tv Charlie Rose PBS January 7, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>>rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the rock and look at the renewed sectarian violence there with robin wright, dexter filkins and max boot. >> it's hard to know which is the greatest catalyst. either mali's programs or the sectarian violence, it's not the civil war in iraq and civil war in syria. we now have essentially a sectarian war which is going from iraq into syria and all the way to lebanon. >>rose: we conclude with gerry baker and the digital future of nurps. >> when the web came along we knew how to produce newspapers and we put them out there on the web, more or less the way they
were in print. we still have that mindset. we have to get completely out of -- we have to understand that the digital news experience, the digital content experience is a completely different one. >>rose: conflict in iraq and the new digital newspaper when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the additional funding provided by these funders. >> an by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. ♪ ♪ >> from our studios in new york captioning sponsored by rose communications
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we're working closely with the iraqis to develop a holistic strategy to isolate the al qaeda affiliated are groups. ramadi, of course, appeared to have isolated i.s.i.l. in pockets of the city. >>rose: we begin with iraq. that country appears to be at risk of descending into sectarian war. just after two years of withdrawing, parts of fallujah, an overspill from the civil war which rages in syria. some of the most fearsome insurgent the western iraq is associated with the isis, or the are islamic state of in syria. ruled out joint operations with the united states. joining me from washington, d.c,
robin wright, she is a joint fellow at the u.s. institute of peace and the woodrow wilson center, and just returned from iraq for "time" magazine. max boot, council of foreign relation he and dexter filkins, from the new yorker, i'm pleased to have all of them here this evening. so the question we begin with, wrrks max, what's happening? >> well, nothing good charlie. in a word. iraq achieved a measure of hard-won stability, after the success of the surge in 2007-2008 when violence fell by more than 90%. but unfortunately, prime minister nouri al-maliki, the shiite leader of iraq has not shown himself to be a statesman who was able to consolidate the
gains one on the battle field, which last allowed al qaeda in iraq which was on its death bed in 2008 to basically to have a resurgence and to come back stronger. >>rose: who loued the snurns? >> syria an offshoot of can the aqi is becoming very powerful in syria but what's allowing the snurns insurgence of aqi, the final factor which bears mentioning is the pullout of u.s. troops at the end of 2011 which were a stabilizing factor. now they're gone and not surprisingly iraq is a lot less stable. >>rose: in fact there was somebody and you guys would know better than i do who it was, but someone from the iraqi government set tod afghan
government, don't make a mistake you don't want to prevent the americans from staying. >> it was the foreign minister. >>rose: add to what max is saying, what's happening in iraq? >> i would agree with max, it is hard to know which is the greater catalyst, maliki's sectarian stance or, it's not just a war in iraq or civil war in iraq or civil war in syria. we now have essentially a sectarian war which is going from iraq into syria and all the way to lebanon. i mean if you remember the islamic state of iraq and syria took many, feed off each other it's the same people. and the isis, that group was started in iraq, and they moved
to syria, now they're moving back. so they basically have a regional war. >>rose: these are people in islam fighting each other? >> yes, we have a sectarian war which is basically stretching across the width of the middle east. >> i want to get to robin but you know the please and you know iraq and you know the makeup of the terrorist groups that have been in syria or islamist extremists or whatever you want to use as a defining characterization of them. >> yeah, this is you know in some ways a perfect storm. you see all kinds of different militias that have evolved out of the chaos of syria and the disintegration of iraq. it pits shiite against sunni but you have a civil war within a civil war. in iraq you are seeing a civil war within a broader political crisis. the issue in all of these countries is not just military,
not just political. the great hope of whether it was the u.s. intervention in iraq, or the arab spring that began opush for political changes, that did not create enough space for people to participate. as a result you're seeing people who have to take sides because there isn't an alternative. and that is very forbidding or for boding about the future. in fact there is no prospect that any kind of u.s. aid to the iraqis, for example the new hellfire missiles or helicopter gun ships are going to make a real difference. they may make a tactical difference. the joint chiefs of staff were, afraid that these big political questions wouldn't be addressed and the interesting thing is that you know, seven, eight
years after the surge, you're still seeing the failure of the maliki government in baghdad to address the core issues. how do you share oil revenues, how do you share power between sunnies and shiites, and how everybody is represented? until you get to these political questions all this turmoil is probably going to continue and deepen. >> i'd like to back up what rob i be said, and probably she is right. there's a real failure of policy, on the one hand president obama didn't try very hard to keep u.s. troops in iraq after 2011 and then he portrayed iraq as kind of being this stable state which didn't need american troops. now that iraq is getting in trouble, we're selling them hellfire missiles. this is not helpful, this is
actually destructive. you're not going to solve this problem with hellfire missiles. a counterinsurgency situation? you need have a political plan. you have to have a military operations but it's got to be embedded in a larger political strategy. right now maliki doesn't have a larger political strategy. what general petraeus had, we lack the leverage because we don't have troops there. we lack the loanch the get them to do that. >>rose: let's assume that obama did negotiate to leave some troops there, not to engage in warfare, but simply for some kind of peace keep mission. >> a buffer stabilizer type role. >>rose: would it have made a difference? >> it's impossible to know but i think probably it would have made a difference. certainly at the time a lot of people are saying, hey, iraq is tao fragile to leave them alone.
