BiBy JEFF GOODELL

March 13, 2014 9:00 AM ET

Bill Gates
Roberto Parada
At 58, Bill Gates is not only the richest man in the world, with a fortune that now exceeds $76
billion, but he may also be the most optimistic. In his view, the world is a giant operating system
that just needs to be debugged. Gates' driving idea the idea that animates his life, that guides
his philanthropy, that keeps him late in his sleek book-lined office overlooking Lake Washington,
outside Seattle is the hacker's notion that the code for these problems can be rewritten, that
errors can be fixed, that huge systems whether it's Windows 8, global poverty or climate
change can be improved if you have the right tools and the right skills. The Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, the philanthropic organization with a $36 billion endowment that he runs with
his wife, is like a giant startup whose target market is human civilization.
Bill Gates on how to stop global warming
Personally, Gates has very little Master of the Universe swagger and, given the scale of his
wealth, his possessions are modest: three houses, one plane, no yachts. He wears loafers and
khakis and V-neck sweaters. He often needs a haircut. His glasses haven't changed much in 40
years. For fun, he attends bridge tournaments.
But if his social ambitions are modest, his intellectual scope is mind-boggling: climate, energy,
agriculture, infectious diseases and education reform, to name a few. He has former nuclear
physicists helping cook up nutritional cookies to feed the developing world. A polio SWAT team
has already spent $1.5 billion (and is committed to another $1.8 billion through 2018) to
eradicate the virus. He's engineering better toilets and funding research into condoms made of
carbon nanotubes.
It's a long way from the early days of the digital revolution, when Gates was almost a caricature
of a greedy monopolist hell-bent on installing Windows on every computer in the galaxy ("The
trouble with Bill," Steve Jobs once told me, "is that he wants to take a nickel for himself out of
every dollar that passes through his hands"). But when Gates stepped down as Microsoft CEO in

2000, he found a way to transform his aggressive drive to conquer the desktop into an aggressive
drive to conquer poverty and disease.
Now he's returning to Microsoft as a "technology adviser" to Satya Nadella, Microsoft's new
CEO. "Satya has asked me to review the product plans and come in and help make some quick
decisions and pick some new directions," Gates told me as we talked in his office on a rainy day
a few weeks ago. He estimates that he'll devote a third of his time to Microsoft and two-thirds to
his foundation and other work. But the Microsoft of today is nothing like the world-dominating
behemoth of the Nineties. The company remained shackled to the desktop for too long, while
competitors namely, Apple and Google moved on to phones and tablets. And instead of
talking in visionary terms about the company's future, Gates talks of challenges that sound
almost mundane for a man of his ambitions, like reinventing Windows and Office for the era of
cloud computing. But in some ways, that's not unexpected: Unlike, say, Jobs, who returned to
Apple with a religious zeal, Gates clearly has bigger things on his mind than figuring out how to
make spreadsheets workable in the cloud.
When you started Microsoft, you had a crazy-sounding idea that someday there would be a
computer on every desktop. Now, as you return to Microsoft 40 years later, we have
computers not just on our desktops, but in our pockets and everywhere else. What is the
biggest surprise to you in the way this has all played out?
Well, it's pretty amazing to go from a world where computers were unheard of and very complex
to where they're a tool of everyday life. That was the dream that I wanted to make come true, and
in a large part it's unfolded as I'd expected. You can argue about advertising business models or
which networking protocol would catch on or which screen sizes would be used for which
things. There are less robots now than I would have guessed. Vision and speech have come a
little later than I had guessed. But these are things that will probably emerge within five years,
and certainly within 10 years.
If there's a deal that symbolizes where Silicon Valley is today, it's Facebook's $19 billion
acquisition of WhatsApp. What does that say about the economics of Silicon Valley right
now?
It means that Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to be the next Facebook. Mark has the
credibility to say, "I'm going to spend $19 billion to buy something that has essentially no
revenue model." I think his aggressiveness is wise although the price is higher than I would

have expected. It shows that user bases are extremely valuable. It's software; it can morph into a
broad set of things once you're set up communicating with somebody, you're not just going to
do text. You're going to do photos, you're going to share documents, you're going to play games
together.
Apparently, Google was looking at it.
Yeah, yeah. Microsoft would have been willing to buy it, too....I don't know for $19 billion, but
the company's extremely valuable.
You mentioned Mark Zuckerberg. When you look at what he's done, do you see some of
yourself in him?
Oh, sure. We're both Harvard dropouts, we both had strong, stubborn views of what software
could do. I give him more credit for shaping the user interface of his product. He's more of a
product manager than I was. I'm more of a coder, down in the bowels and the architecture, than
he is. But, you know, that's not that major of a difference. I start with architecture, and Mark
starts with products, and Steve Jobs started with aesthetics.
What are the implications of the transition to mobile and the cloud for Microsoft?
Office and the other Microsoft assets that we built in the Nineties and kept tuning up have lasted
a long time. Now, they need more than a tuneup. But that's pretty exciting for the people inside
who say, "We need to take a little risk and do some new stuff" Google, which is a very strong
company across a huge number of things right now.
Yeah, they were sort of born in the cloud.
The fact is, search generates a lot of money. And when you have a lot of money, it allows you to
go down a lot of dead ends. We had that luxury at Microsoft in the Nineties. You can pursue
things that are way out there. We did massive interactiveTV stuff, we did digital-wallet stuff. A
lot of it was ahead of its time, but we could afford it.
When people think about the cloud, it's not only the accessibility of information and their
documents that comes to mind, but also their privacy or lack of it.
Should there be cameras everywhere in outdoor streets? My personal view is having cameras in
inner cities is a very good thing. In the case of London, petty crime has gone down. They catch
terrorists because of it. And if something really bad happens, most of the time you can figure out
who did it. There's a general view there that it's not used to invade privacy in some way. Yet in an

American city, in order to take advantage of that in the same way, you have to trust what this
information is going to be used for.
Do you think some of these concerns people have are overblown?
There's always been a lot of information about your activities. Every phone number you dial,
every credit-card charge you make. It's long since passed that a typical person doesn't leave
footprints. But we need explicit rules. If you were in a divorce lawsuit 20 years ago, is that a
public document on the Web that a nosy neighbor should be able to pull up with a Bing or
Google search? When I apply for a job, should my speeding tickets be available? Well, I'm a bus
driver, how about in that case? And society does have an overriding interest in some activities,
like, "Am I gathering nuclear-weapons plans, and am I going to kill millions of people?" If we
think there's an increasing chance of that, who do you trust? I actually wish we were having more
intense debates about these things.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview20140313#ixzz30wLWffLw

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Thanks to Edward Snowden, who has leaked tens of thousands of NSA documents, we are.
Do you consider him a hero or a traitor? I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn't
characterize him as a hero. If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in
civil disobedience or something of that kind, or if he had been careful in terms of what he had
released, then it would fit more of the model of "OK, I'm really trying to improve things." You
won't find much admiration from me.
Even so, do you think it's better now that we know what we know about government
surveillance?
The government has such ability to do these things. There has to be a debate. But the specific
techniques they use become unavailable if they're discussed in detail. So the debate needs to be
about the general notion of under what circumstances should they be allowed to do things.
It's difficult, though, because no one knows really what's going on. We want safety, but we
also want privacy.

