Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  March 15, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT

12:00 am
>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the missing malaysian airlines flight and we talk to stephen t. ganyard. he's a former pilot who's a contributor to abc news. >> the military radar is the one that's giving us the altitude data. so even though it was at the very limit of its capability, the fact that we're seeing huge changes, they may have not been that huge, but they're still going to be significant altitude changes that would at least suggest to me that the people flying this airplane didn't know how to do it and were disoriented. >> charlie: we continue with lakhdar brahimi, special envoy toation nayto united nations anb league. >> the government thinks they are going to one and soon. >> charlie: soon. yes. they are making progress.
12:01 am
they, are you know, pushing the opposition in many places especially around damascus and they think they are going to win soon, so they are not really, you know, in the business of making concessions. this is what we were facing in geneva. >> charlie: we conclude with veteran sports broadcaster verne lundquist. >> let your imagination roam a bit. earlier in my career, i started in austin at president johnson's television station, i was there three years and i thought, i'm not devoting my life to something serious. so i took a job in san antonio at woai, the nbc affiliate, and for a year anchored the 6 and 10:00 news. i realized, in the midst of it, i missed the frivolity of sports, i guess, back then.
12:02 am
i missed the absence of the parameters. i felt like i had a little more freedom to express myself as a sportscaster. >> charlie: the malaysian airliner, syrian negotiations and verne lundquist when we continue.
12:03 am
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin with the malaysian airliner. the search continues for flight 370, boeing 777, its disappearance has captured the attention of the world. reported is significant changes in altitude. cnn reports indicated it miff crashed into the indian ocean. the u.s. is searching the bay of bengal for signs of a plane. joining me from washington is colonel stephen t. ganyard, previously deputy assistant secretary in the bureau of political military affairs and
12:04 am
is a pilot. i am pleased to have him on this program. welcome. >> thank you, sir. >> charlie: where are we as we tape this conversation at about 7:00 p.m. new york time? >> i'm glad you put the hour in there, charlie, because it's amazing. the story is changing by the hour. i think i've changed my personal opinion two or three times about what the possibilities are. this "new york times" story that came out tonight was very interesting because it says there were radical altitude changes in this aircraft as it proceeded up the strait of malacca. if this is true, this would lead to one potential scenario. there are others who are saying this radar data, because it's just what we call a reflection of the radar energy with no transponder data associated with it, that this is not reliable and was probably straight and level and these are anomalies. so if the aircraft was straight and level and there weren't big altitude changes, i would favor
12:05 am
a different scenario. but what we do know, i think, given the evidence that's evolved today, is that this airplane was under the control of somebody, whether they were pilots or somebody back in the cabin, and it flew 90 degrees out essentially from its original flight path and it looks pretty certain at this point that that airplane is somewhere in the bottom of the indian ocean. >> charlie: and the assumption is that that person flying it probably turned off the transponders that might have been sending information about the plane? >> right. so let's back up on the flight path. you remember it took off from kuala lumpur and basically went due north out over the gulf of thailand headed toward beijing. about 49 minutes into the flight the transponder was turned off, that gives the data, heading, speed, identifies the aircraft to the ground controllers. after that, about 17 minutes later, there's a system called acars which is sort of a health
12:06 am
management system that reports on how the airplane is feeling, how it's doing, what's broken and reports back to the maintenance people. that was turned off as well. little did whoever turned these box know that this acar system continued to ping satellites that said, i'm here if you want to talk to me on a regular basis. that's what's given us the new additional data today that has shown us the aircraft at the 49 minute mark or shortly thereafter made a 90-degree turn to the west, proceeded out over the peninsula, up the strait of malacca and likely after that southward into the indian ocean. >> charlie: and what do they know in terms of how long the flight continued? because it four hours as some people have suggested? >> i think the evidence is pretty solid that it was on for another four, even five hours after that initial loss of transponder data. so think about it, the airplane
12:07 am
flys north about an hour, everything is normal, crew says good night to the malaysian air traffic controllers as they're handed off to the vietnamese air traffic controllers and at that point the flight changes. the satellite pings another four or five hours. you think how far could it fly? at least 2,000, $2,500 miles maybe. >maybe. >> charlie: no other information other than the pings on the flight? >> there is a military radar, generally different from an air traffic control radar at an ai airfield called butterworth out by panang, and it tracked the airplane to the edge of its capability. the physics on the radar don't last much past 200 miles. so it tracked this airplane out there. and the "new york times" is reporting -- not saying they're
