tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg April 11, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: thomas campbell is here. he became the metropolitan museum of art's ninth director in 2009. he was a curator of the museum department of new york sculpture and decorative arts specializing in tapestries. he has unified the museum's identity and expanded its modern collection. they entered into an eight-year agreement with the whitney museum to occupy a building on madison avenue. able use the space to host exhibitions and performances. the space, known as the met, open to the public on march 18. i am pleased to have tom
campbell at the table for the first time, although we have talked at his museum. welcome. it's good to have you here. in seven years, tell me the things you think are important that you have learned. running this wonderful and great museum. dr. campbell: a big, complex place. charlie: and a place that has changed. dr. campbell: i think of it as evolution. we have the largest college of curators in the world, all working hard on different kinds of research and projects. when i became director, i think first and foremost, i wanted to sustain that activity, the great exhibitions, the publications. at the same time, there were clearly things that we needed to be aware that the world is changing around us, technology is a big issue. we need to really make the step from analog to digital, think
about reaching audiences that way. it was also time to think again about audiences, you know, how we welcome people, how we address people, how we reach out to different audiences. we are the largest encyclopedic museum of the world, covering everything from the antique world to contemporary. but there are gaps, of course. so how'd you go about filling in? charlie: that is a huge challenge. talk about digital for a second, and accessibility. what do you offer digitally to someone who lives in alaska? now, you can go online, you can see, we have records of something like 400,000 works of art, some of them are very basic, but almost everything has got something.
most of them have got images. we have been putting a lot of time and effort into creating cross collection publications, short videos, with curators talking about works of art, or we have artists talking about their favorite works. it is short, two or three minutes. but it is a wonderful kind of gateway drug to thinking more about the collections, and seeing with fresh eyes. charlie: that is one of the things i am proudest about on this program, people who can't get to new york, because of our archive of 25 years, because of people like you as well as artists and curators and all of those exhibitions, we can give them a chance, a chance to see the magnification -- the magnificence of what is taking place.
we had over 6 million last year. but over, online, we now have something like 35 million visitors to our website alone, and through social media, facebook, twitter, instagram, we are reaching tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more. i think that it is a very exciting moment, because we are all, everyone in the museum industry, the culture industry, we are realizing that now, we have a global audience, and how can we meaningfully engage them? it is an exciting moment. charlie: calvin tompkins said, in choosing campbell, trustees were banking on his clearheaded vision of how to balance the met's scholarly integrity,
fundraising needs, and obligations to a vast and rapidly changing audience. they are impressed by his quiet self-confidence. does that ring true? dr. campbell: i was a scholar. other people have to say the rest. i went, i came to the met in 1995 because my predecessor, felipe, had built an engine of scholarship. it had the funding, it had the spaces, and critically, it had the audience, the sophisticated audience that really wanted these great exhibitions. for me, as a scholar, in my field of european tapestry, eyesight is a great place to go and realize that, to share my passion with other people. when i became director, that was very much kind of, i thought, i have done that. i am happy to go on doing it, but now, what i want to do is allow my colleagues to go on doing it, and take it out further.
charlie: did you decide and say, look,, philippe had dual roles. therefore, what i have to do is define my own identity as a dr. campbell: it has evolved. i was a curator for 13 years. i saw what i thought was working well. but i also had my own ideas about areas that might be evolved. for example, we had 17 different departments, and to some extent, they worked independently of one another. art history, during the last 30 years of the 20th century, was all about going deep, deep, deep in individual subjects. towards the end of the century, a lot of artists began looking outside of each area, and i saw those potential, if we could get the departments working more creatively together, there was a -- an opportunity to open up new narratives.
