tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg May 16, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." we begin this evening with north korea's missile launch and the ongoing global cyber attack. on sunday, north korea conducted their seventh missile test this year, describing it as pyongyang's most successful launch yet. agency described them as less capable of carrying a large sized nuclear warhead. they also reported that a pacific based from the u.s. is within reach.
malware has been reported in 200,000 computers across more -- countries.nies vladimir putin has blamed the united states for the attack. the software indicated was developed by the national security agency, later stolen by a group of hackers. joining me from washington is ben rhodes who served as deputy national security adviser for president and -- president obama, and david sanger. let's start with the north korean missile and exactly what we know about that, and how far have they come, and how serious is their success in getting better and better with each test? david: i think the most important thing to note here is president trump says he's getting the cooperation of the chinese, that the chinese are putting new pressures on the
north koreans, the north koreans are just stepping up their testing program. they are stepping it up in the most interesting way. their biggest concern is not doing something that would prompt president trump to take some kind of preemptive military action, or something that was so horrified international community that it would actually unify everybody on sanctions. that would be dropping the icbm just off of the west coast or something. instead, they are doing a series of tests that are going high up into space. this one went up 2000 kilometers, 1400 miles. then it is doing a sharp down 400 ord coming so miles from the north korean coast. that replicates the reentry of an icbm. they are putting together the component pieces of what it would take to demonstrate that they could send a missile much
further without actually prompting that kind of military response. what's interesting also is what didn't happen. as we reported to months ago, the united states had a very active cyber and electronic warfare program you and i have discussed on this show before, that president obama accelerated starting in early 2014. it worked pretty well when they had a lot of failed tests. we think some of those were because of the program. there could have been other causes as well. bad parts. test,eir most recent using a different engine technology, seems to have been going off pretty well. this one this weekend appears to have been pretty successful. charlie: ben rhodes, how concerned should we be? ben: i think we should be very concerned, charlie. with each test, they get better
with this technology. of course, the principal threat to the united states belongs -- beyond our allies of south korea and japan, that they can make a warhead to reach the united states. with each test, they get better. we have seen a rhetorical escalation out of this administration, which often provokes north korea to take actions like this. but that rhetorical escalation doesn't yet appear to be accompanied by a strategy that has been put in place to try to achieve some kind of frieze of the north korean program. we had a steady escalation of the threat, and it's not clear what we will do to respond. charlie: what was the obama administration's strategy? ben: what we would do, building on what we have already done, we would work with china to enforce more stringent sanctions, we would also deploy missile defense, the thad system to
north korea, but ultimately we have to the brakes on the program. we don't want them to have the ability to miniaturize a warhead. the diplomatic situation is to squeeze north korea through sanctions to get china's attention, and then negotiate some kind of frieze in the north korean program. they are not advancing the nuclear program or missile capability, then you have a time to address denuclearization. i don't think there's any suggestion from kim jong-un that anybody will cause him to give up nuclear weapons upfront. we have to find a way to put a positive at and on this. -- pause button on this. charlie: tell me where you think the trump strategy is? david: i don't think right now the trump strategy is all that different from president obama's strategy or president bush's before that. there's always been this putance on the chinese to
more pressure on. the difficulty is the chinese have their limits. limits.e two major first, they don't want to put on so much pressure that it could trigger a north korean collapse that would result in south korea, with the fear that the troops are intelligence capabilities are on their borders. while they will do more of a squeeze, there is a limit to that. is the chinese are interested in knowing, what is the end state of north korea when you are done with this process? the north koreans at this point are pretty well convinced they would be crazy to give up their nuclear weapons program. they look, for example, at libya, which in 2003 gave up a nascent program, one that was just components. nothing put together, nothing as advanced as what the north koreans have. they believe when qaddafi got in
