or so to reinforce -- charlie: listen to this.
this is from henrik kissinger, you're very good friend, -- henry kissinger, you're very different. american policy on iran has moved to the center of its middle eastern policy. the administration insists it will take a stand against jihadists and imperialist designs by iran and it will deal sternly with the violations of the nuclear agreement. but it also sees passionately committed to the quest for bringing about a reversal of the dimension ofessive iranian policy through historic evolution bolstered by negotiation. it goes on to say if, in fact, they are looking to an analogy with china and his opening to china does not work? senator mccain: as he points out in that article, there were 40-some russian divisions. this was the precept. this is why barack obama refused to say a word on behalf of the demonstrators in 2009 after a corrupt election in tehran.
so, it seems at least so far it is abundantly clear there will not be any change in iranian behavior. with respect to israel and iran and the united states relationship with israel --is it at a low point? clearly.ccain: i talked to israelis over time. they are very disillusioned and very upset. and by the way, just for a second. thing with the stabbing. this is the quintet sense of a symmetric warfare. asymmetric warfare. charlie: could it lead to a new intifada? think you are: i seeing the beginnings of it. you know you were going to die, but kill as many israelis as you can before that? that's awfully hard to counter.
one of the soldiers at the killing just had a press id on. charlie: one of the palestinian protesters who came forward at a press id. let me turn to politics. you are running for reelection. senator mccain: yes, sir. charlie: what is it like to run for reelection this year? what is the temper of the public? senator mccain: very angry. charlie: how washington? senator mccain: at washington, the slow economy. charlie: and they have a reason to be angry? senator mccain: yes. and they have a reason to be angry at congress because they do not see you -- see real results. they see and taken as a between the two parties which is maybe higher than you and i have seen. so, they want to clean everybody out. charlie: speaking of that, donald trump. senator mccain: [laughter]
he is leading. he has struck a nerve and he is playing on the situation, as you and i just discussed -- immigration and other issues. immigration policy, you were out here strongly to have latino votes and people will say the republican party is throwing away any opportunity to have hispanic and latino support the cause -- because the perception is the republican party holds the view that donald trump does. senator mccain: well, that is true to a significant degree, that there is that feeling. look at the percentage of the vote that has steadily decreased since george w. bush -- ronald reagan used to take a majority, as you know. it has decreased every election. i think it's clear we are not attracting a significant percentage.
charlie: you call them crazy. let me say this. when you look at the demographics of the growth of the hispanic population, no party is going to win by 2035, in arizona, the majority of the vote will be hispanic. and this pro-life, pro-military, small business -- i was in a mercado the other day with 250 new small businesses. charlie: if donald trump is at the head of the republican ticket, and the polls say he will, if he is at the head of the party at 2016, will that threaten the reelection of john mccain? senator mccain: it is about having an effect on everybody.
charlie: will there be a negative effect on john mccain? senator mccain: i think it would be minimized because i have had such a long relationship with the hispanic community in arizona. but i do not think it will make it any easier. it could have an effect nationwide. if ronald reagan got a certain percentage of hispanic votes, if that were -- there were that many now, it would be hard for a republican to win a general election with the percentage of the hispanic vote due to the increasing numbers. ofrlie: is the john mccain that campaign in 2000 the same john mccain today? senator mccain: sure. yeah. charlie, there is no point in changing now. this -- and
senator mccain: that is one of the reasons i'm going to have a tough fight. charlie: because you are a straight talker. what are you most proud of? , beyond the mccain family tradition of service to it?country -- what is i am most proud of my military service for having the strength of my comrades to refuse an offer to come home early. life, i think i have been most effective and can be effective on national security. being chairman of the senate armed services committee has enormous responsibilities and authorities. that is why i am running again. -- and i see that we are part of the problem is republicans that only care about deficits.
