Charlie Rose

janeeyre  10/03/2009 12:32 PM Report

Come on Charlie. I love ya, but you're such a blue-dog Democrat. Good grief. Walmart acted courageously during Katrina? Um, no. They're selling gidgets -it's called philanthropic capitalism. You just did a bloody ad for Walmart while cutting off Klein. Shh, listen dear fellow. Yes, the question is where was FEMA. I sleep better knowing you at least spoke to Klein. Keep reading Charlie. You're great on the arts and science, but sometimes your right-wing naivete is, considering your intelligence, startling and stunning.

janetaylor7  12/13/2008 08:25 PM Report

Sad to say that such a seemingly paranoid perspective rings true every day. Financial crisis? Let's give banks billions with no strings attached and "hope" they lend out the money: What really happened? Most of it goes to rich shareholders in dividends and bonuses to rich CEO's and the rest into purchases of other companies which result in huge tax breaks. Lack of lending results in car industry crisis? Let's take this opportunity to try to break the unions despite the fact that even if the workers worked for free the companies would still go under.

trevorfairweather  12/09/2008 02:26 PM Report

Okay so i'll be honest here I made my first comment during the interview, not after it. He did nail her a little bit 2/3rds of the way through but still Naomi did get to run free with the B.S. through almost the entire thing. And to all the folks below this comment who read this book and then built a shrine for it you should really look into some of the stark factual omissions contained therein. This book reminds me of 9/11 conspiracy literature or the reverse scientific method - Start with your conclusion then find appropriate 'evidence' and finaly create a hypothosis that makes the whole thing look organic.

trevorfairweather  12/09/2008 02:03 PM Report

Any Canadian watching this interview wouldnt have to look into her family connections (former Ontario socialist party leader Steven Lewis is her father in law etc) to know that shes from the NDP. I have now watched countless interviews by Rose and have come to the inescapeable conclusion that he has a left wing bias. Still he is most likely the best interviewer out there, should just be either a little more honest about his disposition or a little more neutral.

Lloyd  10/19/2008 10:00 AM Report

Has anyone pointed out what a victory for Naomi is Paul Krugman's being awarded the Nobel Economics Prize? She wasn't a socialist when she wrote The Shock Doctrine, and many lefties consider Krugman just another NYT apologist. But he's a long way from Milton Friedman, and definitely a step forward from the usual micro-economic reciptients.

Jey  09/27/2008 03:07 PM Report

Sad the elitist Charlie and his rich buddies don't have a clue. Did he even read the book? Wake up people. The principle argument of Klein is so evident today, the new growing hype against Russia and South America. pre-election attacks now going on in Pakistan, ongoing ethnic cleansing in Iraq. And the new "Sky is falling" economic extortion right before the election.

The economic hit list is ever-growing and expanding at the cost of all our security!

"money trumps peace" -George W.

sock puppet  08/08/2008 08:30 PM Report

Agree! This is a profound and constructive read. Not as "Shocking" about capitalistic greed after the subprime loan greed, but only because of being inured. Our system seems to promote scoundrels without remorse. Indeed, too often with accolades and golden parachutes. Citigroup et al prime example.

Cameron L. Stewart  08/08/2008 07:34 PM Report

I just bought this book last weekend: It is by far one of the most illuminating books I have ever read. Naomi Klein picks up where Noam Chomsky leaves off. This book is so well written and researched I cannot give it enough praise. Her much needed perspective is very much on the mark and deserves national attention. I see a lot of people beating up on poor Charlie again for interrupting his guest. But I think Charlie and Naomi are simply both on the same page. The respect and understanding they have for each other shows through. For those frustrated with the conversation there is plenty of time to buy Naomi's book, read it, and get her full message. It is time very well spent. Then you can go back, watch this interview again, and simply enjoy the conversation. I also have to give Naomi credit for her bright and cheerful outlook on the show, despite the very grim warning she brings to us all. Well done Charlie for bringing on Naomi as your guest!

Christian  07/28/2008 09:22 AM Report

Thanks Demetrius, yes, this video of Mark Molaro with Naomi Klein is absolutely worth watching: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKr_soG4DUA.

