tv Best of Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg October 8, 2017 3:00pm-4:00pm EDT
and when the cameras and -- he has a bigger platform. it's completely different and what i said to our team was if you have a message our you want to convey to fans in the media, let's just say it. say what's on your mind. if you know, these types of protests that the nfl does, you lose control of the narrative and so it's not the right way to it. >> you don't think they should
have protested in that way? >> i'm all for civil disobedience. it was their only opportunity to do that. they didn't have a platform otherwise. nba is completely different. we have much stronger platforms. we have a far better way to message.te a >> is this a battle that president trump should be picking? >> no! but you know what? not -- it's not about sports and politics because sports is part of politics, you know. sports people, athletes, owners whatever endorse candidates, etc. but come on. that's who he is. to me, there's three donald trumps. there's the one trying to be the president, there's the salesperson and the twitter troll. right? when he trolls on twitter he's fair game, anybody can take a shot at him. mode, youin campaign just ignore him, when he's trying to do his job at president, hopefully, you help people around him to help them. i've worked with probably four donethree agencies and things for them that the president has no idea because, you know, that's what patriotic do and you just let
him pretend to be president or know, thing, and, you hopefully, the best happens. >> you've made your political views very clear. concernsyour biggest administration? >> i don't know. that he just doesn't know what's going on, right? him to make ann effort to understand or learn. and, you know, possibly it's because he's not capable, possibly it's because he's not willing. it's -- i mean don't think he has it in him. make it through four years? >> i would say 25% chance, maybe doesn't.e he i would be willing to bet against it, not because he's going to do something just wrong, even though sometimes, it seems like it, but oblivious to the institutions in government and he'll do something and won't that it's an impeachable offense. >> you recently bought a stake twitter. >> i bought some shares.
>> whawhy now? >> i'm a big fan of artificial intelligence. you see the evolution of the on apps and the web. >> should twitter kick trump off platform? >> you can't do that. >> why not? >> yoyou know what, we're in a situation right now where is so tribal and our lives are so tribal that in that focusof people who really on politics, when you try to make a dramatic move, you increase the amount of tribalism, right? so if you kick him off, all the fans are going to go bananas and that doesn't do any good for anybody and he just goes to facebook, and then you same thing or he posts it on a website. there's a thousand ways to post digitally and twitter is the only one he knows how to even he can sure learn how to use facebook or something else. >> twitter, facebook, now google cross hairs of this russia investigation, the spread of fake news and misinformation. responsibility?
>> well, you know, it's interesting because for television, if you broadcast an add that said you swallow this penny and it will every illness, right? you wouldn't be allowed to broadcast, there are rules that that.t you from doing i think the same rules should apply to marketing and digital ads. can't knowingly accept, take money from or broadcast false advertising. and the same should apply to facebook and twitter. >> what about -- that's advertising. content?t >> content, look, it's not content if you're trying to agenda,a specific right? it's marketing. and there's a big difference. content can be fact, opinion, but state it as opinion or it's state it's reporting to have a reporter assigned to it. otherwise, it's an ad and particularly what we've seen they're usingn targeting, that's advertising. the're posting it through ad platform and if you're posting it through the ad news,rm, it can't be fake it's a misleading advertisement.
and it's the responsibility of facebook and twitter to recognize this is an advertising platform, we can't allow fake be hosted on our platform. >> last question. you'retold bloomberg considering getting into bitcoin. what do you think of people like jamie diamond saying it's a fraud? >> it's interesting because i assetshere's a lot of that are just -- their value is based off supply and demand, you know. most stocks, there's no intrinsic value because you have no true ownership rights, you just vothe ability to buy and stocks.se they're like baseball cards, and i think bitcoin is the same thing. its value is a function of demand.nd it doesn't do anything else. i bought it through an e.t.n. based on a swedish exchange because that gave me liquidity. bitcoin? >> and i'm also involved with token sales because i think block chain is a great platform. streamingthe net and
created multiple great companies, i think block chain well.as i'm involved in something called mercury protocol, just to disclose that i think is going messaging to help -- it will change messaging. >> how big is your stake in bitcoin? >> in bitcoin, relatively small. dallas mavericks owner and axx tv ceo mark cuban. up, much more from the vanity fair new establishment summit in l.a. we cover the shifting media landscape with disney ceo bob eiger. this is bloomberg.