trouble, that european allies and arab states ganged up to drive them out of power. their view is if he had not given up the nuclear weapons program, he might still be in power today. i think the additional problem that we face right now in dealing with each of these elements is that while a freeze has been described, it would certainly keep the problem from open theorse and might way to a negotiation of a kind that the obama administration did pretty successfully with iran. it also would freeze into place an existing considerably sized nuclear arsenal. you have to ask yourself, are you willing to live with that arsenal if you don't get to the denuclearization? charlie: describe what the denuclearization means in your terms. ben: over the long-term, it has been the position of all six talks, other than
north korea, of course, that north korea would have to give up its nuclear weapons capability. like i said, we have to deal with the world as it is. it does not appear kim jong-un will do that. that is why i think we have to accept the freeze so that we are at least putting off the challenge of them being able to reach the united states with an icbm with the potential nuclear warhead to go on that icbm. you accept that in a perfect outcome to buy time to then explore what kind of progress you can make in a negotiation. the iran example points to the fact that you do want to deal with these problems diplomatically before you get to the country having a nuclear weapon.that's one of the reasons we did the iran deal. charlie: how likely is it we will wake up one morning and they have everything they need to attack the united states? david: there are some people in
the intelligence community that they already do. that just because they haven't demonstrated their missile capabilities and the reentry capability doesn't mean they don't have it. personally, i think they probably have a good ways to go. it's one thing to put a nuclear warhead on a short-range range missile that could reach south thea or japan, and intelligence community assessment is that they already have. when you try to do an icbm, it is more difficult. when it leaves the atmosphere, there is tremendous heat and vibration. it took the united states years to figure out this technology in the 1950's. it will take the north koreans a fair bit, and they will not be confident until they actually tested. -- test it. on the one hand, people in the intelligence community are saying just because they haven't tested it doesn't mean they can't do it, but on the other hand you have people saying they have diplomatic space in the fact that we don't know and they
don't know whether it is successful. idea of a freeze me make sense, but it's not the kind of freeze we have with iran. a ron did not have nuclear weapons at the time. now, the north koreans are up to this debate, but somewhere and 20.10 that is looking the way pakistan looked. charlie: and they got help from pakistan. david: they did. from the pakistani engineer who helped build the program and then went into business for himself and sold a lot of designs to the north koreans. they have gotten help from the iranians. missile helpen from iranians. they have gotten help from the chinese early on. i don't think they are getting help today. but at this point, they have master the fundamentals of .uildinglear weapon
we just a note if they have mastered the fundamentals of shrinking one to fit inside a note your warhead. -- nuclear warhead. thelie: when you were in national security council with very profile of the north korean leader that suggested he was a sane, rational actor? that we reality is don't have a tremendous amount of insight into north korea. what we have learned over the course of the years that kim jong-un was in power, in some ways he is rational. regime. to save his he has drawn lessons from libya. but what we also learned about him is that he is highly pressure,to external particularly from china. there was some relief early on that he might be more controlled by china because he was inexperienced. we saw the opposite. we saw him ignore chinese pressure. i think it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket with the chinese.
i do not think there's something they could do to compel him to give up his weapons in the near term. he has defied china just as much as he has defied the united states. we have to be cautious. i think he wants to stay in power, but he's impetuous, he's to perceivedponse slights, he responds to rhetoric against north korea. that's why i would be concerned about the rhetorical escalation we have seen. all it does is hope a hornets nest -- poke a hornets nest. david: this has been an area where i think president trump has been on a steep learning curve. i did some foreign policy interviews with him last year, with maggie haberman. that if this chinese consult this problem, then xi jinping visited him at mar-a-lago, and then he said he doesn't have as much influence with north korea as i thought,
just like, "who knew?" knew health care was complicated. the chinese also provide them with oil. they could turn off that pipeline. they have never really been willing to do that for more than a couple of days. there's also the question of goes to his profile as well. how willing if he'd let his own people suffer in order to resist ?anctions that's one half of the question. the other half, is there ever a level english sanctions would cause so much pain in the country that they would turn against him, or is his power just too strong for that to happen? i think he has shown
