Watching Nancy Pelosi on Charlie Rose on Bloomberg, I am pretty disappointed

[still_one]

in Charlie Rose. He is really being antagonistic toward Nancy Pelosi. I have never seen him behave that way to any republican he has had on his show.

He is also bringing up the Wiki leaks, and other kinds of garbage that I have NEVER seen Rose treat a republican guest that way. In fact, he mostly throws softball questions their way.

Pelosi is doing a great job of handling the questions though

[Bongo Prophet]

1. Charlie Rose is a self-important, overrated ass who talks over his "interviewees"...

and makes is all about whatever he wants to make it about. He irritates me to no end.
No emoticon quite captures the disgust I feel for him.
Even this one.
Or this, lol.

[still_one]

3. It surprised me that he was that way

[Bongo Prophet]

5. I understand, and sorry if I came across too harsh

My grievance with him is not even about left v right, but about preserving a historical moment in time for future generations.

He has a reputation for being a great interviewer by some - I think because he gets so many good people to interview, and in a long format show with the classic "no distractions black set"tm. What an opportunity!

My nephew is big film buff and likes him for that reason. There is a dearth of good long format interview shows, after all. But he always does this thing where he asks...a ..question, pausing so..."thoughtfully"...then lets the interviewee start answering - and if they pause for a moment to think of the right word, and are about to reveal something interesting, he will.. interject.. pause..and then offer another word ... get them off track...and that magic moment is lost...for fucking ever.

Yea, Charlie. You win again. All about you, your cleverness. Not De Niro, Scorsese, Mandela, etc. Just you.

Once I point that out, people often do see through his self-absorbed schtick. It's obvious once you watch him a bit.
I can't help thinking, how nice it would be for an interviewer to ask good questions, probe deeper when there is gold to be found..and then, just listen and capture THAT for posterity. David Frost was pretty good at that, Jack Paar, and even johnny Carson. Dick Cavett, by contrast, always wanted to regale us with his stories of Groucho or whatever.

In my opinion, a good interviewer should guide a conversation toward relevance and depth, and then get out of the way.
These interviews are historical artifacts in the long run, and not the glory of the interviewer.

I hope this gives you some insight into my POV, lol.

[still_one]

6. You came across just right, and actually gave me some insight to what was happening. Thanks

[a kennedy]

8. Dan Rather, I think when he does "the big interview" on AXS TV

does a very good job doing as you suggested, "a good interviewer should guide a conversation toward relevance and depth, and then get out of the way.
These interviews are historical artifacts in the long run, and not the glory of the interviewer."

[Bongo Prophet]

10. Thanks for the tip~ I'll keep an eye out for that.

Only over air stations, although we have p2p and Kodi streaming available.
Good interviews have a lasting, even escalating, value over time.

[athena]

11. The Bill Moyers interviews were amazing in that way.

It was never about Bill Moyers. He would recede into the background and let the person speak, interjecting only to get more depth or to refocus the discussion.

I agree with you about Charlie Rose, by the way. I used to watch him about ten years ago. After a while, he began to irritate me with his self-importance and his tendency to turn his interviews into a way for him to show off how great he was. At around the same time, Bill Moyers was interviewing amazing personalities like Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie. If you haven't seen those interviews, I suggest you take a look. They are pure gold.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_atwood.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_rushdie.html

These sets of interviews are about "Faith and Reason". As an atheist, I am not particularly interested in the question of faith and reason, but I loved the interviews nonetheless. Bill Moyers, of course, is a seminary graduate. A truly great interviewer can interview a person about a topic he is interested in, and still make the interview interesting to someone who is not interested in that topic.

[Bongo Prophet]

12. Thanks! Agreed, one of the best ever!

I saw those interviews, and many more. Each one showed his inquisitive enabling of insights.
And of course Joseph Campbell series count, as well as his many other journalistic programs - the interviews move the narrative so well. His NOW series helped us get through the dark days of W.

As a fellow non-theistic person, I am still interested in faith, reason, intuition, imagination, etc. - if approached well, it can reveal much about human psychology, ontology, cosmology. How we theorize about the universe, and how we tend to fill the gaps in our knowledge with stories and myths as we sit around the campfire surrounded by seemingly infinite space..

He deserves every lifetime achievement prize available.

[senseandsensibility]

2. He's been very rightwing for a very long time

IMO. He interviewed Michael Moore probably a decade ago. I had some silly idea that he would be "fair". Even then I knew he wasn't liberal. He not only dripped with disdain, but acted physically afraid of Michael. Scared and old and clueless.

[still_one]

4. interesting. I had that same idea. I guess you just confirmed with the Michael Moore interview what

I saw with Nancy Pelosi

I will know better now

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

7. He's an idiot. In an interview with Paul McCartney, he called him John.

My husband says Rose is a total stoner. So, I guess that would make him a libertarian.

[still_one]

9. oh weel, so much for preparation