But even in abstract let's say you knew nothing was going on. How would you feel? I mean,
seriously. I would be very worried. Technology arms the bad guys with orders of magnitude
more [power]. Not just bad guys. Crazy guys. Fertilizer wasn't too good for the federal building
in Oklahoma City, but there's stuff out there now that makes fertilizer look like a joke.
You mean like a dirty bomb?
Or biological [weapons]. In the U.S., at least it's going to take a lot of explaining about who was
in the surveillance videos. "You've told us things in the past that didn't turn out to be true, so can
we really trust that you're only going to use them in this way?"
Should surveillance be usable for petty crimes like jaywalking or minor drug possession? Or is
there a higher threshold for certain information? Those aren't easy questions. Should the rules be
different for U.S. citizens versus non-U.S. citizens? There is the question of terrorist interdiction
versus law-enforcement situations. If you think the state is overzealous in any of its activities,
even if you agree with its sort of anti-large-scale-terrorism efforts, you might say, "Well, I think
the abuse will outweigh the benefits. I'll just take the risk." But the people who say
that sometimes having this information is valuable they're not being very articulate right now.
Let's talk about income inequality, which economist Paul Krugman and others have
written a lot about. As a person who's at the very top of the one percent, do you see this as
one of the great issues of our time?
Well, now you're getting into sort of complicated issues. In general, on taxation-type things,
you'd think of me as a Democrat. That is, when tax rates are below, say, 50 percent, I believe
there often is room for additional taxation. And I've been very upfront on the need to increase
estate taxes. Particularly given the medical obligations that the state is taking on and the costs
that those have over time. You can't have a rigid view that all new taxes are evil. Yes, they have
negative effects, but I'm like Krugman in that if you expect the state to do these things, they are
going to cost money.
Should the state be playing a greater role in helping people at the lowest end of the income scale?
Poverty today looks very different than poverty in the past. The real thing you want to look at is
consumption and use that as a metric and say, "Have you been worried about having enough to
eat? Do you have enough warmth, shelter? Do you think of yourself as having a place to go?"
The poor are better off than they were before, even though they're still in the bottom group in
terms of income.

The way we help the poor out today [is also a problem]. You have Section 8 housing, food
stamps, fuel programs, very complex medical programs. It's all high-overhead, capricious, not
well-designed. Its ability to distinguish between somebody who has family that could take care
of them versus someone who's really out on their own is not very good, either. It's a totally
gameable system not everybody games it, but lots of people do. Why aren't the technocrats
taking the poverty programs, looking at them as a whole, and then redesigning them? Well, they
are afraid that if they do, their funding is going to be cut back, so they defend the thing that is
absolutely horrific. Just look at low-cost housing and the various forms, the wait lists, things like
that.
When we get things right, it benefits the entire world. The world's governments don't copy
everything we do. They see some things we do like the way we run our postal service, or
Puerto Rico are just wrong. But they look to us for so many things. And we can do better.
In the past, you have sounded cynical about the role that government can play in solving
complex problems like health care or reforming anti-poverty policies.
Not cynicism. You have to have a certain realism that government is a pretty blunt instrument
and without the constant attention of highly qualified people with the right metrics, it will fall
into not doing things very well. The U.S. government in general is one of the better governments
in the world. It's the best in many, many respects. Lack of corruption, for instance, and a
reasonable justice system.
If I could wave a wand and fix one thing, it'd be political deadlock, the education system or
health care costs. One of those three, I don't know which. But I see governments in very poor
countries that can't even get teachers to show up. So in countries like that, how can you get very
basic things to work? That's something I spend a lot of time on. And these things are all solvable.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview20140313#ixzz30wLdV7O4

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
What did you make of the whole health care rollout debacle?
They should have done better. But that's a minor issue compared to the notion of "Will they get
enough people in the risk pool so that the pricing is OK?" And some of the price-rigging they've

done, where the young overpay relative to the old, is a problem. You know, it's all intended for a
good thing, which is access. But it's layered on top of a system that has huge pricing-capacity
problems. Which it basically did not address.
You'd normally want to be able to tune something of this complexity. But because you have a
political deadlock, you can't. Even the tuning that's being done like delaying some of the
mandates is claimed to be against the law. So we're doing something novel and complex in a
very rancorous environment, in an area where our achievements in the past have been pretty
weak.
Health care reform is one of the areas where there is a lot of discussion about the
corrupting role of money in politics. And as Washington becomes increasingly unable to
address big problems, you hear more and more about the corrosive role of special interests.
Do you agree?
Money has always been in politics. And I'm not sure you'd want money to be completely out of
politics. You know, I don't give a lot of political contributions, and I'm glad there are limits on
political contributions. I wish there were more limits. But our government wasn't designed to be
efficient. We've got a system with a lot of checks and balances. When you get into a period of
crisis where the overwhelming majority agrees on something, government can work amazingly
well, like during World War II.
But now you have people who are shrill about the size of government or how we're not doing
enough about climate change. But they don't have enough of a consensus, and they're looking at
a government system whose default answer is the status quo. Look at people who say, "I'm going
to shrink the government!" Well, show me when they actually did shrink the government. They
caused it not to grow as much, but shrink? When? You know, good luck on that. The principle of
shrinkage may be agreed on, but when they get into the particulars, it's not as easy as you might
think. Farm subsidies, yes or no? Research for medicine, yes or no? Loans for students, yes or
no? So you have this frustration. But to label that as coming from an increasing amount of
money in politics, that's only one of many things going on.
Well, there certainly is plenty of frustration with our political system.
But I do think, in most cases, when you get this negative view of the situation, you're forgetting
about the innovation that goes on outside of government. Thank God they actually do fund basic