12:08 am
wrong -- they reported massive altitude changes up to 45,000 feet which is hard to believe because that airplane is heavy and that's well beyond the service ceiling, then diving down to 20,000 feet and back up again. so from a scenario point of view, my personal opinion is if you look at an airplane going up and down like that, i think there was probably somebody who knew something about how to fly the airplane who turned the transponder off in the gulf of thailand, but when we see the wild altitude changes over the strait of malacca, to me, that's someone who doesn't know how to fly an airplane, trying to maintain control at night not understanding the instruments. on the other hand, if the airplane was straight and level and continued up the strait of malacca and made a southern turn out into the indian ocean, it would suggest probably a pilot or two pilots who still had control for the airplane but for some unknown reason were flying it into oblivion. >> charlie: do the american
12:09 am
investigators believe they have all the information that the blaingsemalaysians have? >> the short answer is no. it's been a frustrating week for the united states because the malaysians have held the ntsb and have not brought them into the investigation. for whatever reason, trying to protect military capabilities of the radar, probably discontinuities between the different agencies and the malaysian government, but they have not handled this well. we finally have the ntsb and the faa participating almost as full partners. it's getting better but not where it needs to be. we have the ntsb involved so the professional level of investigation will be where it needs to be. >> charlie: do you believe the change in altitude took place? >> i believe it probably did.
12:10 am
i would say it's marginally above no altitude change and the reason i say that is because there's a difference between civilian air traffic control raiders and -- control radars and military radars. military is there to prevent attack so they can't rely on the transponder saying hey, this is my altitude. so the military radar can can look in three dimensions and give us altitude and the military radar is giving us the data. so even though it was at the limit of capability, the fact we were seeing significant altitude changes that would at least suggest to me that the people flying this airplane didn't know how to do it and were disoriented. >> charlie: and what would do it to a plane that goes up to 43,000 or 45,000? >> well, you're just not going to climb anymore. you will have the throttles up
12:11 am
and the airplane won't get up that high. it wasn't designed to do that. it could have zoom climbed up there but won't stay up there that long. you may have heard theories about hypoxia, about how the whole cabin could be put to sleep. how might that work? let's say somebody takes it up to 43,000 feet and there's a switch in almost every airplane's cockpit where it's pressurized and you can flip it and immediately dump all the pressurization in the cabin. if you did that at 43,000 feet, you would have about ten, 15 seconds of usable consciousness in the cabin, but the fact you do it immediately, an explosive decompression, that cuts it in half, so maybe five to ten seconds of consciousness for the people in there. now, the pilots have oxygen masks. they reach back and pull them over their face and right there. but there are all sorts of ways we can think about this. they're talking about lithium ion batteries, and we can't rule
12:12 am
them out, but i think this week and especially today we're beginning to get evidence that's narrowing down the possible scenarios. >> charlie: how long would you believe it might be to find the wreckage if, in fact, they're in the broad area it is now suspected the plane miff crashed? >> i'm going to go out and say right now that if they went south into the indian ocean, we may never find that airplane. >> charlie: wow. and i'll tell you why. if you remember the air france crash back off of brazil. >> charlie: yeah. we found debris five days after that mishap and human remains. we did not get the wreckage on the bottom of the ocean and the black boxes for two years. so we knew where it was floating on the ocean and it had to be somewhere just down underneath there, but it took two years and four dedicated expeditions to get that airplane. now we don't even have the wreckage. >> charlie: that was a distance in the mid atlantic
12:13 am
about two miles, was it not? >> it was, about 15,000 feet. you know what? the indian ocean, 10,000 to 15,000 feet. >> charlie: same scenario. same scenario. the indian ocean is very, very rough. it's hard to get airplanes and ships out there because it's such a remote part of the world and ocean. you know, it's not like being in the gulf of thailand which would have been easier, it's shallower, the seas calmer, the water is warmer and the elements aren't so difficult. an open ocean, indian ocean recovery of aircraft remains, boy, that is a tough, tough nut. >> charlie: i assume you don't buy the idea that this plane miff landed somewhere -- might have landed somewhere in some remote location? >> no. you know, i wish. i really do. i wish with everybody. and you feel for these families, but there is just nothing to suggest that they might have. you know, hopefully -- let's not ever rule anything out, but it's just not likely. >> charlie: steve, thank you so much, it's been enormously
