Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
Sad the elitist Charlie and his rich buddies don't have a clue. Did he even read the book? Wake up people. The principle argument of Klein is so evident today, the new growing hype against Russia and South America. pre-election attacks now going on in Pakistan, ongoing ethnic cleansing in Iraq. And the new "Sky is falling" economic extortion right before the election. The economic hit list is ever-growing and expanding at the cost of all our security! "money trumps peace" -George W.
Agree! This is a profound and constructive read. Not as "Shocking" about capitalistic greed after the subprime loan greed, but only because of being inured. Our system seems to promote scoundrels without remorse. Indeed, too often with accolades and golden parachutes. Citigroup et al prime example.
I just bought this book last weekend: It is by far one of the most illuminating books I have ever read. Naomi Klein picks up where Noam Chomsky leaves off. This book is so well written and researched I cannot give it enough praise. Her much needed perspective is very much on the mark and deserves national attention. I see a lot of people beating up on poor Charlie again for interrupting his guest. But I think Charlie and Naomi are simply both on the same page. The respect and understanding they have for each other shows through. For those frustrated with the conversation there is plenty of time to buy Naomi's book, read it, and get her full message. It is time very well spent. Then you can go back, watch this interview again, and simply enjoy the conversation. I also have to give Naomi credit for her bright and cheerful outlook on the show, despite the very grim warning she brings to us all. Well done Charlie for bringing on Naomi as your guest!
Thanks Demetrius, yes, this video of Mark Molaro with Naomi Klein is absolutely worth watching: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKr_soG4DUA. Thanks Charlie for introducing us to this inspiring woman.
Naomi was charming and carried herself well in this interview. I think she served well all who see capitalism as unjust. However what she proposes is basically that a person's natural desire to better their condition can be changed/restructured that would validate her own brand of psychosocial engineering. "Everybody wants to rule the world" and she and her supporters, just like Hitler, are no different.
To bigjoe. You're an astute rascal. Surely the M-I complex wouldn't promote war for profit; the financial services industry wouldn't sell subprime loans solely for the fees and CC cos. like Citigroup, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns et al wouldn't exploit the unemployed and health ravaged families. Why some would say they would even resort to prostituting our government by its out right purchase. Keep up the good faith. And spread the word. There are skeptics among us that need purging.
I just finished reading The Shock Doctrine. I must say that Naomi Klein gives a different paradigm on neo liberal politics. She seeems to be speaking a truth Charlie Rose does not want to hear. Unfortuantely for education Friedman is practicing vodo eduation. We need a government to check the corporate world and greed. Charlie next time let your guest answwer questions compltley.
Charlie Rose is so far out of his league in this interview that he comes off somewhere between uninformed and embarrassingly obtuse. I try to like Charlie, but he just never seems to be on the same page as many of his guests (thus all the interruptions). In this, the Naomi Klein interview, Rose hits rock bottom with painfully simplistic questions and an agitated demeanor stemming from his inability to grasp this fairly simple concept. Conversely, Naomi Klein was sharp, clear, to the point, and much to her credit even patient with the struggling Rose.
Rose loses his credibility with his Wal-Mart rant. In effect he is implying that Kelin's thesis is that "all corporations will always try to shamelessly exploit all disaters." Shameful, and moronic strawman fallacy.
It seems odd to me to read comments here along the lines that Charlie Rose is too intrusive in interrupting Klein's comments; obviously, these commentators have never saw Rose's show before. Secondly, Milton Friedman is dead. Also, Charlie Rose was a friend of Rose. Doesn't it seem obvious that Rose would be confrontational to Klein, considering Friedman is dead, meaning he can no longer defend his own ideas? It seems to me that these commentators are not interested in listening to differing opinions, but rather want to stay inside their own little "echo chamber"; it's no surprise that they lash out against anyone who interrupts the echo.
WOW, Charlie was in over his head, not enough research - did he even read the book!? Didn't seem like it. She is obviously stating the certain forms of capitalism are good, healthy - but when we begin to privatize natural things like water, wind, air, etc - and the ability to escape disasters, we know who will benefit - not the folks with less $$. But this is capitalism at it's best. I am certain Wal-Mart was benefiting - both from PR and business - I am sure they landed one of the first construction contracts - post Katrina.
Are you completely missing the point Charlie, or are you just REFUSING to see how government and your 'friends' in private enterprise are so SADLY using Milton Friedman as their guru - to the detriment of society and to what may become an earlier demise of the planet?
Followed the lead and it paid off so repeating it here again. Cut-n-paste -> http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKr_soG4DUA Mark Molaro, the interviewer is pitch-perfect.
Just because someone is critical of CR does not make them a "left wing radical". That is the language of ideologues. There are nuances to almost every point of view. Klein can hold her own and I think there is a kind of sexism here that suggests that CR is being too tough. It is revealing that people comment on what she is wearing and on her style. That happens much less with men (and never about what men are wearing). Naomi Klein is presenting some compelling facts, and I would like to hear some "right wing" folks dispute them. There is the complete absence of debate on the facts, and that is revealing. It seems if you can't credibly oppose these facts, it is time to attack her. Good luck!
Are you guys crazy? Its funny that Charley gets hacked on when he just lets a guest roll through and blather on, without Charlie questioning them... Read the Carl Rove comments AND Charlie gets hacked on when he does question, as he is doing in this case. Its called a CONVERSATION...Charlie was having a CONVERSATION... the left wing radicals amaze me
what the hell charlie? Why won't you let her talk? for the love of god, is it because she's canadian? is that it? just let her speak.
I bet she's wearing designer clothes.
I would have so loved to hear the answers to your string of questions in the middle of the segment with Naomi Klein. They were great questions. Charlie, why didn't you give her a moment to answer without interrupting her with another one??? I was quite impressed with her composure during this frustrating monologue. Clearly, she is capable of keeping her ego in check - you may want to learn by her example, Mr. Rose!
I would have so loved to hear the answers to your string of questions in the middle of the segment with Naomi Klein. They were great questions. Charlie, why didn't you give her a moment to answer without interrupting her with another one??? I was quite impressed with her composure during this frustrating monologue. Clearly, she is capable of keeping her ego in check - you may want to learn by her example, Mr. Rose!
I watch his show on Charlierose.com sometimes days after the broadcast. I, too, was surprised by Charlie's interruptions of this guest. The chief reason I like his show is the opportunity he gives his guests to express themselves and give a full answer. I have felt that Charlie was asking the questions that I would ask. He has had better shows. I hope she is asked back soon.
