Charlie Rose

mustafakemal  09/19/2012 06:24 AM Report

Our company offers you various tours to istanbul from short to long - term and for different budget. incoming tour operator, travel agent, which offers different kinds of travel services in istanbul best travel agency in turkey www.packagetoursturkey.com

istanbultours  06/01/2012 07:16 PM Report

well worth the ride, as you will all parts of the great city, much of it you may miss oing alone, the guide know their stuff, a must for a tourist, just sit back and enjoy the ride and city. www.turkeytouristguides.com and http://www.allistanbultours.com/

TridentPRO  05/20/2011 10:43 PM Report

Charlie isn't political as much as Orhan is political. Charlie knows this about Orhan and through a minimalist interview, asking only gently leading questions, gets Orhan to open up. Charlie can be analytical and political, but here he just eases back and lets his subject take the center stage. Masterful.

NatalkaPetrenko  05/17/2011 09:36 PM Report

I disagree with the previous comments and think it was a pretty good interview. It's clear that Charlie Rose's show has a political bent, but why hold that to be a negative? Like Pamuk feels most comfortable in the environment of Turkey and Istanbul, Charlie Rose seems to feel most comfortable in current events and politics. Every talk show host has a specialty, and this one is Charlie's; one just has to accept this when tuning in to the show -- and to appreciate it as well. In fact, this show is one of my main sources of news. Anyway, Pamuk is one of Turkey's public intellectuals, and it is certainly interesting and valuable to have his opinion about his country's political and social situation. Thank you, Charlie, and I look forward to many more programs.

robdverity  05/17/2011 05:13 PM Report

His Museum of Innocence is all I've read of his and its a charmer.

amazon_nodotnocom  05/17/2011 12:38 PM Report

i was greatly looking forward to this interview and i was so dissapointed charlie..

the interview per se: Charlie, you were ill prepared.you went in with a preconceived notion of an interview which a) did not seem to suit or please your interviewee b) you kept pressing the interview in that direction in excruciating manner, which frustrated me as a viewer-i wanted to hear from orhan pamuk, a writer of all writers, a nobel laureate, a prominent member in the pantheon of modern turkish and global literati- on what HE wanted to say.Charlie hes a writer, you could not fit him in a wrong mold like that.

c) you were ill prepared charlie for orhan. you had not read his latest book, and it was so obvious when pamuk tried to allude to the subject-u just wanted to get back to your political interview.

As a viewer, being both a political junkie as well as a culture junkie I was upset ,frustrated and dissapointed with your lack of flexibility, signs of rookie journalism, and dissapointed you had no idea what pamuk was talking about, talking about kemal and his beloved, and her hair combs which were so touchingly displayed in the background as part of the live new museum of innoncence.

Pamuk was talking about todays pamuk and you asked him about turkeys relations with israel!!:(

This interview could ve been used in your serious of the turkish museum of innocence. but you should have had orhans consent to go along with your political and f.policy questions and u could ve been in some sort of sync with one another.

Last, more general interview. this series on today's turkey smells a bit of canned food. It is not well researched, not versatile, too myopic and seems to be unware and uninterested in turkey's long and multifaceted history, which makes it in many ways what it is today.

It is unidimensional, superficial and kind of boring may i add.

Again, a preconceived, poor notion of modern turkey which you seem to want to believe in (modern, dynamic, rising economic giant-number 18 ,number 3..., relations with iran (superficially approached )and with israel (even worse) that seems so light, so skin deep, so prepackaged, so boring, so unfair....

I love your shows Charlie. please dont dissapoint us like that!

alisaygin  05/17/2011 02:17 AM Report

I can't understand why Charlie repeats to have interviews with Pamuk, who is not connected to Turkish society and doesn't follow politics, freedom of speech issues as much as he tracks his checkbook.

Yasar Kemal, Zulfu Livaneli, Mehmet Aksoy would be much better artists to get interviews. Especially Aksoy whose sculpture was found to be beasty by Prime Minister and hence ordered to be destructed just like the Buda sculptures in Afganistan.

Orhan Pamuk has benefited from the mish-mash of orientalism, the smoke under the east/west conundrum, but this interview is a solid proof that he likes to keep traditional values against modernity. He even cannot distinguished who are second citizens in the country. All the positions from the army to police, from the judiciary to all major mayorships, even all the state offices are controlled by traditional religous cast and it will become more and more for secular groups to survive. The author cannot see authoritarian regime other than the military regimes, he can't even see how authoritarian AKP has become now.

And one more clafication about the coup-deta that last came in 1980, that essentially came as a capitalistic cold war machinery rather than a secular army. 1980 was a critical time to de-politize Turkish society, it moved Turkey more towards the Western goals against Soviet Bloc and injected the core capitalistic principles into the fertile country. Pamuk unfortunately seems to forget that 1980 was for post cold-war policies, not for secular lifestyle issues as he claimed.

