Charlie Rose

Karakorak  06/04/2010 09:55 PM Report

When I moved to live in the United States fifteen years ago I cast around for some interesting television to watch and, Christ, there wasn't much!

One of the few things I watched consistently in the beginning was the Charlie Rose Show, mainly because he sometimes had interesting guests on.

However, I grew more tired of Rose than I could bear and quit watching him after a few years. For a man in such a prestigious spot, Rose is a bad interviewer in many ways.

His major faults include the long, meandering, self-indulgent questions that foreground "Charlie" and eat up time that properly belongs to the guest. It is impossible not to wonder, archly, if this is why the programme is called The Charlie Rose Show: it's about "Charlie".

The other key major fault is Rose's maladroitness at interruption: it is almost always an irritating failure that fractures the remarks by the guest in a rude manner.

Poised interviewers can edit a conversation by graceful interruptions that seamlessly steer and prune a wandering guest, or to raise a worthwhile supplementary question. Rose seems to be unable to use his interruptions in this way; he is hamfisted; he simply doesn't have the knack for it. The result is that he breaks guests' remarks in a way that makes one want to shoot the television. He smashes in like a chattering jackdaw.

I have not watched Charlie Rose in over a decade and I came across this failed interview of Joni Mitchell because I sought interviews of her online, not because I wanted to watch Rose.

I regard Joni Mitchell as the most original popular artist of her era: her lyrics and music are more intelligent, subtle, and fresh than Bob Dylan's, and she even out-writes Leonard Cohen. She is simply the best at what she does. Rose's crazily amputated and characteristically somnolent interview of Mitchell failed to indicate that he understood the phenomenon he had in his studio, and it failed to attempt to engage with her refreshing genius appropriately. It was another demonstration of Rose's sleepy clumsiness.

Stefanie  07/25/2008 12:42 AM Report

CHARLIE, CHARLIE, SHAME ON YOU! Were you

comatose during the 60's and 70's? Did you not

have any minutia of an idea of the musical and artistic icon

and influential genius (by sheer explodable opportunity)that finally graced your table! For you to then smudge over 3 decades of brilliant musical interpretation, growth and

artistic acheivement by not asking ONE relevant question about artistic process or even how other musicians and how

cultural and political events of the day

might have influenced the songs and albums of this evolutionary, non-conformist, groundbreaking, all inspiring artist?

(Well, you did ask 1 question about influences), but you

fell pityfully short of all the probing, important and relevant questions you could have

asked this brilliant interpretative musician. What a LOST Opportunity!

But it's not too late. You

still can redemn yourself, Charlie, and BEG partial forgiveness. You better have Joni on again, and for an HOUR, and do your homework! and apoligize to her and all your (dumbfounded)faithful viewers.

Right-On Tavis!

Willie Yanock  07/12/2008 02:51 AM Report

Why are people so surprised about a bad interview? Everyone that goes on TV always plug their shit a book, cd, art, or whatever their selling today. That is exactly what Joni Mitchell did. I got it. Buy Shine. This is all discussed between Charie and Joni before the interview goes on air. God's thunder will not be heard on sound bites nor from a business woman. If you expect Joni to enlighten you then buy more of her cd's or buy her art work. She is just a woman who has achieved great success and as made mistakes in life that makes her human. She broke my heart but I still love her. In my book Charlie is alright.

night owl  07/11/2008 10:48 PM Report

I agree with most who have posted here, with this notable exception: I would not like to see Ms. Mitchell back for another go-round with utterly tone-deaf Charlie. He doesn't deserve another shot, just as she doesn't deserve another insult.

I used to enjoy Mr. Rose as an interviewer, but over the last couple of years, more often than not I've tuned out because of his worsening Larry King-like interruptions but more his choice of guests. I agree with Bartholomew's comment: Charlie seems to have sold out completely to the usual corporate suspects--and anyone who thinks PBS is pure isn't paying attention--and seems to have buddied up to more than a few of the neocon mouthpieces and perpetrators. Not to mention countless business criminals.

Watching Mr. Rose interview artists of any sort has usually been painful for me. Even if he's done his homework and asks better questions, he's just so far off of that wavelength that it's annoying. So I agree with someone who said: Stick to politics, business, and sports people Mr. Rose. Please.

Willie Yanock  06/17/2008 11:59 PM Report

Is it my name?

