Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  October 27, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT

10:00 pm
10:01 pm
>> from our studio in new york yorkcity, this is "charlie rose." >> oscar was a giant of the fashion industry.
10:02 pm
one of his triumphs was amal's wedding dress for her marriage to george clooney. i have known him for many years. he grew up in the dominican republic. >> while i was in spain -- i was from a big family, i am the youngest. it was a lot of pressure on me to come back to the dominican republic. i did not see myself selling insurance. i tried to demonstrate to my father that i could make it on my own.
10:03 pm
i started doing fashion illustrations for magazines in spain because i could do it very well. that led me to the fashion houses and to learn what fashion was all about. he offered me a job to come and work as an illustrator in his house. that really is the beginning. i never, ever went to fashion school, but i went to the best fashion school, because i had the opportunity to work in house so i could see how they were constructed. so i could be a fashion designer and paint. i kept doing those for a long period of time over the years that i lived in paris. each time, i did it less and less.
10:04 pm
finally, when i came to work in the united states, i realized that to do something well, you have to do only one thing. most of the people who are talented can do a lot of different things, but to do something very well, you have to do only one thing. >> oscar caught the world's attention in the 60's when he dressed jacqueline kennedy, the first lady. >> you have dressed every first lady for half a century. but not mrs. obama. >> she is a very stylish lady. >> michelle obama fufilled that wish earlier this month. the first lady closest to oscar was hillary clinton. she once joked that he had been working for 20 years to turn her into a fashion icon. last year, she presented him
10:05 pm
with a lifetime achievement award. >> there was a receiving line in the white house. people were coming through and they were making small talk and exchanging pleasantries. and along came oscar and annette, his fabulous wife. i reached out to shake his hand and he looked me up and down and said that is one of my dresses. i said, really. i was then, as i am now, such a fashion icon myself. [laughter] so i said, really, i bought it to wear for this occasion. he said, turn around. i said, oh my god, i am being examined by oscar de la renta. but it started a great friendship that has meant the world to me and to my family. [applause]
10:06 pm
>> i am unbelievably honored to have my great friend -- i can call her my best friend -- present this award to me tonight. this has been a long road. you know, i have to tell you, perhaps you would not like me to say this. i hope she is going to be our next president. >> oscar seemed to understand women. laura bush explained in a film shown at the george w. bush presidential library. >> for five decades, oscar de la renta has made dresses that look beautiful. i am wearing one of my new favorites. this is a dress he made for me to wear for the opening of the bush center. >> the same traits that made him popular with first ladies and
10:07 pm
celebrities made him popular with women everywhere. >> the important thing to remember is that they are professional women. my clothes are expensive and for executive women, women who can buy clothes. and i sense, fashion has changed a great deal since i started in the 60's, because it is no longer the lady of leisure as the most important consumer. it is the professional consumer. >> people who work outside of the home. >> at the same time, because they form an active part of the world and what happens, they know more about fashion than any woman in history before. because they are a true consumer in the sense that what they buy is a real need. even the formula of dressing has changed, because the woman does
10:08 pm
not have the luxury of dressing during the day and then going home and changing for the night most of the time. clothes having elasticity that gives the possibility of going all day in the same dress. >> this understanding made oscar a great commercial success. >> in fashion, there has to be a delicate balance. clothes are very interesting, they are very difficult. this is a business where you are as good as your last collection. you have to worry if you are overexposing yourself. the balance is -- you see the press writing about someone that
10:09 pm
is young and very talented, and then they are out of business. why are they out of business? he forgets that the fashion show is not what really matters. fashion only starts when a woman buys a dress. you can show extraordinary dresses on the runway and it means nothing. >> then why do you do it? >> to attract the press, but also to get women to want to wear the clothes. >> the couture line and the runway extravaganza is just symbolic. it is just a way of saying, what? it is a miniscule portion of your business. a losing proposition. >> you need the projection of the fashion show. you go to a show, you do it in new york or paris, or the world,
10:10 pm
the profile over the world. especially in france, you show in paris, you get worldwide attention. that is important for your business. at the same time, these clothes have to serve a purpose. the women have to want to wear these clothes. and a lot of people forget the fact that a woman has to wear these clothes. >> despite his new york home and his travels around the world, oscar de la renta's heart was always in the dominican republic, where he opened an orphanage. >> i left when i was 18 years old and i have not lived there since that time, but it is still in my heart and i am still a dominican.
