tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg December 13, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
story of the "national interest." i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. superpower or superbust? >> the level of uncertainty is greater than that of any major economy in the world. >> why is there uncertainty? >> they have to restructure their economy in order to continue to grow. a very impressive, powerful president. in addition to engaging in real reform, one of the things he has done out of this planner he was create a national security council. he knows that if you start to actually engage in economic reform that loosens control of the party over the economy,
things can get dangerous. he does not have a divided response. >> some attack on the control of the party. >> and an elite fracture. they fear social discontent. >> do they think that comes from making the economy lest a controlled? number two, bringing rural into urban. >> what they are doing on social reforms builds legitimacy. allowing these rural workers to become legitimate and get social benefits matters. that is going to help them. some of the anticorruption they are doing, whether it is a purge that is political or in a selective way, or it is trying to create more transparency for the party, also provide some legitimacy.
nonetheless, they are making fundamental changes in the way that the economy is working. we're talking financial reforms that are actually loosening in some capital controls. we are talking about energy reforms that are going to make the state run enterprises have to run more efficiently. that is going to upset a lot of very entrenched, wealthy officials. it is not unconnected that they are squeezing all of the western journalists particularly now because they understand that this is going to create own abilities in the party. >> on the other hand, has he simultaneously consolidated his power within china by a relationship with the military, the red army. >> and certainly, looking at the creation of this air defense identification zone, our newest favorite acronym, that clearly shows that this was the state apparatus. the diplomats were all
completely in sync. this is what he must do. >> you return from japan. what is the reaction to this? >> they do not have options. japan is like israel in this position. they do not have options. they understand, they have the ally of the united states. the japanese are much were concerned about china and the americans are. that creates friction. they were not happy privately with biden's visit to the region. >> what didn't they like? >> said the americans were not awarded during that position and talking points in advance with the japanese in response. they didn't like that the americans, while saying that there is no space between the u.s. and japanese position, the state department is counted
civil airlines to file flight plans with the chinese government. the japanese explicitly said don't. >> they sent b-52s in there. >> which were unarmed. you also have the japanese telling the chinese we want you to roll this back. the american said no such thing. when biden was in china, the focus and criticism was on the journalists and talking about the americans and chinese needing to get a relationship of trust. the japanese fear, that while americans have better relationship with japan, obama believes china is more important. that is dangerous for them. they worry about that. i think they are right to. >> how will it play out? if the obama administration is more likely to favor the chinese? >> it is likely to give the
chinese book over to escalate on japan. >> knowing that the u.s. from outcome hard on japan. >> senior officials told me that they like a lot more this second term obama administration. hillary clinton is gone. those are the hard liners. they like these guys. >> what about donnellan? >> donnellan is focused on china. >> do they like that or don't like that? the point man for the obama administration, who made several trips over there is gone from this administration. the guy they have been dealing with, gone. >> true. the focus on asia gone. it was when kerry was with the chinese foreign minister in geneva working via renny an issue. it was more of a priority for us.
>> biden got two hours with xi jinping. >> the chinese is happy with where they are now. they want to be involved in a multilateral trading services agreement. the chinese strategy here is not a bad relationship with the u.s.. the chinese strategy is to drive a wedge between the u.s. and japan. i think that they have been somewhat successful. i think hillary clinton was still secretary of state -- >> they would have reason to respond? >> the japanese would've taken an aligned position. >> are they testing is? >> they are testing japan a bit. they are testing us a little. they want to see this flexibility. american foreign-policy is in decline right now. the american economy is not. after snowden and syria, and the government shutdown, obama doesn't go to a pack. the eyes have fallen a bit.
>> because obama was not able to go to asia because of the government shutdown. >> they do not like ttp. there is no question obama not going to that delay that. the malaysians were unhappy. the indonesians were unhappy that he did make those trips. the singaporeans are asking for a lot more u.s., now more balance between the u.s. and china. let's put it this way. the chinese believe that they have gained from obama not making that trip. absolutely. >> what do they want to do in the middle east? >> despite the fact that they have some of the largest unconventional reserves of energy in the world, they are behind the u.s. and exploiting them. they need more energy. they want another 800,000 barrels a day from iraq. a massive increase.