Thanks Charlie for introducing us to this inspiring woman.

mai johnson  06/22/2008 05:00 AM Report

Naomi was charming and carried herself well in this interview. I think she served well all who see capitalism as unjust. However what she proposes is basically that a person's natural desire to better their condition can be changed/restructured that would validate her own brand of psychosocial engineering. "Everybody wants to rule the world" and she and her supporters, just like Hitler, are no different.

unbelievable  06/17/2008 12:34 AM Report

To bigjoe. You're an astute rascal. Surely the M-I complex wouldn't promote war for profit; the financial services industry wouldn't sell subprime loans solely for the fees and CC cos. like Citigroup, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns et al wouldn't exploit the unemployed and health ravaged families. Why some would say they would even resort to prostituting our government by its out right purchase. Keep up the good faith. And spread the word. There are skeptics among us that need purging.

Peter  06/16/2008 10:55 PM Report

I just finished reading The Shock Doctrine. I must say that Naomi Klein gives a different paradigm on neo liberal politics. She seeems to be speaking a truth Charlie Rose does not want to hear. Unfortuantely for education Friedman is practicing vodo eduation. We need a government to check the corporate world and greed. Charlie next time let your guest answwer questions compltley.

Rick Carr  05/28/2008 10:43 PM Report

Charlie Rose is so far out of his league in this interview that he comes off somewhere between uninformed and embarrassingly obtuse. I try to like Charlie, but he just never seems to be on the same page as many of his guests (thus all the interruptions). In this, the Naomi Klein interview, Rose hits rock bottom with painfully simplistic questions and an agitated demeanor stemming from his inability to grasp this fairly simple concept. Conversely, Naomi Klein was sharp, clear, to the point, and much to her credit even patient with the struggling Rose.

Bigjoe  04/22/2008 05:10 PM Report

Rose loses his credibility with his Wal-Mart rant. In effect he is implying that Kelin's thesis is that "all corporations will always try to shamelessly exploit all disaters."

Shameful, and moronic strawman fallacy.

Miguel Chavez  03/13/2008 03:49 PM Report

It seems odd to me to read comments here along the lines that Charlie Rose is too intrusive in interrupting Klein's comments; obviously, these commentators have never saw Rose's show before.

Secondly, Milton Friedman is dead. Also, Charlie Rose was a friend of Rose. Doesn't it seem obvious that Rose would be confrontational to Klein, considering Friedman is dead, meaning he can no longer defend his own ideas?

It seems to me that these commentators are not interested in listening to differing opinions, but rather want to stay inside their own little "echo chamber"; it's no surprise that they lash out against anyone who interrupts the echo.

Stan Jones  02/20/2008 06:47 PM Report

Naomi Klein is speaking for what Bill O'Reilly calls the far left but really all she's calling for is a return to the kind of moderate mixed economy that did so much to mold America into a world respected force for advancement rather than the way it's been moving along of late as a mean spirited, paranoid nation on a fatalistic bent. I for one don't have that much of a problem with how Charlie handled Ms. Klien in the interview. And I'm a Canadian who's very much on side with her views. Rose also happens to be the preeminent host in mainstream television today. He uses a conversational style that may be seen as confrontational to some but remember: Rose is very much influenced by the constant stream of elté guests that are doing just fine under the present system. He could do well to talk to the occasional average human being out there. People who haven't hit the jackpot. He might find there is something to be learned by exploring common wisdom. Regardless, having Charlie Rose interview someone like Klien, and challenging her from the right, is exactly what we need. The conservative agenda, as we know it, is a spent force. Even William Buckley admits that. (This from memory I must admit from a Rose interview of which I can't find -- please help me on this if you happen know which one).

Dave  02/20/2008 06:44 PM Report

Are you guys crazy?

Its funny that Charley gets hacked on when he just lets a guest roll through and blather on, without Charlie questioning them... Read the Carl Rove comments

AND

Charlie gets hacked on when he does question, as he is doing in this case.

Its called a CONVERSATION...Charlie was having a CONVERSATION...

the left wing radicals amaze me

Mark  02/06/2008 09:09 PM Report

WOW, Charlie was in over his head, not enough research - did he even read the book!? Didn't seem like it. She is obviously stating the certain forms of capitalism are good, healthy - but when we begin to privatize natural things like water, wind, air, etc - and the ability to escape disasters, we know who will benefit - not the folks with less $$.