Willie Yanock  06/17/2008 02:05 AM Report

Why don't you love me?

Tim  05/04/2008 06:00 PM Report

people griping because Joni got about 15 min. instead of an hr?

maybe thats all the time she wanted because she had to have a smoke.....

Daniel Rodriguez  04/08/2008 04:12 AM Report

Joni Mitchell is an icon, a seasoned artist, a musical legend. She is also an intelligent woman concerning social issues, as she always has been. People should put aside their stereotypical outlooks, and not be so quick to dismiss her commentary as the ramblings of just another hippie, and actually listen to her. She expresses a raw inclination to grasp what is going on and is not ashamed to voice it, regardless of how ugly the truth is (by this I am referring to her criticism of the government). Last time I checked, criticising a country wasn't only permitted to those who are citizens of the country. People are people and possess the same inalienable rights to voice themselves, and she does a great job of it. She's a poet, a painter, a treasure. I for one have never before had a gripe about Charlie and his show. He's usually dead on with his management of an interview, but not this time. He could have asked better questions and should have alloted more time to her.

Levon Helm III  03/16/2008 12:33 PM Report

It's true what these comments are saying - Charlie Rose has a subtle impatience for Joni's open, associative style of conversation. THe length of time allocated to this great subject is an insult in itself. He is nowhere near her level of intellect or intuition.

Not surprisingly, Joni is WAY more interesting in her greenroom interview for this show - available on youTube, search 'Charlie Rose Joni Mitchell' -

her comments at the end of the greenroom clip about war and the state of young American men and women in a culture of vice are right on and chilling. And far far too deep for a boring Park Avenue pseudo-intellect like Charlie.

Willie Yanock  03/15/2008 12:23 AM Report

Mr Rose; Ms. Mitchell is a tough nut to crack. If you think my asking her little cronies, that answer to her beck and call about how Joni might react to this or that; is just simply naive. To be a respondsible journalist you must ask the toughest of questions. Who did she use for inspiration and who would she trash before God for fame and money. Don't make me beg for you to do your job as a journalist. Joni has not revealed her true revelations. She denies God's inspiration in fear of culminating a lesser to her standards of perfection. The truth lies with the unforgiving and the innocent love.

Willie Yanock  01/14/2008 01:14 AM Report

I love Joni Mitchell, and I respect Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose asked all the right questions but Joni was not forthcoming in her answers if she wants to hide behind her stoic ambiguity then its her choice. I gave Joni my love and this is my choice and I will shout this out on top of any mountain.I once told her that she owns the streets and she doubted. I gave her the Words of God and she shrugged her shoulders Oh well just another hard-time band with Negro affectations. One can ask all the right questions but one is not always going to like the answers. I saw the real Joni Mitchell just a woman not some know it all Goddess.

Peter Stewart  01/08/2008 11:40 PM Report

Thanks so much for having Joni on Charlie. I look forward to a longer piece in the future. I'd love to hear more of Joni's thoughts on arts & culture today.

bartholomew  12/02/2007 10:43 PM Report

I'll never watch Charlie Rose again. Joni's got a lot of wisdom, and more than anything, morality. He gives an hour to powerful-in-the world sociopaths, and acts interested. Charlie, you have become corrupt, like most of the monsters you interview. You don't deserve an interview with Joni Mitchell. Maybe you already know this, and that's why you were so rude and indifferent, to hide you're insecurity. Blech. Who bought out PBS anyway?

Tony Babjak  11/30/2007 12:25 AM Report

If you will a point of view hard enough, you can find just about anything to support it. I recognize the lack of Eskimo issues on the Charlie Rose program and, therefore, the show must be anti-Eskimo. Absurd.

If you're counting heads on gender or race instead of focusing on topic, then the program is not reaching you. Take that noise down to the Village and perform it under a red bulb for likeminded anarchists.

Joni Mitchell deserved an hour. There are other great women who deserve the same. But to call the program sexist when it is clearly topic driven is rubbish. You demand equality at the expense of quality. I suppose because far more people watch the NBA than the WNBA, Charlie should have equal representation on the show just to appear sympathetic to cult viewers. No, it's a matter of responding to the public interest, which is never comprised of equal splits.

All of you crying discrimination against the best interview program on television should go down to your local coffee shops, stand on your respective stools and demand an equal amount of bluberries in each muffin. It's just as pointless as ferreting through this show, looking for something to offend you.

