Thank you Arianna Huffington for providing the public service that corporate media have abandoned. The fourth estate -once the guardians of democracy - no longer serve to promote democracy; instead, the corporate media blunts public discourse with propaganda, misinformation, and manufactured stories . The most disheartening shaper of public opinion today that threatens democracy with a constant flow of propaganda is Fox News and radical right wing radio. Its emphasis on extreme nationalism, scapegoating, and blatantly false information exploits ignorance and bigotry to distract from the serious economic and social issues facing Americans.
Charlie, I notice you are exceptionally tough on liberal thinkers or critics of the existing corporate power structure and neoconservative thought, but I have to thank you for having people with a variety of views on the show.
Charlie:
I must say I enjoy your show but there are times that you need to let your guest fully answer your questions and without your interruptions. You can always rebuke after or question in greater detail if needed. Now what I want to see is a show, which explains why this country is in such bad shape - it needs to give real answers and not just politically correct ones! For example: why is there a housing crisis? Think about the fact that most homeowners bought their houses at a time when 4%-6% was the going rate to get into a home. ALL WAS WELL!!EVERYONE WAS MAKING MONEY!!! It wasnâ??t until the variable rate kicked in that things went WHACKY! Mortgage people - along with the government allowed this to happen-why? Even when homeowners tried to refinance they had to come to the table with more money (for extra closing costs). The amount of money was so great that they were locked or chained to this sinking ship! If you want to bring things back to normal the mortgage people should be forced to give homeowners who are in foreclosure a fix rate of the initial 4%-6%. EVERYONE GOES BACK TO MAKING MONEY!! YOU NEED TO HAVE A FORUM FOR EVERYDAY PEOPLE TO INTERACT WITH THESE SO CALLED EXPERTS. We donâ??t need to be Einstein to see the nonsense of this 3 card Monte.
Comment by Soso Sayso on Wednesday, May 7 at 06:53 PM
Charlie - My husband and I were appalled, outraged and frankly disappointed in your behavior during the Huffington interview. Have you seen your interview? Clearly you must share our disgust at your unforgiveably disgusting behavior. Shame on you!!!
Please add my voice to those crying out," Who is this man, and what has he done with Charlie Rose?" His interview with Arriana Huffington was his worst performance ever. During the 3 1/2 minute Bear-Stearns exchange he interrupted her 15 times, spoke longer than she did, and completely missed the point. Is he ill?
Please add my voice to those crying out," Who is this man, and what has he done with Charlie Rose?" His interview with Arriana Huffington was his worst performance ever. During the 3 1/2 minute Bear-Stearns exchange he interrupted her 15 times, spoke longer than she did, and completely missed the point. Is he ill?
Comment by who wrote this? on Monday, May 5 at 09:13 PM
"The reason the conventional wisdom survives no matter how many times its lies are exposed is that shows like Meet The Press allow their guests to go unchallenged." Maybe Charlie read Arianna's book and decided to challenge her?
This chick is a political opportunist of the highest order. Have all of you Huffington-ites forgotten that she was a "compassionate conservative" in the 1990s...until that ex of her proved to be a flaccid politician, and she decided that the left was the place to be and trimmed her sails accordingly? If Charlie kept cutting her off, then it was because he wanted her NOT to spout too much of her useless drivel. Charlie, please please please interview Andrew Sullivan in the same manner if you have him on your show again--you have given that hysteric little shrew (and La Huffington) way too much deferrence in the past....time to interview them like adults now. Well done!!
This woman is the smartest woman, she is so smart that she recognizes Sen. Barack Obama is the answer America has. She is also honest with respect to answering all them questions. Like many people I have a small complaints to make on the way Mr.Rose rebuttal on the Bear-Stearns issue. He sure looked unhappy when she made that contentious remark as to why the rich get bailout for making wrong decision of selling loans knowingly to people who are unqualified to handle the mortgages they were showered with. This administration is so quick in making mistakes and have them shouldered by others. She also hit the nail on the head when she said the KATRINA failure was a reflection of how incompetent the RIGHT is. I think her book title says it all, making America and the world less stable and leaning toward more danger. The RIGHT-WINGERS made America weaker by pre-empting a war that is not well thought out and handled terribly. Today, American economy is weak, our standing in the world has diminished and the world is less-stable adding the sub-prime market to it is the perfect condition for ungraceful decline in treasure and power. The RIGHTS made many of our competitors' and enemies' dream come true. At the expense of American blood and treasure Iran is feeling safer and stronger, had Saddam was in power he would not let them have nuclear weapon. Russia is flexing her military muscle lubricated by high oil price revenue threatening Europe with touting gas faucet, and China is rising faster than even the Chinese Communist party wants to. All this was made possible because of the poor judgments of the RIGH-WINGERS, I am not sure how history will deal with them but I am getting sick to my stomach.
Charlie, you have a bad habit of staying with the predictable. Huffington's point was the Far Right ruthlessly implemented its destructive agenda for America during this Administration, and the press and the Democrats mystifyingly colluded in letting them do it. So why did you need to 1) interrupt her constantly to quibble (soccer in Iraq, for God sakes), and 2) insist, as if you were a member of the rest of the shallow, useless, vapid media, on talking about Jeremy Wright. He related point about Iran was WAY more novel and important than having to have you plow over the Wright scandal with Arianna to the detriment of that point. Try, please try, to think outside the box sometimes.
charlie wins the chris mathews test for ADHD, at least chris doesnt cut his guests off so rudely...its a wonder that people still watch when all we want to do is go to the computer and unleash our venom.
charlie, learn from bill moyers...he is a pleasure and a lesson one wants to learn...you should ,too.
and please, can we have howard Zinn on the show, but careful, he is gentle, and we do not want to see him squashed....get that, charlie.
Comment by Francine Bettencourt on Sunday, May 4 at 02:17 PM
Charlie, I used to love your show. It was one of the only examples of intelligent conversation on TV to date. Therefore, imagine my disappointment with your interview of Arianna Huffington. I have to say Arianna was very patient with you and illustrated a great deal of grace in the face of a hostile environment.
You never stopped talking and continually interrupted her never letting her answer a question fully. Upon reflection of this interview you appeared arrogant, sexist, egotistical and obnoxious. If you find interviewing an intelligent and vocal woman intimidating you should stop pretending to interview them.
Charlie, you donâ??t need to be so aggressive to demonstrate to your audience that you did your research and know the topic under discussion. How about letting your guests have their say?
Wow, charlie! My folks use to say, "With friends like that, you don't need enemies" After reading what Arrianna Huffington's fans had to say about you, it sounds to me that with a guest like her you're not in need any help finding criticism. By the way, l love your show. I work hard and don't have time to blog and meet the personalities and the ideas of the people you invite to your table other wise. And I can always count on you to conduct the conversations at your table the way I conduct the dinner conversation at my dinner table. With respect for the individual and humanity at large.
For the opponents of Arianna Huffington that say her points are so weak they warranted the attack dog interview C Rose displayed, I counter that your wrong -- she didn't get to speak long enough for us to form an opinion on her commentary. Therefore, your comments display a prejudgement of AH's points.
For those like me who want something to happen with all this commentary, do like I did and also write your complaints to the PBS Ombudsman: ombudsman@pbs.org voicing your displeasure. As far as I'm concerned, PBS needs to weigh-in on behalf of their irate and outraged viewers.
Finally, I'd let CR come into my home for dinner and a discussion or interview -- but if he acted like he did with AH, he'd be out the door. I am certain that CR would not let a guest act the way he did, so what gives him the right? I bet his mother would be ashamed.
Charlie- If you believe there's a place in television for really good conversation, bite your tongue and remember that a gentleman, especially a Southern gentleman, after posing a guestion to a guest listens to his quest's response. Other than Bill Moyers you've got the most interesting and intelligent guests on the tube. Let them talk! Stop trying to reinforce your own image with your constant interruptions and get back to the purpose of the show. We know you're a "star" and we viewers know by your questions that you're intelligent or we wouldn't be watching every night. If you don't stop interrupting you're going to end up with sound bites and I for one am not staying up late for a repeat of the network news! Luv ya' Elizabeth
Rose's interruptions are not only unenlightening, but they are a bore. I sometimes wonder if he wouldn't be happier interviewing himself as he seems to think his wisdom, wit, and insight far outpace those lucky enough to be on his show. Huffington was extremely patient and good humored with this seemly uncontrollable compulsion on the part of Rose.
Comment by M. G. Carrillo on Saturday, May 3 at 09:53 PM
This is in reply to the comments by â??Ginerousâ?? and to all other that mentioned that Huffington was flirting: What is that with Arianna Huffingtonâ??s hair! Flirting? Men and women touch their hair all the time whether they are on TV or not. She was not flirting and you are missing the whole point. Furthermore, Huffingtonâ??s hair was moderately styled; her outfit was simple; and her demeanor was right down courteous and admirably professional on the face of the uncomfortable and surely unforeseen situation she found herself in with Charlie Roseâ??s barbarous interruptions. No guest should be treated in this manner whether he/she is being visiting his show for the first or the fiftieth time!
Moreover, in the face of Charlie Roseâ?? uncalled for attacks, Arianna Huffington had the fortitude to display that rich endowment of the mind called prudence, and Charlie Rose was so much his own enemy as to neglect it.
The German poet and novelist Christopher Martin Wieland (1733-1813) wrote, â??However learned or eloquent, man knows nothing truly that he has not learned from experience.â?? In other words, what Charlie Rose learned (or one would hope he did) from this interview experience, and as evidenced from the avalanche of comments submitted, was that he shot himself on the foot. If he intended injury, he did greater to himself. Charlie Rose did succeed, however, at showing his viewers that he could not hold a candle next to the resolute poise and professionalism that Arianna Huffington demonstrated.
And since this was a public offence, I stand by my belief that he, in turn, owes her a public apology.
I was slowly -- and am now very quickly -- becoming frustrated with Rose's fairly new interviewing style, a style that has become all very apparent during this interview. It's as if he needs to compete with Chris Matthews' Attention Deficit Disorder. Rose must occasionally go off of his meds. Ms. Huffington attempted constantly to make an important and necessary economic distinction and he constantly interrupted her -- and our listening -- because he disagreed with her, but interrupted her with the pretense that he was forcing her to make her distinction! That's idiotic. He hides his conservatism very badly lately. I don't care that he leans more toward a conservative perspective, but Huffington had a right to pursue her thought along the lines of her own choosing, not along the narrow path that he preferred. We have begun to witness these giggling "But, now, wait a minute!" moments all too often from him. His show is becoming boring. His guests remain being excellent as guests go but their host is now constantly in their way, especially when he disagrees with them. Has he the right to disagree? Yes, but not as an O'Reilly-Hannity-Matthews gambit. Rose was once above that. He has lost what once made him distinctive. He has lost his sophistication even as his collars no longer are crinkled!
Comment by Don & Helen Reid on Saturday, May 3 at 04:38 PM
We were very disappointed in the confrontational way you interviewed Arianna Huffington Wed. 4/30/08. Please allow your guests to answer questions completely before you confront them with yet more innuendos, accusations & denunciations. Fox News has successfully destroyed the journalistic integrity of (nearly all) TV news since it came online some ten years ago. We are hoping you (at PBS) will remain independent of their pernicious influence. --Helen & Don Reid. Amarillo TX.
Comment by john barger on Saturday, May 3 at 05:36 AM
I am amazed people find fault with Charlie's interview. Ariana Huffington needs to be challenged on her wacky, fatuous, self important ideas. Also her background (for which she gets a free pass--can you believe she is even invited on a show like this?). She is a shameless self promotor, something a closer look at her life would reveal. I mean, how many books has she written? How many times and why has she changed her views and why? Does anyone recall here political marriage to Michael Huffington, a conservative? Once she climbed over him, that was it. Oscar Wilde is quoted to have said, 'there is one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.' That is about all that can and should be said of the views and persona of Ariana Huffington
Reading through the comments here, I see a strong Majority View that Charlie Rose can scarcely be considered a fair or impartial interviewer, but rather an openly biased shill for big money and the status quo.
I happen to agree. Rudeness and a tendency to interrupt persons whose views he doesn´t care to understand are perhaps his most glaring bullying techniques.
