Charlie Rose

henryjsx  06/11/2012 07:31 PM Report

If you use the same intellectual argument -- never using force to enact policy then the US wouldn't have fought in WW2. Does this one war justify violence or do you have to make exceptions and take out dictators?

I'm all for democracy and I'm willing to fight for it for others. Even though the US has made many-ah-blunder in freeing people from oppressive, ideologically different governments. Yeah, we've inserted tyrants in the name of Capitalism -- I think this is horrible! But I remain hopeful that we can and will fight against extremist and retain a free flowing and vibrant democratic society. I think one has to maintain optimism and fight for what is right, instead of not do anything.

charlierose7  05/27/2012 04:02 PM Report

I thought it was a goofy argument Charlie gave: "My friend told me he didn't meet a single person in Iraq who thought the invasion was a mistake." Iraq has a population of over 30 million people. How many Iraqis did this friend talk to under an American Army tent...10? ....20? You cannot shrink an entire countries opinion by one biased persons weekend getaway. Unfortunately, this points out the wonderfully narrow and naive view of occupiers and those who make excuses for them (like Charlie). If you are not willing to admit Iraq was not a "mistake" it was a "crime," then you are no different then the people who committed the crime.

efeinbe2  01/14/2012 12:08 PM Report

i love you charlie, but shut up and let the man speak.

orangewarm  01/11/2012 08:58 AM Report

I dont necessarily think it was a bad interview but Charlie was ill-prepared. He wanted to cover a range of topics and didnt have time. Really the discussion should have just focussed on one topic ie. Iraq, or the history of US foriegn policy, or Israel/Palestine.

vma2020  10/17/2011 11:03 PM Report

Very disappointed with Charlie Rose, he did not let N. Chomsky to talk. It is the first time I see C. Rose interrupting his guest so often. It is very clear that it is difficult to be at the level of Chomsky, therefore it may be better to let him talk so ALL OF US can learn from him (even Rose). Terrible interview Charlie! The best you could do is to bring Chomsky again to your show and be interviewed by you!

art9schw  12/31/2010 12:05 PM Report

Charlie Rose has had Doris Kearns Goodwin on what, 38 times? Chomsky twice and the second time Rose wasn't hosting. Nothing against Goodwin, but is she that profound, really?

redsoxfankjc  08/04/2010 10:41 PM Report

This is an incredibly poor interview. Say what you want about Chomsky, but he undoubtedly espouses thought-provoking viewpoints and with a razor sharp theoretical mind. It's too bad Charlie Rose didn't adequately prepare for the interview or even allow Chomsky to speak. His belligerence is reminiscent of a Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck; I honestly expected him to start yelling 'NO SPIN ZONE'.

For anyone who disagrees, watch some of, say, David McCullough's interviews. Charlie treats McCullough with the utmost respect and deference. Why? Because McCullough's romantic view of American life and history tickles Mr. Rose's romantic sensibilities. Chomsky, on the other hand, is criminally misunderstood in this and many other debates. As a linguist, he is very conscious of issues of framing, and many people miss that. Our collective assumptions and schema about America, the idea of America, and a democratic society are often unexamined, and I do appreciate how Chomsky at least succeeds in engaging in this sense. However, I fear that he's too discomforting (unlike, as I said, the grandfatherly, deliberate, and optimistic McCullough) and abstract for mainstream media to fairly consider.

Too bad.

mohadib  02/03/2010 10:31 PM Report

Did anyone else find Charlie Rose highly irritating in this interview? He seems outmatched and acts out like a child because of it. This is the worst Rose interview I have ever seen. With the constant butting in in an attempt to look smart or just because Rose was too slow to follow the conversation. I hope Chomsky never comes back, he needs to speak to more intelligent and professional reporters.

zendiscn  01/26/2010 01:18 AM Report

Why can't we elect men like Chomsky?

He is god. In every debate i ever have seen or read (and I’ve seen them all) with this man he has DESTROYS the opponent with the truth. I love when he has to school interviewers as well. He made W.F. Buckley look like the product of the current home schooling method!

I’m calling for Rose to schedule a week of debates Chomsky Vs power elite lap dogs…

mfatah281  01/18/2010 12:44 AM Report

Great Interview!! I'd love to see Mr. Chomsky interviewed again by Mr. Rose in 2010.

andyx1205  01/15/2010 07:44 PM Report

Whenever I am in the mood to watch news & politics on TV, I usually tune into the following: MSNBC and PBS (Charlie Rose's political interviews are great, Bill Moyers is also great).

Most of the other News broadcasts are simply put into place as Propaganda.