I'm not surprised by any of the responses from this interview. It was both heated at times and informative. Charlie seemed to have some personal stake in a few of his questions, referring to his "friends" points of view, but nonetheless prodded where prodding was needed. If Klein had just come onto the program and spoke unchallenged for 30 minutes I would have been completely bored. It is also very easy for any of the Klein defenders to attack Charlie for backing corporate arguments, for any challenge Charlie puts towards Klein WOULD be from her opposing points of view which are large corporations.
Yuo know, Charlie must be given credit for having her on. And, it must be said that Klein presented her points very well. Clearly, her arguements were solid, especially about the role of government, how mixed economies are really the best.(Let capitalism build the shoes and let the state handle health, education, and infrastructure). Her point that China, a non-democratic state is the most successful captilist economy was the ton bricks that fell on Charlie's head. And Charlie's arguments for Walmart was pathetic, if Walmart did anything that would affect the bottom line, they would be dragged in court by their shareholders. Katrina was PR for them, the state should've handled the disaster, elections are made for removing people who do not carry out that basic service.
Come on, people, the interruption as interrogative is Charlie's modus operandi. He does it to all his guests, regardless of whether they're left, right, genius or wingnut. And as for Wal-Mart in the equation, all they may be gunning for with an outpouring of corporate relief in the wake of Katrina and the resultant P.R. is the opportunity to build another retail box in one of the wards. That's a far cry from being Halliburton/Blackwater/Bechtel/(fill in the blank) awarded a sweetheart, no-bid, multi-billion dollar contract with the certainty of getting in on the ground floor of a perpetual infrastructure construction/security/logistics gig in a country that just had a government reset/fait accompli imposed upon them by military intervention - either ours, or that of one of our global military surrogate clients. More Naomi Klein!
With his Wal-Mart example, Charlie punctures Naomi's theory. She's definitely onto something, yet it doesn't make a theory/framework. On the other hand, only time will tell whether or not all her, otherwise good, examples belong to something bigger. The obvious economic tension becomes between different increasing majorities and various instances of the same globalized minority interests.
I am a faithful viewer and really appreciate the wide selection of guests on your show, BUT why were you so hostile to Naomi Klein author of The Shock Doctrine. You would not let her talk; you interrupted her constantly and were so defensive to her ideas, even argumentative. You have treated leaders of hostile countries with more respect. You usually go out of your way to be courteous to guests when you are uncomfortable with their opinions. Opportunists after a crisis is nothing new in history. We need more concrete information with examples and writers speaking out. Profiteers rob victims of their homes and livelihood. Our own government is an expert at this by using fear and misinformation. I think you owe her an apology. LET HER TALK! Still a faithful viewer,
Having read her latest book I was pleased you had her on the programme. After reading the above comments it might be wise to have her on again and in the very near future. She is bright and intelligent and very controversial,
Thanks for providing the rest of the interview. I am surprised that the conversation was more about economics then about torture, which is an issue Charlie Rose has been interested in for awhile, and is constantly displaying his exasperation at not being able to get a definition of what constitutes as torture. And here we have Klein with the Shock Doctrine engaging in these issues on a greater scale with a fresh and intriguing perspective. It would be nice to have her back on, and for Charlie to engage in those issues because it does seem to be a topic Charlie is interested in, and Klein seems to have done a considerable amount of research on it.
I can't imagine that the people whose comments have been submitted so far were watching the same show I watched. Neither side seems right to me. I saw Charlie Rose calmly and politely interviewing, prodding with the questions a "devil's advocate" would ask, which I believe is his role as host. He does interrupt, but to me his interruptions always appear to be intended to help the guest clarify his/her point in case the viewers don't quite understand. To me, this was a fair and balanced interview about what appears to be a fascinating book. Both host and guest seem to me to have been amiable towards one another throughout the interview. I am thankful that we are fortunate to have Charlie Rose as a quiet, reasoned counterpoint to all the screaming "talking heads" on the other networks.
She is a real star! Was there a more powerful idea published in 2007? For the most intriguing political discussion of the year, look for the moderated chat between Klein ("I am shocked") and Alan Greenspan ("Shocks Happen") on Democracy Now's website. I think it is the only public confrontation between liberalism and the role of conscience that I have witnessed on any medium in the past few years.
Since reading the Shock Doctrine, Klein has become a hero of sorts for me and turned me away from apathetic consumer to becoming an informed activist. The Shock Doctrine is truly eye-opening, and having graduated with a B.A. in economics, believing in the free-market theories of Friedman, I've done an about-face. Klein's work is truly inspiring. This whole interview should be up!
I think Naomi Klein is bang on with her assertions in the SHOCK DOCTRINE. US support for brutal dictators and the overthrow of democratically elected governments is well documented. Klein gives us the how and the why. She certainly can hold up to CR's line of questioning, and his obvious biases actually helped reveal the truth in what she was saying. The incomplete video is a little unnerving. I have watched dozens of clips on this site, and this is the first one I have seen cut off. mmmmmm. And to the far-right ideologues who have posted, your comments almost always citicize style, but never are able to factually contradict Klein's. That is revealing as well.
I,ve been watching charlie for years and thought i enjoyed his show but, there's something wrong, charlie clearly has a bais, in the Krugman interview he defended Reagan who had rascist policies against black people.Reagan basically took money for schools and infrastructure and gave it to the military and in tax breaks to the rich. Charlie also goes on to press Naomi Klien about whether walmart should be commended for providing the people with supplies after Katrina, instead of asking, how the richest nation in the whole history of the world with technology that put a man on the moon could not provide for it's own citizens.Blackwater also secured a no-bid contract to provide security after Katrina you can see this on Bill Moyers. Please understand i like and respect Charlie Rose but, some\alot of his guests get off easy.
More and more people are now able to construct a clearer view of what is truly going on in the world. The information structure is now allowing the truth (even if fragmented) to be accessed. We are reaching a level of understanding that is unprecedented. The idea that someone (a politician, a company, a country, etc.) can somehow say one thing and do something else is over. Itâ??s over because many can now access the information that tells us whether or not itâ??s true.
Watching Charlie Rose is at once fascinating and exasperating. I've felt this for years, but after the Naomi Klein interview I just have to say it. So many times I've yelled to my TV set for Rose to just Shut Up. Put another way, Rose's guests are always brilliant and informative, while the host just keeps getting in the way. Klein was especially rich and concise, particularly after I watched a clearly declining William F. Buckley, who struggled over and over to capture a complete thought. Klein has something extremely important to say, agree with her or not, and she says it with clarity even while maintaining - gasp - humility. Rose's jarring interruptions here seem to belie his very different take on the world (and Milton Friedman). As for the website's cutting the interview short - which is maddening - it makes one wonder if there is some terrible ideological clash, or technological incompetency, or both. Somebody fix this problem and let us see the whole event!