one example, a couple years ago, we did a show called "the interwoven globe" that looked at the textile trade from asia to europe, and onto america, drawing textiles from our asian department, our european department and our american department, and telling this amazing narrative about how these precious objects were brought over land and by sea, all around the world, and the kind of narrative, stylistic influences, the cultural influences, that this trade played a role in back in the 18th and 19th centuries. charlie: is there a constant battle, as there is in most institutions, between having the requisite funds and budget, and at the same time, making sure that we are true to the
acquisition and exhibition and care of art? dr. campbell: it is a delicate balance. we are a big institution. our operating budget is $300 million. we get about 10% of that from the city in gas, steam, electricity. the other 90%, we are raising ourselves, it comes from endowments or memberships or fundraising. so we are an ambitious organization. we are always having to balance our ambitions with our, with the possible. ♪ ♪
dr. campbell: the big story three years ago was the promised guest of leonard lauder. charlie: a perfect example. dr. campbell: that is a collection that would've been very significant in a number of different museums. charlie: he had a connection to the whitney. many people thought it might go to the moma. dr. campbell: i think after thinking hard about all the options, i am happy that, with the classical can -- collections, african collections, 19th-century french collections, and collections of the art of the 20th century art and photography, the cubist
influence, it was in incomparable -- and incomparable context and that is the card, that is our ace card. charlie: let me talk about the met in terms of its power. what can you do, and what arguments do you make, that we can do at least in our mind, better than anyone else? dr. campbell: we have this amazing college of specialists. there is a great brain trust. an amazing resources to conserve and study works of art, really go deep in understanding them. then, we are fortunate to be, we can tap into income screens, if we work hard at it, that allow us to do very ambitious project.
so particularly the scale of the exhibition program and the publication program is really incomparable. there is no other museum in the world doing as much programming as we are doing. but i think there is also something very special about new york. we have got this educated, rambunctious, edgy, critical community. very critical. you can't get it with anything. they are always pushing. the good thing about that is, it keeps us on our toes all the time. new york is this international city, so we are a part of this global dialogue. i think there is something very special about all of these actors. charlie: tell me about the push to modern and contemporary art. dr. campbell: what, the met was set up to be an encyclopedic museum, but famously, it pulled back from collecting modern in
the early 20th century. charlie: how did it pullback? dr. campbell: for the first 35-40 years, it had artists on the board, and it collected the art of the day, the river school, sergeant, old masters. around 1905, 1910, the art that was coming out of france, particularly, cubism, fauvism, it was too radical. the leadership of the day, and it was a much smaller institution at the time, just felt it wasn't for them. they famously pulled back. they didn't like it, didn't appreciate it. all of the things are being said, it was too wild, untamed. so we pulled back, we stopped collecting for 20 or 30 years. that is the time in which moma, whitney and the guggenheim are created.
the met gets back into collecting modern art during the second world war. while the galleries were cleared because of war, we had in a submission of contemporary artists. that got the museum thinking again, and in the years after the second world war, we actually really got back in there. we bought jackson pollock's, paintings in the 60's, a whole program going. famously, we did and exhibition in 1969. we had been building up a collection. it is patchy. there are areas of strength and weakness. the moment has come when it is clear that our audience wants to see modern and contemporary art at the met in the context of historical collections. we are not competing with the whitney or the guggenheim, we are doing something different. charlie: in the context of --
dr. campbell: bigger context. when i was appointed director, it was clear that this was one of the areas that we really wanted to focus on. and i have been taking steps to do exactly that of the last few years. building up the program, building up the staff who can develop a meaningful program. now, occupying, taking over the old whitney building and programming it, and further down the line, planning to remodel or rebuild the wing in which we show our modern collections. charlie: one person said about you, campbell's catalog studied the auction market, talked with artists, dealers, curators, and concluded there -- there was something extraordinary happening. dr. campbell: something is happening. there is this amazing, you know, there is an amazing interest and
focus on contemporary art. some of that is being driven by the market. there is a huge capitalization of the market going on, with money flowing in from latin america, from eastern europe, from russia, asia. there is a lot of marketing and investment going on. but the good side of that is, it it is allowing more artists than ever before to undertake really ambitious project. i am sure that history will judge some of this is rubbish, but i think a lot of it is really interesting. there is an audience for it. it is almost a sort of, you know, a new renaissance. charlie: you described it as a neo-renaissance.