Anyways, great interview and kudos to Charlie Rose, he always has the best guests.

dvherna83  04/29/2009 05:07 AM Report

I've been told by one of my professors that Chomsky exaggerates the truth. I just don't see it and she never gave me a specific example. We all need to email charlie rose and demand he have chomsky back on to discuss current affairs.

sshaler  04/08/2009 12:34 AM Report

I've watched a lot of the interviews on this site and the ones with Noam Chomsky are my favorites by far. Something was edited out of this interview and that was frustrating since Charlie Rose asked the question but didn't give the viewers a chance to hear Mr. Chomsky's reply. I would appreciate hearing a lot more from Noam Chomsky.

mayakeys  04/07/2009 02:50 AM Report

I agree with curtoel. I was very excited to hear the answer Chomsky was about to give at 9 minutes. It probably got edited out for being too "technical." What a shame.

Chomsky  02/11/2009 10:16 AM Report

BY FAR one of the most intellectually stimulating conversations ever on Charlie Rose.

Get Noam back on.

curtnoel  12/30/2008 06:09 PM Report

At the 9 minute mark Chomsky was about to answer a question. Then the editing apparently cut to Charlie asking another question. I have a great deal of respect for this program but that was bad editing, pure and simple. I want to know what Chomsky says not what the editors think is important and whats not. Hopefully they will change this somehow. Loved the interview anyway and look forward to more. Chomsky is universally read and admired. In secret in many parts of the world, unfortunately.

terry  09/19/2008 02:35 PM Report

I've seen Professor Chomsky interviewed elsewhere, and as much as I appreciate and value his remarks they do not match the incisiveness found in his books. In public forums, he rarely uses the word "capitalism" critically, which is what really drives the "policy failures" he's exposing, and has fallen into the trap of referring to US actions in Iraq as "war" when in fact it is merely a business plan, broken into clear phases - A, B, C, etc. - and is going quite successfully for the Bush "administration."

our strategy in Iraq mirrors that of your local savings and loan for seeking and securing profits, only distiguished by a greater degree of force, but morally and ethically the same.

Brian  07/19/2008 11:20 PM Report

Anyone with a rightful claim as a news source today needs to include Noam Chomsky. I feel that Charlie Rose did too much interrupting and poor arguing. Mr. Chomsky is brilliant and has the facts in hand. Mr. Rose has only had the man back once more for ~20 minutes in the past FIVE YEARS, and he had someone else conduct the interview.

Anyone who liked listening to Noam Chomsky might find the following three videos from YouTube.com

of interest:

1. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Part I

2. The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

3. The End of Suburbia - 52 minute documentary on oil

Cameron L. Stewart  06/16/2008 02:20 AM Report

The impression I got from this interview is that although Charlie Rose's fans have read Noam Chomsky, Charlie Rose has not. I think this is why the interview seems to get off to such a slow start and the two have such problems communicating. What Charlie Rose needed to do was either a) read Noam Chomsky's formidable writings before having the interview or b) read the various David Barsamian conversations with Chomsky to more quickly come up to speed with Chomsky's thought. Chomsky has a far left wing radical, outside the liberal vs. conservative box perspective, that takes time to digest.

Pablo Escobar  04/15/2008 07:23 PM Report

Charlie, this interview left a substantial blemish on the image that I had of you, namely of being an outstanding, neutral interviewer and intellectual. The Charlie that I thought I knew would not have broken his neutral position and defended certain persons like you did. The Charlie that I thought I knew would not try to undermine the person interviewed. He would listen and try to understand. Further, the Charlie that I thought I knew would have facilitated the "digestion" of the information being put forth. You seemed nervous or agitated.

Fher  03/06/2008 01:10 AM Report

I agree with 2nd commenter (If this comment appears at all). This is the 3rd time i have try to post a comment on this vid, but so far, i have seen none of it on the comment list at all. Only 19 comments on this video? Whoa! I think that this is too little or the comment list is being mismanaged by the CR crew!

a.n.  03/01/2008 04:11 AM Report

i wish charlie had noam on much more frequently. it seems to me he has conservative thinkers like kissinger and buckley on all the time, and to only have interviewed chomsky once is unfortunate (the other interview is not by cr). i think just to be fair on balance he should have more. also he has never had howard zinn on to my knowledge. i am a fan of the charlie rose show but there does seem to be an imbalance towards conservative thinkers. i dont think he's ever given ralph nader an hour for example, these are certainly the three most influential figures of the american left since the 70's. his personal relationships towards buckley and kissinger and the like seem much stronger.

.  03/01/2008 02:47 AM Report

gee, only 19 comments for this noam chomsky vid?

hmm... it cant be b/c coca cola and the other big corporate sponsors of the CR show objected to the hundreds of comments exposing the truth about the economic elite, cant it?

nah....