Charlie, please talk to other people also. Take Yasar Kemal for example. He is 10 times bigger than Pamuk even with one more Nobel prize.

globetrotter  05/16/2011 04:06 PM Report

What a disappointing interview - Pamuk was ok but Charlie, your questions were terrible! You just had two previous shows where you had an opportunity to ask every political question about Turkey under the sun - what more could Pamuk add?! Here was a great chance (after two very political shows on Turkey) for us viewers to hear about Turkish literature, art and culture from one of its greatest modern proponents and curators and Charlie blew it! This was also a fantastic opportunity to compare and contrast trends in Turkish literature and culture with those of the world or even just chit-chat about the writing process or world literature in general. Instead, we were stuck listening to an hour of Turkish coups, foreign policy, free speech, democracy and blah blah blah to the point where Pamuk (an admitted non-expert in any of these) himself had to ask Charlie to give it a rest already!

Charlie, I suggest you revamp your show and cure it of its obsession with politics and political economy. This was unfortunately just the latest example in a long-term negative trend in this show. I am sure that other long-time fans like myself have noticed Charlie's increasing obsession with politics. Charlie has always asked political questions of architects, actors, authors and other non-political guests, and it is sometimes interesting. But over the past few years the guest list has become dominated by politicians, economists, political journalists and, worst of all, political commentators and pundits. And now even with the increasingly rare non-political guest, it is once again political questions that dominate. This is a real shame because the Charlie Rose show became great and special because of its fascinating breadth and depth of guests and topics. It is now becoming just another stage for the talking heads and, worst of all, Charlie doesn't seem to mind one bit and only wants to talk politics. I guess I'll just go back to this website and view the archives of back when this show was interesting.

CarolJ  05/16/2011 01:05 PM Report

To webstaff this film stopped at 41 minutes.

REMant  05/16/2011 12:39 PM Report

This interview appears to have made quite a stir in Turkey, where it could be seen on satellite networks (see for example http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-244053-orhan-pamuk-aka-the-advocate-of-the-civilian-dictatorship .html) Pamuk was apparently one of those targeted in an alleged military coup attempt, which some now accuse the govt of using to curtail liberties. As in Egypt the military has seen itself as the bulwark of both Turkish nationalism and secularism, while he has been critical of the treatment of the minorities as well as supportive of liberalization. It is my understanding that he is not a practicing Muslim. We would likely consider him here a liberal.

While the struggle is, no doubt as he says, between pre-modern and modern society, and about the importance of the development of self-respect, he's mistaken if he thinks the latter can be found in modern democracy, which reveals rather the absence of self-worth, however "expressive" it may be, because it lacks the very competence and self-sufficiency to sustain it, and is in fact, suborned. In this respect multiculturalism, which pretends to defend identity, is a sham.

Democracy is the project of welfare capitalism, run basically by bankers, the kind of progressivism advocated as much by Bismarck as by Tammany Hall. It patronizes instead of building self-esteem, resulting, perversely, in shame, narcissism, "compensation," and "family romance," or simply, spoiled brats. It is accompanied by the development both of an evangelical religion and a marketplace mentality that trivializes the culture and community it vainly seeks. Eugenics and nativism often get involved, as they did in late 19th c America, (documented by a neglected volume by T Jackson Lears called "No Place of Grace,") as much as in post-WWI Germany. It is, in fact, really no different from fascism or Stalinism.

There's a world of difference between democracy and the noblesse oblige the loss of which Tocqueville lamented, or Kipling's white man's burden, on the one hand, and the Liberalism of Smith, the republicanism of Locke, Herder's Volk, or the socialism of Marx and Engels, on the other. Or, I would say, of the kind of world envisioned by Islam, for instance, in the prohibition of usury. Pre-modern it may be; bad doesn't necessarily follow.

Here's the point: so far from being a flight from freedom, abandonment of self is required to find real strength of character, and with it, peace and prosperity. Hobbes made that clear in the midst of the English Civil War when he argued that mankind should be happy to submit to monarchy to obtain peace, tho good government observed natural law, and in this he was following a long tradition. Paradoxically, it is the voluntarists who believe ppl ought not to have freedom, and those rationalists such as Ockham, Luther and Calvin that they must. Democrats have rebelled against kings not from a belief in an higher reason, but in an higher power. Free will has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge, or even His will, but the acceptance that in this world what you see is what you get. But, when we do renounce our own will, we find God's and become reasonable creatures.

In this connection, Kipling remarked of the press, that power without responsibility is the prerogative of the harlot, suggested to me by what is quite a good little piece on the "Arab Spring" by Christopher Hill at project-syndicate: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hill4/English

Merkel and Sarkozy are not impressed by multiculturalism anymore than I, but I hardly think it applies to the question of Turkish EU membership, even in the current economic climate, which it is clear has brought out nativist tendencies. The migration might run the other way. But they would like to see the Africans and Arabs stay at home as mush as many Americans would Latin Americans, altho I don't know what the Germans would have done without their guest workers, nor we without ours, but I wouldn't blame the situation in any case on their rulers. It can certainly be taken to extremes. I understand French warships operating in the Mediterranean recently failed to pick up persons fleeing Libya, with the result that a significant number of them perished.

Of Balzac, Stendhal, Flaubert, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Mann, only the last, in 1929, received the Nobel Prize, which began in 1901. Looking down the list of Nobel literature prize recipients tho one can see that it is hardly devoid of progressive preoccupation and prejudice, Mommsen in 1902 being perhaps the last who's not cosmopolitan, novelist or poet.