research. That's part of the reason the U.S. is so good [at things like health care]. But innovation
can actually be your enemy in health care if you are not careful.
How's that?
If you accelerate certain things but aren't careful about whether you want to make those
innovations available to everyone, then you're intensifying the cost in such a way that you'll
overwhelm all the resources.
Like million-dollar chemotherapy treatments.
Yeah, or organ transplants for people in their seventies from new artificial organs being grown.
There is a lot of medical technology for which, unless you can make judgments about who
should buy it, you will have to invade other government functions to find the money. Joint
replacement is another example. There are four or five of these innovations down the pipe that
are huge, huge things.
Yeah, but when people start talking about these issues, we start hearing loaded phrases like
"death panels" and suggestions that government bureaucrats are going to decide when it's
time to pull the plug on Grandma.
The idea that there aren't trade-offs is an outrageous thing. Most countries know that there are
trade-offs, but here, we manage to have the notion that there aren't any. So that's unfortunate, to
not have people think, "Hey, there are finite resources here."
Let's change the subject and talk about your foundation. How do you make the moral
judgment between, say, spending your time and energy on polio eradication versus, say,
climate change?
I want to focus on things where I think my experience working with innovation gives me an
opportunity to do something unique. The majority of the foundation's money goes to a finite
number of things that focus on health inequity why a person from a poor country is so much
worse off than somebody from a country that's well-off. It's mostly infectious diseases. There's
about 15 of those we're focusing on polio is the single thing I work on the most. And then,
because of the importance of nutrition and because most poor people are farmers, we're in
agriculture as well.
Agriculture is hugely important, especially in a rapidly warming world, and especially with
the Earth's population projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050. How are we going to feed
them all?

In the 1960s, there was this thing called the Green Revolution, where new seeds and other
improvements drove up agricultural productivity in Asia and Latin America. It saved millions of
lives and lifted many people out of poverty. But it basically bypassed sub-Saharan Africa. Today,
the average farmer there is only about a third as productive as an American farmer. If we can get
that number up, and I think we can, it will help a lot.
There is also this problem where as people get richer and join the global middle class, they want
to eat more protein. It's a nice problem to have that people are getting richer. But eating meat is
hard on the environment it demands a lot of land and water. And yet we can't go around telling
everyone they have to be vegetarians. So coming up with affordable plant-based proteins,
basically meat substitutes, that really taste like meat is another area that can make a big
difference. I've tasted a few of them, and I really couldn't tell the difference between them and
the real thing.
In your annual letter from the foundation, you argued that there will essentially be no poor
countries in the world by 2035. Why do you believe that?
We made really unbelievable progress in international development. Countries like Brazil,
Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia there's an unbelievable number of success stories. The places that
haven't done well are clustered in Africa, and we still have Haiti, where I was last week, as well
as Yemen, Afghanistan and North Korea, which is kind of a special case. But assuming there's no
war or anything, we ought to be able to take even the coastal African countries and get them up
to a reasonable situation over the next 20 years. You get more leverage because the number of
countries that need aid is going down, and countries like China and India will still have
problems, but they're self-sufficient. And over the next 20 years, you get better tools, new
vaccines, a better understanding of diseases and, hopefully, cheaper ways of making energy. So
time is very much on your side in terms of raising the human condition. Even things like decent
toilets, which is a particular project of the foundation, can make a big difference.
Progress depends on such simple things like functioning toilets.
We take things like TV or Internet or a microwave or a refrigerator for granted, but moving
people from basic lives to decent lives requires a lot less than that. You know, development
sometimes is viewed as a project in which you give people things and nothing much happens,
which is perfectly valid, but if you just focus on that, then you'd also have to say that venture
capital is pretty stupid, too. Its hit rate is pathetic. But occasionally, you get successes, you fund a

Google or something, and suddenly venture capital is vaunted as the most amazing field of all
time. Our hit rate in development is better than theirs, but we should strive to make it better.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview20140313#ixzz30wLjacaR

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook Polio eradication is a big
focus of yours. The eradication program has made remarkable progress; India is now free
of the virus. But it's hanging on in a few places, including remote regions of Pakistan,
Afghanistan and northern Nigeria, where vaccines are viewed suspiciously and vaccinators
have been attacked. In some ways, it seems that wiping out the disease is now more of a
political problem than a logistical problem. Would you agree?
That's only partially correct. Those last three countries are, by definition, the toughest countries.
We've improved the vaccine and are using disease modeling to understand when to use which
flavors of the vaccine in different regions. We're using satellite maps to figure out the population
counts. We use GPS to track where the people are going. So the tools are improving. But it is
true that we'd be done in Pakistan if it wasn't for politics the intentional spread of
misinformation about the vaccine and its benefits, as well as attacks on the people doing the
work.
So are you as much of an optimist about being able to eradicate this virus as you were a
couple of years ago?
Yeah, I'd say I'm more optimistic now, even though there have been some setbacks this year. We
could get lucky and get access into Waziristan [a remote region of Pakistan where the vaccine
has been banned by the Taliban], or we could get unlucky and not. We also had two re-infections
last year one in Somalia and one in Syria, and usually we have one of those a year, so to have
two is not good luck. Syria was doing fine; it was just that because of the war, the vaccination
system broke down, so very young kids there were getting paralyzed. In Somalia, the vaccination
system has never been that good.
In the world of viruses, polio is a devil we know. Newly emerging viruses are potentially
more frightening. How concerned are you about global pandemics?
It's a serious risk, and it's something the world could be smarter about. The worst pandemic in

modern history was the Spanish flu of 1918, which killed tens of millions of people. Today, with
how interconnected the world is, it would spread faster. But we are most worried about outbreaks
where you don't show symptoms for a long time. AIDS is kind of the extreme case where you
typically don't show symptoms for more than six years after you're infected. Viruses that stay
latent create the huge problems you literally can get hundreds of millions of people infected
before you understand what is happening.
Let's talk about climate change. Many scientists and politicians see it as the biggest
challenge humanity has ever faced.
It's a big challenge, but I'm not sure I would put it above everything. One of the reasons it's hard
is that by the time we see that climate change is really bad, your ability to fix it is extremely
limited. Like with viruses, the problem is latency. The carbon gets up there, but the heating effect
is delayed. And then the effect of that heat on the species and ecosystem is delayed. That means
that even when you turn virtuous, things are actually going to get worse for quite a while.
Right...we're not virtuous yet, are we?
We're not even close we're emitting more CO2 every year. In order to get a 90 percent
reduction of carbon, which is what we need, the first thing you might want to get is a year of
global reduction, and we have not had that. U.S. emissions are down right now, partly because
we buy more goods from overseas. But even if you invented some zero-carbon energy source
today, the deployment of that magic device would take a long time.
Are you hopeful that global climate talks will lead to a solution?
Many climate-change discussions are off-target because they've focused on things like the $100
billion per year that some people believe should be spent by the rich world to help the
developing world, which is not really addressing the problem. At the same time, discussion about
how to increase funding of research-and-development budgets to accelerate innovation is
surprisingly missing. We haven't increased R&D spending, we haven't put a price signal [like a
carbon tax] in, and this is certainly very disappointing. I think it's a real test of the boundary of
science and politics and an acid test of people's time horizons. Before the economic downturn,
attitudes in the U.S. about climate change had become quite enlightened, and then there was a
big reversal, which I believe was a result of people's worries about their immediate economic
situation. Talking about problems that will have a significant effect 30 or 40 years out just gets
off the agenda, and there's this shrill political debate that is distracting people. So we've made