PBS, PLEASE FIX THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW WITH NAOMI KLEIN. THE VIDEO CUTS OFF MID-SENTENCE (LITERALLY) DURING THE DEBATE ABOUT WAL-MART, AND VIEWERS ARE NOT ABLE TO HEAR KLEIN'S ANSWER. Regarding Charlie cutting his guests off: Charlie, I think I can detect an effort on your part in recent interviews to NOT cut your guests off mid-thought as much as you have sometimes done in the past (the Krugman interview was a glaring exception, however). And for that, I say, â??Bravo!â?? However, the old habit kicked into gear at certain points during your interview with Klein. Overall, I didnâ??t think you were as interruptive as some of the comments on this page indicate. And some interruptions can be warranted (for clarification, say, or to challenge an assertion before it gets lost in further discussion). But Klein definitely seemed hurried to get her ideas out because of your impatient verbal and physical cues; and in particular, towards the end of the conversation -- when you brought up the Wal-Mart question -- you were right back into your old habit of too quickly jumping in and disrupting your guestâ??s flow of thought. I don't know how Klein responded to the Wal-Mart question because the video cuts off before she is able to complete her answer; however, even if Wal-Mart did do a better job than FEMA in the aftermath of Katrina, that in no way undermines Klein's thesis. A single example like this is just that: a single example. And as Klein appeared to be trying to say before you interrupted, Wal-Mart's better-than-FEMA performance is not necessarily the result of government incompetence (vs. private industryâ??s competence) but of BUSH government incompetence. The Bush Administrationâ??s undermining of government assistance programs like FEMA precludes using the Katrina example to support the claim that private companies do a better job than the government. But more fundamental than these objections to your Wal-Mart argument is that the argument is much too narrowly focused. What one would need to know to judge Kleinâ??s thesis is the total cost-benefit ratio of government disaster aid, on the one hand, and the total cost-benefit ratio of private disaster aid, on the other, in numerous and diverse disaster situations. Such cost-benefit analysis would have to take into account ALL pros and cons, including but not limited to monetary cost and the source of payment, not just quickness of response and effectiveness. For example, was Wal-Martâ??s work more costly monetarily than FEMAâ??s, and were the impoverished and disaster-stricken people of New Orleans paying more out of their own pockets than they would have if the federal government had done the job?
Please fix this broadcast so we can listen to the whole interview. Thanks for having Ms. Klein on the show. Mr. Rose... please trust your guests more with less directive interviewing and more listening.
Wow. I finally got to watch this and have read all the comments. Naomi has been one of my favorites analysts and Charlie a favorite interviewer. I prefer his "conversation" approach to others, but I had never seen him have emotional responses that nearly derailed it. And, no way is 18 or whatever mins nearly enough time to flesh out a breakthrough thesis as Naomi's. I've been following her work, so I got it. But Charlie, your impatience or resistance was frustrating and sad. Her fresh perspective is a gift and it's encouraging coming from my generation. Dare I say it: shes's a lot more cute than Noam and probably easier to digest for those ready to hear truth but not ready to listen to the wordy prose of a guy like him. And yes, on that topic, give Naomi Wolf her 20 mins--or watch her on Democracy Now! a few weeks back. Anyway, thanks for having her on please do have her back. Naomi Klein has a lot to say. Thanks, Matthew, Albuquerque
Mr. Rose seems to have lost some of his polish. This is not the first time he is rude with his guests, not allowing them to finish what they are saying, jumping in on mid- sentences, hammering them like if they were on trial... He really needs to get a grip. The interviewees, as well as those watching his shows, deserve better.
Please let us view the whole video! It cuts out at 17:53, and we cannot hear the end and Naomi's response regarding Walmart's role in New Orleans post-Katrina. I was watching this interview on television and know it was longer than this, but I had to miss the end, and now cannot see it here either. Please help! Love the show, despite occasional host flaws, guests shine through because of their character and I applaud the choice of guests in the first place.
Absolute garbage - one of Charlie's worst "interviews" - time to hang them up pal if this is what you're going to call an interview. This was pure agenda-driven crap. Judging by the other comments Charlie needs to reconsider his approach in 2008.
It really was great fun to see ol' Chuck come unraveled in the Klein interview. He was almost as bad as the little kids who put their hands over their ears and say, "La-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when the conversation at the playground doesn't go their way. I think Ms. Klein was also having fun watching Rose from her front-row seat as he did a total melt-down as an interviewer. This interview with Klein was like instant karmic pay-back for Rose, who has been a right-wing sycophant from the get-go, and who completely confirms the corporate/right-wing co-optation of public television--i.e "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em!"
It really was great fun to see ol' Chuck come unraveled in the Klein interview. He was almost as bad as the little kids who put their hands over their ears and say, "La-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when the conversation at the playground doesn't go their way. I think Ms. Klein was also having fun watching Rose from her front-row seat as he did a total melt-down as an interviewer. This interview with Klein was like instant karmic pay-back for Rose, who has been a right-wing sycophant from the get-go, and who completely confirms the corporate/right-wing co-optation of public television--i.e "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em!"
rude, manipulative, and disgraceful behavior; avoiding all the real issues discussed in the book, and insulting with faint praise both the book and the author.....even suggesting ( in humorless jest ) she wrote the review on the back cover....who were you and PBS protecting?...and what were you afraid of??...shameful, and cowardly!
As a longtime viewer I now feel an aching disapointment after seeing Charlie's loss of his usual polite interviewing approach. His rudeness in the segment with Paul Krugman was all to obvious, as was the contrast between his leaping to finish sentences fof William Buckley, and not allowing Naomi Klein to finish hers. Some of us wanted to hear their thought in their own words. Will the old Charlie (real, I hope) come back.
and i thought i was losing my mind. rose appeared to have no patience for klein's comments. cutting her off with grunts of "hmm, well" and "yea" and changing the topic on a dime! this is not the charlie rose i recall from previous episodes. methinks he caught heat from one of his sponsors to keep things on a certain track. to klein's credit, she appeared to not be influenced by his rudeness. of course, this may be one of the more receptive audiences she's had in a while. i'm sure she's used to being chewed up and spit out. also, thank you naomi klein for presenting a topic of such magnitude in a calm, friendly, and lighthearted way. you go girl!!!
tsk tsk Charlie, only an hour such a large topic. I could not help but notice you gave walmart an hour long infomercial om cross isle shopping. almost funny and very pathetic.