>> now, more coverage from the vanity fair new establishment summit. ceo bobown with disney iger to talk about the changing media layup. outlook forh his espn which has seen a growing losses in theber last few quarters. >> right now, the business model the most people access primary espn content, which is 16,000 sporting events a year, is a good business model for us and a relatively good proposition for the consumer. it's working. it's not growing as fast as it once did. that's been largely what people on, but thecused epitaph for espn would be far premature to write.
it's interesting to use the word mortality otherwise, i wouldn't word epitaph. said,till covers, as i 16,000 sporting events a year, 65,000 hours of programming. the few months in 2016 i of americans% watched some form of espn at one point or another in a month. anean, it's still unbelievably popular service and one that is still thriving from a profitability perspective, but beenorld of tv has disrupted and we feel we need to adjust accordingly and that's what we're doing by launching a streaming service and that's what we're doing -- that's why andnvested in bam tech that's why we're making available all these extra sports a streaming basis. >> you mentioned on stage that you were looking into buying twitter. tech instead.
why did you decide against twitter? >> well, what i said on stage, i asked whether we had looked at twitter and what i said was we were looking for opportunities to distribute in more modern ways and particularly direct to the impressednd we were with twitter's distribution. twitter was not the only company that we looked at. on stage.t but we did look at it and we ultimately decided that there were alternatives to that and wince we weren't really in owning a social media platform, but we were interested in distribution, we investing in bam tech as a minority owner and decided to buyingere's a path a majority or control, then that would be the better way to go to what we wanted accomplish. >> bloomberg had reported that perhaps disney couldn't get over the unsavory, more unsavory parts of twitter. is there any truth to that? >> i don't really want to be saw,fic about what we except to say that our interest whatew distribution or
i'll call modern distribution, direct to consumer. and ultimately, we felt there couldther ways that we accomplish that as a company. takingtime, oracle is the fight to amazon. the founder calling its new cloud technologies revolutionary. our editor at large sat down with oracle ceo mark herd at oracle open world. >> it's called the autonomous database. again, it's not a highly automated database. it's truly an autonomous database. people spend hours and hours tuning databases, trying to get them to perform, trying to them whichte patch has become a more well known word over the past few months than it ever has before. of this stuff that had been done technically is going to be done automatically, us.nomously, done by and a whole set of implications sufficell of this, but
to say it's extremely significant. a lot lower cost. much more secure. much more automated. it's just a fantastic set of announcements from our product team and larry made those last night. is the technology that allows us to work not just sort of fixing itself and repairing itself but more quickly? >> yeah, and it's really all in quote/unquote machine to machine learning. so without getting into all of or machine learning. when you get into all of the technology, we try to stay away from that a bit last night and talk more about what it does, but it is basically the computer, our computers basically are getting smarter and smarter and smarter. the computer has, obviously, the smarter all of the decisions that the computer makes. all of this -- and it's something as simple as being data, tocan your understand potential intrusions, anomalies. through all of this in
a lot of detail, we don't have a lot of time right now, but this technology doing the work. and face it, today computers can recognize faces better than humans can. to ask you about m.n.a. weren't a lot of obvious targets out there for oracle, which i think is maybe -- it seemed to me a bit of a different view on what's out there in the marketplace. you guys obviously have a robust oracle.hin is that a change with the notion that maybe you have acquired tot you're going to need acquire and acquisitions will slow down? muchwouldn't expect corey of a change in our behavior. disciplined.been i think whether you hear from larry or me you'll hear the same story. i mean we look at things that first make strategic sense for us. buy things to buy things. they have to make sense strategically. make senseo financially for us or we don't bethem and third it has to
something we can actually run, optimize in the oracle family. we use those filters. i think the only point larry was is compared to a decade ago where there were lots of potential targets, the market is consolidating. the market is changing. the market is dynamic. and there's perhaps, i don't it takes a lot of analysis to say there's less targets than we'llwere before and continue to be discerning. >> there are proposals coming up the white house of notions of repatriation of assets from overseas and i might changeat oraclee plans are, would o hire more, acquire more and the company is able to bring some back? >> let's be clear. we've been running the company the way to invest into company as we speak, regardless of repatriation. so for us, we've been -- we're as we speak. so as you look and listen to lots of different changes in