Too bad Mr Rose is unlikely to respond to this uniform groundswell of complaint: despite offering this Comment Box for viewers´ reactions to his surly journalism, why do we assume that he (or anyone on his staff) will actually read and react to the thoughtful critical voices here represented?
Comment by Gingerous on Saturday, May 3 at 02:15 AM
So many comments mention "flirting" from Charlie, but I sense it more from Arianna. She touched or flipped her hair every 2 minutes! I don't know why he has her on the show when he doesn't take her seriously (and rightfully so, in my opinion). Frankly, she has no right to comment on the failings of the "media" when her own site is highly biased, and she gives only opinions as opposed to substantive answers.
Watching Charlie's interview with Ariana Huffington was nerve-breaking, to say the least. I am totally puzzled as to what happened here. There was some weird dynamic going on, that's for sure. We didn't get to hear what Ariana had to say thanks to Charlie's frequent interruptions. Of course, very disrespectful to the guest and the audience. He displayed a style which better suits Fox News rather than PBS. The only good thing that seems to have come out of it can be this strong audience response. It should be taken as a good sign that so many viewers are passionate enough to actually get into the trouble of leaving a comment here. The only way to make up for this journalistic embarrassment is to invite Ariana back to the show and actually interview her this time. p.s. Having seen it mentioned in some of the comments here, I have just watched the interview with Amy Goodman. It was painful to see Charlie defending the corporate media so dutifully and blindly. I would love to see Amy back on the show again to pick up the conversation from where it was left off and put the previous discussion in perspective after 4 years.
Comment by Robert Philbin on Friday, May 2 at 09:27 PM
Charlie is at his worst in this session for two reasons. He refuses to listen to his guest; and he pretends to understand an issue beyond his reach.
If the taxpayers are going to underwrite JPM's purchase of BS by guaranteeing the "bad business", the taxpayers should then own a share in the new entity. If WE bail the losers out, then WE OWN OUR SHARE of the new firm. Nationalization is a meaningful way out of our current national disaster. Let's look at the Oil Industry NOW, not when they need to be bailed out. . . Charlie gets none of this.
Thank you,
Bob Philbin
I was Apalled at you poor treatment of Arianna Huffington. Shame to you. Are you a professional reporter or just another Dullisional Right Wing Nut? A formal appology from you to Arianna Huffington and to your audieience in in order.
Please take Charley to a doctor and send him to where others also think they are Napoleon!--That "interview" with Arianna Huffington was sick. He and the network owe Arianna and the
public an official apology. He was rude, smug,
mean and incoherant. Everyone I know who watched it was screaming, Shut up, Carlie!Such a shame You have lost our trust.I have watched you for years--some people cannot take success. Say goodbye, Charley, it's over.
medical leave for 20 years. Goodbye arrogant one!
I generally find interesting Charlie Rose's interviews, but I too was taken aback by his interview with AH. As many have said, his constant interruptions prevented AH from fully answering his questions, and created a very disjointed and increasingly frustrating interview. But what really hit me was how Charlie seemed to not understand her points even when it was obvious what she was trying to say. He's certainly not stupid so I kept wondering - what's going on here? Why is he pretending not to 'get' what she's saying. If he doesn't agree with her point - fine - but why throw out 'straw man' arguments and tangential examples? I expect more thoughtful and relevant comments from him. I don't think the main problem is that C. Rose's sexist - I don't know if he is or isn'. But I do think he's too vested in defending 'his world' - be it the media, corporate capitalism, status quo - that his 'interview' suffers when the guest presents viewpoints and FACTS that take on his world.
I will continue to watch as Rose's interviews are still better than most of the screamfests and bumper-sticker 'analysis' on TV. But I too - after watching many of his political and economic interviews - am more aware of his biases and how they shape his questions and tone during the interview. I think his 'cultural' and scientific interviews are a better bet. Thanks.
Comment by M.G. Carrillo on Friday, May 2 at 04:42 PM
Whether Charlie Rose agreed with Arianna Huffington's comments/opinions or not, she was a guest at his show and, as such, was unquestionably entitled to be treated with the appropriate respect. I am apalled at the rude treatment she received from him -- it was almost like being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly! Interrupting Huffington every time she tried to explain something is plain wrong and inexcusable. Why didn't he interrup Sophia Loren's silly tears when she started crying over nothing? It is there where he had a reason to stop the interview, but he patiently and politely continued it. I also ask why Rose didn't display the same rudeness when he interview Nancy Pelosi? Because she is a top politician. Huffington is not stupid -- if she were, she would not be a frequent guest at CNN. I applaud Huffington for staying calm, cool and collected despite his constant rudeness. If I were Huffington I would NEVER accept an invitation to be interviewed by Rose again. CHARLIE ROSE OWES ARIANNA HUFFINGTON A PUBLIC APOLOGY. In closing, I noticed that this interview is not placed online for other to watch. I CHALLENGE YOU, CHARLIE ROSE, TO PUT THIS INTERVIEW ON YOUR HOME PAGE INTERNET FOR EVERYONE TO VIEW!
Excuse me Lynne, But Charlie Rose happens to be a member of the Huffington Post. I also think its healthy for people to debate and disagree on certain things. That is what makes a good conversation. Even though I do agree that Charlie Rose should not interupt his guests.
Shame on you, Charlie. How utterly arrogant and rude you were with Arianna Huffington. You constantly interrupted, criticized and showed her much disrespect. (Much the same occurred when you interviewed Paul Krugman.
Your reputation for a fair and articulate interviewer was to say the least, hugely diminished.
Why don't you have an interview with yourself, about yourself and all you think you know and get it over with?
Comment by this ain't huffpo on Friday, May 2 at 04:04 PM
Arianna Huffpo has been on the show 13 TIMES. HELLLLLOOOOOOO? So which is she - self hating victim or cynical opportunist? here she is promoting Mr post partisan Obama at the same time pushing a book attacking the right wing. Can you spell BULLCHIPs?
I watched the interview and I was disappointed. I cannot recall Rose ever interrupting a guest so much. It would be interesting to measure how long Rose spoke compared to his guest -- at times it seemed that the segment was about Rose's views.
By accident, I heard Huffington talk about her new book on a radio show, and she was very clear in explaining the points she makes in her book (regardless of whether one agrees with them or not).
Rose's interview was very confusing, and distracting, and this is coming from a long-time viewer of the show.
There was obviously an issue that Rose took exception to, but it was not clear what that was to justify this much derision towards a guest. In addition, Rose should do some soul-searching to figure out if there is some deep-seated fear and gender-bias he is not aware of.
Finally, I wish Rose was this much obnoxious, or defiant to some of our elected officials.
This was a really bad performance from the host. I am very disappointed.
Comment by Monieca Seddon on Friday, May 2 at 01:51 PM
I was shocked and horrified with Charlie Rose's interview with Arianna Huffington yesterday. He was extremely rude to her, took up most of the interview, firing questions at her and hot giving her a chance to respond. I admired her cooldignity under fire and she came out looking alot better than Charlie. I have watched the show for a long time and admired his skills as an interviewer but now I see a very unprofessional side of this man. In fact, I have seen his professionalism deteriorate over time. I believe Charlie was threatened by a strong woman with views different from his own. He came off looking sexist, arrogant, demeaning and rude beyond belief. Moreover, it is not the place for an interviewer to air his own views to the exclusion of his guests. Guiding a guest is one thing but interrupting and talking over them constantly is just bad manners and bad interviewing skills and as a viewer it put a knot in my stomach. What is going on with Charlie? Has his health deteriorated to the point that he can't control his emotions to do his job properly? If so, he should be dealing with his issues in therapy and not let them spill out in his interviews. If he wants the stage he should not be doing interviews with people but have his own show of personal commentary instead. Also, as a woman, I must say I'm deeply offended and upset by his antics and I would like to see him apologize for his behaviour on his own show. PBS is usually known for good taste and professionalism.
I'm really puzzled but the claims that Charlie was overstepping his duties as an interviewer and trying stifle Arianna's points with his own. The real problem is that, while Ms. Huffington raises some important points that ought to be brought to the table, she hasn't much to say about tackling those points. She is a propaganda queen, interested only in continuing this bi-partisian mudslinging, not with actually digging deep and trying to solve these problems. Charlie did what any good interviewer should. When she offered a provoking opinion in terms of right-left politics, Charlie pressed her to elaborate, offer substance to her sensational claims and, in general, dispense with the bullshit. Because Arianna was unable to do this most of the time, she looked like she was getting trampled. That's not Charlie's fault, but hers, for relying on such half-baked arguments to support some admittedly valid claims. Of course, what can you expect from someone trying to drawn in as many viewers to her website, but sensationalism?
I know it is late but I didn't have the time yesterday. Charlie Rose I know you tried to laugh this fact away by saying you would be getting comments and it was okay because you were "friends" but this interview revealed your utter sexism - in fact when you said that about the comments to Arianna - it had the air of a flirtation as a means to get around your inexcusable behavior - also a sexist tactic. Your question about her many lives was not anything you would ask your gray haired male guests who you always talk to with reverence and hushed tones - work on this.
But onto something more substantive - I don't agree with everything Arianna says and by the way I thought she stood up to you pretty well -but whether this current financial crisis is a result of right politics - yes it is -- the credit and financial lobby convinced or bribed the administration and legislatures to look the other way as they perpetuated fradulent practices and now claim they didn't know. I as a lapsed MBA knew they were called subprime for some reason - and that my artist friends who were borrowing 100% for homes that this was going to lead to no-good. Banks if they had thought about it one second knew that if the market turned down it would be a disaster and if they didn't understand whatthey were doing should not have been doing it. Now we go on to the credite card market - who in their right minds would think it would be a good idea for everyone to be leveraged up to the hilt - and lets not speak of the upcoming disaster with LBO's The press has been reporting this for about 5 years although it was never in the headlines - there was too much money to be made so everyone looked away -particularly the right -these were criminal acts but I guess the problem is now so wide spread that to put everyone in jail will create another crisis. So was bailing out Bears Stern a political decision - well it certainly was the result of a political decision - every time one of the finacial guru's says they didn't know I want to get sick. Investigate that Charlie Rose - find out how this really happened rather than listening with such reverence to these self important men.
Comment by bev marshall on Friday, May 2 at 12:33 PM
I think Arianna Huffington needs to be invited back to the show to have a chance to answer the questions that were pitched to her by Charlie and answered by him. Charlie did most of the talking and did not give the quest much response time.I would like to hear what she has to say. i thought it was the worst interview I have seen on the show so far. Charlie dominated the show for what purpose?
Comment by J. Alexander Stevens on Friday, May 2 at 10:05 AM
I'm a big fan of CR, but this interview genuinely was painful to view and, especially, to hear.
If CR would simply watch and listen to a replay of this interview, I suspect that he energetically would concur.
There is something supremely contradictory about the existence of this forum. This is not like the usual "letters to the editor" space, where the editor actually answers the letters, whether individually or as a group. Instead, here, hundreds of viewers comment and (mostly) criticize Churlish Charlie, but CC totally ignores them,shutting himself up in a narcissistic, dollars-papered tower. Note that on this web page there is indeed a link to a page where CC is supposed to answer readers' comments, but if you click on it you will find it empty.
We are delusional, ladies and gentlemen, if we think CC gives a hoot about what we think of his show. The man is Arrogant Establishment personified, albeit with a nice smile and a pretense of impartiality. It is too bad that a lot of interesting personalities still see fit to honor his show with their presence because they end up playing his game: we start watching the show (with trepidation) to listen to them, but Churlish Charlie inexorably pounces on them to inflict his remote-controlled, K-street cum Wall Street views on us.
It is time to say "goodbye and good luck, Charlie".
Comment by Alex Alan Berg on Friday, May 2 at 09:27 AM
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie.... You aggressively challenge progressives like Arianna, constantly, and RUDELY, interrupting them, while you just SIT THERE like an aging sycophant slug, when a right wing zealot, especially from the Bush Administration, slings their horseshit policy tripe onto that lovely Phyfe table. Absolutely disgusting!!!
Comment by Shalom Freedman on Friday, May 2 at 05:04 AM
Charlie Rose is wrongly criticized here for questioning outrageous, blanket, simplistic claims by Arianna Huffington. Huffington makes the English language sound like it needs a good doctor, but others have done the same and still managed to get across cogent and meaningful messages. She however is a propagandist, and unable to respond to any reasonable question with a fact- filled answer. She has opinions and that's it.