Charlie, please have Naomi Wolf on. Is she "too hot to handle" for your producers and corporation? Please step up to the plate.
You call that antagonistic? get real. Charlie was just trying to get straight answers (as always). Naomi seems bright enough, but I felt slightly annoyed by her constantly moving lips. The interview would have been worse if Charlie had allowed her to ramble on. Come on people, one-sided conversation is tiresome.
Sickening, pathetic, disgusting why not the whole interview was there a side of charlie we were not to see on this website.
Naomi Klein is speaking for what Bill O'Reilly calls the far left but really all she's calling for is a return to the kind of moderate mixed economy that did so much to mold America into a world respected force for advancement rather than the way it's been moving along of late as a mean spirited, paranoid nation on a fatalistic bent. I for one don't have that much of a problem with how Charlie handled Ms. Klien in the interview. And I'm a Canadian who's very much on side with her views. Rose also happens to be the preeminent host in mainstream television today. He uses a conversational style that may be seen as confrontational to some but remember: Rose is very much influenced by the constant stream of elté guests that are doing just fine under the present system. He could do well to talk to the occasional average human being out there. People who haven't hit the jackpot. He might find there is something to be learned by exploring common wisdom. Regardless, having Charlie Rose interview someone like Klien, and challenging her from the right, is exactly what we need. The conservative agenda, as we know it, is a spent force. Even William Buckley admits that. (This from memory I must admit from a Rose interview of which I can't find -- please help me on this if you happen know which one).
i must say that klein's smartest move was waiting for the death of milton friedman to publish this work. it would have been interesting to see her attempt to defend her assertions about his ideas (e.g. "friedman's test tube" in chile and his relationship with pinochet) against dr. friedman himself.
Rather amusing how to see how leftists are so hyper sensitive to trying to keep one of their own focused and at least a little bit on track. All Rose was asking (at the very end of his interview) was if Wal-Mart had contributed in a positive way without any strongly negative by products but Klein kept trying to spin the response away from an answer to his question. Prior to that he was simply guiding the interview into some kind of coherent dialogue. Against her type of thinking small wonder that Friedman has won the intellectual debate and in a working sense has won the globalization issue based on his ideas. As a result liberals are forced into a rather humorous rear guard action with comments that are comical and have no chance of being successful. But the defeated rarely come at situations with grace which is the case here.
Charlie, please read the many comments after the Krugman show recently. In contrast to the Buckley interview, your attitude was obvious, antagonistic to Klein. And your interruptions - enough. I watch your show daily and am 100% in agreement with Ms. Klein's critique. I think if you would broaden your circles of friends, you would find many who agree with Klein. As an 'objective' interviewer, you are far too far to the right. And please return to your Carolinian politeness asap.
I disagree, Mr. Rose was not half as bad as the comments stated. I have met very few people who do not interrupt a person speaking, especially in personal conversations. I quit watching the McLauglin Group some years back because I got tired of all the yelling and interrupting. Keep up the good work Mr. Rose.
I was particularlly interested in Ms Klein's interview. Of course private enteprise will move into space not occupied by gov. activity, where there is demand. As for New Orleans, it was an organized disaster (not katrina). FEMA's failure was only incidental, as FEMA requires a resident body to connect with, and none was present. Private business activity is a better measure of economic viability than any government activity, program,or policy. Ms Klein has a unique viewpoint with value, even if mainly from it's iconolastic perspective.
I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed by Jim Dick and David(s?) on earlier posts, regarding the Naomi Klein interview. I tried very hard to listen but I'm afraid that I gave up and turned the show off. I really wanted to hear the author speak her mind in her own words but after so many interruptions and seeing the patient but pained expression on her face, I decided that I'll just have to get all my information from the book or, perhaps, another interview show, if she would be so gracious as to try this again. As for your show, I might look in again in the future but, If I see the same thing, I won't return.
Mr. Rose when you get tired of this job, you are meant for the McLaughlin group with a little improvement, It's another pbs show where interruptions are the rule and courtesy is not. You've got the interruptions down well, and not letting folks, like Ms. Klein respond to your multiple choice questions, but you need to work on the yelling a little more. As far as filling in sentences for Mr. Buckly, one of his admirable conversational qualities is the pause, which, I feel does not need to be filled in. Best wishes in 2008, JDJr
Please have a Naomi Klein on again and let her speak. Ask hard questions, play devil's advocate when needed, but don't keep interrupting her. Invite Naomi Klein back for a real interview.
Your interview with Neomi Klein had me screeming at my television (you). I like your show and seldom miss it. I don't recall ever yelling at you before tonight. I may yell at some of your guests for lying, obfuscating, or avoiding answering a question. But let me quote myself while I watched the Klein interview, "SHUT UP CHARLIE, SHUT UP CHARLIE, GOD DAMN, SHUT UP CHARLIE AND LET HER TALK. EVERY TIME SHE IS GETTING TO THE POINT, YOU CUT HER OFF. SHUT UP & LET HER TALK" You kept causing her to have to start again. Charlie, please watch the interview. I think you will see what upset me. You caused the show to stop progressing by butting in and not letting her say what she was trying to say. It looked to me as though you were asking the same question again and again. You seemed to have had too much coffee and had no patience to just listen. Contrast the Klein interview with the Bill Buckly interview. While watching the Bill Buckly interview, I found myself thinking about how you are patiently letting him talk in a way that is seldom done these days. Could it be that after your being extraordinarily patient with Buckly you had some pent up frustration that came out in the next interview? Your interupting Klein is related to, but not the same as something else that you do. You very often finish peoples sentences for them. It is sometimes helpful. You may help to sum up a point they are trying to make. Sometimes I'm glad that you helped a guest express something, or keep them from rambling, so can cover more ideas in a limited show time. But most of the time it is rude. Let the guest speak. It especially annoys me when you finishing peoples sentences the wrong way and they have to correct you. If you had waited a few seconds they could have finished their own sentence. Sometimes it back-fires and slows the progress of the conversation. And sometimes you cross the line and go from interviewer to co-guest. It is rude, Charlie, It is rude. You are such a good interviewer, but please be a little more patient with some people and stop putting words in their mouths. I keep waiting for the day that a guest says to you, "Let me finish my own sentences. I really am capable of that. Why am I here if you keep answering the questions for me?" This is not the same as what I screamed at you for tonight. Tonight with Klein, you just would not let her talk. It was obvious to me that she was trying to express something that did not lend it's self to a summary answer. You should have shut up and listened. I like your show. Keep up the good work, and don't make me say "¿ Por que not te quieta?" Hugo.
