Which opens up the question. Fight terrorism,
how? Should we fight terrorism by passing laws
that disarm the law abiding? How about the
proposed laws in Lexington, Mass (just reading
last night on the computer) confiscating semi
automatic guns from law abiding citizens? The
Obama, Bernie, Hillary members of government
appear to follow the old adage I made up years
ago: "if there is a wolf in your chickens,
shoot your dog."
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
Charlie Rose had him on for a half-hour the other night - speaking in
part about the Apple phone situation.
In light the implied "We're the government, trust us..." in Clapper's
spiel, I was mildly disappointed that Charlie didn't
politely/non-confrontationally call him on his lying to congress.
On 2/26/2016 9:40 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Charlie Rose is an entertainer. He's no better at "journalism" than Johnny
It's sort of like catching a witness in a lie during a trial: "Well, now
that we KNOW you are a liar, why should we believe ANY of your testimony?
You've provided a rock solid alibi for the defendant, in this case. But,
when we asked you if you've ever used the N-word, you said 'No', under
oath. Yet, here's a video of you saying just that... (detective furman)"
The sad thing is Clapper could have just been honest KNOWING that, sooner
or later, we'd have to have that discussion, as a society. Instead, he
took the easy (sleazy?) way out.
As a result, he complicates the work of those folks who are really
*trying* to do a good job -- in spite of obvious hurdles!
Not sure what "Journalism" is, but my gut says I disagree with that.
To me, Charlie Rose is an absolute master at getting into people's
heads. He loves to do it and he is really, really good at it.
The fact that he does it in a respectful and civil manner means that
*Everybody* and *Anybody* seems willing to go on with Charlie Rose.
But, politeness and respect aside, he still keeps boring in....
Occasionally he lets something slide, but it's rare - usually when the
interviewee tries to slip a punch or dance away he's right back at them.
He had Putin on for two separate hours awhile ago and it seemed to me
like he pissed Putin off a couple of times just by (politely) calling
him out on the same point several times in a row.
He is also the best-prepared interviewer I have ever seen. Once he had
France's Finance Minister on the show and the minister stopped him
midway through the conversation to blurt out something like "Charlie,
you *really* know this stuff."
I used to think maybe he had a half-dozen quick, smart people Googling
away on computer terminals and whispering in his ear, but his reactions
are too fast for that to be the case. I think he's just mentally
gifted in some way..... total recall, maybe...
There's a point where you have to just be really blunt and say, "So,
just to be clear for our viewers, you don't want to answer that question?"
You can't be all friendly and chuckling and expect folks to realize
you've just been stonewalled.
I recall Kopel interviewing Ted K many years ago. Teddy kept
dancing around the question, generating lots of verbiage but
still not answering what was being asked of him. Eventually,
Kopel said, "So, you're NOT going to answer my question? OK,
we'll move on (no, you don't get a chance to add something else
unless it's an answer to the question -- my staff can edit this
as much as they choose...)"
At the end of the interview, RECAP what was said and NOT said.
Leave viewers to judge the quality of the interview based on
those facts, not a flurry of back-and-forths that at least one
participant is EXPECTING will obfuscate the issue!
Journalists are supposed to ask the questions "you and I" WANT
asked. Not just hob-nob with celebrities.
[The other thing that diminishes CR in my book is all the time he
spends with "actors" giving them free publicity, etc. Is this
*really* worth your time? *Our* time?? (in my case, "no")]
[[Would you really want to ask ANY question of some "movie star"?]]
I would agree that "Charlie Rose" show on PBS got significantly "Softer"
after he took the job at "CBS This Morning" and started "Charlie Rose:
Makes sense to me: one person can only handle so much and I don't even
want to think about what kind of hours he must keep to do all 3 shows.
Also, it seems to me like he is so good at what he does because he loves
it - and he is a Man For All Seasons: interested in stuff that I could
care less about as well as the stuff that interests me. His social
life and his professional life probably overlap a great deal.
Most of the time I just fast-forward the actors, poets, and the like...
and that has become more frequent since CBS... in fact, I find myself
sometimes just deleting whole shows without watching them.
That being said, my only hope is that he doesn't work himself to death
before I die. Once I kick the bucket, the hell with him.... but until
then, he is a significant part of my incoming information bandwidth.
The New Yorker Magazine, The Economist, PBS News Hour, Foreign Affairs
Mag, Charlie Rose.... I know there is lots more, but I simply don't have
the grey matter to handle any more.... in fact, I am about 3 weeks
behind on both The New Yorker and The Economist...
He's an entertainer. That;s the case with most "journalists", today.
They need to MAKE reasons for people to watch/read their "product".
No doubt he has a staff that does most of the heavy lifting.
He's just the "pretty face".
But how *deep* is that interest? Is it just cursory? Is he
truly willing to let his guests NOT answer those questions?
Does he then shrug his shoulders and think, "Oh, well... I
tried!" -- even for his OWN curiosity?