12:14 am
helpful to have you here and trying to understand where we are in this search for the missing airliner. >> thank you. >> charlie: lakhdar brahimi is here to talk about syria and the possibilities or the absence of possibilities to end the civil war. it has been more than three years since the outbreak of the war. the united nations called it the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. more than 9 million people have been forced from their homes. over 140,000 have been killed. two rounds of u.n.-brokered talks failed to produce any agreements between president assad's government and the opposition. dr. brahimi chaired those talks. he is the united nations and arab league special envoy to syria and i am pleased to have him once again back at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. good to be back. >> charlie: i'll read you what you said because when i heard it i thought, he clearly feels a commitment to these people. you said, i am very, very
12:15 am
sorry -- very, very sorry, and i apologize to the syrian people. i apologize to them that, on these tworounds, we haven't helped them very much. help us understand who's at fault and what's the problem with so many lives at stake. it is so difficult to bring the parties together on some kind of understanding. >> you know, in these situations, you always have, naturally, the people who are at war. they think that they are in this war because they are going to win, and for a long time they are not ready to compromise. what happens is that, at the beginning, both sides think that they are going to win, and then maybe you have one side who starts to understand that perhaps winning is not in the
12:16 am
cards for them immediately, while the other side thinks that they are winning. what is happening now is that the government thinks that they are going to win, and soon. >> charlie: and soon. oh, yes. they are making progress. you know, they are pushing the armed position in many places especially around damascus and they think that they are going to win soon. so they are not really, you know, in the business of making concessions. this is what we were facing in geneva in those meetings. the other thing is, you know, i told what we call the initiating stage, the russians and the americans who called for the negotiations on the 7th of may of last year, i told them that the two parties are not really ready for compromise, so we are
12:17 am
going to bring them in and start, but, you know, the likelihood of us getting anywhere is limited. but the syrian people were extremely hopeful because this is, as you said -- it has cost them so much. it is costing them every day so much. so there were huge exe expectat. so that is why i went out after the failure of the second round of talks and said, i apologize to the syrian people, we have let them down. >> charlie: was it a mistake to have those talks? >> no, it was not a mistake, but, at the end of the day, we let the syrian people down, and that is what i said. i briefed the security council and the general assembly, and i said, you know, once again, that
12:18 am
these talks haven't gone anywhere and probably they are not ready to get anywhere anytime soon. >> charlie: when he thinks he's going to win, president assad -- >> yes. >> charlie: -- how would he define winning? >> for him, winning is -- you know, i think he said once, the proof that we have the support of our people is that it is almost three years, and they haven't defeated us. >> charlie: he said that to me. >> yeah, he said that to you. well, he said it, again, i think, more recently. >> charlie: yeah. and, you know, ther they are now having negotiations or talks with people whom they had surrounded all around damascus and they think that they are making cease fires and arrangements for them. we think that this is very
12:19 am
fragile and, you know, you are going to win today, and tomorrow things are going to change. so, you know, we think there is no military solution to this war. you know, as you remember, a year ago it was the opposition who thought they were going to win, and we told them that this was not the case, they were not going to win. now we are telling the government you are not going to win. there is a new factor now, and that is that, you know, the term of president assad is coming to an end and, you know, there are noises out of damascus that they want organized elections. if they organize these elections, of course president assad will run and he will win
12:20 am
and, most probably, the opposition will see no incentive in talking to his delegation. so we are really in very, very difficult situation. >> charlie: what concessions are you asking of the rebels? >> you know, i don't think i'm asking concessions from them. what i am telling them is that what is needed is a compromise, what is needed is a piece where there is national reconciliation between the two sides, and the process -- the process of reconciliation and of making peace between all the people who are fighting one another, isolating the very, very bad guys -- and there is plenty of them, you know, the terrorists, the jihadists who have no time
12:21 am
