On the Daily Show on June 1, Bill Moyers talked about the types of outsider guests he preferred to interview on his TV show.
As he put it at one point: “The worst hour that I ever put on, was many years ago, with Henry Kissinger…. I vowed after that never to do an hour with any official. None.”
Interviewing guests who challenge or question the conventional wisdom or the status quo is exactly what we should be seeing on public television. Two nights before the Moyers interview (5/30/11), Charlie Rose offered a reminder that we’ve got a long way to go.
He interviewed, for a whole hour, this guy:
I never watch Charlie Rose, but I wonder if he asked Kissinger about the Vietnamese peace talks scam in which he promised the North and the Viet Cong a better deal than the Democrats would give them and then when Nixon was elected waited almost four years to give them the same deal? Or about how Nixon and he promised them billions of dollars for the return of American Pow’s then welched on it and let the poor schmucks be executed. Pinochet mentioned?
I’ve been watching Charlie Rose for about 5 years now and am disappointed that Kissinger is the type of guest he gravitates toward. That would be great if he asked the type of questions that Andrew Scala wondered about but no, Kissinger and others are treated more like experts who are above reproach and representative icons that are revered for their expertise. This past year or two it seems that these icons are almost always of the conservative ilk and/or the uber wealthy titans of Wall Street, banking and industry. I no longer see guests on his show such as Paul Krugman or anyone of the left leaning variety who have a valid alternate viewpoint. On the occasional show that he features someone who has exposed the greed of wall street, Charlie seems genuinely naive and shocked by assertions of immorality or illegality because unfortunately, those are apparently his cohorts. I remember him asking the authors who wrote on this topic, “but they didn’t do anything against the law, right?” (paraphrased) I have become really disillusioned with his inability for balance and a true north of what is ethical. I guess I keep hoping he will regain it.
He’s a right-wing mouthpiece. What more is there to say? Why would anyone waste an hour watching right-wing b.s.?
I did not see the Charlie Rose interview with Kissinger, who should be tried as a war criminal. I too have watched Charlie Rose and wondered who he was sleeping with. I no longer have the stomach for it. Unfortunately, there are many who believe either his slams of the left, or gosh-n-golly responses for the right.
Kissinger speaks the way he does on purpose. Just in case he slips up and mentions something about the war crimes he committed no one will understand what he said.
Charlie Rose, PBS, NPR, et al, are nothing more than white flour for the brain. These media outlets are toxic and should be branded as dangerous enemies of all thinking people.
I don’t watch C.R. anymore. Mostly white male establishment types. I also got sick of seeing Al Hunt on so many of the shows.
I thought Rose confines his interviews to entertainers and authors of books that he has read and from which he can make up insightful/penetrating questions. Kissinger, who is neither entertaining nor will he open up to insightful questions, in fact, prides himself on being impenetrable and by his own admission is a bore.
I would like to see/hear Kissinger defend himself in an international court of law for his high crimes and misdemeaners, including the needless bombing of the North, when we left Viet Nam.
This is nothing more than a PBS strategy, gone horribly awry. If they have a drawling hack like Charlie Rose interviewing human offal like Henry Kissinger, PBS thinks that it can then claim thorough impartiality on the issues.
Edward R. Murrow said it best in 1958, after the march to still his voice had gathered its horrible strength: ” This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.”
Henry of course has a book to sell. War creep that he is, he is nevertheless a cornerstone in today’s big corporate strategies, thus he is a sort of Zeus to the Carlyle Group types. More than Nixon, more than WalMart, Henry can strut as opening what has turned into today’s China trade. Naturally, he appears to be the crust-covered cipher, speaking in such a minimalist and vacuous manner, so as to imply that he has been a harmless windbag academic all these years. But his professional sneakiness is in play as much as ever. Not your conventional sociopath/egomaniac. No, Henry’s always been too crafty for that.
There’s still hope: if John Demjanjuk was brought to trial, HK may still get his day in court.