in beijing or korea has an audience and a resonance on the other side of the world in a way that it never would've done in the past. charlie: you demolished the lala acheson wing? dr. campbell: we are looking at how we might remodel it. charlie: remodel is a better word. dr. campbell: we are looking at all the options. it depends on the cost and expense. the current -- charlie: what question brings you to that consideration? dr. campbell: over the years, and the met has been under construction almost continually since it was first put in central park in 1880. one 20th the size of the building. it more or less doubled in size between 1970 and 1992. since then, we have been kind of
rebuilding from within, and we have rebuilt our american wing, our greek and roman galleries, our islamic galleries, the european painting galleries, and our costume institute. with the completion of those projects, we really came to the tail end up a master plan that had been in evolution over the 35 years. five years ago, we stepped back and did a feasibility study. we looked at all of the infrastructure needs, and we looked at all of the, kind of the moon shots, and really thought, what could this building become for the next 100 years? and we identified a number of transformative projects, and the one that rose as being the one that, the greatest need, the one we had to do next, was this looking at the modern wing, looking at the way it connects to the areas around it, and thinking how we can, what we can do with that area.
at the moment, it is hard to find, the galleries are not very congenial. you are sitting out there in central park, you wouldn't know it. every year, 500,000 people somehow fight their way up that horrible back staircase to get to the roof garden. there is incredible potential to re-explore the relationship of the museum in the park. this is what we are looking at, working with -- charlie: how did this exhibition happen? the whitney decided to move downtown, there had been some preliminary discussion between philippe and others. he was retiring, i was becoming director. the minute i became director, we have the financial crisis.
everything else was put on hold. there were little discussions, they kept going. in november 2010, leonard called me and said, can we talk? and i said, sure. he said, what about now? i said, ok. i got in a taxi, went to his apartment, and he said, i really, i want to keep the lights on in the breuer building. so we talked about the challenges for us, what would be involved. that got the discussion going. we had intense discussions within the met about what we would be doing there, how we would use it, what the financial implications would be. and then, intense discussions with the whitney about how we would manage a joint operation. it has all worked out.
we have an initial occupation of eight years. we could potentially renew that. it gives us time to really explore the space. charlie: what is its mission? dr. campbell: we thought very hard about it. we don't want to duplicate what the whitney was doing. we don't want to duplicate what the guggenheim is doing. what we do differently? modern and contemporary in the context of the historic traditions that modern artists are embracing or rejecting. so that is one very clear thing that our peers are not doing. the other thing we can do is, we are an encyclopedic museum. our collections come from all over the world. so there is, of course, other museums are doing this, too, but we have logical connections to modern artists beyond the familiar western canon. that is what is important with
the first two shows. one show, look set modern and contemporary art and a broader historical context. the other, "monographic," a show with an indian abstract artist of the 1970's and 1980's, looks at an unfamiliar but significant artist from outside the familiar western canon. charlie: tell us about her. dr. campbell: she is very delicate. it is a wonderful counterpoint to the sound of the glory of other art. it is a quiet, meditative show. she trained in london, and after experimenting with painting and photography, her work became increasingly focused on pen and ink abstract designs that, in some ways, look back to russian futurism, in some ways a kind
of, you look at artists like agnes martin working in the states, but they are meditations, they are thoughtful, spiritual. she has not had them on show in america. it seemed like a great choice to start this. charlie: some have said it is timeless and futuristic. dr. campbell: that is a perfect way of describing it, yes. charlie: the exhibition, i have some images here. the exhibition spans more than 500 years. dr. campbell: so does the mat. we have to show it somehow. charlie: exactly. these are works that have been left in complete. what do you mean by that? dr. campbell: so much modern art, you are conscious of the raw material.
the artist sort of toying with the tension between the raw material and whatever is presented and the finished work. what we are doing in the show is showing how this is not just a 20th century trope. in fact, artists, in doing this -- artists have been doing this a long time. we push the show of the way back to the renaissance. when you get off the third floor and the elevator doors open, there in front of you is this great painting by titian painted late in his life, called "the slaying of marcius." it is a rollicking painting. here is an artist to spend his life making almost picture-perfect renditions of the great rulers of the day, beautiful velvets and silks.