Joe Riordan  11/29/2007 01:22 PM Report

15 minutes? An artist of the stature of Joni Mitchell and she is given 15 minutes? Maybe she did not want to be interviewed longer than that but I doubt it. I hope she appears on the show again and Charlie Rose learns to not interrupt the people he interviews constantly.

Dub  11/24/2007 11:46 PM Report

Ironically, I was visiting Canada when I saw the Joni Mitchell interview, preceded by a panel discussion by pundits on the current state of American television programs, terribly moderated by Rose, with everybody talking at once, and covering the same shows over and over again. Then Joni gets the tail end of the hour and seemingly rushed through her answers by Rose, like he knew he was pressed for time. Charlie Rose frequently has actors, directors, producers, and musicians on for the entire hour. How does he give the Beastie Boys an hour (which I enjoyed) and Joni Mitchell only 15 minutes? Where was he during the '60's and '70's? (Did he have "other priorities"?) This is my first time commenting on the Charlie Rose program. But I cannot let this one go. Charlie should apologize publicly to Joni.

Cookie  11/22/2007 06:07 PM Report

All these "fans" and no comment on the cd? I bought it and I like it. Thanks, Joni!

Andrea  11/20/2007 05:39 PM Report

Thanks, Carol J ;) I thought of that later, after I posted. Perhaps I didn't really want to find it... I'll have to dig it up some other time.

Carol J  11/19/2007 09:47 PM Report

This is for Andrea. You have to spell Ms. Huffington's first name correct or go to the video archive screens and look by last name. Ms Huffington (something like Arrianna) has been on the Charles Rose Program several times.

Andrea  11/19/2007 07:05 PM Report

I meant to respond to Kellygo's comment:

"At the end of your interview with Huffington you said you heard us about having more women on the program and that you had no excuse for not doing better."

I did a search on this website and found no segment on Huffington. I wish I had seen it, but have to say that it would strike me as absurd to hear her object to the sexism on the Charlie Rose show, when she is every bit as guilty re the Huffington Post! How perplexing! I used to regularly read HuffPo when it first started, but the official bloggers she choose were almost all men - outnumbering women bloggers 10 to 1. None of the women she chose were heads of feminist organizations, few active feminists, yet she made room for Kristy Hefner. Huffington, it seems to me, still wants to be "queen bee", despite her public pretenses of being a feminist. I have never seen her stand up for women's rights on her top featured blog space, though the "entertaining news" section of HuffPo is full of "news" trivializing women and objectifying female bodies. Then when her book came out (about women's poor body image) she has the nerve to publicly express bewilderment that so few of her blog readers are women. So she started a "relationship and lifestyle" section of her blog to do something about that. I, who normally have plenty to say about social outrages, was rendered speechless. So what exactly qualifies her to criticize Charlie Rose? The sexism on the Charlie Rose show is extreme - as anyone other than an extreme sexist can see by doing even a brief gender count of the guests on the show. This is alarming and unacceptable. I'm glad there are some women who are hoping for the best, thinking that the staff of the Charlie Rose show are simply unaware of all the interesting women to interview. The problem isn't, though, just an oversight, and won't end without outside pressure. Unfortunately there are a lot of male viewers who are very uncomfortable with equality, and will name-call, and try to silence women and feminist men who point out the obvious. Isn't the obvious on the home page? Now 100% of featured guests are men. Sorry, a single one hour interview of Annie Lennox doesn't satisfy. How about you boys getting one hour with Jerry Seinfeld, and ... that's pretty much it, just an occasional male guest here and there. The rest of the guests, all women. And slam anyone who dares to identify the imbalance as "knee-jerk" in an effort to preserve the status quo.

Jeri  11/18/2007 07:18 PM Report

After reading the comments, I listened to the interview. Except for brevity, I find no fault with it. I, too, would enjoy more of her. Charlie Rose is still my favorite program.

Alex  11/18/2007 06:59 PM Report

What's so terrible about Charlie's interviewing style? As far as I can tell, the only person talking here (for the most part) is Joni. Charlie asks a question, and she goes off as she pleases. Where are those 'long-winded questions'? Also consider that there is a time limit, so it helps to get as much out of such a person as possible, which accounts for the many questions. Honestly, be thankful that such a show exists. We are in desperate need of it amid the muck of television.