When Charlie Rose confronted on her claim that the bail out of 'Bear Stearns' was simply heartless capitalism giving perks to the rich, she did not have an answer. Rose has had people on his show like Pete Peterson, Lawrence Summers, Paul Volcker, John Snow defending the
Bear Stearns bailout as regrettable but necessary to step to prevent a total collapse of the credit markets and with it the Economy.
She did not seem to know anything about that.
Also there was something two- faced about her coming to criticize the Media for its giving disproportionate attention to Jeremiah Wright. Disproportionate? The man is a key figure in the candidacy of someone who may be the next President of the United States. Huffington seems to want everyone to have converted along with her to the Left, and march to the drum of the Huffington Post.
Rose is to be commended for challenging some of her crude generalities.
True , it did not make for pleasant and warm viewing. But the way the pitcher pitches the catcher has to catch.
The Trajectory Of History<><><><><>
It is inconceivable that that many people don't understand the real ramifications of 911. The horror of 911 wasn't the loss of the buildings, the people, the fact that America was attacked in the homeland. Those losses while grievous all are surmountable. Even if America were to suffer a WMD attack on an American city with losses in the tens of thousands of people and hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be surmountable. What the real danger of another major attack in the American homeland is the fear and panic it would create in the financial markets, and the resulting crisis of liquidity. The attack on 911 opened the abyss, and the only thing that saved the day was the fact that the US was able to shut down the financial system within minutes of the attack. Europe was not so quick and the US had to ship $80,000,000,000 to Europe to insure the liquidity of their banking system. As it was the US closed its financial markets for a week, as a cooling down period and lowered the Fed Funds rate to 1% to insure the system remained liquid.
Since that day the US has been careening from one financial malaise to another. First with Enron and up to now with housing bubble and sub prime debacle which for all intents in purposes nearly caused a melt down of the financial system with the collapse of Bear Sterns. The US has been pumping money into the system with cheap interest rates to keep the system liquid. On the other hand because of the huge trade and Federal government deficits the value of the dollar is declining. This has led to commodity prices skyrocketing which is putting a further drag on the economy. All the old familiar tried and true tools to manage the economy are proving to have limited effectiveness this time around. So it maybe that 911 did fracture the system and all the kings horses and all the kings men can not put Humpty Dumpty back together again and we are headed for the perfect storm which brings the financial house down around our ears.
You so rude. You need to move and work for FOX and by the way, why don't you go and defend your Israel, if you love it so much! Leave the American kids alone.
Comment by tony nicholson on Friday, May 2 at 02:39 AM
Perhaps Charlie you should avoid interviewing opinionated intelligent ladies as they seem to bring out the worst in you. Shades of Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein (which I realize has already been said). I am posting this a day late because Seattle airs your show 24 hours later.
Going through the 115 comments I found your approval rating in the 10 per cent category. Even GWB has a 29 per cent approval rating. I hope this message by many well meaning people is reaching you. You may not be David Susskind but you are the best we have. So please listen up.
Comment by Michael Thomas on Friday, May 2 at 01:42 AM
The interview, in my view, was not quite as bad as the other commentators indicate. It gave ms. Huffington the opportunity to show that she has spunk and is not willing to provide the qualifiers that Charlie seemed so desperate to force from her. I certainly have seen Charlie behave more badly - I think of the Amy Goodman interview just before the war in 2003 and his hectoring of Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif around that same time. (He was giving his usual worshipful attentions to that jejune blowhard Thomas Friedman and his ilk at that same historic juncture.) Somehow it seems that when Charles is at his worst - rude and hectoring, the guests turn out to be... exactly right!! And when he is obsequious and reverent (think of the recent inexplicable interview with Richard "Wrongo" Perle) the guest is... exactly wrong!! Read correctly, anyone can see the incredible public service Charlie is doing even when he is at his worst.. Credit where credit is due, Charlie has produced some wonderful interviews. This was not one, but his batting average is still pretty good.
Arianna Huffington (the little we got to hear from her) seems to be a smart, interesting woman, who has opinions, is unafraid to express them and is willing to substantiate her positions. Unfortunately, Charlie, barely gave her a chance to speak. The job of an interviewer is to let the guest speak. Worse still, Charlie was not able to express his objections to her positions very coherently. He really came off as obnoxious and not so bright.
Comment by Grace Diotisalvi on Friday, May 2 at 12:22 AM
I've been a big fan of the Charlie Rose show for years but
his interview with Arianna Huffington was offensive.
Charlie, you owe Arianna an apology for all the interruptions!
Comment by Grace Diotisalvi on Friday, May 2 at 12:22 AM
I've been a big fan of the Charlie Rose show for years but
his interview with Arianna Huffington was offensive.
Charlie, you owe Arianna an apology for all the interruptions!
I watched this interview. I told my wife about it and how disappointed I was in Charlie, who, normally, I think is great. Maybe he was trying to point out what a flip flopper Arianna is, that her book is hypocritical to her previous stances -- whatever. There's nothing I enjoy more than a conservative turning the tables on the current conservative doctrine, yet Charlie wouldn't let her express it. Shame on you Charlie!
Comment by Christopher on Thursday, May 1 at 11:42 PM
Charlie was extremely weak in this interview. He was precisely presenting a "fair and balanced" commentary on Iraq. Her example of a mixed bag" in Iraq was rock solid (acne and cancer). Charlie did not get it... "More security" could be viewed as a mixed bag. Shit Charlie, there is no country for old men. The questions on Israel "are you on your own" weak, weak, weak.
Comment by Joe Burke on Thursday, May 1 at 11:22 PM
Tell Charlie to let his guests?? Speak as in AH.
That was the worst interview I have EVER seen,
Joe Burke, 67 years on me and goin strong, but not stayin up to watch CR any more!
Can someone respond??
Comment by Dr. Emile J. Piscitelli on Thursday, May 1 at 11:01 PM
I have to agree with the vast majority of the comments about Charlie's interruptions. He did not allow Ariana to make her points. I am not a fan of either of them but this was a very bad interview if not one of Charlie's worst. She had some interesting things to say, but Charlie would not let her make her case. Why, I am not sure. I suspect that it seemed to him she was criticizing him for not recognizing the fact that the new right had co-oped him as a journalist as much as they co-oped the main stream media. The odd thing is that whereas before this interview I did not think that much of Ariana; after Charlie got through with her, I began to think maybe she had some good insights into the political situation and Charlie's performance became evidence that she was hitting too close to home. I guess I am not surprised that Mr. Rose is not really so different from the main stream media as I might have previously thought. Still it is not like we have much in the way of alternatives to the Charlie Rose Show for some form of intelligent conversation even though unfortunately the host sometimes becomes an impediment to a real discussion.
Comment by Richard Wilhoit on Thursday, May 1 at 11:00 PM
Charlie, I will add a short comment to those of others. You are now famous. You did not get there by interviews like the one of AH yesterday. I urge you to take the time and look at the entire tape of your socalled interview of her. I say "socalled" because you did most of the talking (blathering). In fact, I became so discussed that I turned it off. I have noticed that interrupting has become a habit with you. On the other hand, you seem to avoid interrupting political dignitaries. I don't know if your behavior is a sexist thing or not, as suggested by others. I venture to say it is not. The bottom line is YOU ARE NOT WILLING, OR POSSIBLY ABLE, TO BE A GOOD LISTENER. That is one of the most important parts of being a good interviewer.
Charlie I have never seen you be so RUDE. You constantly interrupted Arianna and wouldn't let her make a point. This coming from an interviewer who wouldn't ask a difficult question from neocons. A man who let them state outright lies and wouldn't follow up. What's going on Charlie???
Comment by Gerry Benedetti on Thursday, May 1 at 10:48 PM
I am a big fan, Charlie, but the way you behaved with Ms. Huffington was despicable. I have seen you do this once before and that was with Paul Krugman. I believe you sensed a "weakness" about them and pounced. It only made you look like a bullying fool.
Charlie Rose's assessment about Bear Stearns is utterly false. I highly recommend this article by Dean Baker about this situation. Rose, invite Baker on to talk about the economy and please, let him speak:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031708J.shtml
We know how to keep banks operating even as they go into bankruptcy. England just did this with Northern Rock, a major bank that managed to get itself into huge trouble because of its holding of bad mortgage debt. After it was clear the bank was insolvent, the Bank of England stepped in and essentially took over the bank. It replaced the incompetent managers who had ruined the bank and brought in a new team to straighten out the books. The plan is to resell the bank to the private sector once the books are in order.
Comment by Anton Grambihler on Thursday, May 1 at 10:30 PM
Research that Arianna Huffington needs to do:
It appears that the people behind Hitler are now behind Bush
It appears that the people behind Hitler moved to the United States and are now behind Bush. Will they vanish to another country and give Bush all the Credit or Blame.
A through investigation is needed of the all the US Government Wars starting with WWI. It was President Wilson that declared war on Germany and turned a European war into WWI. Who were the people behind Wilson? Who were the Washington DC lawyers that stopped the notification of ship passengers that they would be traveling in a war zone?
The Founding Fathers provided the States with representatives. In 1913, the addition of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, took away the States Representatives and made both houses of Congress Representatives of the Citizens. The Senators are now (Selected by Special Interests) and voted on by the Citizens. In 1917, which is the four years necessary for a majority of the Senators to no longer be representatives of the States, they voted to allow President Wilson to declare war on Germany and start World War I. Before this the Senate refused to authorize President Wilson to start WWI. Who were the people and organizations behind the 17th amendment?
In order to fund wars, the US Government needed to spend more money than it had available. This was solved by the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Who were the people and organizations behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System?
In order to make sure that the Merchants of death would get paid, the 16th Amendment was added to the United States Constitution in 1913. It allows the Federal government to levy an Income tax and to seize property without due process. Who were the people and organizations behind the 16th amendment?
Who are the people behind Bush and the Neocons and the talk of starting WWIII? Are they the same people that were behind Hitler and the Nazis? Why are Europeans who disagree with the official mandate of acceptable thought and actions about WWII put into Prison? What truths are being hidden?
Comment by Sylvia Collins on Thursday, May 1 at 10:04 PM
The worst interview I have ever seen on this program or on any other interview program on public television which is all I listen to. Ms Huffington had much of interest to say, but I didn't get to hear it because of the constant interruptions of her anxious and agitated interviewer. I was impressed by Ms Huffingtons calm and confident manner in the face of Chatlie Rose's hecic barrage of comments. I am no fan of Ms H, I do not read her comments and actually know little about her, except that she changed sides at some point. I have found CR's interviews interesting and informative in the past, although I am often annoyed by his too frequent interruptions, but if there are many more like this one, I'll give up on this program
Rose has been gradually discredited over many years, but this interview really scraped the bottom. I got the feeling that Arianna was dumbfounded by the idiocy coming out of Rose's mouth. I have never before seen an interview where the host tried to prove the guest wrong. But it's PBS - Petroleum Broadcasting Company.
Comment by Jerome Collins on Thursday, May 1 at 10:01 PM
To Charlie Rose:
I have usually thoroughly enjoyed your interviews. The interview with Ariana Huffington is an exception. I can only term
your behaviour as badgering, hectoring, and uninterruped interrupting. What exactly was your agenda? It only served to
distract and make me angry.
Comment by Elaine Smitha on Thursday, May 1 at 09:47 PM
Arianna Huffington attempted to share
her insights and wisdom as Charlie Rose persisted in interjecting HIS opinions with contrary statements and questions, not waiting for her to answer. Charlie's arrogance was infuriating and unacceptable. She deserves the same respect he so easily gives men. Arianna handled it quite well, considering his rude behavior. It was an awful interview. The worst I've ever seen. Charlie should be ashamed of himself.
I watched this program earlier today on television,and I think there has been some of Charlie's overtalking Arianna removed from the internet version. Yes, Charlie over talks with some of his guests, especially the ones he calls friends. Do you always want to watch a stiff and structered show? How many of you viewers interrupt or get excited when having a conversation with family and friends? Politics and religion cause people to want to have their voice heard. Arianna is more relaxed that when she first appeared on the Charlie Rose Program. Watch the old videos and see a difference. As far as her view points I do not agree.