either for the government or for the opposition. so you need to isolate those guys. i mean, those are reall real --i mean, bring those who are really concerned for syria together and lead the country on a new basis, what i call the new syria. you know, we are not going to go back to the syria of the father of the president or even the syria of the present president. it has to be a new syria that is built by all the syrians. >> charlie: can bashar al-assad be a part of the new syria? >> he definitely can be a part of the building of the new syria. whether he will be its president is a different story. the opposition are absolutely certain that he cannot be part of the new setup. >> charlie: where would he be
12:22 am
if he did not have the support of iran, the coup's forces and hezbollah? >> a lot of people say that he owes the successes to the support that he is receiving from outside. definitely, this is making some kind of difference, but i think it's not fair to say that he would have been swept away without the support. he has -- you know, he has an army. there have been a lot of defections from this army, but there are not enough to have the army collapse, and he has, as you said, quite a little bit of popular support. >> charlie: if, in fact, the rebels had gotten more support -- they got support from turkey, they got support from qatar, they got support from
12:23 am
saudi arabia -- >> yes, from the west. >> charlie: from the west. yeah, sure. >> charlie: suppose they'd gotten a lot of support and it was a united opposition, would it be a different circumstance? >> i think so. i think the fact that the opposition has been divided has weakened them and has probably also been a reason why a lot of people are supporting the president or have gone back to supporting the president. definitely, if they were united, probably it would have mid a maa difference. >> charlie: he's probably helped, is he not, by the fact that some of the worst acts of some of the worst players on the opposition side helped him. >> very much so. you know, but then the opposition will tell you they're not part of us. >> charlie: yes. and that the terrorism was not there at the beginning of
12:24 am
our movement. terrorism has come in from outside and from inside because of the repression, because of, you know -- the conflict has gone on for a long time, that if it had been solved earlier, probably wouldn't have had terrorism at all. but as i told you a moment ago, terrorism is now certainly a very, very serious problem. there are organizations there that are a danger for syria and a danger for the region and farther afield. we with are like afghanistan in the end of the '90s. if you remember, when i told the security council, you are neglecting afghanistan because it's a poor and faraway country, be careful, one day it's going to blow in our faces. so, in a way, that is a similar situation here with the presence
12:25 am
of these terrorist organizations and jihadists. >> charlie: they're coming in, getting training and going back to places like iraq. >> and euroe. >> charlie: and europe. i know there are only a few, apparently, from the united states, but there is one or two, and you don't need to be american to come to america. nu can'>> charlie: can't you do anything about them? >> i can't. >> charlie: no, i mean, can't the opposition? >> they are fighting. >> charlie: with each other. yeah, sure, they are fighting with one another. so, you know, it's very complicd military scene now with the government fighting the terrorist and the opposition and the opposition fighting the government and the terrorists. >> charlie: and in the meantime they're destroying the country. >> absolutely. this is exact word i used in my briefing to the security council. >> charlie: and what can the security council do and what is possible that is not being done?
12:26 am
>> one, the security council speaks in one voice, that helps. and i think if the security council were speaking in one voice, we could most probably go back with more precise suggestions supported by the united security council. we are not there, unfortunately, and other issues are coming in. >> charlie: crimea. rimea. >> charlie: where do you think the russians are on this? what is it they want? >> what has happened for some time is that they and the americans were starting to talk seriously about syria. foreign minister lavrov and secretary of state kerry talked
12:27 am
quite a lot about syria and moving in the right direction, from my point of view. i don't know whether they're going to be able to continue to work together the way they were starting to. >> charlie: ryan, former ambassador, said this in december 31, 2013, "it is time to consider a future for saudi arabia without assad's ouster because it is overwhelmingly unlikely that is what the future will be." >> you know, what i think -- you know, i don't look that far. >> charlie: right. what i say is that, you know, there is a horrible situation now that has to stop. as i told him, you know, you lead the change. i said that in all our region change is needed and hat the present leaders can lead that
12:28 am
change and if they don't, they will be its victim. this is true for syria. i think there is still time for president assad to play a rage role in leading -- a major role in leading this change. what will be the end if we are really and genuinely engaged in responding to what the people aspire to, whether assad will be part of it or not, it's too early to say. >> charlie: is it less likely to be a civil war that spills over into lebanon and jordan and -- >> the danger is there. i told again the general assembly today, this kind of conflicts cannot be bottled up in one country forever. it does start in one country. it is destroying one country. it is affecting other countries in many ways. you know, lebanon, 1 million refugees from syria.