some progress, but you can't take the progress we've made and linearize it if you do, you really
are going to find out how bad climate change can be.
Let's say climate change was delayed 100 years. If that were the case, science would take care of
this one. We wouldn't have to double the Department of Energy budget, because there's five or
six different paths to go down. And 100 years, at the current rate and speed of science, is a long
time.
We're heading for big trouble, right?
Absolutely. That's why I happen to think we should explore geo-engineering. But one of the
complaints people have against that is that if it looks like an easy out, it'll reduce the political
will to cut emissions. If that's the case, then, hey, we should take away heart surgery so that
people know not to overeat. I happened to be having dinner with Charles Koch last Saturday, and
we talked a little bit about climate change.
And what was the conversation like?
He's a very nice person, and he has this incredible business track record. He was pointing out that
the U.S. alone can't solve the problem, and that's factually correct. But you have to view the U.S.
doing something as a catalyst for getting China and others to do things. The atmosphere is the
ultimate commons. We all benefit from it, and we're all polluting it. It's amazing how few
problems there are in terms of the atmosphere....There's just this one crazy thing that CO2
hangs around for a long, long time, and the oceans absorb it, which acidifies them, which is itself
a huge problem we should do something about.
Like cut carbon emissions fast.
Yes, but people need energy. It's a gigantic business. The main thing that's missing in energy is
an incentive to create things that are zero-CO2-emitting and that have the right scale and
reliability characteristics.
It leads to your interest in nuclear power, right?
If you could make nuclear really, really safe, and deal with the economics, deal with waste, then
it becomes the nirvana you want: a cheaper solution with very little CO2 emissions. If we don't
get that, you've got a problem. Because you are not going to reduce the amount of energy used.
For each year between now and 2100, the globe will use more energy. So that means more CO2
emissions every year. TerraPower, which is the nuclear-energy company that I'm backing,
required a very long time to get the right people together, it required computer modeling to get

the right technology together, and even now it's going to require the U.S. government to work
with whatever country decides to build a pilot project China, maybe. In a normal sort of private
market, that project probably wouldn't have emerged. It took a fascination with science, concern
about climate change and a very long-term view. Now, I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be
successful, although it's going super, super well, but it's an example of an innovation that might
not happen without the proper support.
Nuclear power has failed to fulfill its promises for a variety of economic and technical
reasons for 40 years. Why continue investing in nuclear power instead of, say, cheap solar
and energy storage?
Well, we have a real problem, and so we should pursue many solutions to the problem. Even the
Manhattan Project pursued both the plutonium bomb and the uranium bomb and both worked!
Intermittent energy sources [like wind and solar]...yeah, you can crank those up, depending on
the quality of the grid and the nature of your demand. You can scale that up 20 percent, 30
percent and, in some cases, even 40 percent. But when it comes to climate change, that's not
interesting. You're talking about needing factors of, like, 90 percent.
But you can't just dismiss renewables, can you?
Solar is much, much harder than people think it is. When the sun shines, electricity is going to be
worth zero, so all the money will be reserved for the guy who brings you power when there's no
wind and no sun. There are some interesting things on the horizon along those lines. There's one
called solar chemical. It's very nascent, but it comes with a built-in storage solution, because you
actually secrete hydrocarbons. We're investing probably one-twentieth of what we should in that.
There's another form of solar called solar thermal, which is cool because you can store heat.
Heat's not easy to store, but it's a lot easier to store than electricity.
Given the scale of problems like climate change and the slow economic recovery and
political gridlock and rising health care costs, it's easy for people to feel pessimistic about
the way the world is going.
Really? That's too bad. I think that's overly focusing on the negatives. I think it's a pretty bright
picture, myself. But that doesn't mean I think, because we've always gotten through problems in
the past, "just chill out, relax, someone else will worry about it." I don't see it that way.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview20140313#ixzz30wLoOqEd

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
When you look on the horizon over the next 50 years, what is your biggest fear?
I think we will get our act together on climate change. That's very important. I hope we get our
act together on large-scale terrorism and avoid that being a huge setback for the world. On health
equity, we can reduce the number of poor children who die from more than 6 million down to 2
million, eventually 1 million. Will the U.S. political system right itself in terms of how it focuses
on complex problems? Will the medical costs overwhelm the sense of what people expect
government to do?
I do worry about things like the war in Syria and what that means. You wouldn't have predicted
that that country in particular would fall into horrific civil war where the suffering is just
unbelievable, and it is not obvious to anybody what can be done to stop it. It raises questions for
somebody who thinks they can fix Africa overnight. I understand how every healthy child, every
new road, puts a country on a better path, but instability and war will arise from time to time, and
I'm not an expert on how you get out of those things. I wish there was an invention or advance to
fix that. So there'll be some really bad things that'll happen in the next 50 or 100 years, but
hopefully none of them on the scale of, say, a million people that you didn't expect to die from a
pandemic, or nuclear or bioterrorism.
What do you say to people who argue that America's best days are behind us?
That's almost laughable. The only definition by which America's best days are behind it is on a
purely relative basis. That is, in 1946, when we made up about six percent of humanity, but we
dominated everything. But America's way better today than it's ever been. Say you're a woman in
America, would you go back 50 years? Say you're gay in America, would you go back 50 years?
Say you're sick in America, do you want to go back 50 years? I mean, who are we kidding?
Does bad politics kill innovation? Immigration reform, for example, is a big issue in Silicon
Valley right now.
Yes, the U.S. immigration laws are bad really, really bad. I'd say treatment of immigrants is one
of the greatest injustices done in our government's name. Well, our bad education system might
top it but immigration is pretty insane. You've got 12 million people living in fear of arbitrary
things that can happen to them. But you can't argue that all innovation has seized up because of