Your interview with Neomi Klein had me screeming at my television (you). I like your show and seldom miss it. I don't recall ever yelling at you before tonight. I may yell at some of your guests for lying, obfuscating, or avoiding answering a question. But let me quote myself while I watched the Klein interview, "SHUT UP CHARLIE, SHUT UP CHARLIE, GOD DAMN, SHUT UP CHARLIE AND LET HER TALK. EVERY TIME SHE IS GETTING TO THE POINT, YOU CUT HER OFF. SHUT UP & LET HER TALK" You kept causing her to have to start again. Charlie, please watch the interview. I think you will see what upset me. You caused the show to stop progressing by butting in and not letting her say what she was trying to say. It looked to me as though you were asking the same question again and again. You seemed to have had too much coffee and had no patience to just listen. Contrast the Klein interview with the Bill Buckly interview. While watching the Bill Buckly interview, I found myself thinking about how you are patiently letting him talk in a way that is seldom done these days. Could it be that after your being extraordinarily patient with Buckly you had some pent up frustration that came out in the next interview? Your interupting Klein is related to, but not the same as something else that you do. You very often finish peoples sentences for them. It is sometimes helpful. You may help to sum up a point they are trying to make. Sometimes I'm glad that you helped a guest express something, or keep them from rambling, so can cover more ideas in a limited show time. But most of the time it is rude. Let the guest speak. It especially annoys me when you finishing peoples sentences the wrong way and they have to correct you. If you had waited a few seconds they could have finished their own sentence. Sometimes it back-fires and slows the progress of the conversation. And sometimes you cross the line and go from interviewer to co-guest. It is rude, Charlie, It is rude. You are such a good interviewer, but please be a little more patient with some people and stop putting words in their mouths. I keep waiting for the day that a guest says to you, "Let me finish my own sentences. I really am capable of that. Why am I here if you keep answering the questions for me?" This is not the same as what I screamed at you for tonight. Tonight with Klein, you just would not let her talk. It was obvious to me that she was trying to express something that did not lend it's self to a summary answer. You should have shut up and listened. I like your show. Keep up the good work, and don't make me say "¿ Por que not te quieta?" Hugo.
For the record: I have never had a desire or ambition to teach at the University of Chicago. Denigrating community colleges does not advance an argument. I have won awards from my students for encouraging freedom of speech in my classroom. And I do not espouse big government over big business or vice versa. My point is simply that a democratic government has certain responsibilities towards protecting and preserving the common good. Governments can fail to live up to their responsibilities as well as big corporations. However governments are responsible to their citizens while business enterprises are not. The issue to be discussed is whether and to what extent certain functions in a modern state ought to be the responsibility of the government or left to the genius of private enterprise. When governments fail to meet their responsibilities, does that necessarily mean they can best be done by private enterprise? Or does it mean that the government, big or small, must be reformed? Was FDR wrong to institute at Bretton Woods controls on the financial institutions after unbridled capitalism brought about the Great Depression? (Pace Friedman's claim that that was not true.) The question of justice is how best to serve the common good. For example is privatized health insurance the best way to deliver the services of health providers to the citizens of the US? How have they been doing? Not so well in the opinion of most Americans. How the does the US rank in health care among other developed nations? Is some mixed form of delivering health care a better solution than simple privatization or a big government program? Are we debating these issues or making ad hominem arguments by calling our opponents names? Or worse silencing the opposition?
Amusing indeed. So Dr. Pisitelli finally achieved his PhD but could not manage to do better than obtain a position at a community college and is full of bitterness because of the ascent of Hayek and Friedman instead the Pisitelli philosophy of conserving the old Keynes' approach now badly discredited by reality. One wonders how free his students are to speak out against his bias without incurring the wrath of Pisitelli in the form of poor grades. Small wonder people prefer to freedom to chose versus the tyranny of Pisitelliâ??s support of the tyranny of government. No doubt he would be as abusive in any government position as he surely is in his academic role in terms of his nonbelief of the first amendment as it pertains to his studentâ??s freedom of speech.
CONCERNING MULTINATIONAL CORPORATISM AND THE CRITICS OF FRIEDMAN'S ECONOMIC THOUGHT; FRIEDMAN WAS AN ADAMANT ANTI-BIG CORPORATION AND PRO-COMPETITION. I ALWAYS FIND IT MYSTERIOUS WHY THOSE THAT RELATE THE ILLS OF MONOLITIHIC OVERLY POWERFUL CORPORATE ENTITIES DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS SAME CRITICISM TO MONOLITHIC OVERLY POWERFUL GOVERNMENT. IF WAL-MART OR ENRON ARE TOO POWERFUL OR CORRUPT, COULD THE DEPT. OF ED. SUFFER FROM SIMILAR ILLS? INDEED, IF I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND FRIEDMAN CORRECTLY, HE RELATED THE ABILITY OF CORPORATIONS TO GROW TOO LARGE FOR PUBLIC GOOD AND RUN AMOCK DUE TO THE RELATED GROWTH OF BIG GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OFFERED. KLIEN AND OTHERS RIGHTLY OBSERVE TEARS IN THE FABRIC OF A JUST AND FREE SOCIETY, BUT FAIL TO TRULY UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION FRIEDMAN MAKES REGARDING BIG GOVERNMENT SANCTIONING BIG BUSINESS. THOUGH HER BOOK IS A GOOD BOOK TO READ I ALSO HIGHLY RECCOMMEND FREE TO CHOOSE BY FRIEDMAN.