>> are they getting it? >> they are going to get it. they've got the money. they're going to become the economic player and all of the major oil distributions in the middle east. >> to provide the demand. >> they need. american demand is coming from the western hemisphere. that does not mean -- absolutely. it is not mean the chinese are suddenly going to take the lead on the israel palestine peace process. they are going to use that. >> do you think that the pivot articulated by the obama administration was the right words to use and policy to follow? >> that is an interesting question. i think it was well articulated. kerry says rebalancing. rebalancing your shaking back and forth. seeing the pivot put the chinese
on notice that there was the potential for containment strategy. having said that, i don't think it takes a genius to understand that america foreign-policy interests are not in the middle east. they are in asia. the u.s. has to get that right. we need a good relationship with china. >> it is not just china though. it is the countries surrounding china. >> the single achievement for obama is tpp, not iran. iran is big, but tpp is big. >> explain that. >> them trade deal, the largest in more than a decade. it would involve 40% of the world's economy. it would great liberalization and competitive business in this massive space. it would be like the wto. they would feel the need to
improve the standards. >> john kerry has things going on three fronts. iran, syria, israel. what is the response to him? dealing with netanyahu. >> the response is he is a smart guy. >> and he seems to be operated without an agenda for himself other than success. he is not looking to run for president. >> i think that -- she is certainly not happy with him and what is the abandonment of the pivot and lack of resources being deployed in asia. >> secretary clinton is not happy with secretary kerry. >> i think that is clear. that is where we are right now. i think kerry has had next
success on iran. he has done a lot of lifting and is then favorable buzz for. he has done a lot of lifting and is favorable thus far. he is undermined by a lack of close coordination with obama, and lacks trust of obama. he was not the first choice for secretary of state. on israel palestine, i am a skeptic. i do not think it moves. he is wasting time on a priority that is america's. i do not know why he is doing it. i have spoken with former secretaries. we do not know why he is doing it. i think that if i were advising kerry on what to do, pick a couple of countries that need u.s. engagement. go to south korea, japan. those are allies. the fact that the relationship
is broken is a problem for the americans. >> the top western backed rebel in syria is forced to flee. every day there is another story about what is happening to the moderate rebels, and the growth of the islam is taking over the opposition to assad. then you seeing ryan crocker saying maybe we should reengage with assad himself. >> counterterrorism and the rest. we are engaging. first of all, some of the rebels, some of the moderates are earning to extremist because you kill over 100,000 people in a war, and you have millions of refugees, you're going to create over a few years, a lot of extremist. the ground is shifting. syria is a classic situation
where the enemy of our enemy is our enemy. that is not the way we're supposed to work. it is the way it works right now. i think although it is incredibly unartfully done, the u.s. lost a lot of leadership perception from its allies around the world and going to congress, and except in the putin deal, the fact is that the outcome of where the u.s. is right now, doing relatively little -- >> they are destroying chemical weapons, are they not? >> i think they are. if you ask with a right to be killed by chemical weapons or conventional means, it is not clear to me. the country is not a country. the state has fallen apart. >> that is scary. >> of course it is scary. >> if he asked me whether i think the chemical weapons gets
us to a better place, the answer is no. we do not care as much. the lessons learned -- >> because our economic future is in asia, or because we do not fully appreciate the risk of what a larger war would mean? >> we do not care as much because of greater interest in asia, because of the energy revolution in the middle east doesn't matter as much for our economy, because the growth in gap between rich and poor in the united states means large number americans think globalization and engagement doesn't benefit them, because the brits refused to supporters on syria, because the chinese and russians are harder to accommodate and they're getting more powerful. how many reasons do we need? and the legacy of iraq and afghanistan. the principal lesson that i think, maybe even i fear, the americans have learned on the
wars in iraq and afghanistan is that these countries matter a lot more to a lot of other people than they did the united states. i think that is informing a lot of what is happening right now in u.s. foreign policy. >> expressed how? >> expressed in the way syria policy was articulated. >> there is also this comment from you. you said there was a global crisis of legitimacy. what is that? >> it is the notion that with a communications revolution with billions of people in the internet as opposed to a few hundred million, with emerging markets becoming more important players, and middle-class is becoming so much greater, economist seat middle classes and say places that i can sell, and grow the economy. political economists say it is more accountability from their leaders. we look at the leaders around
the world, and the leaders around the emerging markets, you do not see many that really inspire. you do not see many that are actually taking on true leadership. that is certainly creating a crisis of confidence, a crisis of legitimacy. they are not able to drag policies through. >> people talk about a new world order. >> the g-zero. it is an absence, a vacuum of leadership. what do we see in the new world order? american foreign-policy that is relatively unarticulated, that does not have a doctrine or strategy. american allies around the world wanting us desperately to articulate that strategy. you see the chinese -- >> what strategy? >> how do we define our national interest around the world? >> before we go down that road, and whose writing of a defining our roll down the road?
