Talk:Charlie Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Attack

Ok, what the hell is going on here? This page is basically an attack/exposition on Charlie Rose for some connection about Coca-Cola.

I don't particularly get political about this, but it's obvious from the sourcing (Le Show and FAIR) and tone that this is a politically liberal diatribe about Rose. There's almost no information Rose himself or his work, other than the supposed Coke connection. There's something about an article from the Washington Post, but no source reference to it.

I would appreciate any help in expanding this and making it something other than an attack article on Rose.--Orporg

"it's obvious from the sourcing (Le Show and FAIR) and tone that this is a politically liberal diatribe about Rose. "
Why is it obvious that this is a diatribe against Rose? It's clear the article may not show Rose in a favorable light, but I don't think even you dispute the accuracy of the statements in it. By all means, put more information into the article, but making the claim that it fails to be neutral is not justifiable, in my view. There are other more suitable banners, if you are unhappy with the article.--CSTAR 8 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
"Rose is sometimes criticized for going too easy on his guests, possibly in exchange for getting them on the show. Such criticisms appeared to be substantiated when Fox News Channel executive Roger Ailes told the New York Times Magazine (June 24, 2001) that he had received a written assurance from Rose that he would not be asked about politics during his interview."
it's been substantiated that he goes too easy on guests because he agreed not to talk politics with a businessman? that's ridiculous. much of this article is ridiculous. wikipedia is turning into a huge joke. (unsigned by User:68.49.27.20) 9 November 2005
I agree, this is trash. There was an awards section once? AaronSw seems to have a little thing for Mr. Rose? She's getting reverted to a much glorier day the next time I come back. Ahh well, Wikipedia is like so 5 minutes ago anyway.. Heck, the crazy car chases on KCAL-TV are better entertainment than this. (unsigned by User:68.171.60.35) 9 and 10 November 2005)

[edit] Business/Politics

"it's been substantiated that he goes too easy on guests because he agreed not to talk politics with a businessman?"

Regardless of whether or not this page has an anti-Rose bias, the notion that politics should be off-limits in an interview with Roger Ailes is simply poor journalism, no matter who is conducting the interview. Ailes' business strategy cannot be isolated from his politics - any discussion of his business that purposefully avoids politics will be totally superficial.

I would argue that regardless of whether it's bad journalism, it's a wikipedia article about a journalist that includes an unsubstantiated allegation from one of possibly thousands of people the journalist has interviewed; do you think we should apply that standard to all wikipedia articles? This one also doesn't include a response by the journalist, or even a quote on the topic from the journalist. It doesn't even include the response of The Charlie Rose Show's executive producer, which is in the FAIR article. And again the allegation itself is unsubstantiated, it comes from an article (which is not viewable) in the NY Times which is summarized 3rd person on a media-watchdog group's website -- in a piece that also laments the media's unwillingness to treat Henry Kissinger as a war criminal rather than treating him objectively, as public figure many critics think should be charged with war crimes. Also, let's remember who the source of the allegation is exactly; a man who was CEO of a network in direct competition with PBS at the time. Now, I'm open the possibility that the allegation is true, but the discussion of that doesn't sound to me like something that belongs in the article. Besides, the intentions of the person who included the allegation became clear as soon as they chose to exclude the Show's response. --Knuckle Bean 20:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The article on Charlie Rose (show) also cites J.P. Morgan Chase, and Bloomberg as funding the show which I believe should be added in the "criticism" section along with coca-cola as "Big Media" and "Big Money" are obviously a conflict of interest in investigative media. Also i think perhaps pointing out that he has (at least in the past) been hailed by "leftist" or "liberal" organizations such as Adbusters and IndyMedia as a "good" journalist despite these connections. Also... what about a see also with perhaps Bill Moyers, and some other "similar" journalists. ...just some thoughts... --._-zro 20:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Can "welcome to the broadcast" be one? Stan weller 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heart surgery

WNET-13's broadcast of Charlie Rose led with a guest host, who said that Charlie Rose was recovering from mitral valve repair surgery. [1] [2] Lent 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Should medical history be part of a biographical article? I don't think so but feel free to disagree. I think this entire section should not be part of the article. Otherwise we could start listing other

Also, the entry merely states that Charlie Rose got heart surgery on the way to Syria while the surgeons page actually states that he was on his way to interview the Syrian president.Danieljaeger 00:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Senator Charlie Rose

I think it was in a _World Almanac_ that I came across the fact that there was a Senator (from North Carolina, I think) named Charlie Rose. Just now, I used Google to search for "Senator Charlie Rose", and got *one* hit! Funny how a shopkeeper's son can become so famous, while his own namesake and senator is utterly forgotten. Incidentally, Wikipedia really needs articles on George Crile III, who just died recently and was well memorialized on Charlie's show, and who worked with him on 60 Minutes II. Crile's father deserves some treatment, too. His father was the famous surgeon found under "Crile" in Wikipedia. -- D021317c 10:07, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

You may want to reread the first sentence of the article. There you will find reference and link to the politician's article (you were thinking of a congressmember). You should by all means start articles on the surgeons as well. Jokestress 00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique status as journalist

I have been thinking that Rose has a unique status as journalist: that is he can easily get an audience with presidents, kings, and anyone who wants to matter. I often find Rose's excessive talking (as interviewer, arguably putting words in mouths) irritating, but perhaps it helps make him effective. I don't want to put fluff in the main article, so I ask some questions here: Is Rose unique because American journalistic interviewers occupy a low standard? If Rose retires, can he be replaced? At a time when the powerful seem to control all popular expression, what is the best journalism that can be hoped for?Anthony717 05:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and/or Praise

Charlie Rose I think is generally well respected, and I think there should be some praise and/or awards section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism dated

The criticism section is seven years old. Hundreds of shows have been done since then. Is there anything more recent to substantiate the allegations?

An accusation is made that Rose does not ask liberals hard questions. I've seen him interview William F. Buckley, Jr. several times (not exactly a liberal) and don't recall any tough questions. Is it possible Rose (like Larry King) is not a hard-hitting interviewer?

Would anyone criticize Charles Kuralt for not asking demanding questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruises

Anybody watched his show? He appeared beat up. Anybody know how this happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach 2982 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. See http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/18/charlie-rose-sacrifices-face-for-macbook-air/ and/or http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/17/charlie-rose-face-plants-to-save-his-macbook-air/. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this incident relevant? Ars Technica wrote about it citing TechCrunch [3]. TechCrunch says Apple got free publicity. Is this even notable enough to be a part of Charlie's article on wikipedia? Kushal 02:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Charlie Roses" as colloquial 19th century term

I came across this term used in a an issue of the "Electrical Engineer" (Nov 11 1891). The context pertains to enumeration of the american population in the US census;
"The work of counting all those Charlie Roses might still be going on, but...".
Can anyone enlighten me as to what the colloquialism may mean? It's obviously unrelated to the subject of this page, but, depending on significance, may be worth a disambiguation link. --BlueNovember (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)