you need to be an arbiter to act between the factions, that was the role of the u.s. we took a very hands-off attitude and the result of that leaving iraqis on their own they haven't been able to handle it because they haven't had inspired leadership. >> max we have a real problem in that we couldn't stay there indefinitely without looking like we are trying to colonize iraq or other parts of the region. the reality couldn't absorb it. that's a core problem. the issue is, if there was a problem by washington, it was that we didn't push harder for kind of reconciliation between the sunnies and the shiites and that we have played almost no role since our troops withdrew in trying to promote that. and we allowed, even though we're providing enormous amounts of aid and equipment, we haven't pushed prime minister maliki to include the very people, the sons of iraq militia that the
united states helped create, fund and arm, to make sure they would continue to fight al qaeda. and as a result al qaeda ask worse in iraq than it was at the height when we were there. >>rose: at the height of sectarian conflict? >> yes. >> well, i think that if we had left some troops behind, say, whatever the number is, say, 5,000, 10,000, whatever they were doing, i think our mere presence there would have allowed us to condition maliki's behavior. so the kind of rampant sectarianism that he embarked on immediately after we left and as we were leaving, i think we probably, if we had still been there, we would have been able to contain it somewhat. so for instance, maliki's own vice president, tarpa hashmi, the sunni vice president he lives in turkey, in qatar, he is under a death sentence. his own finance minister had to
run out of town. any prominent leader, maliki has basically chased away. that's the core of what's happening, that's why the core is breaking down there. i think it's also a matter of will. i think white house is -- basically they came in president obama campaigned in 2008 of getting us out of iraq and they wanted to leave and we did, you know, we left, we're gone. >>rose: and now we face this conflict and don't know quite what to do. >> the cia is giving targeting information for hellfires and that sort of things but it's pretty small. >> because all the talk from the white house is we want to move back from the middle east, we don't want to focus it very much and that's a signal that is heard very clearly in the region. it's allowing a lot of harmful actors to act up without harm of intervention. we have not intervened politically, we have not done enough to steer iraqi politics
in the right direction. >>rose: that brings us to iran. how iran sees the world that's happening in the middle east, sees the forces at play in the middle east and how it intends to stay advantage of it all in its rivalry with saudi arabia and the others. >> there's a lot of question there. ten years ago, we all talked about the shiite crescent radiating into iran and this is the growing political threat. the interesting thing in terms of what's happening with the disintegration in iraq, syria, turmoil in lebanon is that we've seen iran's power and influence actually diminish. and it feels increasingly threatened by ironically the fact that u.s. forces have withdrawn, and al qaeda is back in iraq, the taliban is likely to be increasingly strong once
u.s. troops withdraw from afghanistan. that iran feels encircled by the sunnies, by particular the salafi militancy, that is disproportionately powerful in the region. and i think that's contributed in many ways to the outreach that the united states, ironically, looks a little bit more interesting as a potential ally or at least not as the rival or enemy that it has been since the 1979 revolution. so i think you have begun to see a strategic recalculation in teheran. it's also reflected a little bit on their position on syria. there's a growing sense that teheran not only wants to be included in an international peace effort, but that it may, in the end, be willing to walk away from president assad. in a sense, to lop off the political head in damascus but allow the body, the baath party
to remain as a main player. because i think the iranians understand that assad -- that syria cannot hold together if assad stays in power long-term. so there are a lot of really interesting things happening inside iran. >> well robin just returned from iran and i didn't. but i have to say just looking at what's happening in the region i don't see a lot of signs of that recalibration that she's talking about. instead i see the iranians all in doubling down, they were behind most likely a massive car bombing which blew up the sunni former finance minister in lebanon, they've sent more aid than ever through the kuds force to iran, they were sending to the opposition in bahrain, in trying to foment insurgencies. they are still doing what they were doing since 1979 i think