Comment by Floyd Keller on Thursday, May 1 at 09:22 PM
I am a Charlie Rose fan but what he did to A. Huffinton was a crime. I would consider the interview sexist except he did the same number on Richard Holbrook. Charlie should get a language coach to practice raising concise questions that bring out all of the facets of his guest TO THE VIEWER! If one diagramed some of Charlie's questions they would look like a picture of DNA or a tinker toy project spinning out of control. All of the best, Floyd
Comment by Robert V. Winters on Thursday, May 1 at 08:11 PM
I am a fan of the Charlie Rose Show and watch it regularly, but I have to agree with the majority of the comments, your interview with Arianna Huffington was terrible. Man, you needed to shut up and let the woman speak.
AH comments on the Bear Sterns buy out were naive at best and ignorant at worst. It is totally understandable that Mr Rose became incredulus and stopped her gibberish. It looks like his hanging out with the likes of Mayor Bloomberg have paid off. The credit markets had become illiquid and the collateral damage would have spread causing a melt down of the entire global financial system. This crisis of liquidity was what caused the Great Depression of the 1930's. Isn't it interesting that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke area of expertise is on the Great Depression. Do you possibly think that someone knew what they were doing when they appointed him? Say, "Thank you GW"
Iâ??ve been a fan of Charlieâ??s show for quite a few years and have always respected his intellectual and generally unbiased delivery, his equal treatment to opposing sides of various issues and the wide range of guests he hosts from across the political spectrum. But I must say that I was quite dismayed at his treatment of Arianna Huffington. He seemed genuinely threatened by her opinions and was rather antagonistic in some of his responses, which I thought was very unlike him. Felt like I was watching a debate rather than an interview. Or maybe Charlie has a secret crush, hmmmmm? LOL
Comment by Mike Canada on Thursday, May 1 at 07:22 PM
I read many of the comments before I watched the interview. Until 10:30, I disagreed with the comments. Then, while dicussing Bear Sterns, Charlie's behaviour became unbearable. Constant interruption, almost like he was personally offended. It was almost surreal, quite weird, and offensive to viewers.
Comment by John Knoph on Thursday, May 1 at 07:21 PM
sorry... got to turn you off Charlie. Anyone who would consider that kind of bully pulpit "interview" to be fair and honest, does not get another piece of my attention and valuable time. Goodbye Charlie
Comment by Atticus Finch on Thursday, May 1 at 07:20 PM
Damn! It sure would have been nice if Charlie Rose let Arianna answer the freaking questions without jumping in and talking all over her. He was rude and down right indignant at times. This "interview" was a trainwreck!
Comment by this ain't huffpo on Thursday, May 1 at 06:47 PM
Juan, I used to watch Charlie all the time and while he can be goofy at times, he isnt sexist so I dont actually give much credence to the comments here. I will admit I thought he definately reacted with gusto to her comments, but one should be able to defend such statements and not assume that Charlie is some worshipping twit on her "blog" she can ban for insufficient homage. Anyway, this is much more time than I would every image giving to the stale Ms Huffpo - the charmming Gov form North Carolina is more my taste today so - later...
Comment by M. Pruitt on Thursday, May 1 at 06:38 PM
First, I am a big Charlie Rose fan. Without a doubt the most intelligent and far-ranging interview show on television. But the AH interview, what happened? I came to this site thinking that I would probably be the only person in the country to respond to the take-no-prisoners interview style and have been cheered that there are many other people who were as disappointed as I. I felt that if I had put a stopwatch to this interview we got very little Arianna but did get a double dose of Charlie. So I would like to suggest this for interviews going forward: Ask the question quickly and give your guest the opportunity to respond. Thats the kind of give and take we Charlie Rose fans love!
Comment by Chris Cauble on Thursday, May 1 at 06:27 PM
Worst. Interview. Ever. An astonishing failure, must be something else going on with Charlie. How come he only acts this badly with Arianna Huffington, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman...wait...is there a pattern here?
Your show is one of the few programs on television still worth watching. There is an intellectual dignity about you and your show that unfortunately is seldom seen in this day and age. Having said that, this interview with Arianna Huffington was absolutely terrible. I've read the comments posted over the last 2 days and agree with most of them. Charlie, I fully respect you and have probably watched your show a 1000 times or more since 1992 but this interview was terrible. You asked her questions but did not let her answer. Everytime she started to get on a roll you stopped her. It was irritating. It sounds like you really want to be able to speak your mind about the issues of today. It would change the way people view you but you may want to consider finding another way (talk shows, news shows etc...), if you really want to express your opinions about current events. (Incidentally, I am very interested in hearing what you think but it is not working at all in the current format of the show.). Tons of people look up to you as a beacon of sanity. The world needs many more shows like yours; ones having a dignified tone and thoughtful intellectual conversation. By the way, i still want to hear what Arianna has to say. Maybe you could have her back on the show next week.
Charlie, AH has been your best guest in a long time, her thoughts where right on, she portrayed Hillary perfect, for exactly what she is, a person that will do anything to take control of the white house, Why don't people remember Vincent Foster, why don't people remember Ron Brown, both of these deaths should be under investigation.
But you made a few comments during your interview with AH in regards to Bear Stearns that they where bailed out, man are you drinking cool aid, Bear Stearns was not bailed out, first off, they where sold to Morgan for pennies on the dollar. Lets talk to the Americans that own stock in Bear Stearns and see if they feel Bear Stearns was bailed out. You had the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York, use Americans money so that allowed Morgan Chase the money to purchase the firm. You actually believe them when they tell you that this was only done to ensure stabilization of the financial markets what a fool you are.
The damage to the market was already done nothing more could happen, except they wanted the damage to continue for the America public.
If you are such a great guy why don't you look into how many people had sold short Bear Stearns, and if so who made all the money off shorting this firm. Second if you care, why don't you understand how Chase Morgan will make a immense profit by purchasing Bear Stearns, what a joke, what a fleecing of America, we are suppose to sit back and watch this corruption unfold right before our eyes and then be told that this is the best thing for the markets, what a lie Charlie.
The best thing that could have happened is and I still believe that a shareholder lawsuit should be initiated immediately, and the markets examined, to really determine what transpired with Bear Stearns. All of their assets where not bad, could not possible be, what happened.
The speculation on this firm happened, and there was too much money for the fascists to make by bringing the firm down. Let's open up their books lets do some forensic examination, this is criminal what they did to Bear Stearns and their employees.
How stupid are you, I believe that you are manipulated, by the fascists that own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
I will quote Woodrow Wilson who was used by these fascist to get the Federal Reserve Act passed in Congress "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
--President Woodrow Wilson
Please Charlie, but you play their game because they make you feel important, and you live the good life from supporting this corruption, currently these fascist control all of the candidates for President, no real change will ever come to the US under any of these candidates, mark my words.
Comment by Ferdinand Gajewski on Thursday, May 1 at 06:08 PM
I'm disappointed Charlie showed he can have so little class. He wasted the time of his viewers: we don't tune in to hear him bark at guests like a maniac.
Comment by Lucie Fultz on Thursday, May 1 at 06:04 PM
Charlie, why did you ask Arianna a question in the form of a paragraph and then interrupt her in mid-sentence? What was going on with YOU, Charlie? Whether you agree with her politics was not the issue; you should have allowed her to share her thoughts with your audience and then let us make up our minds. You sounded like the old Rose who wouldn't let his guests speak because he (Rose)thought his own ideas more important.
It has aggravated me for a long time on how CR interrupts his guests. Some barely have one or two words out, and boom.
I like Arianna. . .I may not always agree with her, but in the past few years she has opened her eyes to the Republican party and she is not as right wing as she used to be.
Last night CR's gentleman manners were left somewhere else. I have never seen him interrupt a guest as much as he interrupted Arianna last night.
Whether he agrees with her or not about her book is about, he could have let her finish her thoughts and want she wanted to put across for the American people to know about the Media and how the Bush administration handles the Iraq war.
Comment by Chery Woodie on Thursday, May 1 at 05:41 PM
What in the world happened Charlie Rose? Toward the end of AH attack ad you must have had a sense of how over the top you were, predicting her "fans" would write in; saying how you "love her." You may love her; but you didn't treat her fairly, you debated her, then acted like it was an interviewing technique. AH knows your opinions, we wanted to hear hers. You see yourself as taking a "journalistic" approach, not this time Bubba, read the comments, AND self-reflect. She has credible insights, and offers new thought, precisely because she is willing to change. First time I heard you say to a guest, "You can't say....." She, and we, thought she was invited to "say". At one time,you respond with high energy, "This is where we disagree...." Really, so what? You ordinarily like the "some would say","it has been said", and quote from your friend you thought was funny, it wasn't, AH has 9 lives? Or, she has courage to change, and not feel ashamed; in fact, a sense of entitlement to feel proud of her personal evolution. You probably missed it, we didn't hear all of it she tried to say she attempts to be authentic and honest about her perspectives. You were talking over her. You would do well to apologize to AH, without the cutzie remarks, and having her return. Please bring the gentlemen you can be to the "interview. AH has had a more examined public life, in politics, than you. Put your personal life up in your glass house, for the world to see, then see how much press is too much? You are much better than this interview, we are left wondering who AH is and what her views are about important issues, this moment in time. Some would say, what you find challenging in AH is an aspect of yourself. I'm a fan of both of you, I'm writing you Charlie, she's fine; you sir, were out of line.
I'd recently assured a friend who refuses to watch Charlie Rose because he won't let his guests talk unless he agrees with their every word that Charlie had calmed down over the years and was a better interviewer. Oh well. The interview with Arianna Huffington was a real set back. What was that about?? Ms. Huffington has something to say. She was gracious. Charlie Rose was back to arrogant ways -- interrupting, refusing to hear what she was trying to convey, rude, obnoxious. Maybe I'll get to listen to Arianna on someone else's show. No, I will no longer recommend to others that they watch this show, though I'll watch it myself. Perhaps Charlie will be chastized enough by the comments and responses to pull himself back into line. Once can hope.
Comment by Jan Miller on Thursday, May 1 at 05:32 PM
Today I was so stunned and aggravated as I watched Mr.Rose's "interview" with Arianna Huffington that I took the time to see if there was a comment page on his shows website.
I have never seen an interviewer INTERRUPT a guest as much, nor be as rude. I have a heightened respect for Ms. Huffington now as she was remarkable in the manner in which she stayed in equanimity and held on to, not only her sense of humor, but politeness as well, in an extremely awkward situation. What was he thinking? I got so agitated I had to turn it off. A unique experience for me and one to cause me to be much more discerning when I attempt to watch the Charlie Rose Show again. For right now, I am DONE with Charlie Rose. Could be forever. How sad!
Jan Miller Portland Or.
My husband and I had to leave this interview in frustration after about 20 minutes because CR was so obnoxious, condescending and downright rude to Arianna Huffington. She was too polite to tell him to shut up so she could answer the questions he had posed, which apparently were only asked so that he would have a platform on which to express his own increasingly right wing views. He has apparently become an apologist for the Bush administration. It was shameful.
Yes, of course Charlie was speaking all over Huffington. He's in damage control, terrified that everything around him is spiraling out of control--politics, the economy, etc...--and he has to keep his patrons happy.
___|___
Yes, the majority of his viewers worry about the price of milk and gas, but we are not his audience, we are not the ones who keep him in the lifestyle he has come to enjoy. Charlie is the guy invited to dinner parties and social events, along with the lights of the day, to help make those events a success. The Charlie Rose show is just one aspect of that social circle that writes the checks to keep him on the air.
___|___
Right now his audience is deeply concerned with politics and the economy, and how it effects their lifestyle. His patrons are in danger of losing control of the good life, and his own personal portfolio--both social and monetary--is probably shaky as well.
___|___
When Charlie gets like this with Huffington, we the viewers get a glimpse into the world that he lives in.
Comment by Sam Saqfalhait on Thursday, May 1 at 05:17 PM
Ms. Huffington is playing dumb hear. Who is the intended audience of the rev Right media circus? Is it the American voters or citizens of Islamic countries? Alongside her much reviled quote right wing media unquote, Ms. Huffington is but a cog in a booster rocket engine that is designed to impel Obama all the way to Mount Rushmore by way of the White House. Barack Obama is the most artificial persona ever in the American political scene if not the entire history of mankind.