that he doesn't much care about the suffering of his people. he's willing to think more and more resources into the nuclear and missile technology. , when i wouldme like to see is if we are able to get a freeze in praise -- place, if we are able to essentially and ie pause button, think we have an incoming south korean president who has been elected in part on dialogue with on top of that pressures can do that. then you explore whatind of pressure can be put on north korea. there are a nascent the markets that connect people economically with the external world. there's the potential to get more information into north korea. i think for him to feel pressure from within his own populace there will have to be more connections between people who live in a closed society with world.side the more people understand how bad they have in north korea
relative to the south and china, the more that could potentially create the type of pressure we talk about. thus far it is clear he's not yet feeling that pressure. charlie: let me turn to cyber attacks. what do we know about them and where did they come from, and will they continue? what is our capacity to resist if they come to the united states? david: one of the interesting things is it hasn't affected the united states very much right now. that's a good sign that indicates the u.s. has probably done a better job than most countries at actually executing inomatically the patches microsoft and others. it is still a imperfect process. but what has made this attack so interesting, and such an interesting story about the future, is where these tools came from. these were not tools that were the group ofped hackers and then turned into ransomware, where you freeze up
somebody's computer and say, send me a ransom payment in bitcoin to get it on frozen. the origins came from vulnerabilities that were discovered by the nsa and the development of american cyber weapons, and then leaked out through this mysterious group called shadow broker is that appeared last august, and has continued to lead these tools. leak these tools. yesterday, the president of microsoft wrote a fascinating blog posts. he said if the u.s. military lost track of tomahawk missiles and somebody was getting ready to shoot them all for holding , we would be looking at the u.s. military and saying,
what gives? how did you lose control of these? cyber weapons are behind such a classified veil, the u.s. government has not acknowledged that these are u.s. origin vulnerabilities. bossert, to has been in the bush administration, very knowledgeable on cyber, came to the press room and described steps to limit this. but when he was asked where the weapons came from, he said that the providence of them is not interesting. what is interesting is what you do to stop them. but i think the providence of them is interesting. ben: having recently been in government, i'm not going to talk about the provenance. this is all new space for the united states. i think what needs to happen is a parallel track. it needs to be more dialogue
between government and industry. we talked about this a lot with the obama administration. how can we work to develop information sharing about vulnerabilities and protections? also, there has to be dialogue with other countries. that often means dialogue with cyber adversaries like russia and china, which is harder in the environment we have been in recently. but we need to do is establish a new set of international norms around cyber city ready that -- security that can work with industry. we are not there yet. we came along way in the obama administration in the u.s.. we had nascent dialogues with the chinese and russians, but it needs to be formally lateralized.lized. we will see more incidents like what we've witnessed. charlie: maybe in the piece you todayad in "the times,"
is the point is that this attack should be a warning. it should be a wake-up call. a wake-up call to what? david: for a few things. first of all, that if we can't control the stuff that we develop, it is going to get shot back at us. that if youere is andlandmines in cambodia you don't have a way of figuring out how to make them go in nerd later on -- inert later on, kids are going to step on them. if you develop cyber weapons, pieces of the code are going to be found by someone and refashioned into a weapon that can be used against you. the second thing is that while i that completely with ben you are going to need international cyber norms, it is
a difficult thing to do if it turns out the ransomware is out in the hands of criminal groups, because we don't know where the criminal group is or where it is located. criminal groups don't sign on to norms, just as they don't sign treaties. it is a more complex problem then a nuclear or complex problems. ben: i think there's a third issue that has come up. it was a fascinating debate that you are inwhen office, about whether the intelligence community should have access, a backdoor into any encryption system, so that if we think there's terrorists using cell phone conversation or encrypted email, there's a way to get into it. silicon valley will come back from this experience and say, you can't even hold onto the weapons you developed.