Rikki  11/18/2007 06:35 PM Report

Charlie Rose's interviewing technique is somewhat like the 70's talk show host Dick Cavett without the erudition, wit, charm, style or sophistication of Cavett. By interview technique I mean, both men are egocentric and inevitably try to direct the conversation, ask long winded questions to showcase themselves and their knowledge (or lack thereof as is often the case with Rose). Also Rose doesn't seem to have Cavett's love and challenge of talking with strong, intelligent and talented women (at 66 he seems an old jock). I watch the show for the guests and tolerate the host but am often frustrated by his constant interruptions and self reverential style no matter the guest. Note: the Cavett/Rose interview in 2001 was interesting and Cavett prevailed - Charlie was no match at holding the floor... funny.

Madge  11/18/2007 06:03 PM Report

I make no comment on group think, madam, because to comment on such an inappropriate line of thinking would validate it far beyond worth.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? This is supposed to be a forum about Joni Mitchell guesting on Charlie Rose. Not your forum for personal debate. If that's what you want start a blog somewhere. It's a free country, sure, and no matter how much in the minority your views fall in this case you do have a right to present them. But just because the rest of these people don't agree with you, myself included, you resort to an attempt at invalidating everyone else's ideas by categorizing them as group speak? Rubbish. You've commented on the interview, a few times, now let it rest and give other people a chance to say what they have the right to say. As for your definition of a critic, brilliant. And very original. But you might want to look in the mirror...

Cookie  11/18/2007 02:25 PM Report

I note you make no comment on group think - do you know what it means? And how many names do you go by, Madge? I'd love to see all the interesting comments you make but this seems to be the first comment I have seen. B ut perhaps you are the type who simply attacks people without having anything worthwhile of your own to say - you know, a critic. :-)

Madge  11/18/2007 01:40 PM Report

which country to bomb??? oh, brother.

another priceless crumb, huh Kookie - uh, Cookie.

Cookie  11/18/2007 01:29 PM Report

This is an example of group think - you are all egging each other on to further and further heights of accusation. I wonder what country you will decide you just have to bomb.

Andrew  11/18/2007 11:03 AM Report

It wasn't overtly insulting, only mildly so. The context was tragic: suffing a legend like Joni Mitchell into 13 minutes of air time. And the editing was attrocious. I get the sense that Charlie either didn't have time to prepare or just didn't care enough to. His interruptions were bothersome: cutting her off, putting words into her mouth, rushing her along like an annoying old lady. His questions were naive and ill-informed. If it was such an honour to have her there, why not give her due time. Female musicians like Annie Lennox have been granted the full hour. Why not Joni Mitchell? I suppose it's possible that Joni had limited time to speak, or that staving off the urge to light up a cigarette during an hour-long interview would have proven too much for her, but really, this was pulp stuff.

Tony Babjak  11/18/2007 08:02 AM Report

I highly disagree with the knee jerk responses concerning sexism and apathy with respect to female guests on this program. It's a mentality that rises from student unions which pine for something to rebel against.

That being said, the Joni Mitchell interview was a tremendous disappointment both for its insufficient length and its noticable lack of insight. This woman is one of the premiere singer/songwriters of the late 20th century and her 30+ year career is reduced to nothing more than an Entertainment Tonight soundbite.

Aside from my first objection, i agree with all of the other criticisms posted here. I wonder how long the interview actually ran, because there was an abrupt edit toward the end. Either way, give Joni a full hour and let her perform two songs acoustically upon concluding the interview.

