I could never stand Charlie Rose. His work was pompous. He was a terrible interviewer. (This is a better way.)
I never could stand New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush either. I hate these preening leftists lecturing us about right and wrong.
I’ve always felt creeped out by most of the famous people recently outed as sexual predators — such as Brett Ratner, Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wieseltier, etc. I’ve always loathed male feminists. I’ve always suspected that older men eager to mentor young women were using this pose to try to fuck them. No real man honestly cares about a woman’s perspective (except in rare instances). High-achieving men want female company for one overwhelming reason — sex. That’s it. Real men want to hang out with men.
So far, none of the famous people outed as predators have been conservative (except Roy Moore, and I do believe the accusations against him).
* Nobody can set up a leading question longer than Charlie Rose.
* I first saw Charlie Rose in mid 80s on late night (I think) CBS show. So, I’d be up at 2 am, and Rose would be interviewing some physicist about magnetic something or other.
I liked this Rose. He seemed a straight shooter, just a guy doing his job.
But then, he turned into a brand. He was the serious guy who interviewed thinkers, writers, artists, actors(and not mere entertainers), composers, academics, and etc.
Considering the alternatives on TV, his show was probably one of the best shows on TV since Dick Cavett. There weren’t many worthy interview shows on TV. Bill Moyers used to fill the role, but he was never was hip. After Rose, I suppose there was Larry King, but that was barely low-middle-brow. So, Rose show offered something half-intelligent on TV. But it also got increasingly pompous.
Also, after awhile, there were no surprises. It would have been better if Rose passed out drinks so everyone could get drunk and drop inhibitions and speak honestly. Instead, we got intelligent talk(like on NPR) but the usual talking points on any subject matter. No one came on the show to spill any secrets. It was mostly to stick to official talking points or flatter one another… like actors, director, producer coming on the show and remarking how they are all so wonderful and talented.
But the really icky stuff was the pandering. I recall David Remnick was once on and they were talking about the Serbian-Bosnian crisis. And Rose asked Remnick. “How do you……………….. as a Jew…………. yabba dabba doo…” It was like Remnick, being a member of the Shoah Tribe, was intrinsically privy(“as a Jew”)to some deep wisdom about human tragedy. Those pregnant pauses, the pious gestures, and etc. I mean it was icky.
As for Remnick, he just played along. I suppose people can become morally spoiled too, and guys like Remnick feel morally entitled.
But then, Remnick plays this game too, esp in his tribute to Springsteen the saint of sausaged buns.
Bunch of globbies massaging each other’s egos.
* He is a terrible interviewer. How did he ever get an interview show and keep it for decades? It never made any sense.
* Then when the guest started answering Rose would interrupt mid-sentence.
* The man, a lawyer by education I think, was the worst questioner of all time–two thirds of his interviews were him talking while the guest waited for him to finish. He simply sucked at his so-called profession and especially compared to guys like Frost or Cavett.
There was never anything confrontational or tense about a Rose interview–just another sign of the decline of public discourse and intellectual rigor.
That he slithered around and acted like a cheap imitation of Christopher Walken doing the Continental guy on SNL just makes it all that much more satisfying.
* According to Roger Waters, Rose once told him that he can’t discuss certain matters because of orders from upstairs.
And Charlie Rose show had value as platform for cultural figures in their twilight yrs. The last of Mailer, Sontag, Vidal, Sarris, and etc were featured on his show. No other TV shows would have them. To that extent, it respected Age in a culture that generally doesn’t.
* Or it could be that journalism as a profession tends to attract hypocritical sleazebags like an elementary school playground attracts pedophiles and politics attracts narcissists.
* Yes, he acted like a lecherous old goat and they kept showing up for more. Why are the rest of us supposed to care, under the post-’60s rules? Shouldn’t we all be celebrating Charlie is so comfortable with his sexuality? Shouldn’t we be glad he’s not uptight about this stuff?
* It should be remembered that part of the reason we even have large numbers of women in professional environments that were once exclusively or overwhelmingly dominated by men is due to powerful older men like Charlie Rose. The prospect of lots of younger women in professionally subordinate positions and fewer male competitors is no doubt irresistibly enticing to powerful older men, whose support has been critical for promoting feminism and female participation in professional careers. It’s one of the tacit perks of men above the glass ceiling. Without the sexual opportunities that this change afforded, there wouldn’t have been support for it by powerful men. The headache and hassle of women in the workplace wouldn’t be worth it, and having more women would be a competitive disadvantage. There was basically tacit collusion and cartel like behavior by powerful men whereby they all agreed to allow their companies and organizations to become less competitive by hiring weaker employees, in exchange for the perk of having lots of younger women around you in subordinate positions.
Now it looks like this perk is being taken away, removing the original rationale for powerful men to even support feminism.
* Old man – young woman is not a particularly good strategy around which to organize a society, for a variety of reasons. We do well to discourage it.