what makes us think if you give us the keys to getting into the systems that you can hold on to that? every adversary will want that. i think the u.s. has lost credibility in this case with the argument it can be trusted with a set of backdoor keys. charlie: where do we go from here? ben: david raises very appropriate questions. sometimes inssume, the u.s. we are at the leading edge of technology, you have to assume others will be able to develop that type of technology. it is not unlike the nuclear weapon where we had at first, but we had to anticipate others would develop similar capabilities. the first thing we have to do is have our own security house in order. i think there needs to be a constant look at how are we securing our tools and how do you balance the development and cyber any offensive
capabilities against the vulnerability that presents? that has to be a tight look at our own security.i think going forward there does have to focus in deliberate trying to find the common ground with countries that have been cyber adversaries. the global economy is wired in such a way that we are all vulnerable for this type of attack. while david is right that you are not going to have criminal enterprises signing on to norms, at least if we can establish a baseline for defense mechanisms that we are working with other countries to implement and then governance around how each country is using this, like we for arms control regimes other weapons, think that will be essential. frankly, while that may seem like a difficult thing to accomplish with countries like china and russia, the imperative will grow because there will be
more of these attacks. there has to be that common effort with the variety of the key governments around the world, but it's got to take in industry. ultimately so much as in private hands. private security as a baseline, we need to do more to establish shared norms. charlie: but you do accept david's point that in silicon valley, they will say, if you can't hold onto your own secret, why should we give up these encryption codes as much as you say you need them in certain kinds of criminal cases and terrorist threats? does that argument resonate with you that comes from silicon valley? i think anybody is potentially vulnerable. i think we have to do it better job. -- snowden disclosures award alone demonstrated vulnerabilities in our own
systems. i was skeptical about the encryption debate for different reasons. if essentially it is known worldwide that the u.s. government has a type of blanket capability to break encryption of all these different technologies, i think that disadvantages u.s. businesses. attract peoplel to other technologies that are encrypted that are developed elsewhere. better to do it through the rule of law and the type of process americans are familiar with where you seek access to something and work with the legal system to get it. i think that's at the heart of the encryption debate. charlie: one last question. it is not part of -- ahead of the united states and the world of cyber space? david: we are ahead in offensive capability. just think of what we have reported to or what the admitted to.s
with thee the attacks summer olympics. talkingsked carter about it. n points out, the nuclear tells you that doesn't stay stay -- that lead doesn't for very long. we had bombed hiroshima, then the soviets had the technology by 1949. cyber, it is much more compressed. the other thing we learned is that the cost of entry is so low powers can develop these. the sony attack was done by north korea. if i was the north koreans looking at the flotilla off of my coast and the american
overwhelming presence, military presence in asia, i would be thinking that cyberattacks on the united aids would probably be the -- the united states would probably be the most threatening. they were already pretty successful in the sony case. a broken, bankrupt country halfway around the world managed to destroy 70% of the computers at sony detainment because they didn't like a movie about kim jong-un. in that movie, but they didn't like it. ben: it was pretty good. [laughter] david sanger, ben rhodes, thank you very much. we will be right back. ♪
charlie: joe dimaggio is widely considered one of the best ballplayers in history. in his 13 years with the new york yankees, he got batting titles, hit 361 home runs, and played in nine world series.his 56 game hitting streak is a record that still stands. while the record is still known, joe dimaggio remained a fiercely private man, revealing himself to only a few.dr. rock positano was one of them. healedted him to treat a injury that had plagued him for decades.
the man became good friends. dr. positano looks back on that friendship with his new book, "dinner with dimaggio: memories of an american hero." pleased to have rock positano back at this table. i am pleased to consider him a friend, and pleased he mentioned me in his book. why dinner with dimaggio? positano: it took me 17 years to get back to this table. [laughter] thank you for allowing me to come back. charlie: you've finally wrote about you wanted to write. dr. positano: that's true. charlie: and we are glad to have you back. why the title? speaks about it how important the dinner table was to joe dimaggio. a person of italian extraction, many conversations happen at the dinner table. one of the things i found spending quality time with joe was that he would love to speak the friends, myself, at
dinner table, and talk with us about anything. about these ball, people, friends, relationships. i said, what would be more appropriate than "dinner with dimaggio,"? and you happen to be one of the recipients of dinner with him. charlie: how did you meet? dr. positano: at a gala with the new york daily news. i was one of the few journalists he had an affection for. tocomplained at one point build that he was having issues with his famous healdsburg -- heel spur.-- next thing you know, the office manager says there is a man out here dressed impeccably in a long code that looks just like joe dimaggio. he was so formal.