12:29 am
that is one-quarter of the population. they cannot bear that for very long. but it will affect lebanon, jordan, iraq. it's affecting iraq a great deal. by the way, somebody in iraq told me that this terrorist organization calling itself the islamic state of iraq and sham is doing ten times more operations in iraq than syria. you know, jordan is understandably extremely worried. so is turkey. so is lebanon. so, you know -- >> charlie: do they see the threat because they think the yes jees are destabilizing? >> the refugees alone are destabilizing but, in addition to that, you will have the usual
12:30 am
thing -- drugs, terrorists, you know, all sorts of criminal organizations. you know, all that comes with these kind of situations. who said that -- yeah, in beirut u.n. and former deputy prime minister of syria are saying by 2015, if things continue the way they are, syria is going to become a failed state. you know what failed states produce. >> charlie: terrorism. terrorism and disorder. >> charlie: yeah. not only in the country but all over. >> charlie: and safe haven for -- >> lebanon itself was -- you know, you had people -- all
12:31 am
kinds of organizations all the way to japan. >> charlie: so you're going to go to iran. >> i'm going to iran. >> charlie: you will see the president and the foreign minister? >> i'm definitely going to see the foreign minister, i hope to see the president. >> charlie: what are you going to say to them? >> we've already talked to them here. you have very good relations with the government in syria, that's great. you should encourage them to talk to their people. i think this is what the iranians say, say that we want a peaceful negotiated settlement. when one side is doing well, it doesn't really mean that that side is going to win. >> charlie: the forces are
12:32 am
in -- >> they say they are not. they say they have a number of advisers only. others say there are lots of iranians with hesbollah and with the iraqis. i don't know myself. >> charlie: and nobody knows the answer to this question, too -- so if assad leaves for whatever reason, who -- nobody knows what follows that. >> that's why you can't leave it to chance. >> charlie: right. the regime that exists for the moment that was built by the father of the present president is -- you know, the dome with the keystone in the middle, you don't want to take the keystone before you have made arrangements on how you are going to keep your structure up. definitely, you've got to make sure that the army's still there. definitely, you need to make sure that the institutions are
12:33 am
there and that the country moves in as orderly a manner as possible to the new syria. >> charlie: why do you do this? >> you know, when the secretary general called me, my first reaction was no. then when he insisted, you tell yourself you have no right to say no. and exactly, somebody has to do it. it is difficult. failure is more likely. so it's much better that an old man fails than a young man. so this is -- you know, and then we'll stop one day and leave it to the young men to finish. >> charlie: often what you hope for is, at the end of the day, people will just get tired of killing.
12:34 am
>> the ordinary people are definitely already tired. they hope for just an end to this horrible tragedy. the people who are fighting -- you know, you have all sorts. some are tired, definitely. i am sure that the people in the army and many of the fighters on the other side are tired and would like to have a compromise, but, certainly, the leadership of both sides is not tired yet. >> charlie: and has the president of syria lived up to his obligations to eliminate the chemical weapons? >> you know, i have seen the woman who is in charge, and she
12:35 am
is satisfied that things are moving in the right direction, that there were some delays, but that they are going to catch up and things are going to be all right. >> charlie: thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> charlie: get some rest. >> charlie: verne lundquist is here. he is one of television's most accomplished sports broadcasters. this year marks his 50th year in the business. he's shaking his head. he's nareiated some of sports' most historic moment. >> there's the pass. (cheering) >> there it comes. oh, my goodness! oh, wow!
12:36 am
lets it go! (cheers and applause) oh, my goodness! oh, no! >> charlie: in 1986, he comen commented, as jack nicklaus became the oldest player to win a tourism. >> maybe... yes, sir! >> charlie: at 73, lundquist continues his craft. later this month, he'll serve as play-by-play announcer for march madness. third year covering the ncaa. verne, back at the table, welcome. for the first time, this table.