which is bidding for regional hegemony. >>rose: what does that mean for nuclear negotiations? >> they are very unlikely to give up their entire nuclear program. they may be wilings to do their tradeoff for the recognition of quote unquote right the enrich uranium, and how they are viewing this american outreach. >> you know, my impression and i think it's shared by some people that i've spoken to recently, in washington, is that inside the iranian government there's kind of a two-track or kind of a two-headed thing, rohani has been asked to make the best deal he can get, has some latitude to do that. but foreign policy, that's been left to the kuds force and the hard liners.
>>rose: my question really asked was there a connection between the two. >> i think not. >>rose: so when you look at this idea that john kerry sort of speculated about iran could come to the table and have observer role or something, is that something that will fly? >> i think that's basically advising the arsonist how to put out the fire. >> no matter how he chooses to restrict their participation. >> i think there is a larger strategy which the administration is pursuing, trying to draw iran in to be part of the concert of the middle east, to try to resolve some of these conflicts instead of the troublemaker they've been since 1979. i think that's what you're seeing. i think it's a gamble that's like to fairly. iran is so interested in fanning the flames and continuing to do
that. >>rose: robin? >> well you know, i would disagree a little bit with that. i think there's no question that iran wants to be the big player it is physically, militarily, you can't dispute that. but i also thir that they really do want a nuclear deal. i think that it's not just because of the impact of sanction he but they wan nt -- they want to be players. there is at a afternoon appetite, a different crowd in power, and iran exerting every bit of muscle it can because it's the only way it can make clear it has to be included whether it's in syria or the security issues that challenge the region. but i was very struck for 33 years i've been trying to get into the old american embassy. i've covered the hostage crisis, the revolution and i've never been able to get in. it is now a revolutionary guards training center. now i got in.
and i got to see the chief mastermind of the takeover. it's quite an interesting experience. but i was struck by the fact that he talks very much about not only did he think it was time to renew relations with the united states but it was time to reopen the american embassy. and i think that sometimes, in washington, we're a little bit behind the debate. the interesting thing is whether the nuclear effort, the nuclear diplomacy which is the first time i think both countries have been on the same page, whether they can actually turn it is another question, but they are on the same page, the issue is whether it may die for as much what happens in congress as imposing a new sanctions bill as whether the diplomacy can actually find common ground. the iranians made clear when i was there that new sanctions even though they don't go into effect for six months would kill the deal. and in defiance of the white house both republicans and democrats are moving quite
decisively in imposing new sanction he which would be i think epic miscalculation. >>rose: what kind of deal do you think they are prepared to make the iranians on nuclear? >> boy, i don't know. and boy i don't know anybody who does. but i think we -- >>rose: what does the u.s. think do you know? you've been talking to the people in washington. >> i think they believe, i think the white house believes that the iranians would accept the deal. >> for pragmatic reasons would accept the deal? >> yeah, and a deal that would allow us to essentially have enough visibility on their program that we could basically -- that we would spot them if they tried to break out and make a bomb. and let's say, there's all sorts of estimates as to what -- how long it would take them to make a bomb. i don't think -- they're not close to that yet but lets say at some point they have a breakout capability which means they can put a bomb together in
three months or something. that we would have enough visibility to know almost immediately, that's what we want. would the iranians be prepared to accept that? boy, i'll believe it when i see it. >> and i don't see much evidence that the iranians are prepared to accept what we really need which was the one that moammar gadhafi signed up in libya. that is not what they're talking about. that's not even on the table. >>rose: they view that as be national pride, don't they? >> charlie, the iranians want to keep the braiout capacity and they're not going to give up. >> i agree with max. i think it is a question of what are they left with and whether we can plif with it. and i think that our goal is to -- i don't think our -- i don't think we have any expectation that they would dismannedis-- dismanipulate l tr