here, in the last years of his life, he turns to these very dark, mythological subjects, and the finish looks, it is very wrong, but it is intentionally, you know, there is some discussion of, was it unfinished, or was it intentional? i think that the agreement is that this is, what he is doing is concentrating on the emotional intensity of this vision, and that is the power of this rawness. charlie: is this part of the met collection? dr. campbell: no. we borrowed this from the czech republic. charlie: iris murdoch said it is one of the greatest paintings of the western canon. dr. campbell: yes. there are elements of autobiography. marcius had a musical competition with apollo, he has lost, and apollo is punishing
him for his hubris by skinning him alive. it is a horrible, an image of torture, suffering for art. it is thought that the figure to the right holding his hand in front of his face may even be a self-portrait by titian looking back. charlie: he kept coming back to it. dr. campbell: at his studio, at his desk. charlie: so it was finished, but not finished. dr. campbell: the rawness, the non finito some -- style was a conscious decision. there are some works that are unfinished by accident, but there are others that work on this intentionally raw the. -- theme. the exhibition explores these two poles. it is about making.
in some cases, you are seeing the artist's thoughts below the oil service, and in other cases, it is working on the canvas in oil. charlie: this is turner, 1840, "rough sea." between 1840, 1850. he had a fascination with the sea. dr. campbell: he rented a house, he traveled back and forth. many of his masterpieces depict stormy, tumultuous waves. charlie: it is said he tied himself to -- dr. campbell: the sea, the storm. when he died, in his lifetime, he pushed the boundaries again of what was considered to be an appropriate finish for a painting.
he famously was in the royal academy on the day it opened the show, brushing in, and these works were left in his studio at his desk. charlie: what is the darkness at the center? dr. campbell: you can project into it. is it a steamship? is it a promontory of land? a lighthouse? these are so abstract, but they are, again, they capture the emotions, the tunnel -- the tumult of the storm. these become the works that influence impressionists and artists all the way through to richter. charlie: the next one is alice neel. 1965.
this is extraordinary. of all the stories, this is a powerful story. dr. campbell: this is a talismanic piece. alice neel famously painted people who lived near her, people who she didn't know, she would invite them in off the street. this young man caught her i come a -- i. he was going off to the vietnam war and he never came back. we don't know why. maybe you never came back from the war. -- maybe he never came back from the war. charlie: his name was james hunter? dr. campbell: yes. she signed it and presented it as a finished work. it becomes a metaphor of a life cut off. charlie: one sitting? dr. campbell: one sitting. so many of the works in the show have this, everyone has a story.
it is not a show you blow through in two minutes. every work has a story. it is very moving. charlie: this is andy warhol, 1962. do it yourself. dr. campbell: paint by numbers. in the modern area, we have some works that are, again, on this theme of rawness, unfinished. but we also go into a more conceptual area, and we have works that are completed by the visitor, we have works that are about infinity, that will never be completed. in this case, warhol in 1962, it was early in his career as a painter. he bought some of these paint by numbers kits, then reproduced, he projected on his grain,
outlined them, and reproduce them. challenging the notion of, what is a work of art? is a paint by numbers a work of art? the wonderful quip he has, how do you know when a work of art is finished? when the check clears. charlie: when the transaction takes place. the next one is louis bourgeois. take a look at this. this is "untitled number two," 1996. tell me about her. dr. campbell: one of the dominant shadows behind the show is michelangelo, who, from the renaissance, with his sculptures, left many pieces unfinished.