12:37 am
>> i understand. you and i did this conversation 30 years ago. >> charlie: yeah. great to have you. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: it's been one hell of a run, hasn't it? >> extraordinary. really extraordinary. i have been so privileged so many times to be at moments like jack capturing the championship at the age of 46 and i look back at it now with some emotion and realize what a privilege it's been. >> charlie: if you were saying to someone, let me tell you why covering sports is a great life, what would you say? >> you can let your imagination roam a little bit. early in my career, i started in austin at president johnson's television station, i was there three years and thought i'm not devoting my life to something serious. so i took a job in san antonio at woai, the nbc affiliate, and for one year anchored the 6:00 and 10:00 news, and i realized in the midst of it that
12:38 am
i missed the frivolity, i guess, of sports back then. i missed the absence of parameters that hedged me in. i just felt like i had a little more freedom to express myself as a sportscaster. so i was lucky enough and, on my third try, having been turned down twice, i got the job in dallas at wfaa tv and that kind of launched everything. >> charlie: you loved jim mckay. >> absolutely. >> charlie: he was at munich, right? >> yes. >> charlie: i once asked someone -- someone asked me, said, why do you think mckay was so perfect for doing that? peter jennings was there as well. >> right. >> charlie: and he said because he was a play-by-play man. he understood moment by moment how to describe what was going on. >> interesting. >> charlie: he did a heck of a job there. >> i think it was the best job -- i think al mike als michs
12:39 am
terrific during the earthquake. >> charlie: exactly. we're not just talking josh and socks. but jim mckay in munich exemplified the best that can be done as a sports broadcaster/news man. i get emotional when i remember the night. he reported for duty with his swim trunks on and put slacks over his swim trunks and went to the studio. i think anybody old enough remembers him saying, they're all gone. >> charlie: it's hard to say it and remember it because you remember what happened. that's part of the gift, isn't it, to be able to, as you said -- yes, sir, just to be able to instinctively know the right thing at the right moment, as succinctly and eloquently as you can. >> i think so. obviously, i've seen that clip a couple of times.
12:40 am
on the 20th anniversary of jack's wonderful victory, i have a friend who's a close friend of jack's, and he says, do you have any memorabilia of that moment? i said, no, i don't, as a matter of fact. he said, get a toe foe and i'll -- a photo and i'll get it to jack's office and have him sign it. so i went online, and i bought, it's the significan signature m, right. >> charlie: yeah. and about a month i got it back with a silver sharpie, he says, "to verne, yes, sir! "three exclamation points with a happy face, your friend jack. i'm asked about it a lot. what makes the scene so memorable, i just said "maybe" and then just e exclaimed "yes,
12:41 am
sir " and he pumped his arms when i said" yes, sir ." >> charlie: i assume the golden rule of so many in your generation is don't get in the way of the game. >> bill rafferty and i get to do the tournament together and we had been doing meetings new york and i heard bill the morning we were taping this say to a reporter, i don't think we get in the way of the game, i think the game is the most important thing. yeah, be a minimalist. use language as best you can, but kind of stay back. it's a philosophy -- i worked with jim mckay, by the way, for two years as a silent reporter and i saw him work. people don't understand how important writing is in the craft of sportscasting and you say, well, i just think the ability to write well induces
12:42 am
you to speak well. i really think it helps. >> charlie: i do, too. my business, too. writing is where you touch it in a way that people will remember. >> mm-hmm. >> charlie: there is also, and the pictures speak for themselves, there is also the notion of you have to be a journalist, too. yes, a fan, yes you love the game, but, yes you're there to make, in a sense, make sure you underline at the right moment to ask the right question that defines some sense of the truth of the game. >> to me, there's an interesting paradox in what we do, what analysts who's assisting next to me does, what my responsibilities are. we're storytellers. we're analysts. we give insight into what's happening in front of us.