Comment by J. Anton on Thursday, May 1 at 05:01 PM
Charlie, what were you thinking? Viewers were left grasping for an explanation. It has created an obvious credibility issue for the program. What's to be done?
Comment by michelle on Thursday, May 1 at 04:58 PM
Arianna Huffington. If I didn't love the sound of her voice I don't think I could listen to her running in circles blaming the right for everything and anything. I agree with much of what she says, she's a lovely woman to watch, obliviously with an IQ over the top. However it was completely impossible for me to figure out how she comes to the conclusions she speaks on. I have a hard time following her logic. And I'm a intuitive woman. I'm trying not to be mean but get the impression that she's been allowed carte blanche to say anything she's like (that beautiful voice) with out the discipline of crafting words with integrity. I get the impression she'd rather argue than solve the problem.
guys, it's a conversation, not an interview. In a conversation, you dont just listen in awe.
When will Charlie stop the constant interrupting of guests and his own personal rants. He should consider just interviewing himself.
Thank you Arianna Huffington for providing the public service that corporate media have abandoned. The fourth estate -once the guardians of democracy - no longer serve to promote democracy; instead, the corporate media blunts public discourse with propaganda, misinformation, and manufactured stories . The most disheartening shaper of public opinion today that threatens democracy with a constant flow of propaganda is Fox News and radical right wing radio. Its emphasis on extreme nationalism, scapegoating, and blatantly false information exploits ignorance and bigotry to distract from the serious economic and social issues facing Americans. Charlie, I notice you are exceptionally tough on liberal thinkers or critics of the existing corporate power structure and neoconservative thought, but I have to thank you for having people with a variety of views on the show.
Charlie: I must say I enjoy your show but there are times that you need to let your guest fully answer your questions and without your interruptions. You can always rebuke after or question in greater detail if needed. Now what I want to see is a show, which explains why this country is in such bad shape - it needs to give real answers and not just politically correct ones! For example: why is there a housing crisis? Think about the fact that most homeowners bought their houses at a time when 4%-6% was the going rate to get into a home. ALL WAS WELL!!EVERYONE WAS MAKING MONEY!!! It wasnâ??t until the variable rate kicked in that things went WHACKY! Mortgage people - along with the government allowed this to happen-why? Even when homeowners tried to refinance they had to come to the table with more money (for extra closing costs). The amount of money was so great that they were locked or chained to this sinking ship! If you want to bring things back to normal the mortgage people should be forced to give homeowners who are in foreclosure a fix rate of the initial 4%-6%. EVERYONE GOES BACK TO MAKING MONEY!! YOU NEED TO HAVE A FORUM FOR EVERYDAY PEOPLE TO INTERACT WITH THESE SO CALLED EXPERTS. We donâ??t need to be Einstein to see the nonsense of this 3 card Monte.
Charlie - My husband and I were appalled, outraged and frankly disappointed in your behavior during the Huffington interview. Have you seen your interview? Clearly you must share our disgust at your unforgiveably disgusting behavior. Shame on you!!!
Charlie; let the woman speak, please.
Please add my voice to those crying out," Who is this man, and what has he done with Charlie Rose?" His interview with Arriana Huffington was his worst performance ever. During the 3 1/2 minute Bear-Stearns exchange he interrupted her 15 times, spoke longer than she did, and completely missed the point. Is he ill?
Please add my voice to those crying out," Who is this man, and what has he done with Charlie Rose?" His interview with Arriana Huffington was his worst performance ever. During the 3 1/2 minute Bear-Stearns exchange he interrupted her 15 times, spoke longer than she did, and completely missed the point. Is he ill?
Why does anyone listen to this woman? She clearly doesnt have a grasp of the issues, and as far as polemics go she's no better than Ann Coulter.
"The reason the conventional wisdom survives no matter how many times its lies are exposed is that shows like Meet The Press allow their guests to go unchallenged." Maybe Charlie read Arianna's book and decided to challenge her?
This chick is a political opportunist of the highest order. Have all of you Huffington-ites forgotten that she was a "compassionate conservative" in the 1990s...until that ex of her proved to be a flaccid politician, and she decided that the left was the place to be and trimmed her sails accordingly? If Charlie kept cutting her off, then it was because he wanted her NOT to spout too much of her useless drivel. Charlie, please please please interview Andrew Sullivan in the same manner if you have him on your show again--you have given that hysteric little shrew (and La Huffington) way too much deferrence in the past....time to interview them like adults now. Well done!!
This woman is the smartest woman, she is so smart that she recognizes Sen. Barack Obama is the answer America has. She is also honest with respect to answering all them questions. Like many people I have a small complaints to make on the way Mr.Rose rebuttal on the Bear-Stearns issue. He sure looked unhappy when she made that contentious remark as to why the rich get bailout for making wrong decision of selling loans knowingly to people who are unqualified to handle the mortgages they were showered with. This administration is so quick in making mistakes and have them shouldered by others. She also hit the nail on the head when she said the KATRINA failure was a reflection of how incompetent the RIGHT is. I think her book title says it all, making America and the world less stable and leaning toward more danger. The RIGHT-WINGERS made America weaker by pre-empting a war that is not well thought out and handled terribly. Today, American economy is weak, our standing in the world has diminished and the world is less-stable adding the sub-prime market to it is the perfect condition for ungraceful decline in treasure and power. The RIGHTS made many of our competitors' and enemies' dream come true. At the expense of American blood and treasure Iran is feeling safer and stronger, had Saddam was in power he would not let them have nuclear weapon. Russia is flexing her military muscle lubricated by high oil price revenue threatening Europe with touting gas faucet, and China is rising faster than even the Chinese Communist party wants to. All this was made possible because of the poor judgments of the RIGH-WINGERS, I am not sure how history will deal with them but I am getting sick to my stomach.
Charlie, you have a bad habit of staying with the predictable. Huffington's point was the Far Right ruthlessly implemented its destructive agenda for America during this Administration, and the press and the Democrats mystifyingly colluded in letting them do it. So why did you need to 1) interrupt her constantly to quibble (soccer in Iraq, for God sakes), and 2) insist, as if you were a member of the rest of the shallow, useless, vapid media, on talking about Jeremy Wright. He related point about Iran was WAY more novel and important than having to have you plow over the Wright scandal with Arianna to the detriment of that point. Try, please try, to think outside the box sometimes.
charlie wins the chris mathews test for ADHD, at least chris doesnt cut his guests off so rudely...its a wonder that people still watch when all we want to do is go to the computer and unleash our venom. charlie, learn from bill moyers...he is a pleasure and a lesson one wants to learn...you should ,too. and please, can we have howard Zinn on the show, but careful, he is gentle, and we do not want to see him squashed....get that, charlie.
Charlie, I used to love your show. It was one of the only examples of intelligent conversation on TV to date. Therefore, imagine my disappointment with your interview of Arianna Huffington. I have to say Arianna was very patient with you and illustrated a great deal of grace in the face of a hostile environment. You never stopped talking and continually interrupted her never letting her answer a question fully. Upon reflection of this interview you appeared arrogant, sexist, egotistical and obnoxious. If you find interviewing an intelligent and vocal woman intimidating you should stop pretending to interview them. Charlie, you donâ??t need to be so aggressive to demonstrate to your audience that you did your research and know the topic under discussion. How about letting your guests have their say?
Wow, charlie! My folks use to say, "With friends like that, you don't need enemies" After reading what Arrianna Huffington's fans had to say about you, it sounds to me that with a guest like her you're not in need any help finding criticism. By the way, l love your show. I work hard and don't have time to blog and meet the personalities and the ideas of the people you invite to your table other wise. And I can always count on you to conduct the conversations at your table the way I conduct the dinner conversation at my dinner table. With respect for the individual and humanity at large.
For the opponents of Arianna Huffington that say her points are so weak they warranted the attack dog interview C Rose displayed, I counter that your wrong -- she didn't get to speak long enough for us to form an opinion on her commentary. Therefore, your comments display a prejudgement of AH's points. For those like me who want something to happen with all this commentary, do like I did and also write your complaints to the PBS Ombudsman: ombudsman@pbs.org voicing your displeasure. As far as I'm concerned, PBS needs to weigh-in on behalf of their irate and outraged viewers. Finally, I'd let CR come into my home for dinner and a discussion or interview -- but if he acted like he did with AH, he'd be out the door. I am certain that CR would not let a guest act the way he did, so what gives him the right? I bet his mother would be ashamed.
Charlie- If you believe there's a place in television for really good conversation, bite your tongue and remember that a gentleman, especially a Southern gentleman, after posing a guestion to a guest listens to his quest's response. Other than Bill Moyers you've got the most interesting and intelligent guests on the tube. Let them talk! Stop trying to reinforce your own image with your constant interruptions and get back to the purpose of the show. We know you're a "star" and we viewers know by your questions that you're intelligent or we wouldn't be watching every night. If you don't stop interrupting you're going to end up with sound bites and I for one am not staying up late for a repeat of the network news! Luv ya' Elizabeth
Charlie, I love you, but please stop interrupting.
Rose's interruptions are not only unenlightening, but they are a bore. I sometimes wonder if he wouldn't be happier interviewing himself as he seems to think his wisdom, wit, and insight far outpace those lucky enough to be on his show. Huffington was extremely patient and good humored with this seemly uncontrollable compulsion on the part of Rose.
This is in reply to the comments by â??Ginerousâ?? and to all other that mentioned that Huffington was flirting: What is that with Arianna Huffingtonâ??s hair! Flirting? Men and women touch their hair all the time whether they are on TV or not. She was not flirting and you are missing the whole point. Furthermore, Huffingtonâ??s hair was moderately styled; her outfit was simple; and her demeanor was right down courteous and admirably professional on the face of the uncomfortable and surely unforeseen situation she found herself in with Charlie Roseâ??s barbarous interruptions. No guest should be treated in this manner whether he/she is being visiting his show for the first or the fiftieth time! Moreover, in the face of Charlie Roseâ?? uncalled for attacks, Arianna Huffington had the fortitude to display that rich endowment of the mind called prudence, and Charlie Rose was so much his own enemy as to neglect it. The German poet and novelist Christopher Martin Wieland (1733-1813) wrote, â??However learned or eloquent, man knows nothing truly that he has not learned from experience.â?? In other words, what Charlie Rose learned (or one would hope he did) from this interview experience, and as evidenced from the avalanche of comments submitted, was that he shot himself on the foot. If he intended injury, he did greater to himself. Charlie Rose did succeed, however, at showing his viewers that he could not hold a candle next to the resolute poise and professionalism that Arianna Huffington demonstrated. And since this was a public offence, I stand by my belief that he, in turn, owes her a public apology.
I was slowly -- and am now very quickly -- becoming frustrated with Rose's fairly new interviewing style, a style that has become all very apparent during this interview. It's as if he needs to compete with Chris Matthews' Attention Deficit Disorder. Rose must occasionally go off of his meds. Ms. Huffington attempted constantly to make an important and necessary economic distinction and he constantly interrupted her -- and our listening -- because he disagreed with her, but interrupted her with the pretense that he was forcing her to make her distinction! That's idiotic. He hides his conservatism very badly lately. I don't care that he leans more toward a conservative perspective, but Huffington had a right to pursue her thought along the lines of her own choosing, not along the narrow path that he preferred. We have begun to witness these giggling "But, now, wait a minute!" moments all too often from him. His show is becoming boring. His guests remain being excellent as guests go but their host is now constantly in their way, especially when he disagrees with them. Has he the right to disagree? Yes, but not as an O'Reilly-Hannity-Matthews gambit. Rose was once above that. He has lost what once made him distinctive. He has lost his sophistication even as his collars no longer are crinkled!
I didn't know too much about Arianna Huffington except few snippets of interviews where she seemed like a ZaZa Gabor like personality. This time she said so many real and true facts about important viewpoints that I sat up and replayed some of her sentences so i could absorb them. Athough you obviously like her and get akick out of her you went overboard in trying to balance her views with defence of the right and talking over her words. As an earlier responder noted Foc and other Right wing programs aredoing there best to ruin interviews by using these harrassing techniques. it's so not you, (except for the overtalking and andasking questions which are a choice of several answers to chose from which you've been dooing less than you used to)! Nevertheless as I listen again to it She obviously didn't mind your jibes and interuptions and the show has real conversational feeling. Also she gets her dander up and has the facts and language at her fingertips. i've become a fan oc Arieanna and have subscribed to he Huffington Post. I do question one thing she said "A thousand Suicide Attempts a Month by the troops"??? I'm gointto ask her this question also. Keep up the good work Charlie I love your show Bill Moyer's Journal, Exposé, NewsFront
We were very disappointed in the confrontational way you interviewed Arianna Huffington Wed. 4/30/08. Please allow your guests to answer questions completely before you confront them with yet more innuendos, accusations & denunciations. Fox News has successfully destroyed the journalistic integrity of (nearly all) TV news since it came online some ten years ago. We are hoping you (at PBS) will remain independent of their pernicious influence. --Helen & Don Reid. Amarillo TX.