you have the slaves, for example, twisting out of the stone that he was releasing them from. and that is a memory that has influenced so many late 19th and early 20th century artists. rodin especially. here, bourgeois is returning to that concept. she visited the quarries from which michelangelo sourced his marble. in this work, you have the contrast between the pair of hands, a man's hands and woman's hands, and very delicate gesture of intimacy, lightly holding one another's hands, carved out of this raw, set off against the rawness of the marble. and the marble color, the polished form is like flesh, but in its raw form, is this wonderful, powerful, packed
marble. it is a beautiful piece. charlie: she said, you have to win the shape, you have to win the shape. dr. campbell: lovely, the thought of revealing these forms from that rawness. charlie: i just saw that on the back cover. how long will this be -- dr. campbell: three months. we have an exhibition of the new york photographer diane argus -- diane arbus, her early work that is never been shown. you really see her very distinctive photographic style emerging. after that, we have an exhibition by kerry james marshall, who has made it his life's work to position, he draws inspiration from classical subjects, classical kinds of
painting, landscapes, portraits. but he places the african-american in these scenes, kind of an extended meditation on the experience african-americans have in america. charlie: you get up every morning and simply say, i am the luckiest guy in the world? i now have more to work with, more challenges, there is more happening, the whole digital revolution has given part, a broader reach than it has ever had. the excitement of being able to serve somewhere as a connection between, with all of the, between the met and the brouwer, a connection between people who love art and the art itself. and more ways to make that connection. dr. campbell: i'm a lucky guy. walking through the galleries of
the museum, working with the specialists, all of the people involved in making that museum take, so many people, playing their part. the collectors, and here in new york, it is amazing. around new york, amazingly rich collections of everything from antiquities to contemporary. it is all part of this dynamic, you know, atmosphere. charlie: thank you for coming. dr. campbell: my pleasure. ♪
charlie: bob wright is here. he stepped up -- down as president of nbc and 2007. the network became a global media giant under his 20 years of leadership. among the prominent deals he struck was a merge of nbc and universal in 2004. he launched cnbc and msnbc. his contributions are not limited to the media. after his grandson was diagnosed with autism, he cofounded autism speaks. he writes about this in a new book called "the wright stuff." i am pleased to have bob wright at the table. bob: thank you. i am thrilled to be here. charlie: let's talk about autism. when you discovered your grandson had autism.
bob: 2004, he was two and a half years old. we had gone through six months prior to that, it was about this time of year. he had, he was losing all of his identity over six months, as if people were coming in at night and stealing his vocabulary, stealing his dexterity, they were taking his health away. and we watched this happen. we ended up at columbia hospital when i was on the board of new york presbyterian at the time, and the -- ended up at columbia, and he got a diagnosis, there are a lot of things wrong with him but we can't really help you. he is autistic. we don't have a protocol to deal with that. charlie: what did you know about autism at that time? bob: almost nothing. we have been looking at different potential issues and autism was on the list. charlie: when you say we, you mean you, yourself, your kids? bob: the pediatric group was in
denial. they said this was a function of him having bad breaks, and he will retain it. then they finally stepped out, and said, this is a disaster. charlie: this was not going to change. bob: not going to change. we ended up on our own, sort of. we couldn't believe it. we got into weight, i went to the hospital, we got a lot of information about the hospital about what it is, and a neurologist and psychologist and psychiatry, it was all pushed into that world, the world of psychiatry, neurology. but not the md world. the md world was like, out. we traveled around a bit, we went to see different groups, we met with people, everything was very depressing. people work, money was a huge issue. there was no coverage, no insurance. parents had to, one had to quit work to take care of the child.
the other one was away all the time working. they couldn't come up with enough money to cover it. they were living off credit cards. we bumped into bernie, marcus. the founder of home depot. he said, i need to talk to you. let me tell you my story. i have put a lot of money into this over a number of years, and frankly, i failed in my expectations. the reason is, because there is no awareness of this. i can't build awareness of the medical level or political level. at the hospital level. if you want to do some income i will support you. i will be a major financial supporter if you want to take this challenge on. so we talked about it a lot, and i contacted a couple other people, and i got the longtime ceo of interpublic, the largest ad agency in the world. the slatkin's, they came on
board. charlie: they have a connection to autism? bob: yes. phil was just a friend. and robinson had no connection with autism, was an up-and-coming advertising executive. today, he is the president. he said, i will help you. they like to take on not-for-profit charges, that they believe in. that was our core. that took, what i said, this will be more like a business. this will, i want audited financials from day one. i want to be registered in every state. i want to be registered as an entity that can raise money and operate and be licensed in every state, anyplace there is restrictions, we need to follow the law. charlie: what was the goal? bob: to create a huge amount of national awareness about autism.