then he said, nice to meet you. i said, it's a pleasure to meet you as well. i heard stories that he was very proper and a gentleman. i didn't feel at that moment i would call him joe like everybody else would do. charlie: was he a hero of yours? dr. positano: i think what may be the relationship interesting is that most people look at joe because they saw him playing. they saw him in 56 straight games, and nine world championships. but i didn't have that advantage. one of the things i learned was basically family get-togethers. my father and grandfather were great fans. we would hear about joe dimaggio at the dinner table. my brother, myself, my cousins would say, who is this guy? my brother was a, that's the guy always on television. to many of us, he was in the joe dimaggio we got to know later on. "forie: you write that
dimaggio, life was a jigsaw puzzle, and only he had all the pieces." dr. positano: true. what made him so brilliant is that he was like the ultimate general. he compartmentalized his life. the new york life, florida life, and california life. not at any time with one life know what the other was doing. something he might have told someone in florida he might not have, told someone in new york. charlie: so no one knew him completely. dr. positano: not exactly. i think i was more of his own design, i way of protecting his privacy. that's what made him so interesting. he was able to transcend these different lives. charlie: certain things you never brought up, what were they? dr. positano: the typical things. when you sat down to the table, you let him lead the conversation. clear thing -- clearly one thing that was sensitive was his second wife, marilyn monroe.
another thing with his relationship with frank sinatra. also, he did not like to talk about politics. he didn't bring up the kennedys or anyone he had dealings with. those were the three topics. bill gallo told me that. don'td, whatever you do, bring up marilyn, sinatra, or the kennedys. charlie: just wait for him to talk about it? dr. positano: yes. basically. i would stare into my coffee and say, i'm going to ignore it and pretend i'm not hearing a word he would say. he would like to talk about anything. one thing i found interesting is that everybody speaks about his heroism. an american icon. but he's just as interested in everyone else's life. we would sit down with the brat pack, and he would ask, what are your kids doing, how is your restaurant going? he was very interested and engaged. he wasn't self absorbed or
selfish. one thing that people say is that he was so aloof and this, but no. the man was extremely caring, extremely outgoing when he was in the right group of people. as you know when you sat at the dinner table with dimaggio, you never know what's coming out of his mouth. charlie: everybody started in the negative column. they had to prove themselves to him to be in the positive column. dr. positano: always. ellis the first thing he said to me. he starts everyone else out on the negative column. basically he would use that as a guideline with just about anyone. people had to prove themselves. they had to be worthy of his friendship, worthy of his confidences, worthy of sitting down at the table with him. that was such a huge important issue to him. sitting down at the table with moshier was important. charlie: of all the things you've done in your life, what does this mean?
dr. positano: it shows me how here's a man who was unbelievably successful in his career, created many things, opportunities for people, but at the end of the day he had heart and empathy.he cared about people. he cared about children. the joe dimaggio children's hospital in florida is one example. he said no kid can ever not get medical treatment because they can't afford it. that's one of the mantras of that hospital. the fact that he was so loving and goading to his family. he adored his granddaughters and great granddaughters. he had a tremendous amount of love for them.in that respect , joe was able to show that as iconic as he was, at the end of the day what mattered most were the things that matter to most of us. his family, friends, and doing the right thing. charlie: he was proud of his italian-american heritage. dr. positano: absolutely. yet, he would never use that.
he was careful about that. he believed in being very happy that his parents were from italy. he loved the fact that as italians we were very lively people,, concerned about the arts and literature. but at the end of the day, he brought a new dimension to the italian-american culture, that of a sports hero. charlie: you say you've never invite dimaggio to dinner. said he would ask. dr. positano: billy martin was one of the few yankees jo had an affection for. charlie: they could not seem like two more different people. dr. positano: exactly. they were opposite ends. but there was something that -- joe vellano amarin was a standup guy. joe loved hanging out with margin. -- martin.
once we bumped into silver zito. -- phil. i asked him, why don't you join us for dinner? he turned into a color like ash, and said, i can't do that. he said if i knew that joe was in center, i knew we had a chance to win. charlie: he wanted to go into combat and was turned down. at the same time, he spent two years in the army. i think he said he wondered what his career would have been that -- been like if he had those years back. lost his homehe runs totals, his number of hits. he definitely would have gotten another two championship. in that respect, he felt that his career was affected, but at
the end of the day, he was a consummate american. ablends make sure he was to contribute in his way to the war effort in world war ii. charlie: much has been said about the difference in the personality and how they talk about each other. williams on the one hand, joe dimaggio on the other. dr. positano: tremendous amount of respect between them. despite what people thought, they did like one another, but at a distance. joe always felt tad was the best natural hitter ever, and ted felt that joe was one of the best all-around players ever. you never knew what was going to happen. there was still a rivalry fiftysomething years later. it was amazing to watch them interact. dr. positano: charlie: dave benson told me a story once that he took dimaggio and williams to the white house. i think it was to see george bush 41. but maybe someone else.