But this is capitalism at it's best. I am certain Wal-Mart was benefiting - both from PR and business - I am sure they landed one of the first construction contracts - post Katrina.

keith   02/01/2008 08:10 AM Report

Just because someone is critical of CR does not make them a "left wing radical". That is the language of ideologues. There are nuances to almost every point of view. Klein can hold her own and I think there is a kind of sexism here that suggests that CR is being too tough. It is revealing that people comment on what she is wearing and on her style. That happens much less with men (and never about what men are wearing). Naomi Klein is presenting some compelling facts, and I would like to hear some "right wing" folks dispute them.

There is the complete absence of debate on the facts, and that is revealing. It seems if you can't credibly oppose these facts, it is time to attack her. Good luck!

Jacqui Burri  01/20/2008 04:12 PM Report

Are you completely missing the point Charlie, or are you just REFUSING to see how government and your 'friends' in private enterprise are so SADLY using Milton Friedman as their guru - to the detriment of society and to what may become an earlier demise of the planet?

kleinsmitten  01/15/2008 03:41 PM Report

Followed the lead and it paid off so repeating it here again. Cut-n-paste ->

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKr_soG4DUA

Mark Molaro, the interviewer is pitch-perfect.

M. Legault  01/06/2008 01:28 AM Report

what the hell charlie? Why won't you let her talk? for the love of god, is it because she's canadian? is that it? just let her speak.

KleinFan  01/05/2008 08:15 PM Report

I bet she's wearing designer clothes.

Stephanie  01/04/2008 09:58 PM Report

I would have so loved to hear the answers to your string of questions in the middle of the segment with Naomi Klein. They were great questions. Charlie, why didn't you give her a moment to answer without interrupting her with another one??? I was quite impressed with her composure during this frustrating monologue. Clearly, she is capable of keeping her ego in check - you may want to learn by her example, Mr. Rose!

Stephanie  01/04/2008 09:56 PM Report

I would have so loved to hear the answers to your string of questions in the middle of the segment with Naomi Klein. They were great questions. Charlie, why didn't you give her a moment to answer without interrupting her with another one??? I was quite impressed with her composure during this frustrating monologue. Clearly, she is capable of keeping her ego in check - you may want to learn by her example, Mr. Rose!

Tim  01/03/2008 01:16 PM Report

I watch his show on Charlierose.com sometimes days after the broadcast. I, too, was surprised by Charlie's interruptions of this guest. The chief reason I like his show is the opportunity he gives his guests to express themselves and give a full answer. I have felt that Charlie was asking the questions that I would ask.

He has had better shows. I hope she is asked back soon.

Aaron  01/03/2008 10:38 AM Report

I'm not surprised by any of the responses from this interview. It was both heated at times and informative. Charlie seemed to have some personal stake in a few of his questions, referring to his "friends" points of view, but nonetheless prodded where prodding was needed. If Klein had just come onto the program and spoke unchallenged for 30 minutes I would have been completely bored. It is also very easy for any of the Klein defenders to attack Charlie for backing corporate arguments, for any challenge Charlie puts towards Klein WOULD be from her opposing points of view which are large corporations.

chircu.com  01/03/2008 08:05 AM Report

With his Wal-Mart example, Charlie punctures Naomi's theory. She's definitely onto something, yet it doesn't make a theory/framework.

On the other hand, only time will tell whether or not all her, otherwise good, examples belong to something bigger.

The obvious economic tension becomes between different increasing majorities and various instances of the same globalized minority interests.

Christopher  01/03/2008 07:20 AM Report

Yuo know, Charlie must be given credit for having her on. And, it must be said that Klein presented her points very well. Clearly, her arguements were solid, especially about the role of government, how mixed economies are really the best.(Let capitalism build the shoes and let the state handle health, education, and infrastructure). Her point that China, a non-democratic state is the most successful captilist economy was the ton bricks that fell on Charlie's head. And Charlie's arguments for Walmart was pathetic, if Walmart did anything that would affect the bottom line, they would be dragged in court by their shareholders. Katrina was PR for them, the state should've handled the disaster, elections are made for removing people who do not carry out that basic service.