the problem I'm sorry. Innovation in California is at its absolute peak right now. Sure, half of
the companies are silly, and you know two-thirds of them are going to go bankrupt, but the dozen
or so ideas that emerge out of that are going to be really important.
Our modern lifestyle is not a political creation. Before 1700, everybody was poor as hell. Life
was short and brutish. It wasn't because we didn't have good politicians; we had some really
good politicians. But then we started inventing electricity, steam engines, microprocessors,
understanding genetics and medicine and things like that. Yes, stability and education are
important I'm not taking anything away from that but innovation is the real driver of
progress.
Speaking of innovation, I want to ask you about Steve Jobs. When was the last time you
talked to him?
It was two or three months before he passed away. And then I wrote a long letter to him after
that, which he had by his bedside. Steve and I actually stayed in touch fairly well, and we had a
couple of good, long conversations in the last year, about our wives, about life, about what
technology achieved or had not achieved.
Steve and I were very different. But we were both good at picking people. We were both
hyperenergetic and worked superhard. We were close partners in doing the original Mac
software, and that was an amazing thing, because we had more people working on it than Apple
did. But we were very naive. Steve promised us this was going to be this $499 machine, and next
thing we knew, it was $1,999. Anyway, the Mac project was an incredible experience. The team
that worked on the Mac side completely and totally burned out. Within two years, none of them
were still there. But it was a mythic thing that we did together. Steve was a genius.
You're a technologist, but a lot of your work now with the foundation has a moral
dimension. Has your thinking about the value of religion changed over the years?
The moral systems of religion, I think, are superimportant. We've raised our kids in a religious
way; they've gone to the Catholic church that Melinda goes to and I participate in. I've been very
lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that's kind of a
religious belief. I mean, it's at least a moral belief.
Do you believe in God?
I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before
we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false

explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm not all that religion used
to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no
scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers,
that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe
in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know.
This story is from the March 27th, 2014 issue of Rolling Stone.
Related

Q&A: Bill Gates on How to Stop Global Warming

Steve Jobs in 1994: The Rolling Stone Interview

Steve Jobs: Rolling Stone's 2003 Interview

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview20140313#ixzz30wLtcXNt

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313?
page=5
he Ultimate O Interview: Oprah Answers All YourQuestions
After more than three decades as an interviewer, I've asked questions of everyone from
rock 'n' roll singers to politicians, movie stars to convicted felons. But as O's tenth
anniversary approached, the editors had a brainstorm: Wouldn't it be interesting to turn
the tables and have someone interview me for a change? "Sure," I said. "Who do you have
in mind?" And that's when I had my brainstorm: It should be a group of readers.

Photo: Rob Howard

287

7
Go
ogl
e+

Goog
le+
1
297
Shares
ADVERTISEMENT
Which is how, during a snowy week in February, ten women from across the country found
themselves flying to Chicago to join me for a taping of the show and some lively
conversation in my Harpo office. Ranging in age from 25 to 54, the women included a
professor, a writer, a psychiatry resident and a research analyst. They came from as far as
Kirkland, Washington, and as close as Urbana, Illinois, and along with their suitcases, they
brought a long list of questionseverything from whether I'm planning to write an
autobiography to who's on my iPod to how I know whether I've had a good day.
The morning of the interview had been filled to overflowing. I'd already taped the show
and done an hour-long radio program with Gayle King. So by the time Gayle and Iand
my cocker spaniel, Sadie!joined the women in my office, I couldn't have been more ready
to kick off my shoes, let down my hair and dish.

Oprah: This is so excitingI'm glad you're all here, especially since it usually feels like
there are only about five people left in the world who I haven't already chatted with. You
can ask anythingit's impossible to embarrass me, and there's no wrong question. So who
wants to start us off?
Ellyn Shull: I'll start, if I can go back to what you just said. After interviewing so many
people, are there any who got away, and who are the ones you still want to talk to?
Oprah: Who got away was Elvis Presley. When I was a kid, I always wanted to talk to
Elvis. Another was Jackie Onassis. I had the pleasure and honor of meeting herI actually
ate her clam chowder at my friend Maria Shriver's wedding shower. There's a picture from
the shower where I'm wearing one of those appliqud sweaters and Jackie's wearing a
cashmere sweater and an Herms scarfclassic, classic, classic. I look like 1985, and she
looks like Jackie O. Later, because she was a book editor, she called and asked if I would
write a book. As much as I loved Jackie O, I said no, I was not ready to do a book. But I
said, "If youever want to do an interview..." and she said, "I probably will never do an
interview." So that was another one who got away. As far as who I'd still like to talk to, I
really want to interview O.J. Simpson's daughter, Sydney Simpson. And Susan Smith, the
South Carolina woman who drowned her children by buckling them into her car and
letting it roll into a lake. Not because of the horrific-ness of what she did, but because she
changed the way we look at parents in this country. When somebody comes forward and
says, "My child is missing," we now suspect the parents first. She changed the paradigm.
Barbara Raymond: When you're interviewing someone like Susan Smith, how are you able
to remain objective?
Oprah: I approach every interview by asking, "What is my intention? What do I really
want to accomplish?" You can't accomplish anything if you're judging. I believe that all
pain is the same, that all of us have had difficulties and challenges, and that our pain is in
inverse proportion to how much we were loved as a child. If you didn't receive love, then

you have a lot of dysfunction that you're forever trying to work out. For me, it shows up as
eating and food. For somebody else it might show up as drugs. But for some women it
might be more like, "Well, I don't know how to handle my life, so I'm going to put my child
in the freezer." That seems extreme, but I really do believe we're all on a spectrum. And
knowing that, I can talk to anybody.
Kelli Coleman: Most people don't have that gift of being nonjudgmental.
Oprah: Well, I'm nonjudgmental in an interview. Out of an interview, there's a whole other
side of me!
elli: But the world is always watching and judging you. How has the public scrutiny you've
had to endure affected your life?
Oprah: Years ago, it made me cry a lot because I'm such a pleaser. I would say that's my
single greatest character flaw: the importance I put on wanting to be liked. That comes
from having been abused as a childbeing beaten and not even being able to be angry or
to have any emotions about it. I was trained to believe that other people's feelings were
more important than my own, and that only through pleasing somebody could I be loved. It
has taken me 56 years to overcome that. And by the way, in all those 56 years I have never
once called my parents to share anything with them. Not "I got a job," "I met a guy," "I
made a million dollars"not once, ever. I'm in awe of people who felt their parents' love
every day of their lives. They start out in the world with a full cup. The rest of us go
through life trying to fill ours.
Keisha Sutton-James: Have you reconsidered writing an autobiography?
Oprah: It just so happens that there's a new biography, which I did not approve, and I hear
that 850 people were interviewed for it. I don't know 850 people! My circle is tight, tight,
tight. If there are 850 people talking about you, it can't all be good. But to answer your
question, yes, I did consider writing my own story, back in 1993. At the time, I had a