Andrea  11/18/2007 01:42 AM Report

I agree that the Tavis Smiley interview was much better and more interesting, but it was not an adequate substitute for what should-have-been on Charlie Rose. Charlie Rose has an hour long format, and there is a focused depth and breadth that takes in these interviews that just doesn't happen in Smiley's half hour conversations. What was so insulting was not overt rudeness (to respond to an earlier comment here), but the shocking difference in the attentiveness, interest, and time that Rose usually gives interviewees, even those of minor accomplishment and talent. Can you imagine him treating Paul McCartney, the other great musician working with Starbucks, alloting him 15 minutes after a 45 minute rundown over upcoming TV shows? Talking to him in an irritated, disinterested way? Just imagine! Never would that happen - though Paul McCartney is Mitchell's musical inferior. And I say this as someone who does likes a lot of McCartney's music. Just saying it as it is - I don't think many serious critics would disagree with that assessment. I think there are critical questions to ask Mitchell -- the quality of her music is uneven, methinks. If I were doing the interview, I'd ask her follow-up questions to the concerns she expresses about the environment (Rose didn't even get that far) -- like what are YOU personally doing about it, especially because she sings a lot about "them", and what "they" are doing. These are among the questions that, I think, would make the interview interesting. It would show engagement, not disrespect. The Tavis show was great to watch, but an interviewer doesn't need to be a die hard fan to conduct a respectful and fascinating interview. How can you NOT have a fascinating interview with such a figure? Charlie Rose managed to do this, though he has the ability to make just about anyone seem fascinating with patient, probing, unique questions. I can't believe it had anything to do with Rose's lack of understanding of culture. I think it had everything, absolutely everything, to do with sexism. Just look at the current homepage and the line-up of guests. Almost all men, and one young woman. Men, even minor figures, get the hour long segments. Women, in the rare instance they appear alone as guests, get half hour segments (or 15 minutes in the case of Joni Mitchell!) I've also noticed a double standard in the way he treats powerhouse women guests. He gets irritated, even belligerent, in place of asking the interesting, probing questions, and giving time for thoughtful answers, which is usually what makes him an excellent interviewer. This is PBS, supported by your and my tax dollars. It just ain't right. Something's gotta be done about it. Oh, and back to the Joni Mitchell interview: Did anyone notice the way the show highlighted the "Both Sides Now" song in the introduction? But Joni has said in interviews, which the Rose staff surely saw in preparing for their interview, that she considers that song a "failure," and far from her greatest songs. I think the word "failure" is an exaggeration, but it is not among her great works, it is the work of a young musician learning her art. Was the focus on this song an intentional dig by the staff, part of an effort to "put her in her place" in response to her unfeminine show of self-appreciation in other interviews?

kellygo  11/18/2007 01:39 AM Report

I can't call myself a Joni Mitchell fan but I watched the interview and must agree she certainly deserves an hour.

Charlie, I love you but I am sick, tired and weary of you giving the few women you interview the short end of the stick. I sent an email to the show several years ago with ideas on women to have on the program. Your assistant at the time responded (I was pleasantly surprised) She thought I had good ideas and printed my email

for you. She also said one of the women I suggested would not appear again unless she was given emough time (she has not appeared since). I also sent another email recently on the same subject but nothing has changed. No Improvement whatsoever! At the end of your interview with Huffington you said you heard us about having more women on the program and that you had no excuse for not doing better. I agree. You need to do much better. You have no excuse! Here are few suggestions:

Please invite Ms. Mitchell back immediately for an hour. Aplogize to her and us on the air, be well rested and prepared. Then Follow up a minimum of one woman per week for the hour. If you need a list of names I would be delighted to help out. I'm sure other viewers would be equally delighted.

Thank you

Barbara  11/17/2007 11:05 PM Report

Thank you so much for the comments here that lead me to the Tavis Smiley interview with Joni Mitchell. Now that's an interview by someone who listens and encourages their guest to reveal. It was also refreshing to hear how Tavis was clearly aware of Joni's mastery of so many disciplines and gave his full enthusiasm and respect for this wonderful renaissance women, artist, genius. There people are rare and so special you know - let's encourage sharing them and their work with the younger generation for real inspiration.

Lance Rutledge  11/17/2007 08:38 PM Report

I agree with most of the previous comments. All of you should listen to Tavis Smiley's recent interview with Joni and You'll see what you did not in Charlie Rose's. Tavis conducted a conversation that brought out the best in Joni. They were really connecting. She appeared relaxed and jocular... Really opening up. Obviously, he understnds artists and Charlie does not. That should be evident if you've seen any of Rose's other interviews with people in the arts. He should stick to politics, business and sports.

Joe  11/17/2007 08:34 PM Report

I was very disappointed to have missed the Joni Mitchell interview, being a life long admirer of her work. After reading these comments I'm not so sure there was much to hear. I wonder what Mr. Rose has to say in response. Clearly most of the writers are fans of his work as well as devotees of Ms. Mitchell. I would like to hear his response/explanation /defence of this lackluster interview.