we need to care for the men and women. we need to train them, give them the weapons and benefits they need. we need a strategy. you were quoting henry kissinger. when he and madeleine albright testified before the armed services committee, they agreed the world has not been in more turmoil since the end of world war ii. we have the largest number of refugees since world war ii. charlie: thank you for allowing me to visit with you in your home state. senator mccain: you are always welcome back here in arizona. please spend a lot of money while you are here. charlie: i do not have a lot of money. thank you. back in a moment. we will talk about journalism at the walter cronkite school of journalism and communication, where they are doing remarkable things as they look at journalism, almost a laboratory. back in a moment. ♪
knight foundation. chris callahan is the founding dean. is my friend and executive of cbs news. i am pleased to have them. thank you for letting steve and i come from new york to be here. .teve has been here before it is an honor for me to be here and meet you guys and your students. where are we in journalism today with the impact of new digital technology? impacting us, and what are the lessons and challenges? from a teaching perspective, huge challenges. the basic skills of journalism are arguably more important now. the ability to identify a story, reported accurately, and to be
able to write. writing that can compel people to listen to a story. more important now than ever. layer on top of that a whole series of tools. digital tools that our students and young journalists now have the ability to use. they have to learn them and learn them while. charlie: you have to tell the story and put the pictures together. age is think the digital turning journalism upside down. why we need journalism is the same. but who journalists can be, what , where, how when people get news, all of that is changing. the digital age is a major new age in communication. chris is saying is right, the fundamentals of
storytelling are not changing, so many things are. if we do not pay attention to those, we will not just experience a decline of current traditional media, but a missed opportunity in connecting with the next generation. charlie: what is it you want to do? there is the idea of it being a lab and a place where you get a kind of training that you may not have gotten in the past. when i was at the night foundation, i worked with 100 journalism schools around the country. the best idea for teaching journalists is immersive education, like a teaching hospital. at a teaching hospital, medical students save lives. they can birth babies. they also develop new technologies. burn treatment, heart technology.
that came out of teaching hospitals. our idea is that students have the capacity not just to do journalism in journalism school, but to learn to try new ways of doing journalism, new ways of engaging with the community. they are better prepared not just for the job when they graduate, but for the career after that. charlie: you have been executive producer of nbc nightly news, president. you are executive producer with an additional title at cbs. is it different today? steve: it is different. you cannot have an explosion of technology and distribution platforms and say we will do the same job we were doing in the 1980's, 1990's. things have changed. the information age is a wonderful time. what this really comes down to is a quest for
relevance. we want to stay relevant to news consumers. we have to recognize that, by the time they come around to the evening news, they know what is going on. there is a lot of commoditized information. i do not want to be in the commodities business. i want to be in the business of offering something new. charlie: you have the same elements -- white house correspondent, correspondents around the world. steve: true. and from those deployments, we are in the same sorts of things. but in this age, you can do whatever journalism you want. i have chosen to be on a network where i think what our quest for relevance is is presenting information of unquestionable caliber and high quality. and unique enterprise journalism. that white house reporter has to
have something different. it has to advance the story. the competitive situation has become so much greater. however, we still do rely on the fundamentals. news tohe brand of cbs continue to mean something. that is where we are absolutely in partnership with some of schools -- the great schools like arizona state or temple. they have to give us journalists who are ready to go. we are not going to be able to turn out the kind of wallaby work that is required -- quality work that is required. charlie: has the path for journalists today become different? you get a job in the 150th market if it was television and go to the 50th market, and then you may go to network.
is that the path? those are still pass, but there is much more in the news ecosystem. you still sense that the students are learning in digital news skills that are transferable to different industries. everybody is in the business of trying to tell their own story. , solie: they have podcasts many other ways to create a different newscast. eric: and if you know some of the tools and technologies coming out, you can, as a young person, get hired in an entry position at the best news organizations in the country. news organizations have to change with the times. if graduating students are prepared to help with the newest ways of doing things, it can save an awful lot of time. help us do journalism faster and
better. they can become extremely valuable to the big news organizations. take a long time to get to "the new york times." you can now get there right out of school, working in digital-related jobs. charlie: it is a sense of value aout news and values about sense of right and wrong. that is always the starting point. that remains true throughout. it is a little easier for us to do. walter was extremely good whonds with the gentleman owned a cbs affiliate for decades and decades. i was there in the early 1980's.
it was the late tom chauncy who what was can we help at the time, a struggling regional journalism school to be affiliated with great journalists? walter is the first name. walter had only one condition. who owned a cbs affiliate for decades and decades. and that was that journalism remain a journalism school, not a school of media. journalism was the driving element. charlie: has that changed? chris: not at all. the focus on journalism remains. charlie: he would come here and present the award every year. chris: he would. and interact with students. it was a wonderful thing to see. 100, 200 students in a room with walter, regaling them with stories. as you know, he was always more interested in their stories than his. charlie: the secret of water that some people knew but not
many, was his curiosity. he was an anchorman, but his fascination -- somehow he invited the nation's curiosity about medicine, the universe. and also about celebrity and the rest of it. he enjoyed the company of people he admired because of their skills as a musician, filmmaker or cultural figure. eric: if you had two students to consider and they were equal storytellers, you would want the one that was creative, curious, adaptable. thanne that had more storytelling skills. they had something plus. that is the difference between great journalists that tell people things they absolutely need to know to run governments and their lives, and the ones who are not as great. those kinds of people
may have been the demise of the evening news. the same time, abc, cbs, fox reached 15 million people. steve: the audience is significant, no question. we have been hearing about the imminent demise of the evening newscast since we have been doing this, but i do not see it. there will always be a home for a place that summarizes the perspective,ives unique investigative reporting. and the places that are true to their brand will survive. charlie: what i think is important is that this has freed us from real-time. you can watch an evening newscast in front of the television at 6:30, but there are other places to watch it.
