...because I think he has the best guests on television but is a terrible interviewer. Am I alone in this? I TiVo his show regularly but have trouble watching it. First of all, he's a shameless brown nose and asks a lot of softball questions. (I think that's one of the reasons he gets such great people to appear on his show; it's not too demanding.) When he's not doing that, he asks long three- and four-part questions that he thinks are really insightful. Often the guest seems a little confused as to which part to answer first. No matter, because the minute he starts to answer, Charlie interrupts him by telling him what he thinks. He seems really quite impressed with himself sometimes. He's also a horrible listener. Many times I've heard a guest go off on a tangent only to have Charlie bring him back to his prepared list of questions. God forbid the conversation should take an unexpected turn! During the election season, he often had the annoying habit of having too many guests on. This allowed for each of them to speak for about 10 or 15 seconds at a crack, just enough to begin but not finish an interesting thought. And please, enough Doris Kearns Goodwin!
The best interviewer in recent memory was Tim Russert. What a shame that he died in the middle of this election season. Like Dick Cavett before him, he could have almost anyone on and it would prove to be interesting. One of my favorite Tim Russertisms was when he would read a passage from someone's book and then say to his guest, "talk about that." Then he would let the person speak and really listen. It showed respect for his guest and his audience. I really miss him.
The best talk show host left on television that I know of is Bill Moyers. He has a liberal bias but doesn't hide it. I respect that. He asks intelligent questions, lets his guests speak, and listens to their answers. Regardless of the topic, his show is usually very interesting.
Am I missing anything? Is there anyone else I should be watching?
P. S. Although I'm okay with David Gregory getting the Meet the Press job, I would have taken a chance on Joe Scarborough. And I like Mike Barnicle as a fill-in for Chris Matthews on Hardball.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think I have moved from frustrated to baffled concerning Charlie Rose. How does this guy have the most prestigious talk show on television? My sister thinks he must have incriminating photos of important people. Still, I do watch it. I agree that he just gets the best guests and it is probably because he treats them with kid gloves. Still, there is something to the simplicity of the format that allows for sprawling answers from interesting people. That said, Rose does do his best to ignore or run over these interesting thoughts, but as a listener I can ignore CR as much as he does his guests and take the interesting answer for what it's worth. The other good thing about the show is that he gets people from all walks of life from scientists to artists to politicians to philanthropists to businessmen to academics to journalists, etc. His show makes me aware of people and even industries that I might never know about otherwise. I guess what I'm saying is that the biggest problem with the Charlie Rose Show is CR himself and if you can ignore hiim then it's worthwhile.
I also agree about Bill Moyers, while liberal (ahhhh! run for the hills!) I find his stories to be in-depth and interesting. He also seems to cover areas that major news organizations won't (poor people, disaster aftermath, the war in afganistan, etc).
I still watch it, too. By the way, the best CR I ever saw had Edward O. Wilson and James Watson talking about Darwin and evolution. It's on U-Tube; definitely worth a look.
Post a Comment