program. >>rose: shut down the centrifuges? >> a lot of people might look at this like the deal we struck with assad over his chemical weapons. he is actually agreeing to export all of thinks chemical weapons capacity but the way a lot of people in the region see that -- >>rose: he missed the deadline though. >> de facto the u.s. is recognizing assad, we are dealing with assad we are giving up on the opposition, we are recognizing assad as the ruler of syria so a lot of people are looking at that as a way that's actually enhancing assad's power. i think certainly that's the way the russians view it because they engineered the deal. a deal of that nature, some concessions on the nuclear front but they can sell it to their own people as saying look the americans are dealing with this, they recognize us as the most powerful in the region. i think if that happens, there
is a massive backlash that we're already seeing from the sunni stage, and will will lead to a lot of fighting like we are seeing now. >> charlie, we don't have a lot of options on the nuclear deal. the bush administration could have made an agreement a decade ago at a time when iran had a couple hundred centrifuges. the fact is we didn't take advantage of that moment. there are now 19,000 centrifuges in iran. they have the know-how, the equipment to produce a bomb. the challenge is creating circumstances where they don't take that step but we're very unlikely to get them to surrender the equipment, the technology, and the know-how and that's the sad reality. >>rose: benton hubbard and michael gordon and robert worth from your former newspaper, wrote a segment, will to contain
the region's sectarian hatreds, meaning there's nothing we can do. >> my god, what can we do right now it's hard to -- >>rose: but there's nobody to step into that role either. >> no. these fires -- if you look at syria my god it's burning out of control by itself. who is going to stop that? i think this is a consequence of i think the point they were trying to make in the piece, this is the consequence of the united states essentially leaving iraq with zero, with essentially no presence in the region and really no great will to go back in. and but i think at this point in 2014, boy, i think our influence there, whether it's syria, lebanon or iraq is extremely limited. >>rose: right. >> i think what you see is american foreign policy goes in cycles. many americans, then senator obama were horrified by american
engagement in iraq and afghanistan. the limbs shattered and the honorable financial cost, and unfortunately what we're seeing now is the consequences of disengagement can be pretty steep, as well. we're seeing this regional conflict burning out of control in iraq, syria and lebanon and embroiling neighboring states. >>rose: and all of these sunni groups regardless of how they're viewed by different powers, different states, seem to be gaining in number, and syria has provided them a grounds to do what? >> i think what you are seeing is polarization what happens when woo conflict burns out of control. the extremists on both sides are in power. the worst of all worlds. because the country's essentially divided at the risk of some simplification of hezbollah on the one hand and al qaeda on the other, the sunni and the shiite extreme is are
being pushed out they are becoming a nonfactor because we never provided them that much support to begin with. we kind of stood on the sidelines. the extremists are getting empowered. this is a terrible terrible situation kind of the worst of all worlds. >> and the longer it goes on it's going to pull not only lebanon and iraq with it but syria as well. >> robin the last words. >> in many ways the problem is that syria as the strategic center of the middle east already is presenting a series of challenges that will ripple, not only across the middle east but arguably into europe, into the west. that the number of jihadis going in to fight from europe africa, asia, even some from north america, threatens to make syria a far longer problem than afghanistan was, and that's
something we have been living with for a quarter century. >>rose: would you help me define the difference between an islamist and jihaddist? >> islam it's is a political term, muslim brotherhood and some of the political parties that have tried to work in some caress peacefully within the program. jihadis are the fighters, the militants pickup terms to fight. there is a really important distinction, the islamists are far larger in numbers but the jihadis while smaller in number are disproportionately powerful because they pick up been onary -- weaponry and take up suicide bombs. >>rose: do the jihaddists take up with al qaeda?