you did not want me to say that, did you? i actually like that. you will not get somebody to watch something with a short shelf life. if all we do on the evening news is kind of a summary of what took place and there is no real investigative reporting or unique reporting, there is no reason to go to the dvr. you have already known the headlines. you were arriving in your car the home and had news radio on. a steady stream online all day long. dvr ok if somebody wants to the broadcast because we will make it worth the investment. i do not think they're going to watch it a week from tomorrow. charlie: it is not just that. you can go to a cbs app. what do you see? steve: you can see a streaming
, a 24-hour streaming channel of cbs newscasts. you can go back into the archives and watch "60 minutes." "this morning." i think it is worth the time. this is a nod to the audience and making sure we are staying relevant. they will say, i get my news from the phone. say i get theey news from my phone -- steve: then we had better do that. the one hand, we come from the 20th century when the newsmakers were the gatekeepers. now, the fence is gone. the gate is gone. but millions of people are walking through where the gate used to be. some of it is content.
it is what is there. it gives them meaning in a world full of data, full of information. we continue to provide that. chris: but it is a two-way street. networks have attitudes that we were about to present the news. stephen: now, the news. and the audience was told to respect it because it is network programming. they do not care as much about what people were saying or what we were doing. but you had better care right now and have engaged in the conversation. charlie: this is your point about relevancy? steve: relevancy, and it is a two-way street. it is not just one white. -- way. chris: one of the things we're
trying to teach is that audience matters in a way maybe it didn't matter 20 years ago. i would write a story and send it out and that was it. i did not pay attention to who read it or whatever. now, we need to make sure those who is readingw it and why they are reading it. eric: talking about public here at the, cronkite school, there is the public insight network. this is a general outreach program for everybody who wants to be involved in the news, wants to be a source for the news. you amass thousands of people in the database. it helps, in an organized way, to be in touch with the community. that kind of thing was not possible 20 years ago. charlie: the phenomenon of jon
stewart, recently left the show with great respect for his influence. audience who came to him. about the notion of how a comedy program gains such respect among a young audience? eric: they were true jokes. there was a lot of truth in them. charlie: satire? eric: it is not a news thing. a different generation had "saturday night live." and now there is john oliver on hbo. charlie: here is what is interesting to me about that. most of what they do has to do with the news. playing jokes are about
off of what is happening today. that serves them and their material. steve: i do not see it as a substitute. it is a way to get people interested. what about what it has done in bringing in a younger audience? i welcome any time somebody comes into the space and is committed to serious journalism. charlie: the standards we all believe in. steve: i would hope that is what you want to see. the quickest way to doom yourself to irrelevance in the news space is to not be a stickler about fundamentals. -- to a commitment to stay true to qualities, the things that the audience expects of you, do not let the audience
down. then you will be fine. becausea great time there is so much opportunity and so many new outlets like vice. i think it is great. we are conditioning people to seek news and information. that is a good thing for all of us. chris: and for us to look at different kinds of experimentation. there are lessons we cannot necessarily replicate. chris, thank you for inviting me. john mccain let the cat out of the bag as to why i am here, but thank you for inviting me. i want to say to students that this is a wonderful way to spend your life. the idea of getting up in the morning, asking yourself what is real, relevant, interesting, compelling, it is remarkable. as fast as you can develop the
skills to do that, they will enhance your appreciation of what you are doing -- better comparisons,er better analysis -- all of that is part of a life of a journalist. after a longmyself time in this business, working with a remarkable group of people. if you knew the quality of the men and women i have had the great fortune to work with, you would be proud of the people bringing you the news. these are really hard-working people. they care about the story. they spend a lot of time making sure they got it right. sometimes, we fail. but so often, we are doing things above and beyond the call of duty. but it is the duty, the duty to get it right. we often like to get it first, but most of all, we would like to get it right. i have had a pleasure and honor
to work with a series of people that have been with me on the program that first gained , the 60 minutes executive producer -- chris, executive producer of cbs this morning. all of them have been my colleagues and my boss and have i haveme with whatever done that has enabled me to come here and be honored by you. those people deserve this every bit as much as i have. it has given me much more than i have given it. thank you. it is so nice to be with you from arizona state university. at the walter cronkite school of journalism and masking indication. good night. ♪