Mike  01/03/2008 03:53 AM Report

Come on, people, the interruption as interrogative is Charlie's modus operandi. He does it to all his guests, regardless of whether they're left, right, genius or wingnut. And as for Wal-Mart in the equation, all they may be gunning for with an outpouring of corporate relief in the wake of Katrina and the resultant P.R. is the opportunity to build another retail box in one of the wards. That's a far cry from being Halliburton/Blackwater/Bechtel/(fill in the blank) awarded a sweetheart, no-bid, multi-billion dollar contract with the certainty of getting in on the ground floor of a perpetual infrastructure construction/security/logistics gig in a country that just had a government reset/fait accompli imposed upon them by military intervention - either ours, or that of one of our global military surrogate clients. More Naomi Klein!

Jean Cox  01/02/2008 08:41 PM Report

I am a faithful viewer and really appreciate the wide selection of guests on your show, BUT

why were you so hostile to Naomi Klein author of The Shock Doctrine. You would not let her talk; you interrupted her constantly and were so defensive to her ideas, even argumentative.

You have treated leaders of hostile countries with more respect. You usually go out of your way to be courteous to guests when you are uncomfortable with their opinions.

Opportunists after a crisis is nothing new in history. We need more concrete information with examples and writers speaking out. Profiteers rob victims of their homes and livelihood.

Our own government is an expert at this by using fear and misinformation.

I think you owe her an apology. LET HER TALK!

Still a faithful viewer,

Tony Nicholson  01/02/2008 07:31 PM Report

Having read her latest book I was pleased you had her on the programme. After reading the above comments it might be wise to have her on again and in the very near future. She is bright and intelligent and very controversial,

greg  01/02/2008 04:54 PM Report

Thanks for providing the rest of the interview. I am surprised that the conversation was more about economics then about torture, which is an issue Charlie Rose has been interested in for awhile, and is constantly displaying his exasperation at not being able to get a definition of what constitutes as torture. And here we have Klein with the Shock Doctrine engaging in these issues on a greater scale with a fresh and intriguing perspective. It would be nice to have her back on, and for Charlie to engage in those issues because it does seem to be a topic Charlie is interested in, and Klein seems to have done a considerable amount of research on it.

Sanford Speck  01/02/2008 12:51 PM Report

Please fix this broadcast so we can listen to the whole interview.

Thanks for having Ms. Klein on the show. Mr. Rose... please trust your guests more with less directive interviewing and more listening.

Mary P. Stitt  01/02/2008 12:34 PM Report

I can't imagine that the people whose comments have been submitted so far were watching the same show I watched. Neither side seems right to me. I saw Charlie Rose calmly and politely interviewing, prodding with the questions a "devil's advocate" would ask, which I believe is his role as host. He does interrupt, but to me his interruptions always appear to be intended to help the guest clarify his/her point in case the viewers don't quite understand. To me, this was a fair and balanced interview about what appears to be a fascinating book. Both host and guest seem to me to have been amiable towards one another throughout the interview. I am thankful that we are fortunate to have Charlie Rose as a quiet, reasoned counterpoint to all the screaming "talking heads" on the other networks.

Luca  01/02/2008 05:58 AM Report

She is a real star! Was there a more powerful idea published in 2007? For the most intriguing political discussion of the year, look for the moderated chat between Klein ("I am shocked") and Alan Greenspan ("Shocks Happen") on Democracy Now's website. I think it is the only public confrontation between liberalism and the role of conscience that I have witnessed on any medium in the past few years.

Jack  01/02/2008 05:31 AM Report

Is this REALLY the best the anti-globalization paranoids can come up with? Small wonder Rose felt the need to jump in to stop tNaomi Kleinâ??s crazed rantings. Poetic justice will render itâ??s verdict when these paranoids reach the end of their road to find they have wasted their lives on the alter of paranoids delusions. Their hatred for Friedman's ideas is based on their inability to confront a sane and deep understanding of how economies work so they go off on the deep end without any sound research. The 500 million in Asia who have been freed from the shackles of poverty have a bit different perspective than the Kleinâ??s of this world who could afford to start out life as mall rats pursuing the latest fad brands.