the president was delayed. so he sat there with these guys talking. he said they talked a lot about thingslike bat size, about the game that they loved. that was the conversation. dr. positano: well, they loved baseball. their life was about baseball. and having a person as a iderator like fay vincent, about that,ng told as well as joe, there were heading to the all-star game in toronto at the 50th anniversary of the 56 game hitting streak. that was a memorable occasion. not only for faye, but also for joe. charlie: let's talk about marilyn a bit. what did she mean to him?
it was a short-lived marriage. dr. positano: the most famous nine-month marriage in the history of mankind. i think at the end of the day, joe is a caring and considerate person. he felt marilyn was a person who was in some type of trouble, maybe not able to get along with people because people were trying to take advantage. he never liked when people tried to take advantage. his alloy to her was the fact that he was protective of her. charlie: he also liked a sexual relationship with her, too. dr. positano: well, being married to one of the sexiest women in the world has advantages, but as someone told me, you don't marry that women to take her home and make meatballs. did he, for a long time, put a rose on her -- dr. positano: that was one of those topics you didn't go. if he mentioned it, it was fine. but he never mentioned it to any of us in the group.
he never said anything about his post-marilyn monroe days. that was something very private. it was something clearly that was hurtful as well. i think he stayed away from those subjects. charlie: sinatra was a pal. dr. positano: yes. they were family probably until the late 1960's and early 1970's. that was one of the most tragic relationships. these people were so iconic in their own way. sinatra the greatest singer, dimaggio the greatest baseball player. to have an understanding and realized they were no longer friendly was difficult for all parties involved, whether you were in either camp. it wasn't a good feeling. people felt the two of them should have gotten together. one of my dimaggio bucket list was to try and get them together again. unfortunately, it didn't work out, we lost mr. sinatra in
1998, and mr. dimaggio in 1999. . that remains a tragedy in many respects. they were two people that really cared about one another initially and cared about each other's families,. charlie: you talk about the time that you and dimaggio went to a batting cage, i think at coney island, and he picked up a bat. dr. positano: he didn't do very well, but he wanted to show me. we were practicing for a softball game. of course, it was more about giving me batting instructions. he picked up the bat for maybe a few swings , but at the end of the day you can see it was no longer part of strength. he gave me pointers. of course, it was difficult. he was like the professor giving the amateur instructions, but at the end of the day, it was beautiful, coney island, and i will never forget that. becauseecognized him
they would never expect to see someone of his stature at the batting cage. [laughter] charlie: certainly true. , hehe bucket list also never did a great interview, did he? dr. positano: i think he did. charlie: who talk to him that made a defining interview? dr. positano: the greatest interview that was never aired, it had been at this table. i wondered if anybody ever sat down with him and aired an interview. i talked a lot to ted williams as well. that aired. i loved that a lot because williams was so open. tell the story. you brought them here. dr. positano: yes. joe's granddaughters were big fans of years. i said, why don't you stop by to see charlie? charlie: we had dinner several times before that. dr. positano: yes. he said he didn't want to bother you, but i encouraged him. said, i can't
believe this is happening. let's at least get him to sit down with charlie. and i think you have a picture. charlie: there he is. the two of us sitting at this table. we had a conversation about baseball hoping he would say it's ok. i was hoping he would say, i give you my consent, but he didn't. he said he would think about it. dr. positano: he didn't mean it. hen we left the studio, said, you know, i'm comfortable with charlie. i would do an interview. i said that's great, because he would never disrespect you or your family, are any of your memories. the answer was yes, he would have definitely sat down at your ande and done the death -- probably did the best interview ever. charlie: then he went back to california and then he got sick. dr. positano: it was a horrible thing. nobody knew what was wrong with
him, including me. none of us knew what was wrong reports came out and the associated press. again, he was fiercely private, as were the people taking care of his business affairs. he went back to california, but ultimately he went back to florida, which is where he was not able to sustain his life. which is the biggest misconception about dimaggio you would like to correct? dr. positano: from my vantage point, i got past the icon. i look more at the man. the man was kind considerate,, and cared about people. i think people never got that impression for whatever reason. is of the things he said basically, how could people write a story about me when they have not even sat down with a cup of coffee with me?