I am amazed people find fault with Charlie's interview. Ariana Huffington needs to be challenged on her wacky, fatuous, self important ideas. Also her background (for which she gets a free pass--can you believe she is even invited on a show like this?). She is a shameless self promotor, something a closer look at her life would reveal. I mean, how many books has she written? How many times and why has she changed her views and why? Does anyone recall here political marriage to Michael Huffington, a conservative? Once she climbed over him, that was it. Oscar Wilde is quoted to have said, 'there is one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.' That is about all that can and should be said of the views and persona of Ariana Huffington
Reading through the comments here, I see a strong Majority View that Charlie Rose can scarcely be considered a fair or impartial interviewer, but rather an openly biased shill for big money and the status quo. I happen to agree. Rudeness and a tendency to interrupt persons whose views he doesn´t care to understand are perhaps his most glaring bullying techniques. Too bad Mr Rose is unlikely to respond to this uniform groundswell of complaint: despite offering this Comment Box for viewers´ reactions to his surly journalism, why do we assume that he (or anyone on his staff) will actually read and react to the thoughtful critical voices here represented?
So many comments mention "flirting" from Charlie, but I sense it more from Arianna. She touched or flipped her hair every 2 minutes! I don't know why he has her on the show when he doesn't take her seriously (and rightfully so, in my opinion). Frankly, she has no right to comment on the failings of the "media" when her own site is highly biased, and she gives only opinions as opposed to substantive answers.
Watching Charlie's interview with Ariana Huffington was nerve-breaking, to say the least. I am totally puzzled as to what happened here. There was some weird dynamic going on, that's for sure. We didn't get to hear what Ariana had to say thanks to Charlie's frequent interruptions. Of course, very disrespectful to the guest and the audience. He displayed a style which better suits Fox News rather than PBS. The only good thing that seems to have come out of it can be this strong audience response. It should be taken as a good sign that so many viewers are passionate enough to actually get into the trouble of leaving a comment here. The only way to make up for this journalistic embarrassment is to invite Ariana back to the show and actually interview her this time. p.s. Having seen it mentioned in some of the comments here, I have just watched the interview with Amy Goodman. It was painful to see Charlie defending the corporate media so dutifully and blindly. I would love to see Amy back on the show again to pick up the conversation from where it was left off and put the previous discussion in perspective after 4 years.
Charlie is at his worst in this session for two reasons. He refuses to listen to his guest; and he pretends to understand an issue beyond his reach. If the taxpayers are going to underwrite JPM's purchase of BS by guaranteeing the "bad business", the taxpayers should then own a share in the new entity. If WE bail the losers out, then WE OWN OUR SHARE of the new firm. Nationalization is a meaningful way out of our current national disaster. Let's look at the Oil Industry NOW, not when they need to be bailed out. . . Charlie gets none of this. Thank you, Bob Philbin
I was Apalled at you poor treatment of Arianna Huffington. Shame to you. Are you a professional reporter or just another Dullisional Right Wing Nut? A formal appology from you to Arianna Huffington and to your audieience in in order.
Please take Charley to a doctor and send him to where others also think they are Napoleon!--That "interview" with Arianna Huffington was sick. He and the network owe Arianna and the public an official apology. He was rude, smug, mean and incoherant. Everyone I know who watched it was screaming, Shut up, Carlie!Such a shame You have lost our trust.I have watched you for years--some people cannot take success. Say goodbye, Charley, it's over. medical leave for 20 years. Goodbye arrogant one!
I generally find interesting Charlie Rose's interviews, but I too was taken aback by his interview with AH. As many have said, his constant interruptions prevented AH from fully answering his questions, and created a very disjointed and increasingly frustrating interview. But what really hit me was how Charlie seemed to not understand her points even when it was obvious what she was trying to say. He's certainly not stupid so I kept wondering - what's going on here? Why is he pretending not to 'get' what she's saying. If he doesn't agree with her point - fine - but why throw out 'straw man' arguments and tangential examples? I expect more thoughtful and relevant comments from him. I don't think the main problem is that C. Rose's sexist - I don't know if he is or isn'. But I do think he's too vested in defending 'his world' - be it the media, corporate capitalism, status quo - that his 'interview' suffers when the guest presents viewpoints and FACTS that take on his world. I will continue to watch as Rose's interviews are still better than most of the screamfests and bumper-sticker 'analysis' on TV. But I too - after watching many of his political and economic interviews - am more aware of his biases and how they shape his questions and tone during the interview. I think his 'cultural' and scientific interviews are a better bet. Thanks.
Whether Charlie Rose agreed with Arianna Huffington's comments/opinions or not, she was a guest at his show and, as such, was unquestionably entitled to be treated with the appropriate respect. I am apalled at the rude treatment she received from him -- it was almost like being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly! Interrupting Huffington every time she tried to explain something is plain wrong and inexcusable. Why didn't he interrup Sophia Loren's silly tears when she started crying over nothing? It is there where he had a reason to stop the interview, but he patiently and politely continued it. I also ask why Rose didn't display the same rudeness when he interview Nancy Pelosi? Because she is a top politician. Huffington is not stupid -- if she were, she would not be a frequent guest at CNN. I applaud Huffington for staying calm, cool and collected despite his constant rudeness. If I were Huffington I would NEVER accept an invitation to be interviewed by Rose again. CHARLIE ROSE OWES ARIANNA HUFFINGTON A PUBLIC APOLOGY. In closing, I noticed that this interview is not placed online for other to watch. I CHALLENGE YOU, CHARLIE ROSE, TO PUT THIS INTERVIEW ON YOUR HOME PAGE INTERNET FOR EVERYONE TO VIEW!
Excuse me Lynne, But Charlie Rose happens to be a member of the Huffington Post. I also think its healthy for people to debate and disagree on certain things. That is what makes a good conversation. Even though I do agree that Charlie Rose should not interupt his guests.
Huffington's argument is sufficiently fuzzy that Mr. Rose's strategy of pressuring her for clarification and detail is understandable and necessary.
Shame on you, Charlie. How utterly arrogant and rude you were with Arianna Huffington. You constantly interrupted, criticized and showed her much disrespect. (Much the same occurred when you interviewed Paul Krugman. Your reputation for a fair and articulate interviewer was to say the least, hugely diminished. Why don't you have an interview with yourself, about yourself and all you think you know and get it over with?
Arianna Huffpo has been on the show 13 TIMES. HELLLLLOOOOOOO? So which is she - self hating victim or cynical opportunist? here she is promoting Mr post partisan Obama at the same time pushing a book attacking the right wing. Can you spell BULLCHIPs?
I watched the interview and I was disappointed. I cannot recall Rose ever interrupting a guest so much. It would be interesting to measure how long Rose spoke compared to his guest -- at times it seemed that the segment was about Rose's views. By accident, I heard Huffington talk about her new book on a radio show, and she was very clear in explaining the points she makes in her book (regardless of whether one agrees with them or not). Rose's interview was very confusing, and distracting, and this is coming from a long-time viewer of the show. There was obviously an issue that Rose took exception to, but it was not clear what that was to justify this much derision towards a guest. In addition, Rose should do some soul-searching to figure out if there is some deep-seated fear and gender-bias he is not aware of. Finally, I wish Rose was this much obnoxious, or defiant to some of our elected officials. This was a really bad performance from the host. I am very disappointed.
I was shocked and horrified with Charlie Rose's interview with Arianna Huffington yesterday. He was extremely rude to her, took up most of the interview, firing questions at her and hot giving her a chance to respond. I admired her cooldignity under fire and she came out looking alot better than Charlie. I have watched the show for a long time and admired his skills as an interviewer but now I see a very unprofessional side of this man. In fact, I have seen his professionalism deteriorate over time. I believe Charlie was threatened by a strong woman with views different from his own. He came off looking sexist, arrogant, demeaning and rude beyond belief. Moreover, it is not the place for an interviewer to air his own views to the exclusion of his guests. Guiding a guest is one thing but interrupting and talking over them constantly is just bad manners and bad interviewing skills and as a viewer it put a knot in my stomach. What is going on with Charlie? Has his health deteriorated to the point that he can't control his emotions to do his job properly? If so, he should be dealing with his issues in therapy and not let them spill out in his interviews. If he wants the stage he should not be doing interviews with people but have his own show of personal commentary instead. Also, as a woman, I must say I'm deeply offended and upset by his antics and I would like to see him apologize for his behaviour on his own show. PBS is usually known for good taste and professionalism.
I'm really puzzled but the claims that Charlie was overstepping his duties as an interviewer and trying stifle Arianna's points with his own. The real problem is that, while Ms. Huffington raises some important points that ought to be brought to the table, she hasn't much to say about tackling those points. She is a propaganda queen, interested only in continuing this bi-partisian mudslinging, not with actually digging deep and trying to solve these problems. Charlie did what any good interviewer should. When she offered a provoking opinion in terms of right-left politics, Charlie pressed her to elaborate, offer substance to her sensational claims and, in general, dispense with the bullshit. Because Arianna was unable to do this most of the time, she looked like she was getting trampled. That's not Charlie's fault, but hers, for relying on such half-baked arguments to support some admittedly valid claims. Of course, what can you expect from someone trying to drawn in as many viewers to her website, but sensationalism?
I know it is late but I didn't have the time yesterday. Charlie Rose I know you tried to laugh this fact away by saying you would be getting comments and it was okay because you were "friends" but this interview revealed your utter sexism - in fact when you said that about the comments to Arianna - it had the air of a flirtation as a means to get around your inexcusable behavior - also a sexist tactic. Your question about her many lives was not anything you would ask your gray haired male guests who you always talk to with reverence and hushed tones - work on this. But onto something more substantive - I don't agree with everything Arianna says and by the way I thought she stood up to you pretty well -but whether this current financial crisis is a result of right politics - yes it is -- the credit and financial lobby convinced or bribed the administration and legislatures to look the other way as they perpetuated fradulent practices and now claim they didn't know. I as a lapsed MBA knew they were called subprime for some reason - and that my artist friends who were borrowing 100% for homes that this was going to lead to no-good. Banks if they had thought about it one second knew that if the market turned down it would be a disaster and if they didn't understand whatthey were doing should not have been doing it. Now we go on to the credite card market - who in their right minds would think it would be a good idea for everyone to be leveraged up to the hilt - and lets not speak of the upcoming disaster with LBO's The press has been reporting this for about 5 years although it was never in the headlines - there was too much money to be made so everyone looked away -particularly the right -these were criminal acts but I guess the problem is now so wide spread that to put everyone in jail will create another crisis. So was bailing out Bears Stern a political decision - well it certainly was the result of a political decision - every time one of the finacial guru's says they didn't know I want to get sick. Investigate that Charlie Rose - find out how this really happened rather than listening with such reverence to these self important men.
I really would like to hear what Arianna is thinking. If anyone hears that she is to be interviewed again by someone (else), please tell.
I think Arianna Huffington needs to be invited back to the show to have a chance to answer the questions that were pitched to her by Charlie and answered by him. Charlie did most of the talking and did not give the quest much response time.I would like to hear what she has to say. i thought it was the worst interview I have seen on the show so far. Charlie dominated the show for what purpose?
I'm a big fan of CR, but this interview genuinely was painful to view and, especially, to hear. If CR would simply watch and listen to a replay of this interview, I suspect that he energetically would concur.