Jack  01/02/2008 05:31 AM Report

Is this REALLY the best the anti-globalization paranoids can come up with? Small wonder Rose felt the need to jump in to stop tNaomi Kleinâ??s crazed rantings. Poetic justice will render itâ??s verdict when these paranoids reach the end of their road to find they have wasted their lives on the alter of paranoids delusions. Their hatred for Friedman's ideas is based on their inability to confront a sane and deep understanding of how economies work so they go off on the deep end without any sound research. The 500 million in Asia who have been freed from the shackles of poverty have a bit different perspective than the Kleinâ??s of this world who could afford to start out life as mall rats pursuing the latest fad brands.

Will  01/02/2008 04:25 AM Report

Since reading the Shock Doctrine, Klein has become a hero of sorts for me and turned me away from apathetic consumer to becoming an informed activist. The Shock Doctrine is truly eye-opening, and having graduated with a B.A. in economics, believing in the free-market theories of Friedman, I've done an about-face. Klein's work is truly inspiring. This whole interview should be up!

Keith Porteous  01/02/2008 04:17 AM Report

I think Naomi Klein is bang on with her assertions in the SHOCK DOCTRINE. US support for brutal dictators and the overthrow of democratically elected governments is well documented. Klein gives us the how and the why. She certainly can hold up to CR's line of questioning, and his obvious biases actually helped reveal the truth in what she was saying. The incomplete video is a little unnerving.

I have watched dozens of clips on this site, and this is the first one I have seen cut off. mmmmmm. And to the far-right ideologues who have posted, your comments almost always citicize style, but never are able to factually contradict Klein's. That is revealing as well.

Guillermo  01/02/2008 01:57 AM Report

I,ve been watching charlie for years and thought i enjoyed his show but, there's something wrong, charlie clearly has a bais, in the Krugman interview he defended Reagan who had rascist policies against black people.Reagan basically took money for schools and infrastructure and gave it to the military and in tax breaks to the rich. Charlie also goes on to press Naomi Klien about whether walmart should be commended for providing the people with supplies after Katrina, instead of asking, how the richest nation in the whole history of the world with technology that put a man on the moon could not provide for it's own citizens.Blackwater also secured a no-bid contract to provide security after Katrina you can see this on Bill Moyers. Please understand i like and respect Charlie Rose but, some\alot of his guests get off easy.

Julien  01/02/2008 01:25 AM Report

More and more people are now able to construct a clearer view of what is truly going on in the world. The information structure is now allowing the truth (even if fragmented) to be accessed. We are reaching a level of understanding that is unprecedented. The idea that someone (a politician, a company, a country, etc.) can somehow say one thing and do something else is over. Itâ??s over because many can now access the information that tells us whether or not itâ??s true.

David J  01/01/2008 08:31 PM Report

Watching Charlie Rose is at once fascinating and exasperating. I've felt this for years, but after the Naomi Klein interview I just have to say it. So many times I've yelled to my TV set for Rose to just Shut Up. Put another way, Rose's guests are always brilliant and informative, while the host just keeps getting in the way.

Klein was especially rich and concise, particularly after I watched a clearly declining William F. Buckley, who struggled over and over to capture a complete thought. Klein has something extremely important to say, agree with her or not, and she says it with clarity even while maintaining - gasp - humility. Rose's jarring interruptions here seem to belie his very different take on the world (and Milton Friedman).

As for the website's cutting the interview short - which is maddening - it makes one wonder if there is some terrible ideological clash, or technological incompetency, or both. Somebody fix this problem and let us see the whole event!

Mike Lautermilch  01/01/2008 07:28 PM Report

PBS, PLEASE FIX THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW WITH NAOMI KLEIN. THE VIDEO CUTS OFF MID-SENTENCE (LITERALLY) DURING THE DEBATE ABOUT WAL-MART, AND VIEWERS ARE NOT ABLE TO HEAR KLEIN'S ANSWER.

Regarding Charlie cutting his guests off: Charlie, I think I can detect an effort on your part in recent interviews to NOT cut your guests off mid-thought as much as you have sometimes done in the past (the Krugman interview was a glaring exception, however). And for that, I say, â??Bravo!â??

However, the old habit kicked into gear at certain points during your interview with Klein. Overall, I didnâ??t think you were as interruptive as some of the comments on this page indicate. And some interruptions can be warranted (for clarification, say, or to challenge an assertion before it gets lost in further discussion). But Klein definitely seemed hurried to get her ideas out because of your impatient verbal and physical cues; and in particular, towards the end of the conversation -- when you brought up the Wal-Mart question -- you were right back into your old habit of too quickly jumping in and disrupting your guestâ??s flow of thought.