12:43 am
but at the -- the bottom line is you have a journalistic responsibility as well. >> charlie: and not perfect. no, we're reminded of it daily. i sometimes choke on the two words "student athlete." >> charlie: indeed. swallow hard. that's the sad side i think in both amateur sports and professional and it's sometimes kind of difficult to draw the line. there's a lot that's wrong with it. i don't want to be unfair and unduly critical, but on saturday afternoons in the sec with our college football telecasts, there's a passion that exists there that i don't think can be equaled anywhere in the country, and i grew up in texas and live in colorado, so the proverbial no dog in the hunt. >> charlie: yes. but sometimes that passion gets misplaced. and you tend to be student athletes because the ncaa
12:44 am
insists that's how these young men and women should be -- we should refer to them in that manner, and sometimes i swallow real hard with that. >> charlie: but you were there, one of the great games i ever saw, auburn-alabama. >> yeah. (cheering) >> no! return by chris davis! davis goes left! davis gets a block! davis has another block! chris davis! (cheers and applause) touchdown! auburn! an answered prayer! >> charlie: tell me about that. that's number one in your -- >> well, i think this is a generational thing. >> charlie: yeah. i have been so privileged to be present at significant events, and i've always said jack nicklaus and the victory in $86 was my favorite just because
12:45 am
it was jack, the greatest sporting event i ever saw, right. >> charlie: and he was 46. and that was a certain age at that time that was as important to me as 73 is now. >> charlie: yes. and i've always thought -- i had the tiger woods chip and the christian laettner shot in kentucky. >> charlie: the interesting thing about sports is what it means to society. just the game, to putin, it was the coming back of russia as he saw it. sports has an undefinable sense of capturing what brings a community together. look what happened to new york city. mayors won elections if their team won the world series. >> look what happened to the city of dallas and the dallas cowboys because, for years, dallas was the city of shame because president kennedy was assassinated there and the
12:46 am
political climate was really ugly, and i really believe this, to your point, that the rise of the cowboys in the late '60s and then their establishment as america's team in the '70s helped revise the perception of dallas as a city of hate and, so, sports can author a very, very important part of our civilization. i really think that. >> charlie: you love the nfl. yes. >> charlie: and president of cbs sports says it's not the nfl we want you to do. >> nope. nope. >> charlie: have you heard of the sec (laughter) >> yeah, it's really funny. dick enberg made himself available and he was at nbc. >> charlie: and lost the super bowl. >> lost the nfl. pat hayden because friend of of mine, director at southern california, and said heads up,
12:47 am
dick enberg wasn' doesn't like g this and wants back in the nfl. so i called sean and he said, that was not an easy phone call. i said, enberg, really? he said, i have a responsibility, he's a hall of fame broadcaster. i said that won't effect me. he said, i don't think it will happen anyway. in the unlikely event if we signed dick enberg, how would you feel about doing the southeastern conference football package, and i said the appropriate thing to my boss and hung up the phone and said, nance, pack your bags, we're going to spend a lot of time in the south. it turned out professionally by far the most significant thing
12:48 am
that happened to me. >> charlie: really? yeah. >> charlie: because? because i had been a second banana. i'd been a happy second banana in a lot of sports, but i never had my own package. let's see, this is the 14t 14th year. so i was getting close to 60. and life in the nfl was very comfortable, and life as the number two guy was very comfortable. i worked with a lot of really wonderful men, but i'd never had my own package. we went to the sec, and i worked initially with todd blackledge for six years and gary danielson for eight, and i think our decision as a network to take what is essentially a regional sport, college football, and try to promote it nationally was concurrent -- and i'm not a big bcs fan -- but the bcs did make every game in every part of the
12:49 am
country relevant so that, all of a sudden, people in spokane and seattle had a reason to know and care about what was going on in the sec. those two things, and then the rise of the quality of football played throughout the sec and, all of a sudden, we've got this package. so it really was very significant professionally and personally. >> charlie: is it the greatest game you've ever seen, the alabama-auburn game? >> yeah. i get side tracked. so i was asked immediately after the game, okay, where does this rank? >> charlie: yeah. i said, like on rote, second to nicklaus. >> charlie: really? yeah. and i got up next morning, went on line and read the new york spues and mike had a column that sunday listing eight reasons why alabama-auburn was the greatest finish in the history of sports
12:50 am
