Comment by Tom Jones on Wednesday, Jun 18 at 03:58 PM

Most people will agree there is NOTHING quite as aggrivating as being interrupted when speaking.. nor as frustrating as being prevented from hearing someone answer a question fully. Phil Donohue got really bad about doing this as well. It seems like if the guest is a friend of Charlies --or if it's a topic he fancies himself something of an expert on-- the more he interrupts. But there are other times when Charlie sits enraptured by his guest. So that tells me he's capable of asking a question and listening. Tim Russert was brilliant at asking pointed questions and listening. Obviously Charlie just does't have as much time to prepare for each show as Russert did. It would be interesting to analyze the video archives and see how much time is spent by Charlie talking, interrupting, etc. Maybe the name should be changed to "The Charlie Rose Debate."

Comment by Don S. on Sunday, Aug 19 at 04:17 PM

This is probably the wrong place for a "Disappointed in Charlie" thread, but I feel your pain Toby. Finding out that someone you admire isn't all you had hoped they were can be a great disappointment, but it's also a good life lesson. I've been a fan of Charlie since CBS News Overnight (or whatever it was called). He struck me as one of the most prepared interviewers in the game, as well as one of the best actual LISTENERS on the air (along with Terry Gross and Bob Costas) at the time. But... Sometime after 9/11, during the fog of timidity that fell over the media for X number of years, Charlie finally sat down with Noam Chomsky. I was thrilled at the prospect of Charlie digging into the sandbox of information that Chomsky had been researching for years and years, but I was appalled by the unprepared and amateurish Charlie Rose segment. It was like watching Joe Franklin or something, with Charlie ignoring tantalizing avenues for discussion and even challenging where Chomsky got his information in a genial but incredulous tone. That same week, Charlie had Richard Perle and his deputy on, spouting all the NeoCon B.S., and Chas was SO obsequious, I thought I was watching gay porn! Chomsky was reporting facts, and Charlie treated him like he was Abbie Hoffman. Perle came on and lied, and Charlie fawned over him more than he did over Michelle Pfeiffer. SIGH. It reminded me of the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." (Or perhaps when the security of his secrets depends on it... Hm?) Despite all this, even if he's not what he was a decade ago, he's still better than 90% of all TV chat shows, and I keep watching and still enjoying. (Speaking of enjoying, look at the end of the 2003 Gore Vidal interview. If it hasn't been edited out, Charlie asks him, "What do you love best about America?" and he nearly explodes at (the inanity of?) the question. It was among the more cathartic moments I've had since the post-millennial double-plus-good style of popular discourse took hold.