There is something supremely contradictory about the existence of this forum. This is not like the usual "letters to the editor" space, where the editor actually answers the letters, whether individually or as a group. Instead, here, hundreds of viewers comment and (mostly) criticize Churlish Charlie, but CC totally ignores them,shutting himself up in a narcissistic, dollars-papered tower. Note that on this web page there is indeed a link to a page where CC is supposed to answer readers' comments, but if you click on it you will find it empty. We are delusional, ladies and gentlemen, if we think CC gives a hoot about what we think of his show. The man is Arrogant Establishment personified, albeit with a nice smile and a pretense of impartiality. It is too bad that a lot of interesting personalities still see fit to honor his show with their presence because they end up playing his game: we start watching the show (with trepidation) to listen to them, but Churlish Charlie inexorably pounces on them to inflict his remote-controlled, K-street cum Wall Street views on us. It is time to say "goodbye and good luck, Charlie".
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie.... You aggressively challenge progressives like Arianna, constantly, and RUDELY, interrupting them, while you just SIT THERE like an aging sycophant slug, when a right wing zealot, especially from the Bush Administration, slings their horseshit policy tripe onto that lovely Phyfe table. Absolutely disgusting!!!
Charlie Rose is wrongly criticized here for questioning outrageous, blanket, simplistic claims by Arianna Huffington. Huffington makes the English language sound like it needs a good doctor, but others have done the same and still managed to get across cogent and meaningful messages. She however is a propagandist, and unable to respond to any reasonable question with a fact- filled answer. She has opinions and that's it. When Charlie Rose confronted on her claim that the bail out of 'Bear Stearns' was simply heartless capitalism giving perks to the rich, she did not have an answer. Rose has had people on his show like Pete Peterson, Lawrence Summers, Paul Volcker, John Snow defending the Bear Stearns bailout as regrettable but necessary to step to prevent a total collapse of the credit markets and with it the Economy. She did not seem to know anything about that. Also there was something two- faced about her coming to criticize the Media for its giving disproportionate attention to Jeremiah Wright. Disproportionate? The man is a key figure in the candidacy of someone who may be the next President of the United States. Huffington seems to want everyone to have converted along with her to the Left, and march to the drum of the Huffington Post. Rose is to be commended for challenging some of her crude generalities. True , it did not make for pleasant and warm viewing. But the way the pitcher pitches the catcher has to catch.
The Trajectory Of History<><><><><> It is inconceivable that that many people don't understand the real ramifications of 911. The horror of 911 wasn't the loss of the buildings, the people, the fact that America was attacked in the homeland. Those losses while grievous all are surmountable. Even if America were to suffer a WMD attack on an American city with losses in the tens of thousands of people and hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be surmountable. What the real danger of another major attack in the American homeland is the fear and panic it would create in the financial markets, and the resulting crisis of liquidity. The attack on 911 opened the abyss, and the only thing that saved the day was the fact that the US was able to shut down the financial system within minutes of the attack. Europe was not so quick and the US had to ship $80,000,000,000 to Europe to insure the liquidity of their banking system. As it was the US closed its financial markets for a week, as a cooling down period and lowered the Fed Funds rate to 1% to insure the system remained liquid. Since that day the US has been careening from one financial malaise to another. First with Enron and up to now with housing bubble and sub prime debacle which for all intents in purposes nearly caused a melt down of the financial system with the collapse of Bear Sterns. The US has been pumping money into the system with cheap interest rates to keep the system liquid. On the other hand because of the huge trade and Federal government deficits the value of the dollar is declining. This has led to commodity prices skyrocketing which is putting a further drag on the economy. All the old familiar tried and true tools to manage the economy are proving to have limited effectiveness this time around. So it maybe that 911 did fracture the system and all the kings horses and all the kings men can not put Humpty Dumpty back together again and we are headed for the perfect storm which brings the financial house down around our ears.
You so rude. You need to move and work for FOX and by the way, why don't you go and defend your Israel, if you love it so much! Leave the American kids alone.
smell the cofee Charlie! the media ( Including yours) have not done your job exposing this criminal Bush regime...
Perhaps Charlie you should avoid interviewing opinionated intelligent ladies as they seem to bring out the worst in you. Shades of Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein (which I realize has already been said). I am posting this a day late because Seattle airs your show 24 hours later. Going through the 115 comments I found your approval rating in the 10 per cent category. Even GWB has a 29 per cent approval rating. I hope this message by many well meaning people is reaching you. You may not be David Susskind but you are the best we have. So please listen up.
The interview, in my view, was not quite as bad as the other commentators indicate. It gave ms. Huffington the opportunity to show that she has spunk and is not willing to provide the qualifiers that Charlie seemed so desperate to force from her. I certainly have seen Charlie behave more badly - I think of the Amy Goodman interview just before the war in 2003 and his hectoring of Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif around that same time. (He was giving his usual worshipful attentions to that jejune blowhard Thomas Friedman and his ilk at that same historic juncture.) Somehow it seems that when Charles is at his worst - rude and hectoring, the guests turn out to be... exactly right!! And when he is obsequious and reverent (think of the recent inexplicable interview with Richard "Wrongo" Perle) the guest is... exactly wrong!! Read correctly, anyone can see the incredible public service Charlie is doing even when he is at his worst.. Credit where credit is due, Charlie has produced some wonderful interviews. This was not one, but his batting average is still pretty good.
Arianna Huffington (the little we got to hear from her) seems to be a smart, interesting woman, who has opinions, is unafraid to express them and is willing to substantiate her positions. Unfortunately, Charlie, barely gave her a chance to speak. The job of an interviewer is to let the guest speak. Worse still, Charlie was not able to express his objections to her positions very coherently. He really came off as obnoxious and not so bright.
I've been a big fan of the Charlie Rose show for years but his interview with Arianna Huffington was offensive. Charlie, you owe Arianna an apology for all the interruptions!
I've been a big fan of the Charlie Rose show for years but his interview with Arianna Huffington was offensive. Charlie, you owe Arianna an apology for all the interruptions!
I watched this interview. I told my wife about it and how disappointed I was in Charlie, who, normally, I think is great. Maybe he was trying to point out what a flip flopper Arianna is, that her book is hypocritical to her previous stances -- whatever. There's nothing I enjoy more than a conservative turning the tables on the current conservative doctrine, yet Charlie wouldn't let her express it. Shame on you Charlie!
Charlie was extremely weak in this interview. He was precisely presenting a "fair and balanced" commentary on Iraq. Her example of a mixed bag" in Iraq was rock solid (acne and cancer). Charlie did not get it... "More security" could be viewed as a mixed bag. Shit Charlie, there is no country for old men. The questions on Israel "are you on your own" weak, weak, weak.
Tell Charlie to let his guests?? Speak as in AH. That was the worst interview I have EVER seen, Joe Burke, 67 years on me and goin strong, but not stayin up to watch CR any more! Can someone respond??
I have to agree with the vast majority of the comments about Charlie's interruptions. He did not allow Ariana to make her points. I am not a fan of either of them but this was a very bad interview if not one of Charlie's worst. She had some interesting things to say, but Charlie would not let her make her case. Why, I am not sure. I suspect that it seemed to him she was criticizing him for not recognizing the fact that the new right had co-oped him as a journalist as much as they co-oped the main stream media. The odd thing is that whereas before this interview I did not think that much of Ariana; after Charlie got through with her, I began to think maybe she had some good insights into the political situation and Charlie's performance became evidence that she was hitting too close to home. I guess I am not surprised that Mr. Rose is not really so different from the main stream media as I might have previously thought. Still it is not like we have much in the way of alternatives to the Charlie Rose Show for some form of intelligent conversation even though unfortunately the host sometimes becomes an impediment to a real discussion.
Charlie, I will add a short comment to those of others. You are now famous. You did not get there by interviews like the one of AH yesterday. I urge you to take the time and look at the entire tape of your socalled interview of her. I say "socalled" because you did most of the talking (blathering). In fact, I became so discussed that I turned it off. I have noticed that interrupting has become a habit with you. On the other hand, you seem to avoid interrupting political dignitaries. I don't know if your behavior is a sexist thing or not, as suggested by others. I venture to say it is not. The bottom line is YOU ARE NOT WILLING, OR POSSIBLY ABLE, TO BE A GOOD LISTENER. That is one of the most important parts of being a good interviewer.
Charlie I have never seen you be so RUDE. You constantly interrupted Arianna and wouldn't let her make a point. This coming from an interviewer who wouldn't ask a difficult question from neocons. A man who let them state outright lies and wouldn't follow up. What's going on Charlie???
I am a big fan, Charlie, but the way you behaved with Ms. Huffington was despicable. I have seen you do this once before and that was with Paul Krugman. I believe you sensed a "weakness" about them and pounced. It only made you look like a bullying fool.
Charlie Rose's assessment about Bear Stearns is utterly false. I highly recommend this article by Dean Baker about this situation. Rose, invite Baker on to talk about the economy and please, let him speak: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031708J.shtml We know how to keep banks operating even as they go into bankruptcy. England just did this with Northern Rock, a major bank that managed to get itself into huge trouble because of its holding of bad mortgage debt. After it was clear the bank was insolvent, the Bank of England stepped in and essentially took over the bank. It replaced the incompetent managers who had ruined the bank and brought in a new team to straighten out the books. The plan is to resell the bank to the private sector once the books are in order.
Research that Arianna Huffington needs to do: It appears that the people behind Hitler are now behind Bush It appears that the people behind Hitler moved to the United States and are now behind Bush. Will they vanish to another country and give Bush all the Credit or Blame. A through investigation is needed of the all the US Government Wars starting with WWI. It was President Wilson that declared war on Germany and turned a European war into WWI. Who were the people behind Wilson? Who were the Washington DC lawyers that stopped the notification of ship passengers that they would be traveling in a war zone? The Founding Fathers provided the States with representatives. In 1913, the addition of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, took away the States Representatives and made both houses of Congress Representatives of the Citizens. The Senators are now (Selected by Special Interests) and voted on by the Citizens. In 1917, which is the four years necessary for a majority of the Senators to no longer be representatives of the States, they voted to allow President Wilson to declare war on Germany and start World War I. Before this the Senate refused to authorize President Wilson to start WWI. Who were the people and organizations behind the 17th amendment? In order to fund wars, the US Government needed to spend more money than it had available. This was solved by the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Who were the people and organizations behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System? In order to make sure that the Merchants of death would get paid, the 16th Amendment was added to the United States Constitution in 1913. It allows the Federal government to levy an Income tax and to seize property without due process. Who were the people and organizations behind the 16th amendment? Who are the people behind Bush and the Neocons and the talk of starting WWIII? Are they the same people that were behind Hitler and the Nazis? Why are Europeans who disagree with the official mandate of acceptable thought and actions about WWII put into Prison? What truths are being hidden?
The worst interview I have ever seen on this program or on any other interview program on public television which is all I listen to. Ms Huffington had much of interest to say, but I didn't get to hear it because of the constant interruptions of her anxious and agitated interviewer. I was impressed by Ms Huffingtons calm and confident manner in the face of Chatlie Rose's hecic barrage of comments. I am no fan of Ms H, I do not read her comments and actually know little about her, except that she changed sides at some point. I have found CR's interviews interesting and informative in the past, although I am often annoyed by his too frequent interruptions, but if there are many more like this one, I'll give up on this program
Rose has been gradually discredited over many years, but this interview really scraped the bottom. I got the feeling that Arianna was dumbfounded by the idiocy coming out of Rose's mouth. I have never before seen an interview where the host tried to prove the guest wrong. But it's PBS - Petroleum Broadcasting Company.
To Charlie Rose: I have usually thoroughly enjoyed your interviews. The interview with Ariana Huffington is an exception. I can only term your behaviour as badgering, hectoring, and uninterruped interrupting. What exactly was your agenda? It only served to distract and make me angry.
Arianna Huffington attempted to share her insights and wisdom as Charlie Rose persisted in interjecting HIS opinions with contrary statements and questions, not waiting for her to answer. Charlie's arrogance was infuriating and unacceptable. She deserves the same respect he so easily gives men. Arianna handled it quite well, considering his rude behavior. It was an awful interview. The worst I've ever seen. Charlie should be ashamed of himself.
I watched this program earlier today on television,and I think there has been some of Charlie's overtalking Arianna removed from the internet version. Yes, Charlie over talks with some of his guests, especially the ones he calls friends. Do you always want to watch a stiff and structered show? How many of you viewers interrupt or get excited when having a conversation with family and friends? Politics and religion cause people to want to have their voice heard. Arianna is more relaxed that when she first appeared on the Charlie Rose Program. Watch the old videos and see a difference. As far as her view points I do not agree.