I don't know how Klein responded to the Wal-Mart question because the video cuts off before she is able to complete her answer; however, even if Wal-Mart did do a better job than FEMA in the aftermath of Katrina, that in no way undermines Klein's thesis. A single example like this is just that: a single example. And as Klein appeared to be trying to say before you interrupted, Wal-Mart's better-than-FEMA performance is not necessarily the result of government incompetence (vs. private industryâ??s competence) but of BUSH government incompetence. The Bush Administrationâ??s undermining of government assistance programs like FEMA precludes using the Katrina example to support the claim that private companies do a better job than the government.

But more fundamental than these objections to your Wal-Mart argument is that the argument is much too narrowly focused. What one would need to know to judge Kleinâ??s thesis is the total cost-benefit ratio of government disaster aid, on the one hand, and the total cost-benefit ratio of private disaster aid, on the other, in numerous and diverse disaster situations. Such cost-benefit analysis would have to take into account ALL pros and cons, including but not limited to monetary cost and the source of payment, not just quickness of response and effectiveness. For example, was Wal-Martâ??s work more costly monetarily than FEMAâ??s, and were the impoverished and disaster-stricken people of New Orleans paying more out of their own pockets than they would have if the federal government had done the job?

Matthew   01/01/2008 05:14 PM Report

Wow. I finally got to watch this and have read all the comments. Naomi has been one of my favorites analysts and Charlie a favorite interviewer. I prefer his "conversation" approach to others, but I had never seen him have emotional responses that nearly derailed it. And, no way is 18 or whatever mins nearly enough time to flesh out a breakthrough thesis as Naomi's. I've been following her work, so I got it. But Charlie, your impatience or resistance was frustrating and sad. Her fresh perspective is a gift and it's encouraging coming from my generation. Dare I say it: shes's a lot more cute than Noam and probably easier to digest for those ready to hear truth but not ready to listen to the wordy prose of a guy like him. And yes, on that topic, give Naomi Wolf her 20 mins--or watch her on Democracy Now! a few weeks back. Anyway, thanks for having her on please do have her back. Naomi Klein has a lot to say. Thanks, Matthew, Albuquerque

Golbanou  01/01/2008 04:59 PM Report

Mr. Rose seems to have lost some of his polish. This is not the first time he is rude with his guests, not allowing them to finish what they are saying, jumping in on mid- sentences, hammering them like if they were on trial... He really needs to get a grip. The interviewees, as well as those watching his shows, deserve better.

Maria  01/01/2008 04:39 PM Report

Please let us view the whole video! It cuts out at 17:53, and we cannot hear the end and Naomi's response regarding Walmart's role in New Orleans post-Katrina. I was watching this interview on television and know it was longer than this, but I had to miss the end, and now cannot see it here either. Please help! Love the show, despite occasional host flaws, guests shine through because of their character and I applaud the choice of guests in the first place.

Dave S.   01/01/2008 03:41 PM Report

Absolute garbage - one of Charlie's worst "interviews" - time to hang them up pal if this is what you're going to call an interview. This was pure agenda-driven crap. Judging by the other comments Charlie needs to reconsider his approach in 2008.

Louise Wu  01/01/2008 03:08 PM Report

It really was great fun to see ol' Chuck come unraveled in the Klein interview. He was almost as bad as the little kids who put their hands over their ears and say, "La-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when the conversation at the playground doesn't go their way. I think Ms. Klein was also having fun watching Rose from her front-row seat as he did a total melt-down as an interviewer. This interview with Klein was like instant karmic pay-back for Rose, who has been a right-wing sycophant from the get-go, and who completely confirms the corporate/right-wing co-optation of public television--i.e "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em!"

Louise Wu  01/01/2008 02:53 PM Report

It really was great fun to see ol' Chuck come unraveled in the Klein interview. He was almost as bad as the little kids who put their hands over their ears and say, "La-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when the conversation at the playground doesn't go their way. I think Ms. Klein was also having fun watching Rose from her front-row seat as he did a total melt-down as an interviewer. This interview with Klein was like instant karmic pay-back for Rose, who has been a right-wing sycophant from the get-go, and who completely confirms the corporate/right-wing co-optation of public television--i.e "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em!"