one of the things i found out to be interesting is that he was careful about who he with.wn to have dinner many people trying to have a cup of coffee with him, but they were not successful. charlie: was he happy when you saw him?had he come to terms with his life and who he was , and what he accomplished? dr. positano: he loved new york. that was his lifeline. he used to love to come to new york, especially in the last eight years.the town with him. he could go anywhere and nobody would bother him. they were treated with respect. he could go to nice restaurants, the theater, movies. that was something that he wasn't able to do with his heyday with the yankees. dinner with dimaggio is a snapshot of that eight to nine years when he was there, enjoying the town.
charlie: we can show some photographs. the first is with his brother dominic and his father in 1937. the second one, frank sinatra. yankee manager looks on as to module treatment for his problem he'll -- as dimaggio received treatment for his problem heel. then this is dimaggio and marilyn monroe celebrating after she left her hand print at the chinese theater, 1953. that said, marilyn monroe's funeral. let's go to the next one with dr. positano in the 1990's. there you go. dr. positano: that's a scary picture. [laughter] charlie: then there is one where we posed for a photo in the studio. brought -- rock, congratulations.
this is a great book, people who care about sports and heroes would want to read this. it is really a first-person account of your life with joe dimaggio. dr. positano: i appreciate that. just to quote the great dimaggio, when he signed the baseball, he put, "to charlie rose, the best of the best. you will always be charlie." charlie: thank you very much. the book is called "dinner with dimaggio: memories of an american hero." ♪
charlie: a friend of this program, redgrave, died sunday grey, died sunday after a battle with cancer. he served as ceo of paramount pictures. he also green lit several smaller academy award-winning homes -- films, as well as blockbusters. he left his mark on television, serving as executive producer at acclaimed hbo series like "the sopranos." brad grey appeared on this program three times over the years.here's a look at those conversations. >> i grew up in a telling business. that's how it started. i have been very fortunate. position, aagement management company.
the company is about 35 years old, founded by my old partner. that is the business i grew up in. i continue to love that. charlie: the management of people's careers. brad: i love the access, the conversations with talent, real talent. that's a gift i don't have. what i do is i try to nurture talent in any number of ways. i try to nurture it through the representation company, to achieve the goal of any of the talent and business would want to achieve, or nurture it by financing their ideas or our ideas that are populated by different talent, whether it is the television business or developing the movie business. i like the talent business. i like that access and i like that dialogue every day. it's a treat. i know some people believe that it's a burden, and like anything else, anything can be a burden at times. that's where it all comes from. without david chase, without
brad pitt, without nicolas cage, without any of these wildly none of theple, real fun happens. the real entertainment. that is what we are supposed to be doing. charlie: what part of it do you like the most? television, movies, records? paid attentiond to the movie business, because when i think about it, i have had unusual success in the television business in that i have been involved with some of the best shows of the last 20 years. when you look at "the larry sanders show," or "the sopranos," i'm very proud of these shows. i have not had that success on the motion picture site. charlie: as a producer? brad: as a producer.
i would love to me great movies -- make great movies. i'm paying attention to that. , frankly, thee business of running an entertainment company where we have some control of our desk to me. -- destiny. i'm fortunate to be in that position. there aren't a lot of people that have some sense of control at this point, with all the vertical integration and although large companies of what they get involved with. charlie: you came to paramount eight years ago? brad: yes. charlie: what did you find, and how is it different now? brad: well, when i got there, the studio was a 100 years old studio. they had their ups and downs, periods that and
were not as strong. when i got there, there wasn't much development or product. to pretty much start from scratch. we had to look at the business and understand what was coming. really look at where the business would be. was it to be international, was it business that had moved toward the next distribution front in terms of digital? where were we? and how do we tell great stories? how do we try to make this a great chapter, so that when i look back at this period of my life are paramount i can at least, look back and say they did great work at that time. agelie: brad grey, dead at 59. ♪
IN COLLECTIONSBloomberg TV Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on