>> in united states? >> i don't know. hillary has defined a doctrine. >> a hillary doctrine about america's place in the world. >> we may not like it. i do not know what it is. economic combined with the pivot to asia. >> foreign policy is run out of the white house, and the pivot was the obama administration. and the sense of where -- are you looking at me incredulously? >> do not think i agree with that. >> they negotiable if the iranians, ithe iraqis, and about afghanistan and in terms of what to do there. these are white house decisions. >> if you ask me ultimately if you're making a change of policy, is the white house going to give it a thumbs-up or thumbs down, absolutely true.
>> you are saying the do not initiate foreign policy? >> i am saying that i believe the obama administration from the top us had a very clear view that foreign policy is largely about risk aversion, tactics, and maintaining u.s. capital. that is not developing a doctrine. it is a very different view of u.s. policy. nothing wrong with that in terms of global, but it worries and concerns american allies. >> how is america differ because susan rice is at the national security council? chuck hagel is that defense. john kerry is at stage. >> that is where we started. we started on asia and the notion that the united states is balancing more in asia. their focus much more on the middle east. >> because of the rivalries of these people? >> israel-palestine, to say the
obama is the first in driving the policy and that therefore that is why we are now doing this we were before is not true. that was senator kerry deciding when he came in as secretary of state this is what he wanted to prioritize break obama said ok. obama is not the guy driving american foreign-policy. he deftly will veto stuff he doesn't like. there is no question. he definitely is verse two things that will get them stuck. that is different from setting strategy. if you ask me now do i believe the united states of america has a coherent foreign-policy strategy that is able to articulate, and we have historically, the answer is no. there are many reasons for that, which are justifiable and legitimate. some are structural and global. that is the case. if you ask me do i believe that the president of china gets that and is responding to it in ways that are useful for his government, the answer is yes.
>> you know haywood brockwell. he says putin has a strategy we do not. >> putin does not have a domestic strategy. >> he knows what he is doing. you agree with that? >> he knows what he is doing for putin. >> or for russia? >> not clear to me that that the russian national interest has been properly articulated or pursued by vladimir putin. he has had some great weeks on the international stage. is he benefiting russia question mark he has managed to keep us saw in place. is that good for russia? is that the guy you want to see? having snowden and rush over the long term, it is fun for putin. putin is enjoying himself. i do not think he has done much
for the russian national interest. >> is the russian presence felt more than it was three years ago? >> yes. i'm not sure that it helps russia. that is my point. >> the essence is that america has no strategy and has no policy, and on the world stage america is a failure. >> i believe that the united states -- >> where do you disagree? >> the u.s. is not in decline. the us economy is doing incredibly well. despite the fact that many aren't benefiting from it, the support of the dollar and desire of chinese to invest in u.s., that speaks to our strength. there is no question. it is food, it is demographic.
but, i do believe right now u.s. foreign-policy is in decline. it may not be structurally sound. >> foreign is in decline, which means america's influence in the world is in decline. >>the perception of american leadership and the policy around the world has taken a very significant beating in the last six months. yes. >> would you cite as evidence the statements by prince band are in saudi arabia. >> absolutely. it was perceived as a direct slap to the united states. whether we perceive it that way is another question. so many countries around the world right now are having serious doubts about the u.s. you hear questions, i hear the questions. i hear them from indonesia.