10:11 pm
this is signified by accident. i had a lady come up to me and she had this idea to locate some of the children who are in the street and asked if i would help her rent a room in town to try to give classes to these children. i was not sure the idea was a good idea, but i said that i would help her. with a small budget, not very much money. we started with eight children, today we are taking care of over 400 children on a daily basis. >> what does it mean to you? >> i do a for selfish reasons, it gives me tremendous pleasure. it gives me a perspective on what life is really about. >> and the spectrum of life from the streets. >> my world, that i work with, is a -- it is not a very realistic world. being involved with these children gives me a very different perspective on what life is all about.. >> what led you to adopt one?
10:12 pm
>> again it was an accident. the only time that i was single, i did it. i adopted moses because he was the youngest child at the orphanage. it just happened. >> how long between the time that he had been discovered did you make this decision? >> moses came into our life when he was just 24 hours old. we kept him on an incubator for three months. and then he came to live at the orphanage at the age of three months. when he was about eight months old, when we took him to the doctor, i said, what would be the best thing for moses?
10:13 pm
and the name came because at the hospital, he had no name, and they called him moses because of the biblical connections. i said, what would be the best thing, and they said, if you could find him a nice home. i took him home with me because he had a very bad cold, but in my mind, i knew that he was going to stay there. >> oscar de la renta is survived by his remarkable wife annette. she was there when he struggled with cancer and they were an incredible couple. also his son moses, three sisters, and a legacy that will live on. oscar de la renta, dead at 82. the great editor ben bradlee. on tuesday at the age of 93. he presided over "the washington post" for 26 years, where he helped defined american journalism.
10:14 pm
his editorial skills helped guide the newspaper on a pair of national scandals. he came to the world's attention in 1971, when he and publisher katharine graham published a classified study of the vietnam war known as the pentagon papers. he spoke to me about that time and his rivalry with "the new york times." >> "the new york times" had gotten it, it was their story, and they had published it for three days. we were just sucking air. we did not have it. we had to do that most iritating of all newspaper acts, you have to quote the other paper. blah blah blah blah blah, "the new york times" said today. >> later, he backed the reporters that broke the story that led to president nixon's resignation.
10:15 pm
>> that accentuated what the pentagon papers had done for you. you were a force to be reckoned with and you would beat everybody. >> it put us on the map. nixon did. and then it put us on the stage, where journalists are not supposed to be and they are not very comfortable and particularly good at. rattled us all for a while. >> i talked to bob woodward and carl bernstein and they reflected on their time working with them. >> he had this glass office and you could see who was working in there. and he would get out and there would be a hundred pairs of eyes following him around. where is he going, what is the action? if two people were sitting
10:16 pm
around and talking, he would come up and say, what is happening? there was a sense that we are not digging deep enough. there is a mystery out there, go get it. >> there were numerous times when he would say to us -- we would give him the story and we would think it was a hell of a story, and he would say that you have not got it yet. go out and get another source. >> so, this is when you were 29 or 30 years old. you will never see another story this good again. >> who knows? [laughter] >> their book was turned into a movie hit starring jason robards in an oscar-winning turn as ben bradlee. >> do any of them have an action? political, sexual? is there anything at all on nixon? >> when is anybody going to go on this story?
10:17 pm
you guys are about to write a story that says that the attorney general of the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country is a crook. be sure you are right. >> ben came from a family of boston brahmins. he served in the naval intelligence during world war ii. he told me about that experience and how it prepared him for being a newspaper editor. >> i have known better reporters and better writers. i was getting to be a better writer when they made me an editor. you do not write when you are an editor. you maybe rewrite woodward and bernstein's leads, but that is 120 words. >> but you were born for it. >> i had a job in a destroyer, which is exactly like the job.