and its significance, and also to enter some really major science. charlie: 11 years later. bob: 11 years later, we have done both of those things. we have certainly, the awareness, if we were a product, campbell would love it. we went from little awareness to significant awareness, especially among men and women of childbearing age, which is a critical crowd here. we also have a younger crowd that is sort of, they are well informed of this issue. the last thing we did before i step down is the ceo last year, and we are still well in it, is to have this arrangement we have with a group in canada, plus google and ourselves, for missing. we do not have the scientific foundations to do the genetic
research that we needed to do. we will now have that. charlie: you are now only now getting that to do the kind of research to research that genetic implications in autism? bob: we have had 8000 sequenced, 6000 are on a scientific portal at google. nobody has ever done this with any kind of disease or condition. people have done hundreds, they have done a few, but never this. we are trying to take and put together, move groups that look and act similar in terms of their genetic formation together, then we can start breaking those groups down and get into formic -- pharmaceutical companies to get into that. when they see the makeup of this group, and we have all of the
phenotyping. these are the ones that don't speak, these are the ones that don't do this. charlie: clearly, it is a disease of the brain. bob: there are other implications. there is a lot of gut activity that we don't understand. charlie: what does i mean? bob: there are connections between the brain and the got that nobody understands. there are a lot of gastrointestinal problems associated with it. the gut is a mysterious part of your body to science. charlie: there is more focus on that impact. bob: we know there is a connection. that would be the one thing, it is a fundamental issue, to be evil to understand what is happening in those pathways. charlie: how much today, is in conventional wisdom about the genetic influence? bob: 50%? -- 50%. the rest of it, we don't know. environmental is the word for
the rest of it. in cancer, environmental maybe 70%. charlie: like with smoking. bob: yes. but no -- most cancers have no idea. my wife has pancreatic cancer. they don't have any clue how she got this. or why. we have nothing in the family. we have done her genetics. there is no history. zero. charlie: they are hoping that will build up a body of evidence in terms of mapping the human genome of people associated with one disease or another? bob: with pancreatic cancer, we want, what we are doing now with her tumor, we are now matching up her tumor against hundreds of different elements, much of which are drugs. we have done an extraordinarily deep sequencing of the tumor. we know so much about the tumor, we are matching it up with drugs to see which ones act on it.
that is the goal of personalized medicine, and the ultimate goal of autism. we don't know if enough about it. we don't have autism cells. we don't know enough about it to get to the next stage. that is why we have to go through this stage. charlie: we can look at the numbers of people who have it today, compared to 15 years ago, it is growing rapidly. bob: 50% of it is much better diagnostics. 50% of it is, we don't know. they don't many -- know anything about pancreatic cancer. it is genetic. the rest of it, we don't know. bob: how is your grandson? bob: he is not going to ever get a job at google. we hope he could work doing something. he is healthier than he has been. he has all traces of epilepsy,
30% of children with autism have epilepsy. he has seizures now, that are quite significant. we can't really control that. he does not speak, except one heavily prompted. he can't be left alone, because we can't forecast what his activities are going to be. he will need perpetual care. he is a nice boy. he is a pleasant boy to be around, but he cannot operate by himself. charlie: then there's the question of vaccines. there is a controversy, which you are familiar with. it caused a split in your family. explain the controversy. bob: a lot of children with autism received a diagnosable -- a diagnosis of autism around the time they are getting their first heavy dosages of vaccines. the vaccines come in stages, 6-7 at the time. at a time. they are given to young children. one of them is the mmr, measles,
mumps, and rubella. that was, that had traces, more than traces, of mercury in it. that became a symbol. you never want that mercury in a medical environment at all. doctors say, i will never have it in my office, although sometimes, so that became and if you -- an issue. the coincidence was such a coincidence that it became, that must be the cause. but we have not been able to establish that. charlie: what do you think? bob: i don't think it is the cause. but i can't, i am very sympathetic to the people who can't get an answer when they see that their child went downhill. my grandson have the same thing happen. i will tell you something, he also had a staph infection at or near that time. a staph infection is a much more considerable blow to your immune system than any vaccine.