Like much of PBS and NPR, Charlie has indeed offered valid contributions interviewing creative and cultural personalities, but in the realm of current events, he regularly runs into shill-waters pretty fast. Anyone who takes, say, Thomas Friedman seriously is in the entertainment business, not credible interview journalism.
PBS, NPR and Charlie are distant memories for me – bittersweet (mostly bitter). I’m kept plenty busy with Democracy Now!, Al Jazeera, and GritTV.
Sorry, is this rant supposed to be an editorial or journalistic piece. It is really content-free and pretty much a waste of time.
Charlie Rose is not really a right-wing hack, he just does not press representatives of the status quo or ask the pointed questions. He is kind of like the PBS version of Larry King … he just tries to avoid politics, like the elephant in the room.
The thing that always bugs me about Charlie Rose is that when I watch his show and press the INFO button on my TV there is never any text about who or what the show is about.
I dearly miss Bill Moyers though, that was one of the best news/journalism/editorial/interview shows I ever saw. We have darn few people who can replace a guy like that.
Charlie Rose? I thought he died and went to Limbo, or maybe Purgatory for being so dull, predictable, goofy, and goody-two-shoes.
He’s not a journalist; he’s a poseur. I think he had a few good years when he was just beginning.
Fox News should buy NPR and call it the New Pretty Republican Show.
Bill Moyer’s worst hour and PBS’s was the one on which he “retired” officially, at the same time as, sans mention, did NOW, and World Focus, which via Al Jazeera had the only live coverage of the Gaza War. The rest, including the BBC was Israel with bombs coming in from the dark. WHY did all go poof on the same night? For whatever reason, PBS didn’t learn from it, as it’s now losing financially, being cut off from gummint $ thanks to the Rs, even slightly modifying Judy Woodruff’s right wing radicalism; and soon will have ads during the shows. I asked The Nation, the Times, no one wants to tell the story, if anyone knows. Certainly not PBS. I almost puked when CR buddied up with Lloyd Blankfein like long lost friends. Does Wall St. own everyone and everything? If so, why don’t they pay us. Note absence of question mark.
I miss Bill Moyers too. Still, I think many miss the point about losing PBS. First, in every poll there was bipartisan support of PBS as ‘the most trusted journalism’; a testament to their attempt at objective reporting; although I agree that they avoided the controversial as the noose got tighter. Second, for everyone who gets their news from their favorite internet sites, you know how easy it is to pull the plug, right? Regular old tv still provides news to most. Since the digital scam many have given up on tv altogether. A rather illuminating move was to bundle PBS with things like handyman and weather channels in the rural areas, thus making captive to corporate news a huge population that needs alternative perspective most. Third, PBS is so much more than news. Masterpiece Theatre has been running for 40 years! and continues to dramatise great literature. I’m a fan of British mysteries which are way too smart to ever be acceptable to $ channels. Ditto for Nova. There is no comparison when it comes to programming for children; without ads to turn them into little craving consumers, or the sicko violence and attitudes of commercial programs, PBS has commitment to children and amazing resources for teachers, students and homeschoolers. As well as a huge library of past shows on the website. PBS has gone downhill in direct proportion to the attacks from the right who forced them into accepting ‘sponsors’, gutted the CPB, and who prefer controlled content, and dumbing down Americans. (You can still see the pre-Obama Frontline report on the financial crisis -by itself a reason the right doesn’t want PBS available.)
We never “had” PBS, for the length of its life it has been dominated by right leaning think tanks, corporations and Foundations. It was an anomaly that Bill Moyers was on PBS. Just look at it. Front Line too tows the line on what is “right” and what isn’t.
I have never seen Charlie Rose, and I can say I never will.
Did anyone else happen to catch Arundhati Roy, the Indian activist, on CSPAN a yr or so ago? I can’t remember where she was speaking but it was in the Washington, D.C. area. At one point in response to a question/inquiry, which I can’t remember, she said that she did a segment on Charlie Rose and he got so frustrated with her that, turns, out, the segment never aired. He wanted her to criticize some entity, gov’t, an individual, or a group and she kept throwing the question back at Charlie and making the U.S. position the focus of the criticism.