In the preceding interview Bill Buckley Jr. spoke like a man with constipation of thought and, dare I say, "diarrhea of words," but this time there was no overcoming the constipation. Bill was not able to contribute one fully formed idea in the interview and Charlie let him off the hook. Pathetic. Buckley had nothing to say compared to Naomi Klein's brilliant critique of multinational corporate greed and the ideology of the Chicago school's charlatan leading economist Milton Friedman. Friedman's program for dismantling the authentic functions of the modern nation state in favor of "privatization"of everything possible in the name of "freedom" amounts to a destruction of the classical justification for the state's existence to protect and preserve the common good. How would the Chicago school's ideology comport with the Preamble to the US Constitution? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It does not say the justice the rich can afford. It does not say domestic tranquility will automatically follow once the rich live in gated communities or "Green Zones." It does not say that the common defence is the responsibility of "Blackwater Privateers." It does not say the general welfare means welfare for those who can afford good tax lawyers. It does not say that the blessings of liberty mean the freedom to make as much money as possible. It does not equate freedom and liberty with oligarchic rule. What kind of a crisis will it take to wake up the Americam people? The Friedman ideology requires the disappearance of the middle class. The powers that be are working on it and it is in progress. Klein was not arguing for a "welfare state," God forbid. She was not taking a "bleeding hearts" liberal position. She was criticiszing the dismantling of the modern nation state by Friedoman's boys. The issue is whether the common good of a democratic state can be protected, preserved, and promoted by privitizing as many functions of the modern state as possible. That is the issue to be debated. Unfortunately it was not debated in this interview. Unfortunately Charlie missed the point of Klein's critique. Moreover he was not his usual gracious self interrupting her when she was trying to make a good point probably because he intuitively recognized that Klein's arguments challenged his obsequious behaviour in the presence of the rich and the powerful. Still I am glad he gave her even a short interrupted time to make her case even though he proved did not understand it.
The problem with the anti-globalists is that they not only come at problems with a soft heart (which, of course, is admirable) but with a soft head (which is less so). The collectivistsâ?? primary objective is the redistribution of wealth with the great weaknesses of a poor record of producing the wealth to redistribute. Capitalism for all of its many faults produces much more wealth and much more freedman whereas the opposite is true of the collectivism in terms of freedom as well as wealth. Given the style of clothing Klein wares she obviously does not suffer from the great poverty she abhors, perhaps a carry over of her mall rat teen days in Canada. On the other hand the hundreds of millions of Asians who worked their way out of the chains of poverty would still be living on two dollars a day if the governments of India and China had not moved from a socialist model to a market one. Now that the intellectual war between John Maynard Keynes and Friedrick A Hayek has been clearly one by the later, liberals have transformed themselves into true conservatives by trying to support and maintain a failed economic system. However, it is a rear guard action doomed to failure due to its pathetic record. To be sure they have retreated to a â??mixed economic modelâ?? knowing that the socialist one is completely untenable but these mixed economic proponents, conservatives (liberals), are forced to support the major obstacles that the socialist model embraces.
The problem with the anti-globalists is that they not only come at problems with a soft heart (which, of course, is admirable) but with a soft head (which is less so). The collectivistsâ?? primary objective is the redistribution of wealth with the great weaknesses of a poor record of producing the wealth to redistribute. Capitalism for all of its many faults produces much more wealth and much more freedman whereas the opposite is true of the collectivism in terms of freedom as well as wealth. Given the style of clothing Klein wares she obviously does not suffer from the great poverty she abhors, perhaps a carry over of her mall rat teen days in Canada. On the other hand the hundreds of millions of Asians who worked their way out of the chains of poverty would still be living on two dollars a day if the governments of India and China had not moved from a socialist model to a market one. Now that the intellectual war between John Maynard Keynes and Friedrick A Hayek has been clearly one by the later, liberals have transformed themselves into true conservatives by trying to support and maintain a failed economic system. However, it is a rear guard action doomed to failure due to its pathetic record. To be sure they have retreated to a â??mixed economic modelâ?? knowing that the socialist one is completely untenable but these mixed economic proponents, conservatives (liberals), are forced to support the major obstacles that the socialist model embraces.
I'm a big fan of Charlie's show, and this useful website. But he is very much part of the elite establishment. The unquestioned worship of fame, money and power is something people like Naomi Klein are addressing. Good for her. We need more like her.
sorry for the multiple posts, my computer froze, and I had to restart. Did you ever ask Bill Gates about his bugs?
Power is the most fascinating subject isn't it Charlie? Corporate power, Political power, the power of wealth -- it's all the same to you, and power in any form must be given its due deference. That's the mission of your show: the envious and obsequious presentation of power in all its guises. In a phrase, it's: what's it worth, and who and how did they get it? It's a culture war, right Charlie? And in war prisoners must be interrogated; the opposition neutralized. At this point in history Klein's thesis has nothing but intellectual and moral value. PTUI! right? ...worth nothing. Obviously an annoying buzz around the great golden pile of the Real America. You are the annointed fly catcher: cut her off; swat her away; and if that doesn't stop the persistent noise, flirt a little to put her on a defense familiar to all women in the corporate world. Ms. Klein's is only the most recent, albeit one of the most finely argued, of a rising tide of truth-tellers to Power. Like all of the current corporate media you are justifiably threatened. That you had her on at all is credit to at least your savvy in hedging your bets, but we all know where the big money is, don't we?
Power is the most fascinating subject isn't it Charlie? Corporate power, Political power, the power of wealth -- it's all the same to you, and power in any form must be given its due deference. That's the mission of your show: the envious and obsequious presentation of power in all its guises. In a phrase, it's: what's it worth, and who and how did they get it? It's a culture war, right Charlie? And in war prisoners must be interrogated; the opposition neutralized. At this point in history Klein's thesis has nothing but intellectual and moral value. PTUI! right? ...worth nothing. Obviously an annoying buzz around the great golden pile of the Real America. You are the annointed fly catcher: cut her off; swat her away; and if that doesn't stop the persistent noise, flirt a little to put her on a defense familiar to all women in the corporate world. Ms. Klein's is only the most recent, albeit one of the most finely argued, of a rising tide of truth-tellers to Power. Like all of the current corporate media you are justifiably threatened. That you had her on at all is credit to at least your savvy in hedging your bets, but we all know where the big money is, don't we?
Power is the most fascinating subject isn't it Charlie? Corporate power, Political power, the power of wealth -- it's all the same to you, and power in any form must be given its due deference. That's the mission of your show: the envious and obsequious presentation of power in all its guises. In a phrase, it's: what's it worth, and who and how did they get it? It's a culture war, right Charlie? And in war prisoners must be interrogated; the opposition neutralized. At this point in history Klein's thesis has nothing but intellectual and moral value. PTUI! right? ...worth nothing. Obviously an annoying buzz around the great golden pile of the Real America. You are the annointed fly catcher: cut her off; swat her away; and if that doesn't stop the persistent noise, flirt a little to put her on a defense familiar to all women in the corporate world. Ms. Klein's is only the most recent, albeit one of the most finely argued, of a rising tide of truth-tellers to Power. Like all of the current corporate media you are justifiably threatened. That you had her on at all is credit to at least your savvy in hedging your bets, but we all know where the big money is, don't we?