>> osama isn't the fixture he was. but the al qaeda phenomenon it is a frash operation, pick up the line, that have proliferated from north africa into southeast asia and what she can do -- >> the consensus is that the syrian war is going to go on for probably another decade. >> and prois more -- horrifying. >> absolutely horrifying. >> and do they have a strategy? >> more and more people. >>rose: does the u.s. government have a strategy? >> i think you're seeing i it. >>rose: what is it? >> it's to try to broker a deal. >>rose: with the russians? >> and maybe the iranians. and that ultimately means the removal of saud. i'd like to be -- are why wall
street journal on january 1st, he completed one year at the paper, he launched ambitious online hub for coverage, wsjd, d is for digital. can be viewed on a range of mobile devices including smartphones an tablets. the journal continues to grow and retain its top position with an average circulation of 2.4 million print and digital copies. i'm pleased to have gerry baker for the first time at this table.
welcome. >> thank you charlie. >>rose: how is this paper different since rupert measuredoch brought -- murdock bought it? >> first bring it to a broader audience. so we have a broad agenda. we were very, very focused on finance, we have broadened that, maintained our strength in that area. >>rose: especially foreign policy and politics. >> we have expanded our coverage of sports and culture and fashion. we have a great magazine now. >>rose: if i was going to change a magazine i wanted to make sure i didn't lose my circulation in the process. >> we break more stories in that field than anyone else, any other newspaper but what we've been able to do, thanks to the
investment the news corporation has brought, we can reach a bigger and broader audience. >> are you surprised a lot of people would be surprised at that? because they feared what happened to the wall street journal when rupert murdoch bought it. >> people looked at the sunday in the u.k, for example, and thought he would turn the wall street journal into a tablet. some of them tabloids like the sun or the new york post here in the u.s. >>rose: right. >> but many of them high quality news production lie the times and the sunday times in the u.k. >>rose: butter a lot of people will argue, some will argue, you have lots of people who like the journal, like this better, and they like the journal a lot because it satisfies more of that curiosity than the old journal did.
>> right. >>rose: but they also i think at the beginning were worried that what would seep into the news coverage would be a point of view, in that word, they felt like you could clearly see it at other milks. >> we have been careful not to do that. >>rose: nice things about the president? >> the president was reelected just over a year ago, we gave that plenty of coverage and we explained why he won. >>rose: in spite of you? >> not at all. the editorial pages of the journal which i'm not responsible for as you know, maintain overy conservative line. we feel we have not only a great application to be objective and play it straight. we actually have a great opportunity there. because there are so many news organizations in this country that as you said don't play it straight and we have this great opportunity if we play it straight if we are fair and objective, we are, we stick to the facts, obviously we offer interpretation. >>rose: obviously in the news we offer interpretation.
>> you interpret the news. take last few months -- >>rose: that is a broad kind of room to do if you say we offer different interpretations. >> we offer -- we're interpreting the facts, for an intelligent audience. >>rose: that as a political point of view? >> we don't promote a political point of view. we don't promote a political agenda. what we statement to did with a team of extremely talented editors and journalists 850 journalists, steeped in maintaining journalistic standards. we have a whole team of standards editors whose job it is to go through the paper assist wit with us -- assiduous, to make sure the paper is not only fair in the way it treats people but we take that very, very seriously.
people trust journal because of its reputation of being fair and objective. if we had only a journalistic view people would cease to truss the journal. >>rose: having rupert murdoch as your editor, a person who loves newspapers, is that good, or rather a corporate guy who doesn't give a darn as long as you meet your budget? >> that answers the question, he has been committed to newspapers his entire life, his father was a great writer too. he loves news. he loves the news business, loves newspapers, and increasingly loves the way we can bring news in other formats other than print. he has been publishing newspapers all of his life but increasingly now we do more in a digital format. he has invested in the news.