workforces in our industry, that's not us. been investing seven or eight years ago, our head count was 90,000. count now is 140,000. and a., a lot of that is organic hiring. that said, we would love to repatriate our cash to the u.s. and there's no question we would the u.s., yes. >> so finally when i covered announcementnings your competitors were quick to call to complain to me for some reason about your growth rates and i wonder what you make of your cloud growth rate and how it compares to competitors' like and like sales force. >> well, again, listen let's rates.out our growth i love it. thank you for asking the question. our growth rates are the highest lastve been in years so quarter we grew the company in revenue 7%. you know, that's total revenue revenuething, our cloud
was higher. revenue growth rate higher than competitors. so our bookings were -- last year, we booked over $2 billion in new cloud bookings this time last year, had many people think you'll don't ever get that done, we did and beat it. our growth rate in q.1 in bookings was actually higher than it was the year before in q.1. so corey listen, i mean, there's lots of people that say lots of things. the numbers and we're in as good a position, our business is growing, we made the biggest announcement of database we had ever made. we're pretty excited around here. >> coming up, much more from the vanity fair new establishment summit. in on theacson weighs current leadership at snap. this is bloomberg.
>> more from the vanity fair new establishment summit. i sat down with walter isaacson, aspen institute and author of the best-selling book steve jobs. our conversation about the current status of tech giants like facebook and google. listen. >> nowadays, facebook and amazon in particular are so and powerfuleative that they could stymie competition and it's always difficult to know how to deal with that. jeff bezos has a wonderful line steve jobs and others have said as well is that you shouldn't be obsessed with your competitors. you should be obsessed with your customers and the rest will follow. snap isink that's what going to do is follow the lead of the customers as okay i want
to tell stories, okay i want this new feature and as long as i keep innovating, they'll stay a step ahead of facebook. a young mark spiegel?g in evan >> i think they're deeply creative people who have a real what users would want. spiegel to be deeply philosophical, start, and great sense of leadership, which is to me the thing. i mean, to lead a public company, that's even more difficult than creating a product. greatjobs created really products, but in 1985, he was publictrouble leading a company, and i think evan spiegel is getting over that hump. deeply impressed with evan spiegel. >> facebook, google, twitter are in the cross hairs of the most the worldissues in
right now, fake news, the spread of misinformation, abuse, before congress now in this russia probe. how serious is this? serious and people have responsibility in this world. went online, it was many years ago and there was a service called the well that was stewart brand and others and the first words that own up were you own your words. in other words, you had to take responsibility for what you said. world now of twitter and bey other places, people can anonymous, they can create fake news without any sense of on facebook and twitter. we saw that again happen in worse, we saw far it happen in the election. and i think the time has come where you can no longer say oh, it's not our responsibility. platform. a >> so how do they rise to that? what do they do? >> well, it's easy. for 500 years ever
invented therg printing press, which is what people sake responsibility for what they publish. that involves having humans in mix because with all due respect to artificial intelligence, algorithms can't perfectly. you need to say here are our values, and you need to -- people say what's the difference and real news?ws and i say if you have to ask that question get out of the being a, go back to fisherman. >> youtube and g-mail are at the center of this. just recently pulled russia today from their premium ad packages. less about google, but what about google? >> i think that one of the that young things is want to balance the ability to can --rge where you somebody can do a search, and it's neutral, it doesn't say we're going to bias this, that the other. but you also have to stop people up in thetting newsfeeds that will be searched things that you know