lawyer-agent-manager who said, "You know, you're turning 40 next yearI think you
should do an autobiography." I said, "Really. Fortyokay." Because, you know, 40 used to
be a big deal. Now it's 50 is the new 40 and 40 is the new 30, but back then... Anyway, I got
led into doing this book. And I worked on it for a year, and then when it came time to
release it, I didn't want to. I brought my little cabinet togetherStedman, Gayle, a couple
of other friendsand Stedman was really opposed to it, though not because of anything I
was saying about him. He thought I shouldn't speak of my family as candidly as I did. He
also kept saying, "It's not going to help anybody just to tell the story." He thought the story
of my life should be an example to other people, rather than just "I did this, I did this, I did
this." I listened to that. I was in the middle of a huge learning curve at that time. I was
learning that your life really just begins at 40. You shouldn't be trying to write your life
story then! But calling the publisher to say I wasn't going to do the book was the hardest
thing I'd ever done. They'd had a big Oprah-is-going-to-write-a-book party, and all I could
remember was the shrimp they'd servedhow big those shrimp were. I was thinking, "Oh
my God, they must have spent so much money on those shrimp!"
Several years ago, Nelson Mandela told me I should do my autobiography, just for the
record. I don't feel compelled to do that. And I don't know how I could write it all down.
Or what I would write. I remember when I opened my school, I said to Maya Angelou, who
is like a mother to me, "This will be my legacythis school." And Maya, in her Maya-like
way, said, "You have no idea what your legacy will be."
Michelle Hankey: I've heard you say that you thought you'd grow up to be a teacher. Is
that why you set up the school in South Africabecause school was so important to you?
Oprah: I started the school because I'd been searching for how I could best be used. My
hope for the show and the magazine has always been that they will have meaning, that they
will be worthy of people's time. In the elevator before I go out to do a show, my prayer is
that I am used for something greater than myself. That it's not just chatter. I don't get up
every morning to come here and just have a little chatty talk. I have always been searching
for how I can best be used. And education was my solace growing up. It was my bright and

shining moment, my savior. I wanted to give that to other girls. I wanted to do for the girls
in South Africa what my teachers had done for me. I wanted them to be able to go to school
for free and thrive there.
PAGE 3
ADVERTISEMENT
Vanessa Greenberg:But sometimes when we try to help others, we fail. I'm a psychiatry
resident in the Bronx, and I have patients who can't make it to their appointment because
they're in the process of getting evictedor they make it to the appointment, but then their
kids don't make it to school. It's frustrating. How do you not become cynical?
Oprah: There's no room for cynicism in the world. I'm not cynical because I know that if
one person isn't ready to be reached, somebody else is. But I have learned that I'm not good
with children who are delinquents. I tried working with kids like that, and then I said, "I'm
going to get arrested for popping somebody upside the head." What I'm really good at is,
"If you want the opportunity, I'll provide it."
Kate O'Halloran: My favorite Oprah-ism is that the universe talks to you first in a whisper,
and then gets louder and louder until you get the message. Can you share a time when you
experienced that?
Oprah: It happens every day. Not like Moses and the burning bush, but the universe is
speaking to us all the time. Just recently somebody called me, wanting me to help them out.
I don't loan money, but if you need something and I decide that you're not going to keep
coming back to ask for more, I'll just give it to you. This person was about to lose their
house. And I said, "Okay, maybe."
Kate: A stranger?
Oprah: No, somebody who'd worked here a long time ago and who'd fallen on hard times.
And then, in the middle of a conversation yesterday, that person's name came up in some

other contextand that person's name hadn't come up in 15 years. That was the universe
saying, "Go back to that thought and see what you can do."
Lisa Torain: Is there anything you can't do? Anything that's not attainable for you?
Oprah: I would like to have a little more balance. In the makeup room before coming out
here, I was saying to Gayle that I think I've lost sight of my best life. The other day when I
was cleaning out a drawer, I found an old gratitude journal and started looking through it,
and at some point I just stopped and said, "God, I was so happy then." I was happy over
little things: mango sorbet, and running, and the way my feet felt touching the ground
when I ran. Back then, I didn't appreciate the time I got to spend with myself. Now I do
it's why I'm bringing the show to a close. My obligations have become my life.
Lisa: Would you ever consider paring way down? If you had to pare down to nothing,
would it be okay?
Oprah: You mean give up my worldly possessions? I'm not crazy! No, no, no. But there are
obligations I would pare back. I love everything that I do. I love it. But I keep saying yes to
everything, and managing it all gets to be overwhelming. A typical day for me starts here
with a 6:30 workout; by 7:30 I'm in the makeup chair. And then I don't usually get in the
car to leave until 9, 10 o'clock at night. Get home just in time to breathe, get the damn
puppy thing doneI don't know what I was thinking, getting a puppythen go to bed, get
up, and start the whole process all over again. It's too much. Today is lovely I get to sit and
talk with you guys. This is a restful day. I had only one show to do today. Yesterday I did
three. The day before, I did three. In between doing three, I'm trying to talk to South
Africa, because the girls are taking their PSATs. So I'm doing school. I'm on the phone
about the magazine. I'm doing a full-hour radio show. I'm doing everything that goes with
starting a new television network. So it really was time to end the show.
Violet Harris: Are you going to act again?

