Jump to content

Talk:Charlie Rose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 07:59, 9 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Media}}, {{WikiProject Journalism}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)


Assassination Attempt??

not a MENTION?

http://gothamist.com/2009/03/22/book_mob_mistakenly_targeted_talk_s.php 66.105.218.5 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Quotes

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, he is the Second Coming, isn't he?Desperado57 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Hondo77 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do say so.Desperado57 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

", originally slated as a vaudeville show,"

I rev'd the edit where a 3-edit contrib'r inserted ", originally slated as a vaudeville show," which is farfetched, has the ring of stealth vandalism, & should await verification if true.
--Jerzy•t 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys/girls will be boys/girls, you know.Snickerdoodle09 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His religion

...is? I have a hunch he's an agnostic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.2.86 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch? I'll take an each way bet on Quaker or Rastafarian or Mahayana Buddhist. Tsinfandel (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.bloomberg.com/tvradio/tv/crose/bio.html. It was introduced in this series of edits. Infringing material has been removed by the restoration of an earlier version of the article. It must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflicts of interest"

This section makes no sense and should be removed if it can't be substantiated.

  • It says that he has a relationship with Coca-Cola, but doesn't actually mention any conflict. Merely having a sponsor and having a logo on the side of a mug does not amount to a conflict of interest.
  • On the cable news thing, it says he offered to broker a detente between hosts on NBC and Fox, supposedly because the feud was bad for business. I don't see how this would be a conflict of interest, even if Rose had a relationship with either network (and as far as I know he works for CBS/Viacom and PBS).

Jkiang (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That "broker" thing was recast in another section, now titled Charlie Rose#Quiet influence, which claimed the NYT said he "brokered a deal". NYT didn't say that, nor "because it was hurting their parent corporations' unrelated business interests", and the rewording is PoV speculation at best -- they do say
...cease-fire, which was orchestrated in part by Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, and Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president who oversees corporate affairs at the News Corporation.
I reworded, in the accompanying article to
Rose encouraged a discussion between the leaders of NBC and Fox, that led eventually to a mutual reduction in ad hominem attacks between Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly on their respective news programs.
and removed the following because even if Greenwald sees it that way (i didn't check), jamming one against the other connected by just "however" is a WP:SYNTH violation:
It was also Rose however, who previously told Amy Goodman while elaborating on the subject of independent media, "I promise you, CBS News and ABC News and NBC News are not influenced by the corporations that may own those companies, since I know one of them very well and worked for one of them."Greenwald, Glenn (August 1, 2009). "GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe". Salon.com. Retrieved November 7, 2010.
--Jerzy•t 10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why nothing about Bloomberg?

Charlie Rose is shown on Bloomberg, and the trailers make it clear that the interviews take place in Bloomberg offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.148.133 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible article

I have an opportunity to listen to Charlie Rose speak this afternoon, so I came here looking to see if I might be interested. This article does little more than say "Charlie Rose" is a television journalist. That's terrible! Is he involved in philanthropy? Is he politically active? What does he stand for? All I get instead is brief resume and a list of residences he owns. As uninformative as this article is, you'd think this article was written by the main stream media. Rklawton (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charlie Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life -- how bizarre

The "Early Life" section contains no mention of church attendance or influence, or his parents' religious affiliation (or lack of it), which is highly unusual for that area of the farming south during those years. Aren't both of his wives Jewish?Starhistory22 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose got out of law school in 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam draft and war. How did he manage to avoid military service? This is a factual, historical question, not any sort of attack on the fellow. Being of draft age in a hot war brings anyone who has experienced it to one of the biggest decisions of his life, yet this enormous issue is almost never discussed in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently people who weren't around at the time don't remember that there was a draft lottery, by birth date. If you got a high number, you had little chance of being drafted. And unless we're delving into the draft history of every notable person who graduated from college around that time, this seems WP:UNDUE. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Harassment Claims

Should we be putting end dates on the shows he hosts on CBS and PBS? He has not officially been terminated by either network as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeb0728 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon, as suspension is not termination; & active investigations are underway by CBS, the Washington Post, & others. — Lentower (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CBS and PBS have fired him http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-rose-cbs-fired-20171121-story.html. --В²C ☎ 19:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy's & other awards.

I have seen Rose credited with winning several Emmy's & other awards not in this article. Emmy's are notable & should be included. — Lentower (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He won one News and Documentary Emmy Award, which is included and cited here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2017

he *was* a tv host 2604:2000:B0C1:1D00:68B8:1EBA:C624:C559 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and Encyclopedic Style

Much of the text of the lead and honors section read as a newspaper rundown of the day's scandal. I have toned down the lead, the details are in the article. The Honors section should have been prose. I have converted it from a bulleted list of what honors he has lost and hasn't yet lost to a neutral prose section that does not speculate on whether he might lose honors which officials have not yet said were in jeopardy. See WP:Ten year test. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein allegations

In 2015, Gawker released a redacted address list of convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein (the "little black book"), which contained Rose's name alongside other high-profile individuals. such as Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump. Rose and Epstein had an amiable relationship in the early 2000s, and Epstein made a number (at least 5) recommendations for open positions at the Charlie Rose show, all of whom were young women. Rose hired three of these women, one of whom told New York: "I was being offered up for abuse".[1][2][3][4]

These Epstein allegations which I added to the article (which have been reverted multiple times) seem very much WP:DUE for this article. There is a decent amount of coverage in a number of different (non-tabloid) sources, and covers similar ground to the sexual abuse allegations already included in this article. --Bangalamania (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have stricken all the info which in retrospect seems WP:UNDUE and possible WP:SYNTH. I still maintain that the amended text is relevant to the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of his ties to Epstein should be moved to the Sexual Misconduct section Lenbrazil (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mangan, Dan (July 22, 2019). "The big names in Jeffrey Epstein's 'Black Book': Trumps, Clintons, Prince Andrew, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, more on accused sex trafficker's phone list". CNBC. Retrieved August 15, 2019.
  2. ^ "The High Society That Surrounded Jeffrey Epstein". Intelligencer. July 22, 2019. Retrieved August 15, 2019.
  3. ^ Reed, Brad (22 July 2019). "'Offered up for abuse': Jeffrey Epstein and Charlie Rose conferred about new assistants the PBS host could sexually harass". Raw Story. Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  4. ^ Clark-Flory, Tracy (23 July 2019). "Jeffrey Epstein Is a Model Beneficiary of the Good Ol' Boys Club". Jezebel. Retrieved 15 August 2019.

The Sexual misconduct allegations section should be expanded.

The section is pretty small considering 1) his stature before the scandal broke 2) the number of women who have made allegations and 3) the time period (about 20 years). It should be bigger. Unfortunately I don't know enough about it or have enough free time to research and write an expansion. Hopefully some reading this has both or at least one or the other. Lenbrazil (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Rose&oldid=1194498308"