are incorrect and done incorrect.ly certainly as a journalist, i publish things that were incorrect in the past, sometimes things that were fored, but it wasn't done some ulterior, secret motive and that's what's happening with news today, and i think you have to make that distinction if you're a google, you have to say right, this thing about justas vegas shooter was put up as pure fakery and we have to find ways to get rid of that. >> if indeed, facebook, twitter, google swayed the election in one direction or another, i mean the recourse for that? what are the consequences? >> well, i think you have to forward, which is you have to say in this new environment, we used to have gatekeepers. walter cronkite would say that's the way it is and most of the would say okay he's my gatekeeper. we're in a better world now go, wherever i want,
including russian sources or palestinianes or sources to get the news, but we can't use ouru platform to intentionally markad people and as zuckerberg has said recently, we get it now. that allf didn't do that well and i suspect the goode at google also have values and are smart enough to figure out going forward we're going to have to do it better. >> regulators are stepping in, intentionallespecially in europ. do you think there's a reckoning google?or facebook and >> i think in europe there's a reckoning coming. in not somebody who's deeply favor of on the spot regulations and government agencies trying to regulate information. i think that's a really, really bad idea. which is why i think it's a idea for google and facebook to step up and do it themselves. self-policing you think is what's necessary? >> i think when you start having government laws telling you what you're in acan flow
really bad place, which is why involved ino get the industry of the flow of information have to have certain values so that we don't have people saying we need the government to regulate the flow of information. against the government regulating the flow of information. >> it certainly requires a lot companies, these though. >> it does and they've lost that trust, and i think when they bad fort trust, it's them so they should be trying to regain the trust, and i think to regain theg trust. >> that was walter isaacson, ceo aspen institute. coming up, much more from the vanity fair new establishment in los angeles. reid hoffman linked in founder talks to us about the future of a.i. and a reminder all episodes streaming on twitter. check us out 5:00 p.m. in new york, 2:00 p.m. san francisco. this is bloomberg. is this a phone?
or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.
♪ emily: welcome back to "best of bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. we have more highlights from the vanity fair new establishment summit here in l.a.. i sat down with reid hoffman and talked about the current debate around the future of ai and does its benefits outweigh the danger. take a listen. reid: ai has huge potential to solve disease, bring education and medicine to the whole world and enable space colonization. i think there are risks and we need to be careful about how we are doing it and careful and intelligent. emily: what are the risks? reid: once you get back the science-fiction description, the terminator movie, it is very
vivid in our imagination. we already have algorithms running our lives. doing credit and equifax and judgments on parole and parole violation. all of these things have impacts that are currently like black boxes to us and we want to have a good society. those are the near-term risks and then our questions around cybersecurity and a whole set of things come out. the science fiction risk is a ways out. emily: elon musk told my coworker that a company like google could do evil and create a robot army. does the future of ai depend on the good intentions of the companies and can we trust them? reid: i do not think it is necessarily relying on the good
intentions of companies. you have thousands of people working and potential whistleblowers and if people see something wrong, they can speak up. the thing is to be intentional about what is the thing that this helps society. pay attention to the question, how do we have good human outcomes and how do we do that? i think that is what is going to happen. the examples that elon gave actually, i do not know, you tell the ai to eliminate all human beings, that is kind of fictional. as you are building the safety measures and these devices, could you ask for more resources or articulate your goals, a simple safety measure and i know google is thinking about that. i already know facebook is thinking about that. i don't think it's a "rely on the good intentions." emily: is the fear mongering irresponsible, as mark zuckerberg said? reid: i think it's dangerous
because it causes the discussion not to focus on the real issues. we all talk about robots marching in the streets vs. how algorithms are already influencing our lives. it is not that we shouldn't think about the science fiction dystopias at all, but think about steering toward utopian. emily: facebook, twitter, google -- they are all being called before congress. they say they're adding more humans to the problem. can ai fix this problem? or is it something only a human can do? reid: i think both ai can get better because you say, here is a weird ad buy. here is something that looks like its external forces trying to do political ads. now let's have some humans look at it. i think the answer is actually both. i think the answer is to improve the ai to detect fraud or other malicious cyberattacks.