i hear them from the emirates. >> the questions are about america's willingness to lead and engage? >> america's commitment to them, commit internationally. the articulation of a strategy national interest rate these are foreign ministers i'm talking about. these are heads of state. even if you and i sit around this table and we actually think, the white house is creating a coherent strategy internationally and it does make sense, the fact that if it is not being perceived by these other countries, we have a problem. i do not believe it is just a communication issue. when bush put caring use in places, the idea was we could just explain ourselves. these countries just don't know what we really need. i cannot buy that. >> nor do i. >> when cheney criticizes obama for not being exception list,
obama has issues with taking on significant international leadership. he doesn't see the advantage of it. if i were advising obama on syria, and i was a domestic political adviser, i would have told him probably at the end, take the putin deal. as a foreign-policy adviser, there is no way i would have done that. >> a domestic policy adviser, or political advisor, interested in the president and his ratings and physician where the american people are, take the russian deal. >> these are elections coming up. take it. i think that has caused damage. >> this is my last question. what ought to be the great debate about america today in
psychological thriller by the director dennis villeneuve. it stars jake gyllenhaal. hugh jackman plays a desperate parent who takes matters into his own hands. it is a complex moral center. here is the trailer. >> happy thanksgiving. >> happy thanksgiving. >> wear a hat, please. you're getting over a cold.
>> where are your sisters? >> i cannot find them. >> joy? >> i checked the house. they are not here. >> they were not outside. it is starting to rain. >> they were playing on this rv. >> 911. >> this is detective loki. i'm going to find your daughters. >> where did you put those girls? where are they? >> we didn't find anything. this is clean. >> he hasn't been in trouble a day in his life. >> they're letting him go today. >> he has the iq of a 10-year- old. >> maybe he wasn't on his own.
>> we are considering all possibilities. >> i do not think you are. >> let me do my job. >> nine offenders live in a 10 mile radius. keep knocking on doors. tell me his name. >> he said he took them. >> we found something. >> she is wondering why i am not there. me, not you. me. >> what did you do? >> someone has to make him talk or they are going to die. >> five days, we are out of time. >> you do not know that it is him. >> he knows where the guy is. >> why aren't you telling me? why? >> the girls are still out there.
>> joining me is the director, and one of the film stars. i am pleased to happen at the table. tell us how this movie came into being. what attracted you to the story? >> basically, when i read the screenplay, i was amazed and disturbed by what it was saying about our society today. myself, i'm afraid of violence. it lets me explore things that i'm afraid of, to understand them. "prisoners" was an exploration of violence and our relationship with violence. i fell in love with it. i have the same kind of approach that the producer wanted the movie to be, and hugh jackman, i had a meeting. we got along quickly.
basically, he felt comfortable about the way i wanted to approach violence in the movie, my responsibility towards violence, to depicted on screen. >> that is easy to get you. what is difficult is to get jake gyllenhaal. that is the hard one. >> it is a tough one. [laughter] >> so use all the script. >> we're making another film. we were in the middle of making that film, an extraordinary experience. it was incredible collaboration. we would discover things as we went, and we would finish the day off and have dinner. then we would discuss more, wake up the next morning. it would evolve the scenes are situations. he came to me one day, and i thought it was a joke.
i am doing this next movie with hugh jackman and i would love for you to play a part. really, truly, it was the relationship we made on the movie and his garnering of trust that made me say i want to continue to work with this guy. that was the initial impression of response that i have. then i read the script, and i was blown away just the puzzle of the whole thing. he really wanted me to play the narrator of the whole piece, the detective. i want to find a real character in there. i said i would love to. >> tell me the story. >> it is the story of two families struggling with something horrible, they are losing both of their daughters. and both are fathers try to make one of the main suspects talk.
>> there is your violence. >> exactly. >> it is interesting, it is not only the violence, but it is the fact the you have here, because they think the children are kidnapped and maybe alive, there is a sense of a race against time. >> exactly. it is not a revenge movie. it is about struggling with a with a massive pressure. they don't trust their institutions, the police, who take justice into their own hands and try to make the investigation move forward by themselves. >> because they do not believe it is moving fast. it is less likely they will be found alive. >> 72 hours.
there is a timeframe. every hour that goes by over the first few days, it becomes harder and harder to find the suspect and rescue, particularly in this case, the children involved. one of the things that hugh jackman did research on was, and improvisation with the movie, was this time that passes when an abduction first happens. if it is not the first 24 hours. he says it to me as a threat almost. there is an inherent tension as these girls are abducted in the film, they carry the movie. yes, you are constantly, it is tension at every moment based on that fact. it is enough to carry anything. >> tell me about your character. how did you see him?