10:18 pm
they were just beginning to form something called the cic, combat information center, where they would concentrate all of the information coming into the destroyer from all of the sources. sonar, radar, radio, eyesight, lookouts, engine room. instead of having it all go to the captain, it all went to the cic officer. and he parceled it out to the people who had to know it. as an editor, you get all the information and you make the decisions. they were identical jobs. i think i was curious. i figure i came along at the perfect time. you cannot quibble with my sense of timing. >> after the war he was the washington bureau chief at
10:19 pm
"newsweek." he had befriended his neighbor, a senator from massachusetts called john f. kennedy. he spoke to me about that relationship and his relationship with jacqueline kennedy. >> she was never comfortable with the fact that i was a journalist. >> it was almost like she would say that maybe we were saying too much in front of ben. >> i bet she said it to him, you know, pillow talk. when she came back from dallas, with her clothes stained still with the president's blood, and came to tony and me and started talking and started telling what happened, she interrupted herself in mid-conversation to say, this is not to be used in any way. not for "the post." >> what would you do for "newsweek?"
10:20 pm
>> that is appalling. it is in the middle of incredible grief and a traumatic occasion and she still has to worry about whether someone she is just talking to as a friend. that really knocked me down. i felt badly about that. >> that she would think that -- >> that she felt she had to think about that. >> several times later you met her and she just walked right by. did it hurt you? >> sure. >> did you try to reach out? >> i wrote a letter, but i did it was too late. she was so sick when i wrote it. >> ben's connections gave him insight into politics, but he remained skeptical of power
10:21 pm
players, as he explains in this interview. >> people do not tell the truth. and they do not tell the truth in a hundred different ways. it has become so easy to lie that nobody recognizes lies. >> another rare connection with katharine graham launched his career at the post. he spoke with me about her decision to hire him. >> i had an accidental lunch with ben because he had turned down two jobs in new york. i took him to lunch, and can you believe it, i took him to a club. he was the first man that i had said, do you want to have lunch with me? i was so self-conscious about paying the bill. it was so ridiculous. anyway, he was then head of the "newsweek" bureau.
10:22 pm
he looked at me and he said, now that you asked me, i would give my left one to be the manager of"the washington post." i said, maybe someday. >> bradlee retired in 1991. donald graham said that thank god the person making the decisions in the last 26 years showed us how to do it with vereve and with guts and with zest. >> i want to know the stuff that is not in the paper. what they struggled over and why they left it out. because i love those stories. >> why is this in the paper and why is this not in the paper? >> i love when there are people yelling at me to put it in and people yelling at me to take it
10:23 pm
out. >> president obama honored him with the medal of presidential freedom. he said that for him, journalism was not just a profession, it was a public good vital to the democracy. he told his wife sally that he hopes to be remembered by a legacy of honesty. ben bradlee, dead at 93. ♪
10:24 pm
10:25 pm
>> lara poitras. she is an academy award nominated documentary film maker. her films are part of a trilogy on america post 9/11. she started receiving anonymous e-mails that would change more than just the course of her film. here is a trailer. >> laura. i can offer nothing more than my word. i'm a senior employee the intelligence community. i am at high risk. right now, every border that you
10:26 pm
cross, every source that you type, are in the hands of a system. i ask only that you make the information available to the american public. thank you. citizen four >> i go by ed. >> she has received the polk award for her work on the snowden leaks.
10:27 pm
i'm pleased to have you at this table for the first time. >> is great to be here. >> tell me how this began for you. >> when i first started getting e-mails and working on the topic of post-9/11 america. i started document what was happening after the attacks on 9/11 when i made a film about the iraq war. after that, i found that i was put on a government watch list, and i started being stopped at the border when i traveled. i never knew why, because it was a secret process. working on this topic for many years, i became very sophisticated at using encryption so i can protect my material and to store it securely. in january of 2013, i received mysterious e-mails from somebody
10:28 pm
saying they wanted to talk to me and asked if i would share my encryption key, which is what you use if you want secure e-mail. i said, sure, here you go. and he came back with these increasingly surprising and shocking e-mails. we corresponded over the course of five months before we met him in hong kong. >> what happened then? >> well, i had a strong sense, in our correspondence, that he seemed legitimate. there was a certain specificity in what he was saying and what his motivations were. i had been working on a film about nsa surveillance that i had been filming with another whistleblower, william, who blew the whistle on domestic spying right after 9/11. i knew a bit about how the agency worked, but it was a secretive place. i received e-mails not quite knowing who it was.