Oprah: You know, I'm thinking about it. There's a part of me that says, "Don't take on
another thing. But I love acting, because it's a vacation from myself. I get to suspend being
myself and become somebody else.
Does Oprah regret never having experienced marriage or motherhood?
The Ultimate O Interview: Oprah Answers All YourQuestions

287

7
Go
ogl
e+

Goog
le+
1
297
Shares
PAGE 4
ADVERTISEMENT

Barbara: Speaking of different roles, with all the focus that the show and the magazine
have had on marriage and motherhood, how do you feel about never having experienced
either?
Oprah: I used to get that question all the time: Why haven't you married Stedman?
Actually, Stedman asked me to marry him, and at first I said "Yes!" but it turned out that I
wanted to beasked to be married more than I wanted to be married. Had it not been for
big-mouth Gayle King over there, it wouldn't have become the big public thing that it
became. Gayle was there when he asked me, and then she went on TVshe was anchoring
the news back thenand told everybody. And it became this big hoo-da-ha-da thing.
Gayle: I was so excited!
Barbara: How long ago was that?
Oprah: 1993. My friends were going togive me a party. Remember that, Gayle? Everybody
was going to give me awhat do you call those?
Gayle: An engagement party. A shower.
Oprah: It was a shower. And I was saying, "I don't want this, I don't want this." And Gayle
says, "Oh, everybody gets cold feet." And I say, "I don't have cold feetmy feet are stuck
in a cement block surrounded by ice!" It just felt like the wrong thing for me. This was at
the same time that I was supposed to have the book coming out. We were in Miami, in the
back of a limousine, coming back from the party with the big shrimp, and Stedman asks,
"So when is the book coming out?" The book was coming out September 14 or something,
and our wedding had been scheduled for September 8. We had a date and everything. So
Stedman says, "Well, I don't want to have my wedding in competition with your book."
And I remember thinking, "Yes! Really? Okay, great! I ended up canceling both, and we
have not discussed it since that day.

Barbara: But you're still together.

Oprah: Still together. And what we have discussed is the fact that had we gotten married,
we would definitely not still be together. Because instinctively, I understood that to do what
I do every day is so nontraditional that it would have been difficult to try to conform to a
traditional way of being. And Stedman's a pretty traditional man. You know, the show
became my life. It became my children. And I knew I was not the kind of woman who could
get home and make sure dinner was on the table. I do that when I feel like it, and if I don't
feel like it, there's some Raisin Bran in there, get yourself a banana, and that's it.
Barbara: How do you feel about not having children?
Oprah: Really good. No regrets whatsoever. Gayle grew up writing the names of her wouldbe children, making little hearts and putting children's names in them. Never occurred to
me to do that. I never had a desire. And I don't think I could have this life and have
children. One of the lessons I've learned from doing the show is just how much sacrifice
and attention is required to do the job of mothering well. Nothing in my background
prepared or trained me to do that. So I don't have any regrets about it at all. And I do feel
like I am a mother in a broader senseto a generation of viewers who've grown up with
me.
Kristy Nicholas: You are.
Oprah: I have deep, deep love and affection for the people who've grown up watching. And
when the show ends, it will not just be about my ending. I feel like it will almost be the end
of an era for people who were 10 years old when the show started and are now 35the kids
who used to come home from school and watch with their mothers. We've been on longer
than Bonanza was! It's a relationship.
Kristy: What will you do the morning after your last show?

Oprah: Sleep in. Because that's going to be a really big party.

The one show Oprah wishes she hadn't done
Lisa: Looking back over the years, was there ever a show where you felt, "I shouldn't have
done that?"
Oprah: There was certainly some bad hair and bad choices. The '80s were tough on
everybody! But yes, there were some things I did that, today, I'm embarrassed to say I did.
Years ago I did a show about women whose husbands had cheated on them. At the time we
thought, "What a great bookingyou've got the mistress, you've got the wife, you've got
the husbandthey all agreed to come on. But at one point, one of the husbands said to his
wifeand this was live televisionthat his girlfriend was pregnant. And I saw the pain in
his wife's face, and thought, "I'm responsible for that. I didn't know her husband was
going to say it, but I was responsible. I thought, "That is not what this platform is supposed
to be for. You're not supposed to do that to anybody, ever." The whole audience did what
you all just dideverybody went "Oooh!" And the wife did what she could to hold on to
herself. But in her eyes I saw the humiliation. There's nothing worse than being humiliated.
There's nothing worse that you can do to a person than to make them feel worthless.
The flip side is, the greatest thing you can do is to make somebody feel that they matter. So
that is my secret to interviewing: How do I find the common denominator that allows a
person to know that I hear them, and that what they say means something to me? If you
can do that in all your relationships, whether it's with your children, your boss, your
girlfriends, or your spouseif you can be present enough to really emit that energy, that's
all anybody is looking for.
Violet: That's the book you should write.
Oprah: It would take too much time to write, though. That's a lot of time.
Keisha: After you pare down?

Oprah: After my party.

Keisha: Yes! Okay, next question: I think most would agree that you've transcended race.
How do you balance your identity as a black woman with your need to reach a broader
audience? Do you ever feel a conflict of conscience?
Oprah: Being a black woman has never been an issue for me. It's just always been what is.
This is who I am. I have never given it a moment's thought, because it's so integrated into
who I am. I am, first, a child born of God. I really do believe that of myself. I am spirit in a
body, and I have incarnated as a female who is black in the United States of America. No
better place to be born in the world. Earlier this year when the moviePrecious got all its
Oscar nominations, Gabby Sidibe, who was nominatedshe'd never acted before in her
life, was raised in Harlemher name was called in the same breath as Meryl Streep's. Only
in America can that happen. On the other hand, I understand that I carry the energy of
every single person who came before me and didn't have the opportunity to do what I do. I
think about that. I carry that with me. It's not like I'm sitting there with Tom Cruise
thinking, "The ancestors are here"
Gayle: Come on, Harriet!
Oprah: Exactly. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truthcome on, everybody, come meet Tom
Cruise! No, I'm not thinking that. But I am aware of the people who came before.
Ellyn: Is there anything else you want to say about your relationship with God?
Oprah: Is there anything more you want to ask me? We can talk all day about my
relationship with God. That's the big one. My favorite Bible verse is Psalms 37:4. "Delight
thyself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart." To me, the Lord is all
that is good, all that is great, all that is love, all that is timeless, all that is peace. Delight
thyself in all those things, and you will have the desires of your heart. And what I've

realized is that all my issuesmy health problems, weight problems, all thatare deeply
related to my getting so consumed with my schedule. For years I told people to keep a
gratitude journal, but the last few years I've been too busy to keep one myself. I'd be so
tired when I got home that it was like, "Okay, I'm grateful for..."
Ellyn: This bed!
Oprah: Right. When I was a kid, my grandmother said, "Pray on your knees." And that's
how I always prayed. But the last few years it's been like, "I'm too tired. Can I just pray
lying down? Okay, God, thank you." So I've been crowding out the space that allows me to
connect with God, with the source. Some people get that connection from going to church. I
don't go to church unless I happen to be in a town where there's a really great service.
Years ago I went faithfully, 8 o'clock service, 12 o'clock service. I was a tither. I was making
227 dollars a week, and I tithed 22 dollars and 70 cents every week. But after Jim Jones led
the mass suicide in Guyana, I started to feel differently. The church I went to had a really
charismatic pastoryou had to show up early to get a seatand I remember sitting there
one Sunday while he was preaching about how "the Lord thy God is a jealous God, the
Lord thy God will punish you for your sins." I looked around and thought, "Why would
God be jealous? What does that even mean?" And I'm looking at the people in the church,
and everybody's up, shouting. And I started wondering how many of these people
including myselfwould be led to do whatever this preacher said. That's when I started
exploring taking God out of the box, out of the pew. And eventually I got to where I was
able to see God in other people and in all thingsin graciousness and kindness and
generosity and the spirit of things. Okay? Okay, let's do a few more questions.
Oprah reveals the origin of her name and the advice she would give to her younger self
Kristy: You know you've had a good day when...
Oprah: I know I've had a good day when, after all the work I put into creating a show that
goes out to ten million people around the world, somebody e-mails back and says, "What
you said really mattered to me." That's a good day.