I stopped watching Charlie Rose a very long time ago, after watching his interview with writer Alice Walker. He was agitated, rude and petty, while she only showed mild signs of exasperation at her treatment.
Also.. can anyone tell me why Bill Moyers left PBS? Did he retire willingly, did he want to pursue other endeavors? Or, was he axed along with NOW? The two replacements are just clones of the mainstream media. Need To Know is just an hour of extended pieces that you would see on 60 Minutes or CNN. The other is a clone of Washington Week with the usual faces, with the addition of Charles Krauthammer. I stopped watching the Sunday shows long ago. In ADDITION, has anyone noticed that NOVA, the excellent science series has been moved to Wednesday night fm Tuesday…. AND has a brand new major sponsor, the first name shown on the screen all by itself… one David H. Koch !!! Now if that isn’t enough to make one stop contributing to PBS I don’t know what will.
My God, Charlie even got exasperated with Alice Walker ! Her politics must have shown thru the gentle, softspoken demeanor of Alice the writer of fine literature and essays. :) :) Arundhati Roy I hold in the highest esteem and can see why she would make Charlie’s head explode. But Alice Walker?? He really is a real establishment guy. I think he likes that role and thinks he’s a real renaissance man.
I liked the phrase by the presumably pseudonymous commenter ‘brux,’ who wrote of CR: ‘He is kind of like the PBS version of Larry King.’ Except I’d add that Larry King’s guests spanned a wider range of views, lifestyles and skin complexions.
Seeing this thread of posts about Rose, I realized I was not alone in my reaction to him, as each time I turned to Channel 13 in New York and saw his so seemingly disinterested face (disinterested, not in the sense of objective but of uninterested), I’d linger for all of 10 seconds before surfing to another station to find something more to my taste for news.
Had my fill with CR as well, though as someone mentioned,
his first 2 yrs on CBS at 2 a.m. were excellent. Odd that PBS
actually corrupted a Commercial TV host… I called his show
the CEO Show, as all these guys where such good friends
that if a direct and pertinent question about culpability (of anything)
were raised, a large slow moving “softball” would be gently lofted
towards his guest – without follow up, “OK, I asked a tough question,
let’s move on”. He could have been the laconic Mark Twain type,
perhaps a Republican Moyers, just add integrity and shake well.
It’s good to I have lots of company in my ever increasing disdain for public broadcasting. I couldn’t even get excited about de-funding them, in spite of some attributes.
Some of Charlie Rose’s shows are excellent, such as the series of shows on the brain he did not long ago. But his political conversations seem to be nothing but rehashes of the right-wing “conventional wisdom” of Washington.
Charley Rose, a fine interviewer when he chooses to be, also is the most dangerous kind of liar– the kind that covers his Israeli prejudice with undeserved credibility. I value his sometimes interviewing speakers with the Arab viewpoint. But he always keeps them tightly within his cocoon of Israeli favoritism. Is Charley Jewish? – George Beres
I watch a lot of different TV shows , and look at many different websites , so I don’t have to get locked into one type of viewpoint . Charlie Rose is handsome , and gentlemanly . We don’t have to agree with everything that people say on his show . Some people are not going to answer tough questions , no matter how the questions are phrased . Instead of using protest signs to criticize “the other side” , maybe we can hold up signs which simply say “We want the truth.” . Maybe , we can have widespread internet petitions , and get very many signatures , and regularly , and frequently , send these petitions to TV producers , legislators , and other government officials . These petitions can simply say “We want the truth.” . We can buy a little less of products which are advertised on television . Buying less could lessen corporate influence on television content . Also , we can form coalitions of people who agree not to watch any political campaign ads . This could lead to less money being spent on political ads , and then fewer large campaign contributions , and then less money from lobbyists to government officials . We can reduce the influence of “big money” , but we have to be more and more disciplined financially , not be “sheep” who buy whatever looks exciting in a commercial . We can compile lists of businesses which do not give money to political campaigns , and do not give lobbying money to government officials . We can buy from those businesses .