>> i had done research of law enforcement. i spent six months making a movie called end of watch, about two police officers before this. i spent six months with law enforcement in los angeles, spending five nights a week with them on the streets. i went through extensive training already and law enforcement. as a detective, i did not have any work. i knew a few guys who were detectives. the first thing that i did was contact the guy that i know who was a sheriff in lapd for 15 years and then retire to colorado. he is in colorado now. we started talking. i was fascinated in the script,
the character was an narrative implement as detectives often are. they're are the ones who asked the questions, be the eyes of the audience. and this guy, i was interested in him being a question mark himself. >> because he seems like a haunted man? >> two reasons. any great detective has to be infatuated with the criminal minds in order to probate. at the same time want to bring it to justice. and love the people he is working to solve a case for. there is that, and most detectives i met, some had criminal pasts themselves. i think that detective loki had his own. when he would walk into a scene, speaking of tension, capacity was ashamed of and trying to hide while trying to wring out the truth than somebody else. i found the inherently fascinating.
>> "l.a. times" says detective loki is one of the more complicated detectives recently. he is a man brimming with confidence but boiling with rage, convinced of the need for justice and frustrated by his inability to bring it about. >> that is the interesting thing about playing at a tech tip. if you do enough research and spend enough time, you get the sense that what is driving them is individual for each human being. we can make generalizations about a doctrine say that each person came to that job for specific reason. i found the specific reasons for loki. we get to the specificity of the human being. >> it is a brilliant performance by hugh. it is stunning grade you feel how on edge he is.
i will be forever doomed to guilt if i don't. >> it was a challenge. it was a way to get out of his comfort zones. to explore new dimensions of his talent as an actor. it was very exciting to see him working on set. he was very generous. the chemistry between hugh and jake was fantastic. at one point, we approached with one camera. we do not like to work with several cameras. we decided to work with two cameras in order to be will to capture their tennis game against each other.
the rule was that once the scene was nailed, they were going to improvise. to get out of the frame of the scene in order to create chaos. >> this is where they are talking to each other. here it is. >> my son told to the guy was inside of the rv watching. right? >> we haven't found any physical evidence inside of the rv. >> nothing? >> alex jones has the iq of a 10-year-old. there is no way that someone with the iq of a 10-year-old could abduct two girls in broad daylight and make them disappear. >> maybe he wasn't on his own. how could he drive an rv if he has the iq of a 10 euro? >> we're considering all possibilities. quentin not think you are.
>> this is what i need you to do for me. i need to go calm down. i'm a uniformed police officer. >> i didn't understand what this means. they said that he ran. he tried to get a way. do not understand why he would try to run away. >> i hear what you are saying. i'm not crossing anybody off my list. let me do my job. >> you were trying to keep them under control. >> what you see is the emotional versus the analytical. as a law enforcement, you have to follow the rules. those rules have led to solving many crimes. with any experience, you know that. there is also a completely justifiable emotional response he is having. something that is hard for me to contain his that i understand somewhere he is really trying.
i want to be there for him in a way. it is impossible for me to do that. it would affect the case, and he might be the person who did it. i'm not crossing anybody off of my list grade there are times where i said to him good performance. the performance. you could also be the person. that was important to establish these suspects. for me in, and hopefully for the audience. even loki himself. that was what was in play. this movie is about the institution versus the individual. this moment, i am representing the institution and hugh jackman is representing the individual. it really is emotional versus analytical. if they were together, we could probably solve things quicker or
get them solved. >> it was interesting, the arrogance of the policeman. the way he tries to handle the situation can make the father loses temper. that was the tension that i love. your character is struggling with the fatherhood figure. this tension was alive in the scene. >> you clearly did not want us to focus, to come to some early conclusion as to who the guilty person was. and wanted us to go of blind alleys. >> that was the beauty of the screenplay. it was really written like a maze. again, it was so well
constructed, i had to follow it. what interested me was the way the characters were dealing with those decisions. >> because it is the kidnapping of children, were their paces i have to make sure i do not go beyond here? did you censor yourself? >> specifically, i had a lot of talks with hugh jackman about this. without a responsibility because when you deal with so sensitive of a subject matter and you're making a film of entertainment, for me, i was trying to really be faithful and respectful with such a drama, and to make it meaningful. that is something about our society. entertainment for the sake of entertainment.