and i thought i might want to revise my order here. >> charlie: would you agree with him? >> i would have to give a long thought to that. i'm not that quick. >> charlie: yeah. it's the greatest -- my partner, gary danielson, sent me an email about four days after that, after the game, and he said, so, you've done the greatest college basketball game ever played,qñé]9qk9qgtucky. now you've done the greatest college football game, alabama-auburn. tiger in 2005, nancy and tonya. what's next, bowling? >> charlie: let's talk about tanya for a moment. >> yeah. >> charlie: never more hype for an event than that. 50% share. >> 58.5. connie chung co-anchoring the evening news on the ice below us for a week with dan rather back in new york. hype is the word. it became like a living cartoon,
12:51 am
it truly did. i watched both 30/30 on espn and mary cay rielo's nbc report which i thought was well done and mary had access to tonya and nancy and hasn't spoken about it in 20 years. >> charlie: never? never. >> charlie: wasn't she married to a sportscaster? >> she mad rid her agent and they had three years. i saw nancy at an event in charlotte a year ago november, and she's skating some, but she's a mom now, and they live in boston. you know, it was awful for her, just awful. i guess tonya's not had an easy life either, i understand that. >> charlie: something i love, golf, the masters. >> yes. >> charlie: your favorite tournament, obviously. >> yes, it is. this will be number 30 for that
12:52 am
one as well. >> charlie: you've seen all the great ones. >> yeah. >> charlie: hogueen? i saw him play at columbia. hogan's alley, of course, is columbia. >> charlie: the thing i regret about living in fort worth is i never went to see phi could say to hogan or try to get him on my program because i have a reasonably good record. >> you do! i've noticed over the years (laughter) >> charlie: i would have had a shot, you know. >> always regretted it. >> charlie: i don't know golfers as well as i do today. one of the greatest moments? >> well, i did all our golf regularly for 12, 15 years, and one of those stops was colonial. and the late kennion was our producer and we call him the "i
12:53 am
iyatola with reverence and fear. he said, we're having lunch tomorrow with valery and hogan. even ken venturi called him mr. hogan. not the most easily accessible man, but to know that we got to sit with ben and valery hogan for an hour, hour and a half at the colonial country club, pretty special. >> charlie: i went up to do an hour with arnie and we had such a great time. he said, let's play together, tell me when you want to play. i said, i'll let you know because i want to make sure my game is as good as it can be at that time. >> no kidding! i had a friend who was a guest of mine about three years ago and we were driving -- we are allowed to have golf carts but they don't want them, obviously, on the course. so we drove around the club and my buddy was in the cart with me and we pulled up in front to
12:54 am
have the pro shop and a cart came in the opposite direction and we bumped into each other. arnold palmer said, hi, verne. i said, hi, arnie. he got out of the cart with his second wife and turned into the pro shop. my buddi 100 to my buddy and sat was arnold palmer. he said, really? (laughter) >> charlie: what's the difference between the athletes good in the booth and not good in the booth. >> i say this with parentheses and an understanding of the english language helps -- (laughter) and i'm not cringe-proof. sometimes i'm sit and watch the athletes try to transfer into the booth because it's a wonderful life, it really is, and i think the best guys -- this is not an inclusive statement -- i think the best guys have a genuineness about them, athletes or broadcasters.
12:55 am
>> charlie: has to do with some instinctive personality. >> and knowledge and ability to articulate is very helpful. but i think most important for me is a genuine person sitting there. there's something about these cameras that we've learned over the years that somehow reaches in and grabs the essence of a person. it's been my experience that the people i've met in this business over the years, how you perceive them through television, 85% of the time will be true to who they are. if that makes any sense. >> charlie: it's been good to you. >> yeah. thank you, charlie. this has been a real thrill. >> charlie: verne lundquist, a sportscaster's sportscaster. captioning sponsored by rose communications
12:56 am
captioned by media accgroup at wgbh this is "ni
12:57 am
12:58 am
12:59 am
1:00 am
report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you in part by -- featuring stephanie link who shares her investment strategies, stock picks and market insights with action alerts plus, the multimillion dollar portfolio she manages with jim cramer. learn more at nervous weekend. investors remain cautious ahead of a big vote in ukraine on sunday. as the market focuses on the possibility that tensions could quickly escalate. reputational damage. target warns its data breach could be worse than initially reported. and troubles deepen at general motors with respect to its recalled cars. what happens to companies when their brands get tarnished. and market monitor. our guest tonight is looking for


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on