so the staph infection could've brought this on. but if triggered it. they are looking for triggers. if you think this is embedded in your system, that something has to bring it out. right now, i think most people who are really concerned about this, what i tell them personally is, just try to spread out the vaccines. there are 30 of them taken between, taken before you are three years old. many of you would say, that really is too many. we have crossed the border between, you and i would've had three or four. there is the difference. many people would say, it is really not necessary. they are just pushing it in because they can get it done. children will tolerated at five years old. so right now, it is relatively ok. people are fighting to get it spread.
i don't think people who are not vaccinating or not stopping vaccination in a large number because of this. charlie: if we talked to the smartest doctors and researchers in the field, what would they say? bob: they would say there is nothing to be afraid of, everybody should vaccinate. charlie: that is the majority scientific opinion? bob: yes. they would say that every vaccine is identical in the category. you have 100 million kids that are receiving the same vaccine, but no two kids are the same, and no to immune system's are the same. it stands to reason, you will have some differential in there. everybody knows that in the medical community. nobody wants to talk about that. they give $100 million per year, they put out $100 million per year to pay for vaccines at a kangaroo court. category. all i am saying is, vaccines
have never been perfect. they used to be horrible. but they are not. there is more than enough evidence to say you shouldn't worry about vaccines. charlie: a lot of your career is about this, from nbc to autism speaks. by a media reporter when i was first in television. bob: i met her in 1980. charlie: look forward rather than going back. euro and chairmanship at nbc, what happened there, acquisition of universal and the cable properties. where is the future? bob: we talked about personalized medicine. personalized media is where it is going. it is running there quickly. for you to be able to, and this is visual, now, for you to be able to see things you want to see when you want to see them, regardless of whether they are new or old or they are just fresh -- charlie: you program your own tv. bob: that tv is in your hand or
in your pocket or in a 70 inch screen. that is a completely disarming context for people who are in the business with order. everybody has to reorganize now, against that development. charlie: this is the morning news. bob: the people who are winning today would be able to do that in the future if you are large enough. that is one of the reasons we did the universal. we made ourselves so big that the amount of content that we own today, or they own today, can feed families of millions of people for years and years to come, and can't be duplicated. there is no cost possibility. charlie: you say we, you mean comcast today. bob: warner bros. today. that is a safety issue.
when you have a lot of content and know how to produce it. i am on the board of amc, which is josh sabin is the ceo. charlie: eight -- as good a ceo as i know. bob: they spend the time at a table like this, looking at every single option of putting, producing a show. where will it go? do we want to rent it or salad? how many episodes do we want to do? how long do we want to own it? do we want to put it with amazon or net x? do we want to put it with a network? do we put it out on our own? they agonize on that, and the options are so significant that you are never going to make everyone of them right. charlie: there used to be this notion of, when there was confident -- content and distribution, when there was distribution, content came. bob: content will always be a key element in a world where you don't know where distribution is going.
local television has to get back to its fundamentals. i think, especially, news. local news, it was so pushed down over the last number of years, people are dying to know when something happens in the community. they know -- they want to know a lot about it. they expect to be able to google it. when you see a building on fire, i want to know who owns the building, if there is something wrong. i want a picture of the owner. they never tell you that is. i want to know why, how many violations did they have? it is, all of these things are really useful, and because of google and other ways you can get all that information, they have to learn to present that with their stories. people love local, but not the way we have been doing it. ♪
mark: i'm mark crumpton and you are watching "bloomberg west." u.s. secretary of state john kerry visited the memorial to the atomic bombing seven decades after the u.s. use the weapon. 140,000 japanese were killed. the trip makes secretary kerry the most senior american official to travel to hiroshima. a u.s. naval officer charged with spying for china and taiwan. the suspect has been identified in multiple media reports as lieutenant commander edward lynn. he was born in taiwan and became a naturalized citizen. it is the second day of their weeklong tour of india.