10:29 pm
he also been trying to reach glenn, and we are colleagues. right before flying, i had seen some documents. we felt confident that the person we were about to meet was, indeed, working inside the intelligence community. we did not know who we were going to meet. we had a code. he said that he would be in a public place and working on a rubik's cube. we sat down at this hotel in hong kong and walked up to a very young man that had a rubik's cube, and our first response was that we were surprised by how young he was. >> what was the conversation about? >> from there, he led us to his hotel room. after we had adjusted to the fact that we had expected him to be older, glenn immediately went into a very, very lengthy
10:30 pm
interview, a bit more like a deposition. as you know, he is a former lawyer. he took us through his whole life and he wanted us to understand who we was and what motivated him to come forward with the information. i filmed that on the first day, probably five or six hours of just walking him through his life. we were struck by how articulate he was. this is somebody we were meeting who had crossed the line and we did not know what the consequences would be, and there was a feeling that there were things happening in the intelligence community that he believed the public have a right to know. >> talk about the decision to make this film. >> i'm a documentary film maker
10:31 pm
and also a journalist there are many overlaps but also differences. a documentary has to have elements that go beyond the new cycle and that human complexity. i had been working on a film around these topics, around nsa surveillance. i had started filming at the data utah center, which is the nsa massive data repository. so i had been on this topic, trying to figure out how to understand it, how to document it. when he started writing these e-mails, it was pretty much into what i was doing. when i was first contacted, i thought that this was an anonymous source i would never meet.
10:32 pm
i thought it was just a stranger, that he would say that he had received documents and then disappear -- or he or she, because i had no idea the gender or agency. we had been corresponding for three months, and thought that this person was legitimate. and i was very aware that he was taking risks and that the reporting would come with risks. >> when you arrived in hong kong, did you think, back then, that there would be a filming this? >> sure. i had my camera. this would be a journalistic encounter of significance, and before going to hong kong, snowden -- whose name i did not know at that time -- had told me that he did not intend to remain
10:33 pm
anonymous forever, that he would come forward as the source. which is why i thought that i want to do film him and understand his motivation. his first response was that he felt that he did not want the story to be about him. he consistently does not want to be the focus, the focus should be on what the government is doing. and i made the argument that it will not be up to you, that you will be the story, and that your motivation does matter. by the time i arrived in hong kong, he knew i was coming with a camera. i felt that my job in hong kong -- i was not spending time reporting with glenn. >> we talked to him about this. >> from "the guardian." we were talking to them about filing stories. i felt that my role there was very much that this was a moment, a rare moment where a source is meeting with journalists who agreed to be filmed.
10:34 pm
when they met deep throat in the parking lot, no cameras were there. >> what is interesting about this is that snowden wrote you and said you asked me why i chose you, but you chose yourself. what did he mean? >> i had been put on this government watchlist. for six years, every time i traveled and returned back to the united states, i would be pulled aside and there would be border agents that would come to the airplane and ask me what i was doing and where i had traveled. i had gone through this for a long time. when it began, i was naïve, answered questions.
10:35 pm
i am making a film about the iraq war. it became increasingly -- they would do things like photocopy my notebooks and i became less friendly at the border. i had written about it. so snowden might have seen it in two ways. i had written about it in "the new york times." i wrote about the experience of being on a watchlist and what it meant to be a journalist. when someone contacts you out of the blue, it is good to be skeptical. who are they? is it entrapment? and he just said, it is the work you have been doing is why i am contacting you. he knew that i was working on the topic of the nsa and i was sensitive to the issues.