and then have humans get involved. they go, this is weird, take a look at this. emily: what about when it comes to robots and jobs? i'd know we always ask about it. it seems like the ground is shifting beneath us as we speak. are jobs under threat, and how many of them? reid: jobs will get transformed, just as any technological revolution changes them. people had this worry from agriculture moving to the city, and a this worry from manufacturing. we have to pay attention to people. these transitions can be very difficult. however, i don't think that means jobs are just going away. i think technology also usually creates a lot of new jobs. an ai may read your radiology exam a lot better than a radiologist, but a radiologist can still be there to talk to people, can still be there to look at the weird cases, that ai goes this is weird. i don't know about this. that kind of thing. that's the kind of transformation that i think we should be building the technology for. emily: apple, google, facebook,
amazon -- they all are in a race to get there, to be better. who wins? reid: i think in technology they are all going to win, and i think they're going to win in different ways. i think you will get great voice stuff from all three companies. i think you will have google doing the, ok, this is the one big pile of data. i think you will have microsoft doing the, hey, if you want to be building ai with confidential or private data, we will partner with you. i think it will be in different directions. emily: you are also working on a very well done podcast called "masters of scale," where you talk to viewers about how founders take their company from zero to one to infinity and beyond. i am thinking about a company like uber, what are the lessons in that about what not to do, not just for founders, but for investors? reid: so, i think that part of the thing is to make sure that you start asking the social
impact questions early. it doesn't mean you orient your whole company around them, but you say, look, what is our mission and how is our mission best of all for helping people? for example, in the uber case, how do we help drivers as well? how do we make sure we are increasing safety early on? you ask those questions early. what i think is in fact -- obviously, i am a board member, but i think airbnb did well. airbnb is a positive example. i think it still scaled very fast. that's still the way you build a globally impactful transformation. if you don't do that, then you are not the company that has impact. but to add in the social questions as you are doing it. emily: what's the job of investors along the way to make sure they are checking that behavior? reid: the job of investors is you are in this intense cycle of this exponential curve. let's help bring resources, questions, people to you that bring in these other voices as well. i think that is one of the things my partnership does well. emily: something else you are
doing, a 50-50 gender ratio from the people you are featuring and you were outspoken in the midst of this rash of sexual harassment in tech and you ask people to sign a decency pledge. curious if you are doing anything to take that forward because while a deceit pledge is great, saying you are decent does not make you are. reid: to stand up publicly and say i will not do business with bad actors and doing it publicly, people will hold you accountable and say you are doing this. it has a little bit more teeth. i am having a bunch of
conversations with people about what we should do to take it to the next level. unfortunately there is lots of space. emily: that was linkedin founder reid hoffman. the star wars sequels have been a huge success for disney and more films are on the way. bob iger talked about star wars and what is driving results at the box office. bob: i think quality wins and what we saw this summer was not as much quality as the audience would have liked and it's reflected in the box office. i just think it was a function of that. that said, there are a lot of things for people to do and more competition for people's time when it comes to leisure activity. it means the bar is raised in terms of delivering quality or experiences that people really want. this word of mouth, you cannot hide from anything, if something is mediocre, they will find about it right away before it comes out. if something is to be learned, it is concentrating more on quality. i think there are more challenge out there for smaller films because of competition for people's time.
the big films, they will basically thrive and continue for a long time as long as they are good. emily: will star wars turn things around? bob: i think star wars and thor will be good for us and the business. i look forward to bring them both films. emily: that was disney's bob iger. coming up, more from the vanity fair new establishment seminar. this is bloomberg. ♪
summit, talking with the biggest names in tech and media about massive changes the industry has seen in the last few years. one company here is discovery which launched more than 30 years ago but working to stay current. david zaslav, ceo of discovery, joins us. david: we do not see bigger and better but the way people are consuming content is different and the type of content. the reason we did scripps is they have great quality brand and on all of their content. we see it as acquiring 200,000 hours of ip and great brands that have really saturated the u.s. in a great way. hgtv, food, travel, cooking, diy. but it really has proliferated around the world. we launched some food and home channels around the world and were very successful.