I watch very few. I know he'll let anyone "determined" to squirm
out of a question do so. As a result, they'll only answer
the "easy" questions.
If it's a scientist(s), then I can always go chase down the rest
of the research/theory on my own -- ask the questions that he
FAILED to consider (or, that might not have been of interest to him).
I count on journalists to use their access and notoriety to get to
the things (people/issues) that I *can't*.
I spend a lot of time rummaging around looking for information.
And, have a fair number of friends/colleagues that feed me with
things that I might find interesting. Sometimes to elicit
comment; other times just as an FYI.
I can't afford to wait for someone to decide that something that
*I* find interesting is "interesting enough" to warrant a TV
E.g., we previously had automated enforcement of speeding and
red light violations, here. Ballot initiative asked voters
to decide if these should be permitted, in town (county had
already dumped the "vendor").
Media was completely ineffective in addressing this issue.
They just acted as a mouthpiece for <whomever> wanted to
get their message out. "Stories" were literally 4 or 5
sentences in a newscast. Never CHALLENGING the point
that was being expressed.
So, I had to go looking for information and doing my own
assessment of the validity of those claims. What value
is the local media outlet -- beyond the editorial policies
of its ownership?
Make sure you're looking at "both sides" -- too easy to just hear
what you want (prefer) to hear. This is a common question I have
for friends addicted to talk radio: "Who ELSE are you PAYING to
do your thinking?"
Yes, I saw a bit of his "exchange" with Gates the other night.
While he kept "repeating the question" (re: Apple), he always
tried to do so with a smiley face -- instead of making a REAL
issue of Gates' squirming.
Yes.... but being overly-confrontational has it's costs when it comes
time to sign up the next person for an interview. Charlie's way leaves
the viewer knowing perfectly well that the interviewee is dodging the
question - but he doesn't offend the interviewee.
Somewhere, sometime I read a discussion of this general issue and it
seems like there are two recognized schools of journalistic/interview
thought: one is Charlie Rose's and the other is Dan Rather's.
Remember when Dan Rather mouthed off to the ayatollah and the old guy
just said "You have violated the pre-interview agreement", got up and
I guess "You pays your money and you takes your choice.".
Dunno. Doesn't that say MORE about the guest than the guest
would care for the audience to see? ("Ah, he'll only talk about
things that he's 'pre-approved'... how would this have been any
different than a press release? Equally artificial...")
IMO, it shows lack of integrity of the interviewer. Yes it may have
restrictions and come off as a press release, but if you make an
agreement, stick to it.
No different than press conferences where they person says "no more
questions" or "we cannot say" and yet the reporters continue to badger
so they look important. They are just disrespectful.
BS Rather and the network want that interview just as much. In a
perfect world you are right, no interview, but TV ratings allow for some
sleaziness in the minds of the producers. Breaking the agreement just
shows the flexibility of their morals.
That's one of my obsessions. I think that too many people nowadays
clog up their limited bandwidth with extreme/biased sources.
Nobody's perfect and everybody has a slant - but there's no excuse for
polluting one's mind with the likes of Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. If
we all had unlimited ability to internalize information, it would be no
problem but as it is, we can only handle so much and it's on us to make
sure what comes in is not overly biased.
I like to think that The New Yorker and The Economist balance each other
People tend to want to hear what they already believe. And, will
go to often elaborate rationalizations to NOT hear things that
challenge those beliefs.
Note how often *moderators* are booed for asking questions
that challenge (or RISK challenging) their beliefs about their
Beck/Limbaugh/etc. are just entertainers. If you keep that in
mind and think of them in the same light as reading _The National
Enquirer_ or The Evening News...
I am always suspicious of folks who want to *do* something for
me (e.g., THINK!). "What axe does this entity have to grind?
What are they trying to GET from/through me?"
We have lots of "ballot initiatives" here -- things that we,
the electorate, can put into law without the consent of those
we've elected to govern us. As a result, there are often
folks out collecting signatures for various "issues".
All try to present their issues as "just". I always ask,
"Who's pulling your strings? Who's behind this initiative?
Some fancy named 'Citizens for Wonderful Laws' -- which means
a little less than NOTHING?"
Invariably, I decline the petitioners: "Get it on the ballot
and THEN I'll research it -- seeing the REAL language as well
as the public comments (along with their associated 'interests')
for and against!"
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-5, SeaNymph wrote:
You know, I thought exactly the same thing. Also interesting that
you know who chose to interject that bitter thread into this one.
I was about to post the same thing, but then considered that it's
exactly what the village idiot/troll wants to do, ie restart that
whole thing. But it is probative of the real situation and what
M is all about.
Bitter thread? LOL Don said something I thought was funny about
*rationalizations to NOT hear things that challenge beliefs*.
He brought up an interesting *idea*, and I pointed out his own recent
foray at *rationalizations to NOT hear things that challenge beliefs*.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.