Cookie  11/17/2007 07:40 PM Report

Cade, you said he seemed unfamiliar with the extent of her contribution. He didnt. Listen tot he intro. You know, right AT THE BEGINNING. You also brought us his parents as somehow relevant to her smoking. When you drag his folks into your discontent you cross the line. Twaddle was nice way of putting it. Gotta go.

Tony  11/17/2007 06:45 PM Report

I enjoy Charlie's show - not a long time mega fan like all you wonderful people - but I have seen a few shows. I read many of the comments about the Joni Mitchell interview BEFORE watching it myself, and so I was looking for all of the abuse Charlie would cast on this poor sweet woman.

It wasn't there - NOT THERE.

I believe all these comments were sent in by biased Joni fans who just loved the 60s.

Does anyone wonder if Joni told Charlie up front that she would rather not sit for a 60 minute interview - and that now Charlie would rather suffer all of your attacks alone and not drag Joni into this foolishness ?

Sarah Wong  11/17/2007 06:26 PM Report

I have to disagree on those comments posted so far saying that Charlie Rose was rude and unprepared for the interview. After watching this segment on the website, I find that Charlie was not rude, he was not bored, and he was not uninterested as some of the viewers lamented. Charlie was gentle and courteous to Joni Mitchell. Just the interview was too brief!

Catherine Oller  11/17/2007 05:46 PM Report

I just want to add my voice to the others here. Does Charlie Rose actually know who Joni Mitchell is? Anyone new to the planet who just read a brief outline bio before going on air could have been a better host. I was outraged by his dismissive and abrupt treatment of Joni dripping with insincerity - Charlie seemed like he had a plane to catch and just wanted to wrap it all up quickly. I had happily awaited this interview (thinking of course it would be the full hour) but what we got instead was an interminable bull session on the current television season that by-the-way was also thin in substantive comment and also dismissive of the medium by those charged with covering it - though Charlie seemed to really perk-up to this topic â?¦ how depressing. When the show was over I was angry.

Kevin Cade  11/17/2007 05:40 PM Report

Twaddle? LOL. Interesting "take" on my comment, Cookie... Obviously Charlie knows who Joni is. The point you seem to have missed is that, IMO, as an interviewer he could have made much more of the opportunity. Of course, thankfully, we're both entitled to our opinions -- and excellence is subjective. I guess it just comes down to you and me having different ideas about what constitutes a good interview.

cookie  11/17/2007 05:01 PM Report

my post refered to Cade's

Cookie  11/17/2007 05:01 PM Report

Your post is ridiculous - of course he knows who she is. And the rest is just partronizing twaddle.

Jody L. Spaziani  11/17/2007 04:57 PM Report

As I've read down this list of comments on Charlie Rose's interview with the great Joni Mitchell, I see much disappoint in what the TV audience expected. I like everyone else expected more! But what I expected more on was the current going's on in Joni's career. I have been a major Mitchell fan since I was 14. I know so much about her career right from the beginning until she unfortunitly retired. Now at 48,what I would have liked Charlie to have focused on is much more of the current. Because there is so much! Also for a longer interview time with one of the most important icons in music/artistry in the last 40 years!It was informative, but not nearly enough.I would have loved to hear deeper detales of the making of "Fiddle and the drum".The making of "Shine", which I personally think is one of her finest works! More of the relationship with Starbucks Hear Music, the relationship with the musicians on the Cd.The indepth details of each song on the CD, and whats to come in the future of the re-emergence of this truly gifted and iconic artist. As Charlie said, he finally got her on his show. Well, hopfully he will invite her back and give her the respect she truly deserved in the first place!

Kevin Cade  11/17/2007 04:45 PM Report

It appears my comment will echo most every response posted here. If it's true though that every written reaction represents thousands of unwritten ones, then I think it's important for Mr. Rose and his staff to receive as much feedback here as possible -- and realize with that just how many, and to what extent, viewers were disappointed in the Joni Mitchell interview. I'm afraid that poster Michael McGarrah's comment is true. It was a moment lost, Mr. Rose, and I'm afraid Joni is not likely to return soon. Charlie and Joni are obviously contemporaries, yet I'm baffled by his (apparent) unfamiliarity with the extent of Ms. Mitchell's contribution, relevance and impact -- not only to those of their generation but mine and the next. Of course we wanted to hear about her recent "Shine." If, however, it was a matter of music not being common ground, I assure you, Charlie, that Joni would have been willing and able to discuss ANYTHING with you -- and the insight would have been greatly appreciated by those of us not fortunate enough to be gifted with the opportunity to sit across from genius and ask any question we could. What about how giving up, and eventually finding, her biological daughter influenced her songwriting for years? Or her acquaintanceship with Miles Davis? Or Charlie Mingus? Her perspective on those two relationships alone could have easily taken up fifteen minutesâ?¦ I read somewhere that Charlie Rose's parents were North Carolina tobacco farmers. In his recent Joni interview Tavis Smiley touched on her being a smoker since early childhood, and even that led to an interesting anecdote about Joni's relationship with tobacco; one that ended in laughter. It would have been great to see Joni laugh here.