that's the record. going back to your question earlier, what he might do with the wall street journal when he bought it, he has invested hundreds of millions of pounds and australian dollars and other currency too, in all kinds of newspapers, all around the world, many of them very, very high quality newspapers which are not cheap and could not follow a tabloid agenda, that has validity too, how could we not like that? >>rose: but you have in a sense nothing to do with anything we've said before, a very strong opinion about native advertising. explain what that is, and why you find it troubling. >> well, native advertising -- >>rose: because it seems to be happening more and more. >> native advertising is a slightly unfortunate term. >>rose: yes, it is. >> it is a form of advertising that advertisers increasingly
want to use when they are talking about particularly the digital format. most advertising, especially in digital has tended to be sort of cordoned off, if you like, boxed off in a corner of the website, down the right-hand side of your page or on your mobile device or somewhere, somewhere where it's clearly demarcated, that it's advertising. people can see it that's why it's there, feels like sy siberia. people ignore it. native advertising looks and feels a little bit more native and natural to the environment in which it's sitting. >>rose: so this is a national newspaper, 2.5 million people daily. >> 2.4. >>rose: 2.4. >> that includes our digital circulation. >>rose: how much of it is subscription and how much is it buying it at the newsstand?
>> the majority subscription. >> is this the wave of the future, not wall street journal but newspapers, of what's happening in america? >> i think that's it charlie what's happening in america. the old traditional newspaper, i was born in britain, i think you can understand from my accent but i've lived here over 20 years, every big city and every medium size city and every town had its own newspaper. they would bring you everything, they would bring you not just news what was going on in st. louis or chicago, they would have a tream of washington correspondents, and people who covered wall street. >>rose: and they would run ap stories around the world. >> and they would cover the world for st. louis or san francisco or wherever. now when you can get high quality news and information about the world around the world
from you know on your digital device, from everywhere, there's no -- the readers in st. louis don't need the st. louis post dispatch, good newspaper that it is, to cover everything that's going on in the world the way it used to. increasingly what people are looking for is high quality news organization he, international and national news organizations that have got the resources and the reputation and the ability to cover those big stories nationally and internationally. and that's what we are. >>rose: i should have said also you're editor in chief of dow jones. >> right. >>rose: what does that mean? >> sort of a little complicated taxonomy of dow jones, dow jones consists of historical, journalistically consists of wall street jowcial and dow jones news wise is a service we still provide to institutional
subscribers to big banks and financial institutions and pension funds and hedge funds and everybody else and governments around the world. they pay a higher premium for astream of news that is -- >>rose: relevant to their business? >> relevant to their business and fast and they pay to get it. i'm responsible for dow jones news wire. manager of the wall street journal. the reason the region has been raised somewhat is we merged the two organizations really over the last few years that we are one single newsroom, dow jones news wise and wall street journal. >>rose: 21st century as a film and the other hand became news corp which is blishing right? >> used to do everything from 20th century fox to harper collins to the wall street
journal to the times of london to various things too. now we are split, entertainment companies, we are the more narrowly focuses publicking company called news corporation, which includes dow jones, harper collins, some other business necessary australia too but we're a more focused, you know we were spun off in july and we are a more focused company able to focus on our business. >>rose: rupert murdoch has always believed there should be a fire wall, that it should be not free pollen. falling i mean by that the new york times and lots of other newspapers around the world. >> it's clear, i got to say to be fair to our predecessors, dow jones, when the web first came along in 1996, before the news corp acquisition, the owners
decided they would charge for wall street journalism online. you had to subscribe. so that actually you actually have to be -- more and more of our journalism is behind the pay wall. and that's been very, very successful. i mean the view, we take the view that this is high quality journalism. it cost money to produce and you don't really put it out there for free. >>rose: the argument is you pay for it by advertising. people pay for it by advertising. there was this reference to analog dollars and digital dimes. >> people like to refer to there's a higher attractiveness. >>rose: and lends itself to advertising like nothing else has doesn't it? >> you can see advertisers know how many people click on their