I have never watched him. But all this talk about him being right wing gives me hope he may have half a brain cell firing.I will check him out
for a while there, i thought charlie rose would be worth watching, especially since he interviewed people such as chris hedges or charlie kaufman. but then i read about arundhati roy’s experience with him here: http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/2356/roy_2_15_11/
and iirc, noam chomsky also had some unpleasant things to say about him.
so at least to me, he became demoted from intelligent and critical to yet another corporate puppet.
@ Bonnie Jones:
not a clear answer but it should be one, i suppose?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/3/headlines#17
i believe they also talked about that during that DN! anniversary special with moyers but unfortunately it seems that was only available as live stream and they never put it onto the website :(
If I remember correctly, Kissinger was presented on the show in front of a copy of the Constitution of the United States, a document, for which he has, of course, demonstrated complete comtempt for decades.
Charlie, of course, was too busy slathering over Kissinger’s wisdom, to notice the obscene
juxtaposition.
Oh my goodness, I thought John’s post was going to be a sarcastic one. He was actually being serious. How cute! It makes me think of Chris Hedges columns and speeches. The Liberal Class is dead. Been dead. “Reform” isn’t even quaint anymore, it’s as useless and late as it is non-existent. We live in what is called a “inverted totalitarian” state. Magical thinking is a symptom of a civilization in collapse states Hedges points out, as he reminds us of the consistent betrayals of progressives by Clintons and Obama.
Obviously we should be doing as much as John stated. As an utter bare minimum. But to think that could possibly change our culture of destruction is magical thinking emerging out of privileged and comfortable contexts, not out of contexts of desperation, struggle, and imagination.
Can we make it clear, that until we bring to an end once and for all this Empire (of Capital), Life is not even an afterthought? We have a culture of extraction, destruction, and mass violence. Reform? Reform Empire? What would that be? (Let’s all watch a Johann Galtung video now….)
As usual FAIR gets it right. Bring back Bill Moyers and put him on the PBS programming team to set up a new and better news and public affairs shows.
PBS also provides Market Reports daily, interviewing brokers, CEOs, and industrialists who offer tips on investing in stocks and bonds that are usually in their company’s own funds. After the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns they suggested investing in Japan’s market while it was ‘down’ because the ‘Japanese are going to recover strong’ they said. It was not only way too soon, it was off base ethically since the Japanese had not yet even realized the extent of the damage to their nation.
Besides questionable investment advice in terms of stocks and bonds that wind up showing big losses, there are suggestions to invest in companies that are not environmentally sound. A recent guest urged people to invest in uranium, saying that despite the Fukushima meltdowns, ‘the world is still going forward with building new nuclear plants’. Is this in the “public interest”?
Uranium mining is highly toxic for residents living nearby. We also see commercials for cars, for Chevron and for investment firms that do not always meet the test for sound business practices.
PBS and NPR now have so much commercial time at the top of ‘news’ hours that their ‘public interest’ label is simply void. During a crucial debate in Connecticut over taxation of Dominion’s Millstone nuclear energy plant, NPR aired funding commercials from Dominion saying they were ‘powering the state with over 1000 jobs’ and ’emission free energy’. Yikes.
In light of Dori Smith’s great post, I’ll repeat one thing I posted in one of my 3 posts. Has ANYONE else noticed that the great NOVA science series on PBS (changed fm Tues to Wed night at 9:00 pm), has a NEW sponsor whose names is displayed at beginning of program, not as one of several they cite, but the ONLY one….. it IS…. David H. KOCH of the “Koch brothers” fame.
I was absolutely stunned when I saw his name the first time, notwithstanding my very strong awareness of PBS’s shigt to the right starting in early ’90’s after Jesse Helms and Bob Dole started a reactionary crusade to defund. But even Republicans were saying…. “keep your hands off our PBS.”
I just saw Tavis Smiley interview Michael Moore last night, that’s the progressive show now. Great interview BTW.