10:36 pm
and the fact of feeling that you are being monitored or surveilled. >> what is it about? >> it is a story about journalism. it is very much a story of the era of the crackdown on sources and whistleblowers and journalism that we have seen in the last years, when you have people like my friend and colleague james risen who is being subpoenaed and will potentially go to jail because he will not testify against a source. the government is doing a lot of these things. they subpoenaed the phone records of the ap. it is a portrait of journalism in difficult circumstances. and a story about someone willing to take personal risks and sacrifices to expose
10:37 pm
information that they think the public has a right to know. >> and then there is the question about today, where he is in russia. what can you tell us about him today? >> the film ends with him -- and i've made a few trips to visit him in moscow. when we left, he went underground. the story received a lot of attention and we revealed that it was videotaped. he leaves with lawyers and went underground. the u.s. requested the extradition from hong kong, and from there, glenn and i left and wikileaks came in, particularly a young woman named sarah harrison, and helped snowden seek political asylum. the first and they did was try
10:38 pm
to get to latin america, and they were stopped in moscow and held in the transit zone for weeks. ultimately, he was able to receive political asylum. that definitely was not his intended destination, but he is there now and he has political asylum. i visited him, and one of the things that we learned in the film is that his longtime partner has recently joined him there. so that is where he is in the film. >> does he have a hope of coming back to the united states? >> i think he would love to. he said it. he really believes in this country, believes in the rule of law, and would love to come
10:39 pm
back. >> what is it about him that you think we do not know or understand? where is the public perception? even though he has people that salute him, he has people who feel like he is a traitor. he has the spectrum of opinion. but what else do we not know? where is the great misconception, if there is one? >> he is definitely an idealist. he is somebody who very much grew up on the internet. he is the generation that came up in the internet. and he came of age -- and he says this in the film -- where the internet was a free place, and he believes it was one of the most beautiful things that humanity had, where you could have a means for people from all over the world to communicate freely. seeing that to be something taken away from people and used for other means.
10:40 pm
means of surveillance, commercial means. he saw something that he thought was very profound and to be protected, and that was slipping away. >> that was his motivation? >> that was the core motivation. >> did he accomplish that? >> i think he accomplished a shift in consciousness around what states are capable of doing. what intelligence agencies are capable of doing. we are a democracy with rule of law, but there are things happening in secret that we should know about. >> but there is a limit to his respect to the rule of law because he does not trust the system. >> he has been charged under the espionage act, which many people have said is a really draconian legal stature that does not allow for a good defense.
10:41 pm
in the case of an espionage charge, you could expose information that reveals illegality and you could not use that as a part of your defense. there are very few options to have a fair trial. this is something that the aclu has taken his case. one of his attorneys makes this case strongly, that it is very hard to have a fair trial under the espionage act. >> are there negotiations going on for his return? >> i think that his lawyers have had conversations. i do not know the details of what is happening there. >> i will run a couple of clips and then we will come back. here is snowden talking about his desire to go public as the source.
10:42 pm
>> when you think you will go public? >> pretty soon. when they try and make this about me, which should be any day now, i will come out. just so this is not the question of somebody skulking in the shadows, these are public issues. these are everybody's issues. i am not afraid of you, you will not believe me into silence like you have done to everybody else. if nobody else is going to do it, i will. hopefully, when i am gone, there will be some of the else that will do the same thing. it will be the internet principle of the hydra. >> does he have any sense as to whether there was damage done to america's national security, as has been suggested by the government? >> i would say two things in
10:43 pm
response to that. first of all, he made the decision to work with journalists. he is entrusting information to journalists. it has been vetted, it goes through a really lengthy journalistic editorial process. >> with some consultation with the government? >> every story goes through contacts with the government, confrontation with the government, where we say that this is what we are going to publish. do you want to comment and do you have concerns? there were some redactions of stories that i have worked on that have happened because the
10:44 pm
government made a persuasive argument that they should be redacted, but, in general, decisions are made in newsrooms. >> these decisions are made in newsrooms all around the country that have nothing to do with snowden. >> everything has gone through this process. in terms of harm, we have not seen -- we have been careful. >> they argue, for example, that somehow, people will know what sources they have. not in terms of individuals, but in terms of their means. which will cause them to redo whatever means they have of
10:45 pm
spying on enemies of the state. >> in response, i would say that i have worked on a couple of stories, and there are two stories to talk about what they are doing in terms of targeting. they have targeted engineers at telecoms. we have documents that show actual names of people that work for a belgian telecom and also in germany, where you have the names of engineers. people not suspected of anything. the only reason the nsa are interested in them is that these people are in access point to get to their networks. and i have published those kinds of stories, and it does reveal that they are doing something. if you have an individual that goes to the arlington page and an essay will send back a malicious piece of software which will then infect the engineer's computer, and then they type in a password and the nsa has the password. this is something that is
10:46 pm
happening in allied countries, in europe. i think that this kind of reporting should happen, and i think that there should be questions about the extent of these technologies. >> this is a clip of journalists at "the guardian." >> all right, so which ones do we want here question mark this is operational stuff. >> redacted that. why can't we collect all of the signals all of the time? >> it does not have just three single slides, it has more than just three single slides. let's be extremely careful. >> this is really dangerous stuff.