we think with their rent and library we can take it around the world. but more importantly, as people start to consume content on all devices, we can take a lot of that content and the content we own -- we are the largest ip media company in the world. we have more global brands than anyone else. discovery, animal planet, tlc, own, science. if we close on scripps, travel, food, hgtv. those we can provide everywhere in the world on every device because the own everything on it. the way we see it, an ecosystem and moderating growth in some markets and some decline in others but relatively healthy. mid-single-digit versus double-digit or mid teens several years ago. but we have a load of ip we can take direct to consumers on their phones. ultimately if you're interested in italian cooking or if you love discovery or science, we can deliver it right to you on your phone because we own all the content. emily: when it comes to group nine, are you seeing traction with a younger audience? david: we are seeing huge
traction in terms of the scale of consumption of the content on group nine. it is over 6 billion views a month. we are the largest provider of short form news on facebook. those that would see now this, that is us. and it is growing rapidly. it is not making money yet, but we are one of the largest providers on facebook. it is usually one or two minute stories. we are also the largest, one of the largest providers on snap, and that is almost a full millennial audience. we have our traditional business where we are taking content around the world, an hour or half hour mostly on channels, and we will now be able to take that directly to consumers either in bundles or individually. we are the number one or number two or number three player in the world in terms of short form content. even when facebook was looking to build mid form content, we were able to get a lot of those series because we are already a top provider to facebook.
the challenge is it is not making the money yet. we have huge scale and great name recognition and brand awareness, but now we have to take it. we are working with facebook and snap on how we really monetize that. emily: speaking about the need to make money, there is some speculation about job cuts coming with the scripps acquisition. how many jobs? what are you working through? david: we look at it has two different things. yes, there will be significant synergy. we stated about $350 million. we think it could be more than that. the idea is we have two great companies that do quality content. when we put it together in the u.s. alone, we will have more than 20% of viewership on cable. we have five of the top six or seven women's networks.
id and own and tlc and hgtv and food. but where they are going to invest more is content and go directly to the consumer. we really view the company if we close on this acquisition or when we do as being a breaking it in half. the right side is growth, owning more ip, providing that and that is content in different ways on different devices in all languages all around the world, and getting more viewership, more scale, more people spending more time with us. the left side is cost. we have to attack that. we think we can really do a good job of attacking that. we would have needed to do that even if we didn't do scripps because the industry is changing. emily: do you see doing a more deals? more m&a? david: sure. we have said that we think scripps is a very good deal for us, but one of the attractions is we pick up more ip, more quality brands, but 18 months after we close we will be less than three and a half times levered, with a bigger balance sheet so we can buy more stuff to be more successful in the future.
emily: speaking of sports, we have seen amazon and facebook, nontraditional players pay up for sports rights. what is next that they could get? david: they are in the marketplace. we are working with both of them, amazon in particular. we are doing a lot of work with. we have a direct to consumer product already. we have been added for about a year and a half, almost two years in europe. we are the leader in sports in europe with euro sport where we have the traditional espn type business and the entire business, with eurosport. but our model in europe is a little bit different than the sports models in most countries around the world. one, we have a dominant position on linear. we are the only pan european player. but all the sports web acquired, the olympics through 2024, tennis, cycling, handball, football in a number of markets, we own all that ip for all those platforms.
most of sports platforms buy the rights for just the linear or the cable channel. if you go to europe or deutsche telecom or bt are selling rights to see the french open or see the olympics or tour de france, they are buying it from us. we are way long on sports ip. we seeing over the next couple of years, we will be able to sell to the super fans of tennis and cycling and the olympics and olympic sports, and we will be able to go direct to consumer in a much more scalable fashion. we are already getting real traction. emily: how many sports-free tv packages will there be by the end of the year? david: in europe right now, in most markets, it is just us. there were a couple of bigger markets like germany and the u.k. where there were more. in most, it is just us. we got a great jump on it. i think more and more, if somebody loves squash, we have all of the squash.