I am a Charlie Rose fan but what he did to A. Huffinton was a crime. I would consider the interview sexist except he did the same number on Richard Holbrook. Charlie should get a language coach to practice raising concise questions that bring out all of the facets of his guest TO THE VIEWER! If one diagramed some of Charlie's questions they would look like a picture of DNA or a tinker toy project spinning out of control. All of the best, Floyd
I am a fan of the Charlie Rose Show and watch it regularly, but I have to agree with the majority of the comments, your interview with Arianna Huffington was terrible. Man, you needed to shut up and let the woman speak.
AH comments on the Bear Sterns buy out were naive at best and ignorant at worst. It is totally understandable that Mr Rose became incredulus and stopped her gibberish. It looks like his hanging out with the likes of Mayor Bloomberg have paid off. The credit markets had become illiquid and the collateral damage would have spread causing a melt down of the entire global financial system. This crisis of liquidity was what caused the Great Depression of the 1930's. Isn't it interesting that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke area of expertise is on the Great Depression. Do you possibly think that someone knew what they were doing when they appointed him? Say, "Thank you GW"
Iâ??ve been a fan of Charlieâ??s show for quite a few years and have always respected his intellectual and generally unbiased delivery, his equal treatment to opposing sides of various issues and the wide range of guests he hosts from across the political spectrum. But I must say that I was quite dismayed at his treatment of Arianna Huffington. He seemed genuinely threatened by her opinions and was rather antagonistic in some of his responses, which I thought was very unlike him. Felt like I was watching a debate rather than an interview. Or maybe Charlie has a secret crush, hmmmmm? LOL
Charlie, Next time get a Arianna Huffington doll and interview yourself
I read many of the comments before I watched the interview. Until 10:30, I disagreed with the comments. Then, while dicussing Bear Sterns, Charlie's behaviour became unbearable. Constant interruption, almost like he was personally offended. It was almost surreal, quite weird, and offensive to viewers.
sorry... got to turn you off Charlie. Anyone who would consider that kind of bully pulpit "interview" to be fair and honest, does not get another piece of my attention and valuable time. Goodbye Charlie
Damn! It sure would have been nice if Charlie Rose let Arianna answer the freaking questions without jumping in and talking all over her. He was rude and down right indignant at times. This "interview" was a trainwreck!
I just watched the program again. Why did you feel the need to interrupt this woman so many times. You really are a rude person!
Juan, I used to watch Charlie all the time and while he can be goofy at times, he isnt sexist so I dont actually give much credence to the comments here. I will admit I thought he definately reacted with gusto to her comments, but one should be able to defend such statements and not assume that Charlie is some worshipping twit on her "blog" she can ban for insufficient homage. Anyway, this is much more time than I would every image giving to the stale Ms Huffpo - the charmming Gov form North Carolina is more my taste today so - later...
First, I am a big Charlie Rose fan. Without a doubt the most intelligent and far-ranging interview show on television. But the AH interview, what happened? I came to this site thinking that I would probably be the only person in the country to respond to the take-no-prisoners interview style and have been cheered that there are many other people who were as disappointed as I. I felt that if I had put a stopwatch to this interview we got very little Arianna but did get a double dose of Charlie. So I would like to suggest this for interviews going forward: Ask the question quickly and give your guest the opportunity to respond. Thats the kind of give and take we Charlie Rose fans love!
Worst. Interview. Ever. An astonishing failure, must be something else going on with Charlie. How come he only acts this badly with Arianna Huffington, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman...wait...is there a pattern here?
Your show is one of the few programs on television still worth watching. There is an intellectual dignity about you and your show that unfortunately is seldom seen in this day and age. Having said that, this interview with Arianna Huffington was absolutely terrible. I've read the comments posted over the last 2 days and agree with most of them. Charlie, I fully respect you and have probably watched your show a 1000 times or more since 1992 but this interview was terrible. You asked her questions but did not let her answer. Everytime she started to get on a roll you stopped her. It was irritating. It sounds like you really want to be able to speak your mind about the issues of today. It would change the way people view you but you may want to consider finding another way (talk shows, news shows etc...), if you really want to express your opinions about current events. (Incidentally, I am very interested in hearing what you think but it is not working at all in the current format of the show.). Tons of people look up to you as a beacon of sanity. The world needs many more shows like yours; ones having a dignified tone and thoughtful intellectual conversation. By the way, i still want to hear what Arianna has to say. Maybe you could have her back on the show next week.
Charlie, AH has been your best guest in a long time, her thoughts where right on, she portrayed Hillary perfect, for exactly what she is, a person that will do anything to take control of the white house, Why don't people remember Vincent Foster, why don't people remember Ron Brown, both of these deaths should be under investigation. But you made a few comments during your interview with AH in regards to Bear Stearns that they where bailed out, man are you drinking cool aid, Bear Stearns was not bailed out, first off, they where sold to Morgan for pennies on the dollar. Lets talk to the Americans that own stock in Bear Stearns and see if they feel Bear Stearns was bailed out. You had the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York, use Americans money so that allowed Morgan Chase the money to purchase the firm. You actually believe them when they tell you that this was only done to ensure stabilization of the financial markets what a fool you are. The damage to the market was already done nothing more could happen, except they wanted the damage to continue for the America public. If you are such a great guy why don't you look into how many people had sold short Bear Stearns, and if so who made all the money off shorting this firm. Second if you care, why don't you understand how Chase Morgan will make a immense profit by purchasing Bear Stearns, what a joke, what a fleecing of America, we are suppose to sit back and watch this corruption unfold right before our eyes and then be told that this is the best thing for the markets, what a lie Charlie. The best thing that could have happened is and I still believe that a shareholder lawsuit should be initiated immediately, and the markets examined, to really determine what transpired with Bear Stearns. All of their assets where not bad, could not possible be, what happened. The speculation on this firm happened, and there was too much money for the fascists to make by bringing the firm down. Let's open up their books lets do some forensic examination, this is criminal what they did to Bear Stearns and their employees. How stupid are you, I believe that you are manipulated, by the fascists that own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. I will quote Woodrow Wilson who was used by these fascist to get the Federal Reserve Act passed in Congress "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson Please Charlie, but you play their game because they make you feel important, and you live the good life from supporting this corruption, currently these fascist control all of the candidates for President, no real change will ever come to the US under any of these candidates, mark my words.
I'm disappointed Charlie showed he can have so little class. He wasted the time of his viewers: we don't tune in to hear him bark at guests like a maniac.
Charlie, why did you ask Arianna a question in the form of a paragraph and then interrupt her in mid-sentence? What was going on with YOU, Charlie? Whether you agree with her politics was not the issue; you should have allowed her to share her thoughts with your audience and then let us make up our minds. You sounded like the old Rose who wouldn't let his guests speak because he (Rose)thought his own ideas more important.
It has aggravated me for a long time on how CR interrupts his guests. Some barely have one or two words out, and boom. I like Arianna. . .I may not always agree with her, but in the past few years she has opened her eyes to the Republican party and she is not as right wing as she used to be. Last night CR's gentleman manners were left somewhere else. I have never seen him interrupt a guest as much as he interrupted Arianna last night. Whether he agrees with her or not about her book is about, he could have let her finish her thoughts and want she wanted to put across for the American people to know about the Media and how the Bush administration handles the Iraq war.
What in the world happened Charlie Rose? Toward the end of AH attack ad you must have had a sense of how over the top you were, predicting her "fans" would write in; saying how you "love her." You may love her; but you didn't treat her fairly, you debated her, then acted like it was an interviewing technique. AH knows your opinions, we wanted to hear hers. You see yourself as taking a "journalistic" approach, not this time Bubba, read the comments, AND self-reflect. She has credible insights, and offers new thought, precisely because she is willing to change. First time I heard you say to a guest, "You can't say....." She, and we, thought she was invited to "say". At one time,you respond with high energy, "This is where we disagree...." Really, so what? You ordinarily like the "some would say","it has been said", and quote from your friend you thought was funny, it wasn't, AH has 9 lives? Or, she has courage to change, and not feel ashamed; in fact, a sense of entitlement to feel proud of her personal evolution. You probably missed it, we didn't hear all of it she tried to say she attempts to be authentic and honest about her perspectives. You were talking over her. You would do well to apologize to AH, without the cutzie remarks, and having her return. Please bring the gentlemen you can be to the "interview. AH has had a more examined public life, in politics, than you. Put your personal life up in your glass house, for the world to see, then see how much press is too much? You are much better than this interview, we are left wondering who AH is and what her views are about important issues, this moment in time. Some would say, what you find challenging in AH is an aspect of yourself. I'm a fan of both of you, I'm writing you Charlie, she's fine; you sir, were out of line.
Wow - since when did Arianna Huffington become a minor deity? It was a fine interview - God forbid Huffington have to defend herself...
I'd recently assured a friend who refuses to watch Charlie Rose because he won't let his guests talk unless he agrees with their every word that Charlie had calmed down over the years and was a better interviewer. Oh well. The interview with Arianna Huffington was a real set back. What was that about?? Ms. Huffington has something to say. She was gracious. Charlie Rose was back to arrogant ways -- interrupting, refusing to hear what she was trying to convey, rude, obnoxious. Maybe I'll get to listen to Arianna on someone else's show. No, I will no longer recommend to others that they watch this show, though I'll watch it myself. Perhaps Charlie will be chastized enough by the comments and responses to pull himself back into line. Once can hope.
Today I was so stunned and aggravated as I watched Mr.Rose's "interview" with Arianna Huffington that I took the time to see if there was a comment page on his shows website. I have never seen an interviewer INTERRUPT a guest as much, nor be as rude. I have a heightened respect for Ms. Huffington now as she was remarkable in the manner in which she stayed in equanimity and held on to, not only her sense of humor, but politeness as well, in an extremely awkward situation. What was he thinking? I got so agitated I had to turn it off. A unique experience for me and one to cause me to be much more discerning when I attempt to watch the Charlie Rose Show again. For right now, I am DONE with Charlie Rose. Could be forever. How sad! Jan Miller Portland Or.
My husband and I had to leave this interview in frustration after about 20 minutes because CR was so obnoxious, condescending and downright rude to Arianna Huffington. She was too polite to tell him to shut up so she could answer the questions he had posed, which apparently were only asked so that he would have a platform on which to express his own increasingly right wing views. He has apparently become an apologist for the Bush administration. It was shameful.
Yes, of course Charlie was speaking all over Huffington. He's in damage control, terrified that everything around him is spiraling out of control--politics, the economy, etc...--and he has to keep his patrons happy. ___|___ Yes, the majority of his viewers worry about the price of milk and gas, but we are not his audience, we are not the ones who keep him in the lifestyle he has come to enjoy. Charlie is the guy invited to dinner parties and social events, along with the lights of the day, to help make those events a success. The Charlie Rose show is just one aspect of that social circle that writes the checks to keep him on the air. ___|___ Right now his audience is deeply concerned with politics and the economy, and how it effects their lifestyle. His patrons are in danger of losing control of the good life, and his own personal portfolio--both social and monetary--is probably shaky as well. ___|___ When Charlie gets like this with Huffington, we the viewers get a glimpse into the world that he lives in.
Ms. Huffington is playing dumb hear. Who is the intended audience of the rev Right media circus? Is it the American voters or citizens of Islamic countries? Alongside her much reviled quote right wing media unquote, Ms. Huffington is but a cog in a booster rocket engine that is designed to impel Obama all the way to Mount Rushmore by way of the White House. Barack Obama is the most artificial persona ever in the American political scene if not the entire history of mankind.
Charlie, what were you thinking? Viewers were left grasping for an explanation. It has created an obvious credibility issue for the program. What's to be done?
Arianna Huffington. If I didn't love the sound of her voice I don't think I could listen to her running in circles blaming the right for everything and anything. I agree with much of what she says, she's a lovely woman to watch, obliviously with an IQ over the top. However it was completely impossible for me to figure out how she comes to the conclusions she speaks on. I have a hard time following her logic. And I'm a intuitive woman. I'm trying not to be mean but get the impression that she's been allowed carte blanche to say anything she's like (that beautiful voice) with out the discipline of crafting words with integrity. I get the impression she'd rather argue than solve the problem.
In