ads. >>rose: what they are, what else they buy. >> yes. >>rose: this brings me to wsjd. launched on january 1st didn't it? >> yes. >> you lost a great friend to this broadcast, walter mossberg. was phenomenal, first to recognize and pay rch to him. so he's gone away and he and karras are going to do, with comcast, they had all things d conference, phenomenal and recognized one of the best if not best conferences. you hate to lose somebody like that don't you? >> yes, he really is a technology, personal technology columnist for the journal particularly over the last 20 years. he just brought technology, he made technology comprehensive to an audience that didn't -- that didn't find it comprehensible. no words can capture the importance of the role he played. he was terrific. he and his business partner
swisher wanted to go in a somewhat different direction. >>rose: what different correction? >> all things digital, which you said, very successful, they wanted an independent operation. i believe as the editor of wall street rl journal, as we owned all things digital the brand, that for a business newspaper to be essentially outsourcing a very, very, very, very significant part of our technology coverage the an increasingly independent operation didn't seem to me to be the right way to go and so we kind of mutually agreed that it was time for a separation. so what we've done is we have brought -- with wsjd, we've dramatically expanded our investment in technology journalism, we've hired already a dozen journalists, we have launched wsjd, our website, we will have a conference with ourselves, a very big conference, a global technology
conference. we absolutely expenditure to go into thissing area in detail, e will be able to offer the liveliest the sharpest the best, journalistic strength of the journal behind it, we will be able to offer in wsjd about best technology around. >>rose: let's offer a primer on digital, wall street journal.com will giver what you think are the ten best stories of the day, for a person like me who gets up in the morning saying, what's going on? but when you look at digital you have said before that first of all you have to think in a very new way. you know it's not like how do we say, we're creating for print and put it on the web, it's not that at all. >> right, right. >>rose: tell me what it is. >> charlie you know this i'm sure, there's a nice story when television first came along in the 1950s, people when they
started to make television commercials they basically took radio commercials which were the ones they were used to, combination of music and voice and they put it over some sort of static image because they thought that was the way they used to think about advertising and that's how you great it in a scriciavisual medium. you create your own visual stories. we to some extent did the same thing when all of us not just us at the journal, when the web came along, we took these newspapers, we knew how to produce newspapers and we put them out on the web. you could go around in stories and play around them a little bit. we still have that mindset. we have to understand that the digital news experience, the digital continues tent experience is completely different one. >>rose: explain how it's different. that's what i'm asking. >> i'll give you examples.
the obvious way in which it was different is the range you can do digital is so much greater -- >>rose: and the immediacy. >> and the immediacy. the visual media, we use video increasingly, you can do video, you can do audio, you can do interactive graphic. >>rose: you can do it on the your tablet -- >> it's a little bit difference between a lecture and a seminar. it's social. when you want to have a lecture, the professor would get up, have a lecture, he or she would deliver the lecture, that would be there, you went away and you talked about it. seminar, someone leads the seminar, has the interesting ideas and then you have a discussion about it. i think increasingly digital journalism is like that. we lead, we don't lead it ourselves but we report the news. we give people the tools to analyze the news and we encourage the conversation around the news.
there's aaspect of it. the most powerful example i can give you, most people don't any longer consume a newspaper. they get that news through e-mail, they will gettic "liked" on facebook or get it on be facebook. even for bits of the newspaper that they particularly are interested in, they will be consuming piecemeal elements of the newspaper. >>rose: in a world where there's not much time, we created a world in which there's not much time and you primarily have to make more efficient, the amount of time you spend with information. >> good example, even just a few years ago, the vast majority of our readers of our website of our journalism, on digital journalism came to us on the home page, wsjd.com, and they
go -- >> that's old and traditional. >> the number is less than 25%. >>rose: they go to the web or find out? >> they search through yahoo they get linked on facebook or twitter on linked in or these various other social networks. they are increasingly viewing it on mobile anyway so it's a completely different experience. it's a completely -- >>rose: do you have revenue from that? >> we charge so actually when you get throirchgd a story on us we have a certain number of stories that you can read for free, of course, if you come through google or whatever. but if you click on a story that links to a wall street journal which is behind the pay wall then you are asked to pay. every day we get a report on the number of subscribers. >>rose: digital subscription is a huge part or increasing part? >> an increasing part.