>> in selecting "enemy," steve mcqueen was here, who works with the same actors, is that something you like to do because you find somebody that represents -- [laughter] >> i am trapped. >> the beauty of the cinema [indiscernible] i am deeply inspired by that man. i think jake is a fantastic actor. i love the beauty of the relationship of cinema. working together. >> i'm talking about there is a been so beautiful love those people working together,
creating a higher intelligence seeing, and trying to create portraits together. i love to build relationships. jake is an actor that i'm a better director when i work with jake. >> there you go. >> wears oscar? somewhere those girls are. are they in the woods? where did you put those girls? do you hear me? >> he is high or something. >> walk. send the scent dogs.
>> what did roger bring to this? >> a lot. >> i was deeply influenced. it was like going back to film school. i had the chance to work with a master. he has a kind of genius. >> are you watching this thinking someday i will direct stuff too, or do you think that far ahead? you seem to be a student of all of this. >> i am a student of all of this. the process of making films is extraordinary. yes, the answer to that is yes. he allows me to that process. he is not threatened by it. roger, as an actor and someone who loves film, being in his
frame is next or ordinary lesson. he is obviously telling a story as most great cinematographers are. what he is doing is, we you talk about clues, that scene is in silhouette. the only moment where you get clues that maybe you should pay attention is when that light shines on my face a little bit or on paul's face. you get moments. there is a puzzle that is being played with light during this whole film. to know the story like i do, i know exactly who does it the whole time. even more so that if it was my fifth time as an obvious number watching her. i know exactly. but to see the work that roger does, deflect and reflect, those are lighting terms in a way, but what he does is mind blowing. he makes you a better actor. i do not know how that is a possibility.
it is amazing from one section of moviemaking you can do that. >> there is a lot of rain in this movie, a lot of mood created. [laughter] did you want to make weather and elements? >> i wanted roger to create that environment, the weather in the frame, and the camera are putting pressure on their shoulders. >> can talk about torture? hugh jackman takes it into his own hands and there is a torture scene, more than one. you don't just take it and take one blow. you extend it. you want us to feel almost what the character is feeling. >> i hate violence. i shoot it when i need to shoot it. i want to shoot the impact of
it. from the victim's point of view. it is debated as a show, but i want to show the ugliness. i must say, there is a lot of suggestion. most of the violence, you do not see them. you just feel it. we had to go graphic one or two times. i believe that we had the courage to go all the way, though i hate that. >> you have great actors, a great script. what did you do? [laughter] >> you are right. it was a chance. i was keeping it to myself, my only american movie. i was very lucky. >> what do you want him to do.
what you want from him? >> the thing about dennis is, i always think as i watched directors, the hiring process is the hardest part. it is what makes, it could percent of the job. it is a skill that is honed over a lot of experience. 50% of the job is hiring people. i think it is also an amazing manipulation. to feel safe is an actor, to get this group of actors in this movie, particularly to get people to play what they have to play, violent people, sometimes insane people, people despicable as human beings, you have to tell them the space will be safe.
create that save space. smart actors will know whether or not that is a truth. he has this amazing way. he has this thing where he never says no to an idea. sometimes he will say no him and that his paternal anyway. he feels like he will let an idea wine into nothingness over time. he trusts that if the idea is not right for the movie, it will fade and die. that is a beautiful feeling. you never feel like you're being stopped. i think he does that with everybody. i think he is an extraordinary visual sense. i would see shots, he would let me roam free and the shot would always be beautiful. that is inexplicable. i do not know how somebody has that ability. he knows the story he wants to tell. he is sure of that.
it is little tabs here and there. in the end, everyone has to cut out the movie he wants. >> you have been on theater, you have been in movies. do you feel like -- >> that is exactly the feeling. i couldn't even explain it better myself. that is the feeling. it feels wonderful. dennis was the beginning of this time in my life. he said come over to canada for a little bit and do some exploring of the psyche and the craziness. i was game and ready. as i followed that, my life is flourished. during this time, it feels good. i feel very happy as an artist
>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west" where we cover all the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. let's get straight to the rundown. microsoft has said it wants to name a new ceo by the end of the year. one of its top candidates is now out of the hiring, having just being promoted. high hopes for the internet tv service to bring to market this year.