Kate: Your name's so unique. What's the origin?

Oprah: From the Bible. Ruth, first chapter. It's misspelled. It's supposed to be Orpah.
Kate: Was that on purpose?
Oprah: No. The p got put before the r on my birth certificate.
Gayle: Who's your favorite musician on your iPod right now?
Oprah: Gaga.
Vanessa: If you could sing any karaoke song, would it be Lady Gaga?
Oprah: It would definitely be a Tina Turner song. Because if I see myself as anybody, I
can't be Gaga but I can be Tina. I have the wig to prove it! I actually got to sing "Simply
the Best" onstage with her. Now I would wear a short dress and do "Steamy Windows." To
me, nobody stands up to Tina Turner, because she just turned 70 and she's still rocking it
out.
Gayle: What advice would you give a young Oprah?
Oprah: I would say, "Hold on to yourself, 'cause it's all going to be all right." When I was
28 years old in Baltimore, I was doing an event, and the gospel singer Wintley Phipps was
performing there. Wintley Phipps, who I did not then know at all, came up to me backstage
and said, "God has impressed me to tell you that He holds you in His hand. And that He
has shown great favor to you. And that you will speak to millions of people in the world in
and through His name."
Gayle: And you were just a local news anchor then.

Oprah: I said, "Who are you? What? In Baltimore?" He said, "I don't know. God has just
impressed me to tell you that." And it was one of those eerie, crazy moments, because I had
always believed those things myself, even before that conversation. In the time just before I
left Nashville for Baltimore, I was speaking in churches a lot. I remember speaking at a
women's day serviceI had my red Cutlass outside, packed and ready to drive to
Baltimore. And my sermon was, "I don't know what the future holds, but I know who
holds the future." I have no fear about the future. I have no fear about anything, because I
really do understand that I am God's child and that He has guided me through everything
and will continue to until the end.
Vanessa: In your best-case scenario, how would you balance your time?
Oprah: Still trying to figure that one out. If I knew the answer, I'd have managed to open
my Christmas presents by now. I'm not kidding. I left California and came in a day early
this week because I wanted to get through my Christmas presents here in the officeit's
February and I haven't opened them yet. But I ended up getting stuck with all the requests
that were on the desk: Will you do this, will you do that, will you speak here, will you go
there? The thing is, when you're on TV, you're in people's homes every day. You are
familiar. So it's like, "Oprah, come on over here! Stay right here while I get my camera
and hold on, my sister wants to get a picture with you, too!" You wouldn't say that to
Angelina Jolie.
Keisha: You've sacrificed a lot to live the life you have.
Oprah: Actually, I've had a great time. But I would have to say that at this particular time
in my life, I look forward to being able to take a rest. I was just saying to someone the other
day, "What do women do when they wake up in the morning?" One of my favorite lines
from Belovedthe movie nobody went to see, and thank you if you did, since as you can tell
[laughs], I still carry a little pain about itis spoken by the character Sethe. She says,
"Twenty-eight days, 28 good days of a free life... I'd wake up in the morning and decide for

myself what to do with the day.... Twenty-eight days of freedom. And on the 29th day, it was
over." I can't imagine what it's going to be like to wake up in the morning and decide for
myself what to do with the day. I don't know what it is to have free time. I really don't
know. If I get to leave here and be home early, I won't know what to do. What do people
do?
Lisa: Watch Oprah.
See how Oprah answered a lightning round of readers' most frequently asked questions

The Analysis of Non Observance Maxims of Conversation in the Interview Videos in

Rolling Stone Search Online Magazine bagaimana cara merespon pertanyaan dgn baik
dan benar

-quality--> JUJUR
-quantity sudah cukup memberikan informasi blm? (a: arep nandi? B: arep ngidul, kudune B:
arep ning pasar)
-manner singkat, padat, jelas
-relevant nyambung (a: hai gmana kabarnya? B: oh ya silahkan masuk, Kudune B: aku baik2
saja)

The Analysis of Politeness Strategies used by the participants of the conversation on

Interview Videos in Rolling Stone Search Online Magazine bagaimana cara bertutur
yg sopan kepada orang lain.

Positive posisi lg garap ujian, (aku pinjem bolpen dong!) mau pinjem/ minta tolong
sesuatu ke orang lain tanpa memperhatikan keadaan orang lain. (ganggu)
negative sopan. Tahu akan mengganggu, jadi ngomongnya disopan2in (bolehkan aku pinjem
tipe x?)
Bald on record ngomong secara langsung/ terus terang (aku ora seneng coklat, aku emoh
nyilehi pulpen)
off record aku hakok pensile ilang. (kudune: aku mbok nyileh pensile)

Data: rolling stone search video interview bill gates, Oprah

Bill gate krn pencipta microsoft office dan peduli terhadap dunia pendidikan krn menyediakan
beasiswa untuk siswa miskin di seluruh dunia
Oprah jiwa kemanusiaannya tinggi dan memiliki yayasan pendidikan, terutama di Afrika/
negara miskin dunia
Rollingstone adalah nama band terkenal, skrg sdh tua.. krn legendaris, maka dijadikan nama
majalah tentang musik. Tp skrg semakin mengikuti perkembangan jaman dan isi dari majalah
tersebut tidak selalu tentang musik, melainkan hal2 yg berkaitan dengan kehgidupan sehari2
seperti pendidikan, ekonomi, sosial, dan isu2 sosial lain.
Cara meneliti maxim/polite

nonton video

menulis tanskip percakapan

memeliti ulang

memahami isi

memberi nomor untuk memisahkan utterance dengan turn nya

meneliti locutionnary dan illocutionary

meneliti speech act nya

meneliti maxims of conversation / politeness