we don't break out officially on numbers but i assure you, we have been breaking outs -- >>rose: conference business is huge as a revenues source. >> it's huge. growing significantly. relative small in terms of the total pie but yeah, what people call live journalism is a real opportunity. we do a fabulous conference called our ceo conference, governor chris christie, that's a big event, we do special event for cios -- >>rose: do people pay to come or the audience pays to come? >> the audience pays to come and there's sponsorship as well. what we try to be done, at the journal, we cleave to pretty professional standards in the way we conduct these conferences, there will always
be wall street journal reporters interviewing, people don't get paid to be put up on stage, they pay to be part of the conference. >>rose: when you look at digital today given me -- give me the sense of how much you think people will be reading on tablets and smartphones and not on pcs and not on -- >> we think within a few years, the vast majority of internet -- >>rose: will get everything, entertainment and -- >> yes. look, there are probably some limits. i mean there's a limit to what you can actually tolerate watching on a small screen, i think. >>rose: you wouldn't want to watch the super bowl on asmall screen. >> right. i think on trabilities -- i look at my tablet to watch football games. >>rose: when you are in the back of a car riding -- >> when you are in a convenient location or whatever. no, i think in terms of reading material, in terms of keeping up with the news, obviously you see
already in terms of social communication, social network, people increasingly use mobile devices. look within the next five years, irread there are going to be another 3 billion smartphones in the world because of the penetration of smartphones is still relative small. it's going to be huge. >>rose: just think india and china and africa. >> that's where the growth is going to come from. >> i don't have the time to cover most of these but if you look at what you do and the journal, in 2014 you is see there are three growing theories, bitcoin which deserves an entire program, and the cloud, video devices, ten points on the wall street journal what people are looking at now one is the politics of the mid term election and congress coming back and how they're shaped by the politics of the mid term election. on the one hand the democrats
talking about inequality and republicans talking about health care, right? >> exactly. yeah. that's part of the way we cover it. so we have broaden id our coverage of the news. we have -- broadened our coverage of the news. these are the big stories. what i do every morning now with my ten point wsjd/ten point, my take of the big stories that are going to be dominating the stories that day. >>rose: what you think are important? >> the stories i think are important we put them out there at gaird t. baker. >> how our often do you tweet? >> not as often as my social editors would like me to. >>rose: how ofng does rupert tweet? >> pretty much straight away. >>rose: does he not? >> he likes to express his views on things sometimes. >>rose: i close with trends to
watch in 2014 which are interesting health care, economic growth, whether you know especially u.s. economic growth but also europe and china and japan is important. emerging nations all of that to look at where we are and what's the myth and reality of where we are. mid term elections we talked about, republican party, shale oil what's going ohappen there, nsa surveillance and edward snowden, changes coming because of change in leadership and congress and everything else and manufacturing i assume that's the manufacturing base in the united states. >> yes. >>rose: whether there is resurgence in manufacturing here. >> natural gas is so cheap it is actually cheap to produce here. i would answer that charlie i think one of the most interesting trends here and beyond is going to be the continuing, the fact that we live in increasingly multipolar -- zero polar world, we got used in the cold war the
bipolar, then we have a period where it was a unipolar world. now i think there's an increasing argument if you look at what's going on in the middle east or china and japan and what's going on in the south china sea, what's going on in europe and what's going on in partsd of africa, the u.s. is still the most important country in the world but it doesn't have the importance -- account not the pole. >> the importance that the united states did play. >> no question about that. >>rose: don't want to play it because they're more interested in economic growth for the next ten years. >> increasingly look -- >>rose: look what they're doing in asia. >> look increasingly they're trying to secure resources of for themselves in africa and latin america. it's a fascinating somewhat more dangerous world than we're
living in. but it's a dangerous things. >>rose: how terrible, al qaeda affiliated groups and groups affiliated with al qaeda affiliates. pochg up everywhere. whether it's north africa or what's happening in egypt in terms of where are they going. >> no, it's a dangerous world. >>rose: that's why we're journalists, isn't it? thank you for coming. thank you very much, chearm. >>rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ captioning sponsored by rose communications
captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> fund being for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company funding this program since 2002. and american express. additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information serviceshe foll