Brett Robbins  02/08/2008 04:41 PM Report

On second thought (see comment below), it would have been far from a "snooze fest" if NC had been given free rein to develop his answers as thoroughly as he apparently wished to. My point is that CR's contribution--the give and take between him and NC--added a _dramatic_ component to the interview that no amount of monologuing could have achieved. And no one is as good at facilitating such discussions as CR.

Brett Robbins  02/08/2008 04:12 PM Report

At first I was tempted, like others here, to criticize CR for frequently interrupting NC and not giving him enough time to answer his questions. Judging by NC's wide smile, enthusiastic handshake, and positive comments at the end of the interview, however, it's obvious he was quite satisfied with the experience. Thank you, CR, for engaging NC and even challenging him on occasion rather than merely nodding at everything he said and limiting your own contribution to providing questions for him to hit out of the park. That would have been--and I think NC would agree--an unmitigated snooze fest.

brandon  01/28/2008 12:02 AM Report

I would have to say first off I am so glad that Charlie Rose had Chomsky on, secondly I am saddened that he has not been on more. Further more the comments left here have been wonderful to read and exciting to see such great critism of the conversation and of Charlie Rose. I would have to say that this conversation really helps to depict the common perception of American policies and its effects on the world (i.e charlies own perception) versus Chomskys. In the end it really becomes differing world views, there is Chomskys and there is the other more common world view, at least common to Americans.

Adam  01/27/2008 01:27 PM Report

I don't think Charlie should be criticized so harshly for "grilling" his guests, like most people seem to like doing. Letting Mr. Chomsky just speak without interruption is nice, but if you want that, you should read his books, or study his work. The same goes for any guest Charlie has. The reason we have argument and debate like this is so we get closer to truth. These aren't attacks, they are challenges. Having your positions or statements questioned and challenged is a test to see whether they hold up. A position that only stands when it isn't questioned is completely worthless. And I'm sure Noam Chomsky is completely comfortable with this. He knows all about criticism and challenges.

Also, Charlie Rose didn't become as successful or knowledgeable as he is by just sitting and giving his guests segments to talk to the camera. Anyone could do that.

tim  01/06/2008 06:24 PM Report

what's the freakin' question, for cryin' out loud? what schmendrick edited that part?

markus kimathi Lumumba  10/21/2007 01:50 PM Report

i am having great difficulty listening to Chomsky's interview because apparently my 3mg cable highspeed is messing up, lol. However, i am quite familiar with Chomsky's work, having read more than several of his books, especially The Manufacturing of Consent, and owning a copied version of the documentary of the same title. Anyway, one comment above says that Rose repeatedly grilled Chomsky. i am not surprised. Chomsky, i am certain, made Rose feel uncomfortable about his own submission, as a mainstream talkshow host, to the powers that be. Amy Goodman, a contemporary of Chomsky, had to sit through a Charlie Rose nonsense remark he made that went something like this: "Well, i can guarantee you that NBC is not a mouthpiece of the government..." Again, because of poor video sound/quality i am having, i would have loved to see Goodman's facial reaction to this, as she did let his delusion pass...

Most of haven't heard of Chomsky have to overstand that he is not a mainstream thinker, and is rarely found on mainstream broadcasts like Charlie Rose. And besides, given how indoctrinated most are in this country, they would quickly run for their remotes to find something or someone who delved very little in speaking Truth.

Charlton Price  09/14/2007 10:32 AM Report

Again in the Chomsky session, as in the recent "conversations" with Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark, Rose adopted a too-smart, graduate student, pushy, captious style. "Conversations" is in quotes because these sessions are grillings, in which the guest is interrogated and argued with, rather than being allowed to tell their own stories in their own way. With people in the arts and archtecture and sciences, Charlie is much more deferential, stays out of the way and lets the experts speak.

Mark Sanders  09/14/2007 10:06 AM Report

I have watched Charlie Rose consistently for many years now and I very much appreciate the COURSE IN CONVERSATION where Charlie has invited us and is guiding us to & through. I had never heard Norm Chomsky speak before this viewing and I wanted to hear more of the DETAIL of HIS perspective for THAT is WHY I searched for this interview. I just wished that Mr. Rose had allowed Mr. Chomsky to "bloom" his responses and NOT interrupted him so much. When we open ourselves up to be a TRULY RECEPTIVE VESSEL (listening)..MIRACULOUS INSIGHTS ARE BORN. Mr. Rose, we are a part of THE CONVERSATION as well as yourself. Please remember that YOUR EARS....are a REPRESENTIVE RECEPTIVE PORTAL FOR THE REST OF US. I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR VERY INCISIVE QUESTIONS...BUT AS IMPORTANT ....IF NOT MORESO....IS THE "ALLOWING" OF "FULLY-BLOOMED" RESPONSES....IN THE "GARDEN" OF Y(OUR) CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU CHARLIE ROSE.

chircu.com  09/03/2007 09:37 PM Report

Usually, Charile Rose plays straight and fair and, especially after his heart problems, has come closer to being a voice of public conscience. However, due to I-don't-know what kind of limitations, Charlie came short in this interview. There were a couple of times where I wish Chomsky had been allowed to say it all, yet he was moderated.