Power is the most fascinating subject isn't it Charlie? Corporate power, Political power, the power of wealth -- it's all the same to you, and power in any form must be given its due deference. That's the mission of your show: the envious and obsequious presentation of power in all its guises. In a phrase, it's: what's it worth, and who and how did they get it? It's a culture war, right Charlie? And in war prisoners must be interrogated; the opposition neutralized. At this point in history Klein's thesis has nothing but intellectual and moral value. PTUI! right? ...worth nothing. Obviously an annoying buzz around the great golden pile of the Real America. You are the annointed fly catcher: cut her off; swat her away; and if that doesn't stop the persistent noise, flirt a little to put her on a defense familiar to all women in the corporate world. Ms. Klein's is only the most recent, albeit one of the most finely argued, of a rising tide of truth-tellers to Power. Like all of the current corporate media you are justifiably threatened. That you had her on at all is credit to at least your savvy in hedging your bets, but we all know where the big money is, don't we?
A very thought provoking interview (the YouTube version). As an American married to a European women and then living with here and my children in Libya, Nigeria, UK, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia and Germany, I was impressed with Naomi Klein's arguments. The student protests at the WTO meeting in Seattle, Washington alerted my wife and myself to investigate why the students were protesting. We both come from backgrounds that would be considered poverty (we did not know it at the time, because we were happy and healthy). This background and the enormous amount of severe poverty we witnessed in some of the places we have lived had led us to be increasingly uneasy with the continual bombardment of "captialism is best for all." We have seen through the 'fear' propaganda as a way for the elite and the rich to grow richer. From my individual persepective as second oldest of a very large family, I never saw the globalization other than an attempt for the Military-Industrial complex to have absolute control over the rights of as many people as possible and the final goal to be all of the people of the world outside of the eletist group. Industry wanted to take back all of the hard won rights of working people and they wanted to instill fear by paying wages that required three wage earners to keep an household solvent. The elite and powerful will probably corner enough might and resources to continue to live very well for two or more generations unless their greed leads to a wave of disruption as supply fails to meet the demand for resources and basic needs. Then we will see wars and chaotic societies as the population of the world declines and we fight for a share of the basic necessities for life.
Went 140 miles to see Ms Klein her articulation of the economic realities we face is spot on and the powers that be (CR) defend the antidemocratic actions of the elite for the same reasons as usual MIGHT MAKES RIGHT . The reasons all things political never include the lower class as told in the season's It's A Wonderful Life "cause they do all the dying round here" Read the book (Pottervilles are what they want) I did its the truth about the well heeled and they don't want you to know. thanks Naomi and Jon Cusack Eric
Is this REALLY the best the anti-globalization paranoids can come up with? Small wonder Rose felt the need to jump in to stop tNaomi Kleinâ??s crazed rantings. Poetic justice will render itâ??s verdict when these paranoids reach the end of their road to find they have wasted their lives on the alter of paranoids delusions. Their hatred for Friedman's ideas is based on their inability to confront a sane and deep understanding of how economies work so they go off on the deep end without any sound research. The 500 million in Asia who have been freed from the shackles of poverty have a bit different perspective than the Kleinâ??s of this world who could afford to start out life as mall rats pursuing the latest fad brands.
Is this REALLY the best the anti-globalization paranoids can come up with? Small wonder Rose felt the need to jump in to stop tNaomi Kleinâ??s crazed rantings. Poetic justice will render itâ??s verdict when these paranoids reach the end of their road to find they have wasted their lives on the alter of paranoids delusions. Their hatred for Friedman's ideas is based on their inability to confront a sane and deep understanding of how economies work so they go off on the deep end without any sound research. The 500 million in Asia who have been freed from the shackles of poverty have a bit different perspective than the Kleinâ??s of this world who could afford to start out life as mall rats pursuing the latest fad brands.
Thank you for allowing a wide audience to learn of Ms. Kelin's new book and her views of the "Shock Doctrine" -- which makes a lot of sense to me and is a point of view that needs to be explored.
I've enjoyed your interviews over the years Charlie, right up to the point of your blathering attack on Naomi Klein. Your uncharacteristic, and I have to say, mundane, interruption of you guest came across as simply self-involved. I watch your show for its variety, insight, and your sometimes-witty, sometimes-intelligent contributions. But if this is the new Charlie, you may want to tune in to Fox news channel for some better techniques on hack jobs. I would be back in the fold if you were to apologize to Naomi and follow through with a second interview.
Well, this really made me angry... Shut up Charlie! Where was the soulful conversation? You did the same circus act with Clinton we can see what you're doing you know... Go get a job on Fox and leave us alone! Someone else can fill this hour I hope you know that.
Guest choice is why I tune in and Naomi Klein was a new name for me. I'm back today to double check her name and book title(s) so that I can find a copy at Borders or Barnes and Nobel and wander the store looking for one of those leather chairs to rest my weary bones and peruse the book. CR's guest choice trumps the dramaturgy of the interview.
i think the more useful way of interviewing two people like buckley and klein would be to really let them state their points clearly and at length. we are intelligent enough to consider what they say. we don't need the interviewer butting in every couple seconds. we could even buy the book and consider the 50 pages of endnotes. imagine that. ask pointed questions if need be...and then stand back and let them fully expose where they are coming from. that should not make the interviewer come off as any more or less biased. by asking questions and then interrupting the answer when it is just barely begun it destroys the point of the interview. we recognize that mr rose knows a little something about a lot of things...that is great. but he does not have to display this knowledge by steamrolling over ms. klein's answers with useful "questions" like "but everyone's not evil, right???" her point (if you check out the interview i linked below) is not "walmart is evil! down with walmart!"....but that seemed to be what charlie thought she was trying to say. her point is much larger and subtler than that. if you are going to bother to interview bold questioners of the ruling class....at least have to courage to let them get their point across....then people can even know whether they think the person being interviewed has facts and logic behind their slogans. otherwise it just becomes a thomas friedmann-esque slogan fest....which is useless and annoying.
Intriguing thread. Call me an apologist, but I want to believe Charlie has his reasons. Setting aside the topic of Charlie's counterpoint, which I value, myself, let's look at the time alloted Klien. I've always assumed he and the shows other producers are fairly selective in deciding to grant interviews "... for the hour!" What if Charlie now and then granted entire hours to authors such as Klein? She's not quite a household name, and happens to be a contributor to a venerable yet highly partisan publication. She's heralding a work with powerful anti-establishment themes, however well-supported and rivetingly salient it may be to some (including me). Enough such interviews would eventually cause Charlie to be perceived as "favoring" such points-of-view. I know the idea of 'balance' is a bad word in the post-John-Stewart era, but Rose provides a specific kind of balance that we genuinely need in order to understand each other. Individuals get a terrific platform in which to have their say, but from interview to interview, different individuals are brought to bear. Not exactly Crossfire... Personally, I consider the historical record of moments such as Pearle and Frum's interview with Charlie in which I believe it was Pearl who said of terrorists (paraphrased): "these people live in a world of violence, and unless we get down to their level, we're never going to beat them" to be wholly worth Charlie's approach to maintaining the type of balance he pursues.