if somebody loves speedskating or tennis, that will be a very attractive model. the way you would buy a magazine if you love golf or tennis or cycling across europe, 750 million people, all the people that love a particular sport will be able to buy that from us and get all of it. emily: david zaslav, ceo of discovery. coming up, we bring you one last conversation from the summit, the man at the center of it all, grayden carter. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. you can listen to us on the bloomberg radio app. bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
♪ emily: graydon carter, who helped to make vanity fair magazine a must read publication in hollywood studios, washington townhouses and wall street is stepping down after 25 years as one of the nation's most influential editors. carter joined me to talk about his decision to leave the magazine at the end of the year. the fake news problem and the future of the magazine business. graydon: i have been here over 25 years and wanted to take a break. i have worked solidly the last 39 years. if i have a third act, i would like to find out what it is. i was originally going to leave in april and the election changed that and i decided to stay on for the first year of the administration. emily: what do you hope the next administration, how they cover it? graydon: it will be up to them. that was a personal mission of mine. i had two political missions for
one was the iraq war and i was against the administration of donald trump which has turned out worse than expected. i think it bears examination. i think the press is doing an amazing job. we will see what happens. emily: in the era of fake news, you have got newer technology companies like facebook and google and twitter in the crosshairs. they will be appearing in congress, what is the responsibility of these platforms? graydon: they are sort of publishers and if you have a newspaper and run a letter to the editor written by somebody not on your staff and it is inflammatory and libelous you could be liable. once you get into this business you have to take the responsibilities that come with the business and ensuring what you publish or present is accurate.
they will figure out a way to do it. emily: what is the future of the magazine business look like to you? graydon: it will change. it has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. it will not be as robust as it is now. necessity is a great -- it means of getting people to do things they have not done before. i think -- i know "vanity fair," we have a very healthy digital business and healthy live business like this and would not have had it 10 years ago if not out of need and organic growth. emily: how long will there be a print version of "vanity fair?" graydon: for as long as you are alive. you are a young person. emily: will it have the same thickness, the glossy pages, with a look and feel the same? graydon: i think we're going to a temporary lull. quality advertisers will realize
that everything they want, they can not necessarily get on the digital space and nothing quite like a magazine for presenting something to urge people to buy it. it is right there been and hard to avoid it. you cannot click over it and cannot be hacked. magazines are a brilliant invention. emily: new house's publisher passed away, do you think they have the same commended the publishing. graydon: publishing is in their blood and i think they have an and him his commitment to conde nast and to changing it in ways that will have to change of the next five to 10 years. emily: the new establishment summit, other babies of yours, this is where we are. does this live on? graydon: this will definitely live on and the great culmination of a lot of what we do an amazing and it brings these worlds together and part
of the magazine's dna. emily: you have an amazing insight of how the balance of power have changed and you were on the stage with travis kalanick and much has happened since then, how do you make notice of how fast things have changed? graydon: he is not gone completely. he has just set a temporary setback. all great leaders have them. i think he is an impressive young man. i think he will come back. emily: what did you see about the power of bounce shifting between technology players and media players and media players? graydon: when we originally did at the new establishment, 60% came from the world of entertainment and 20% from technology and 20% from information businesses. now it is about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. five years ago is probably 70%
technology. it changes dramatically from year to year. that is what makes it interesting. emily: i am sure you have given thought about what your third act might be, what will it be? graydon: i am taking time off to do that. i want to lie on my back is stare at the ceiling and think. emily: graydon carter, editor of "vanity fair." that does it for this edition of "best of bloomberg technology" and we will bring you the latest in tech through the week. tune and each day. remember, all episodes are live streaming on twitter. check us out at bloomberg tech tv on weekdays. that is all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪
carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. julia: and i'm julia chatterley. we are inside magazine headquarters in new york. coming up, the mississippi lawyer taking on the opioid industry. julia: what would happen of catalonia seceded from spain? carol: and mechanics driving lamborghini into the future. all of that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we are here with editor-in-chief of "bloomberg businessweek," megan murphy. let's start with economics and canada.