As an interesting exercise, next time you encounter an academic, think how that person compares to Chomsky--intellectually/academically AND morally/ethically. Then you'll be able to add one more piece to the apparatus enabling the elite consensus.

vadimir lovric  07/28/2007 03:10 PM Report

Hi

I am watching your show almost every night.I wish you could put professor chomsky more often

thanks

Christopher Bouchard  06/02/2007 01:40 AM Report

This comment is posted in both Chomsky interviews.

I am amazed at Chomsky's in depth knowledge on just about any topic. He should be on the show more often to demystify foreign policy i.e. a more in-depth look at current foreign policy. He has a very clear way of analyzing how countries act in their own self interest and how countries set up rules to judge how other countries behave, and then do not abide by their own rules. His comments are very healthy as he does not analyse current events for patriotic ends, i.e. we are great or we had good intentions; rather points out problem spots that the general media misses. I think he gives credibility to the Charlie Rose show. He should be on every six months.

ram  05/28/2007 05:16 PM Report

great video.....

Robert Philbin  05/25/2007 12:44 PM Report

An insightful discourse by Prof. Chomsky has Mr. Rose 'on his toes' at times . . . informative television, at its best. . . This is why I check out charlierose.com every day, just to see what's going on.

Thank you for repeating this one.

Robert Philbin

Thomas  05/24/2007 06:05 PM Report

Charlie asked Noam what big question remains in linguistics. Noam set up the answer with some background, but the answer was edited out in the 8th minute. Annoying, I couldn't hear his answer.

Zadkiel  05/17/2007 03:01 PM Report

I wish it could have gone on longer.

Mary McLees  05/15/2007 12:03 PM Report

Thanks to a link at your site I was able to view your 11/20/2003 interview with Professor Chomsky. His political analysis appears to be carefully mined and is a welcome though challenging counterpoint to the historical surface stripping with which I am more accustomed from media and politicians.

Chomsky's responses to Charlie's queries illustrate there are no easy answers but there is historical ground. His historical excavations provided a refreshing counter-balance to your recent interviews with President Bush (4/27/07) and Secretary of State Rice (5/07/2007) who seem to believe repetition creates factual discourse. It is very interesting that 4 years ago, Chomsky knew where we were headed in the Middle East.

While this seemed a difficult interview for Charlie, it was an intellectual and political challenge for this viewer. May heartfelt gratitude. Because of the place our nation is now, please have him again soon for another hour.

Mary McLees

Ryder Japhy  05/14/2007 12:35 PM Report

It's fascinating for me to be able to experience this conversation as I did when it was originally broadcast, and now, with the passage of time. Regarding so much of what was discussed in this conversation, Chomsky's analysis, his process, has stood the test of time. We need to think, beyond what we think about something; how we think matters. This process, the struggle, and the passion for the struggle that both parties in this conversation share, could barely be contained by the format. I very much enjoyed this conversation, and hope to be able to revisit it as even more time passes. I have no crystal ball, of course, but I suspect it will continue to fare well with the test of time.

Tiffany   05/04/2007 03:39 AM Report

I enjoyed the interview, although there is one thing I found hard to believe, disconcerting, and somewhat disappointing: that Charlie did not bother to learn anything about linguistics before the interview. For someone who is as interested in cognitive science advances, I would think Chomsky's arguments and frameworks that helped place science back into that realm from behaviorist days would have been an interesting topic for discussion. Further, it has always seemed to me that Charlie enjoys learning from his guests and reveling in their knowledge and intelligence to some extent, and even exploring their own creativity. There was a lot of potential for that in the realm of linguistics with Chomsky and I was sorry that it was not discussed more. So many (like me) would have loved the chance to discuss even Chomsky's process and thoughts when doing technical work -- Charlie missed his chance (so far! Have him back!).

Paul Escobar  04/30/2007 07:02 PM Report

Great in-depth interview. It takes an hour to mine Chomsky's in-depth command of facts.

Too bad he's only been on twice. Hope he shows up more on the show.