Picked up a feed of Charlie Rose interrupting, er interviewing, Naomi Klein. Typical of Mr. Rose to muzzle those he doesn't agree with. Why bother having her on the show other than to try to discredit her ideas by not allowing her time to complete her sentences. If Naomi Klein seems to be talking too quickly for some, perhaps it is because she doesn't write (or talk) in fifteen second sound bites and Mr. Rose wouldn't give her enough time to answer his questions. Maybe Mr. Rose should get a show on FOX where agenda-driven "news" is the norm.
wow....thanks to DEMETRIUS for posting that youtube link to that interview with klein!! THAT was a real interview with naomi klein. she was able to fully explain what she was talking about. she has lots of information to share when she is not being constantly interrupted. it is not just slogans....this woman actually knows something about the world. she is a brilliant and serious mind. here is that interview link again (copy and paste): http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKr_soG4DUA
I will be watching for the video, missed the first portion of the show. Will definitely pick up Klein's book, but the interview was info packed and compelling, Naomi is brilliant and you are a true artist, thank you Charilie, as always.
I have not seen this interview as I live in an uncivilized part of the country and it's not on until Monday. I am looking forward to it because Shock Doctrine is the most brilliant book I have read in a very long time. I rarely watch Rose because he is so bad it distracts and irritates. But did you see him with Krugman the other day? Talk about rude, hostile, stupid interruptions. My favorite was a few years ago when Rose kept interrupting Laurie Anderson to tell her how creative he is. I guess PBS' corporate sponsors like him, though.
I, for one, did not mind Charlie's interruptions. Mr. Buckley always needed someone to finish his sentences; he's a better writer than speaker. Buckley's shows were the torture of waiting for him to articulate - always with a pencil, but this time only a tablet, no clipboard. What a wonderful contrast between Buckley and Klein. Buckley undoubtedly was inculcated at an early age in catechism class - in christian manichaeanism. To Buckley, every geometric shape must have only two sides. Thus, we are christians against muslims - a concept that he could not fully develop. His use of the term "health" for "health care", as in "health is not free", is some new manipulation of the language, perhaps from Frank Luntz, to be compared with "death tax", "islamofascism" and other purposefull corruptions. Naomi Klein was able to use every block that Charlie threw in the manner of "jui-jit-su" to get back to her story. Excellent! Ron Johnson
This was a sickeningly bad and biased interview. What a disgrace to Charlie's own usually good show. Here's a real interview with Naomi Klein - the best I've seen anywhere: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKr_soG4DUA Watch this everyone - it'll soothe your nerves after all Charlie's interruptions!
Fantastic show Charlie. Great guests! As for those who constantly whine about 'interruptions' you must be new to Charlie. His is not a show that acts as a pulpit from which one espouses views. The show is a window into a conversation (different from an 'interview'), you know where two people talk and if Charlie wants to drive it somewhere, it is his show. If you want speeches go watch O'REILLY or OBERMANN. Ugh. Thank you for the gift that is your show, Charlie.
Charlie, you keep ruining every one of your shows with your interruptions. They are absolutely damaging to the quality of your shows. SHUT THE HELL UP! Wait for your guests to finish their statements. What the hell has happened to you? Did they remove your brain in France instead of fixing your heart? Or maybe the meds you are taking are making too aggressive? Naomi Klein was wonderful, even though I was distracted by my shouting at you to be quiet.
OLD WASHED UP ROSE FINALLY MET HIS MATCH WITH NAOMI . AFTER THIS STOOGE OF THE CORPORATE ZIONISTS TRIED MANY TIMES TO INTERUPT HER FLOW OF THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS, TO HIS CONFUSING QUES. SHE STILL DEFEATED HIM WITH FLYING COLORS GOD BLESS HER. MANY WILL NOW BUY HER BRILLANT BOOKS. NAOMI DELIVERS A GREAT NEWS PROGRAM EVERY WEEKDAY DAY ON WBAI- FM- AT 9AM DEMOCRACY NOW. WE AGAIN REQUEST PBS TO REMOVE ROSE FROM THIS PROG. HE IS A DISGRACE TO EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT SHARE HIS NASTY CORP. CONTROLLED VIEWS. WE URGE NAOMI AND THE PUBLIC TO EXPOSE THE TRAITORS OF 911. REF. TO LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDIT AND TERRORSTORM BOTH FREE ON YOU TUBE. ALSO GOOGLE - ZIONIST CRIMES - TO REALLY KNOW WHO EXEC. AND THEN COVERED UP THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY 911.
I agree with various others about the interruptions, though I think many of the commenters hyperbolized it just a bit. Nonetheless, I found it frustrating. One commenter suggests Ms. Klein speaks too fast... if she spoke slower, she'd more likely interrupted before her point is made. Public intellectuals and investigative reporters cannot convey their findings and ideas--nor should they try to do so--in mere soundbites. The interview should have been for the full hour.
charlie acted like a hormone ravaged teen-ager trying to impress his girl friend with his knowledge of he subject matter to the detriment of the conversation. naomi you deserved better.
Mr. Rose, I do not watch your show on a regular basis, but I just happened to catch this one with Ms. Klein. I can summarize why I don't usually watch your interviews: it seems that you think you know best what an audience thinks they want to hear from your guest. I find it frustrating to listen to an interesting and passionate guest such as Ms. Klein only to witness her being brought up short by your interruptions and interjections. I hope in future you will stop such badgering. You may think it your role, but I, for one, find it tedious and much less interesting than what your guest has to say -- uninterrupted. For receiving such rude treatment, Ms. Klein showed regal composure.
Having a guest like Naomi Klein is such a gift for pbs viewers. It is only marred by Charlie's rude interuptions, cutting off mid-sentence a guest's thought in order to channel the conversation into something he would rather talk about. How about your audience Charlie? We know a bit about where you come from, but here we had a chance to really learn something new - and you apparently did not want that. Is it editorial control you're worried about losing? Let your guests speak, it should be they who control the message, not you. steve hamilton loveland,colorado