Cookie gets miffed  11/17/2007 04:05 PM Report

Oh puleeeaze, his energy has been just fine. In fact, he has been pretty damned impressive.

StevenCee  11/17/2007 03:13 PM Report

I too was greatly disappointed with this all too brief "interview"..

Yes, Charlie did appear exhausted & burnt out, altho I disagree with those who feel he was rude. I felt he was simply out of his element, completely unable to ask insightful questions, and reduced to hemming and hawing, saying a word or two, then praying Joni would fill in the blanks, finish the sentence, pick the ball up and run with it. My God, I would have expected that at minimum, his producers could have handed him a few coherent & appropriate questions,.... in complete sentences!

Personally, I have been disappointed with a great many of his interviews in the past year or so, and maybe it has to do with overwork, burnout, exhaustion, and trying to juggle too many things, especially after his health crisis... Maybe a little, well-deserved vacation Charlie, recharge those batteries, take some time to chill, & come back strong & more fully awake.

And try to have Joni back again, for at least a whole hour!

She's a very special artist, one of the very few who solely follow their own muse, and her words & views, agree or not, surely deserve a more comprehensive airing...

Rose  11/17/2007 03:05 PM Report

Charlie,

For an artist of Joni Mitchell's caliber to be rushed through 15 minutes was a big mistake.

You kept jumping in and speaking for her.

WE WANTED TO HEAR WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY.

And to think that you made is sound like Starbucks did her a favor. I don't think you yourself recognize her status in the scheme of those who have influenced American culture.

Made you look like you didn't have a clue of just what real genious was sitting across from you. You missed it. She was probably one of the most important people you could have had on

and she was treated poorly.

Elaine Werner  11/17/2007 02:47 PM Report

It was so obvious that Charlie Rose does not have a clue who Joni Mitchell is. I was shocked at his perfunctory questions and seemingly bored expression, trying to hurry her along. She deserved much better. What stung even more was the "old boys club" with the network executives segment that preceeded Joni. Artiface and insolence indeed, Joni!

Barbara Thau  11/17/2007 01:17 PM Report

I am not one to write in to televsion shows' web sites.

And I heartened to see that my idea is not original.

Clearly I am not alone in my view of Charlie Rose's dismissive, perfunctory treatment of Joni Mitchell--a unique and special artist.

To note that Mitchell was not given a full hour of show time is just scratching the surface of Rose's baffling misjudgment.

Let me say that Rose is usually a TV bright spot: His show is typically a gem.

That's why it's peculiar and baffling that Rose, usually tuned in to appreciating the artistic, political and cultural gems of the day, not only gave Mitchell about 15 minutes of show time, but treated her her with a thinly-disguised irritation: he cut her off, didn't pick up on her unique observations, fascinating insights and totally squandered an opportunity to plumb the mind and heart of one of the few artisitic genuises.

Bizaare.

I think Rose's out-of-character interview with Mitchell deserves some kind of explanation. Better yet, it merits a second, one-hour interview.

On one level I'm intensely curious as to why Rose was short and curt with Mitchell. Would he consider posting an explanation on this web site?

Let me reiterate that the Charlie Rose show is usually a delight. He is a much-needed voice, and provides a rare forum for substantive talk on TV.

Thanks for listening.

Dave Thomason  11/17/2007 12:54 PM Report

This interview was way too short. Please, somebody interview Joni IN DEPTH. That't it, Thanks.

Andrew McFarlane  11/17/2007 12:41 PM Report

What a tease and a shame. This was too short an interview and the questions were shallow! She tried, but the format wasnt good for an artist such as herself. I admire you both, but there was a conversational disconnect here.

Please invite her back. She has a lot to express.