10:47 pm
>> they kept it under lock and key. >> one thing that everybody agrees on is that the whole snowden affair caused a conversation -- even the president said this -- about security and freedom, security and privacy. as the conversation been beneficial? and has it helped the country? >> i think that the did a is ongoing, and although it changes consciousness it has not changed policy.
10:48 pm
there are still programs in place. the first story that glenn did was the verizion thing where they had a secret interpretation of the patriot act where they were collecting phone records. there has been more understanding of what the nsa is doing and the government is doing but there has not been actual change yet. i have been working on post-9/11 stuff for a long time, and one of the dilemmas that i have seen is that a lot of the policies we are engaging in, i would argue, do not necessarily make us safer. if you look at the iraq war, which i have documented, i think that what we are seeing are the unintended consequences of that occupation and the instability
10:49 pm
in that region. i am not fully convinced that the security that the government says that they are providing in these policies for citizens -- that we are any safer. >> are you convinced of the government is doing things that they said they were not doing because of this exposure? >> i think that is true. i reported with colleagues about the tapping of angela merkel's cell phone. >> they promised her that they would not do that. >> she has less attention. >> where does this story go? you have a profile of you. where does this story go? >> we ended on a point of question, that things are ongoing. i believe that what the nsa is doing is a threat to democracy. >> what it continues to do. >> what it continues to do. as a journalist, if the government finds out who i am talking to, how can i protect a source?
10:50 pm
i think i am in a unique situation in that i am doing reporting, so they feel that they have to back off, but that there are lots of people who want to know why meet with. >> has it changed the relationship between the government and internet companies? >> that has absolutely changed. we are seeing that shift, and i think we are seeing more change in government. in the sense that technology companies realize that the customers do want to be able to communicate privately and that they want to build tools that will satisfy that.
10:51 pm
i think that we will see more and more technology companies coming forward and offering ways to encrypt communications. i also think that there is a movement -- the free software movement -- that has been building these tools for over a decade. >> we had a case last week for the head of the fbi said on "60 minutes those quote of very concerned -- it's" that they are very concerned that they do not have the encryption code. >> i have friends that are photographers, and their argument is back doors. you create that and it is insecure by design. >> a lot of people that do not look with favor on edward snowden do not think that there were not conversations with the chinese government in hong kong or the russian government when
10:52 pm
he was seeking protection, that he did not tell them something. >> absolutely. he has said that there was somebody with him the whole time, sarah harrison was with them and she was actually there precisely for that reason, to be able to say that we were not approached by a government. it does not fit in anything of the person that i know. there is no evidence of it. he sought and received political asylum. >> on the next "charlie rose," join us.
10:53 pm
>> we are in a period where relationships are complex. they are not allies or adversaries but in between, changing on the issue or the day of the week. this power is diffusing around the world, diffusing into many, many hands in many forms. decision-making is decentralized. we have moved a long way. this year, next month, is the 25th anniversary of the end of the cold war. in 25 years, we have moved from a world tightly controlled to a world that is simply not tightly controlled in which many people are making consequential decisions. >> things are moving enough in the right direction so that they can connect with the rest of humanity to create a better picture of who we are, where we came from, then we ever had before.
10:54 pm
i would like to refer to what is happening or will happen shortly as the new enlightenment. ♪ .
10:55 pm
10:56 pm
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
10:59 pm
11:00 pm
>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to bloomberg west, where we cover innovation, technology and the future of business. first, a check of your top headlines. the s&p 500 ended the trading day slightly lower while the nasdaq and dow jones rose less than 1%. the drop in the s&p comes as economic data indicates an even economic growth here in the united states. it also comes after 4.1% surge in the s&p last week, its best performance since january 2013. royal shell is asking the obama administration for five more years to explore for oil off the alaskan coast.

29 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on