Charlie Rose and me go way back

I used to watch Charlie Rose back in the 90s when he was on PBS and he'd interview notable people. I was a liberal then, so of course, I never noticed political bias on PBS or broadcast news, and there wasn't any Fox or internet access. And although I watched him, I didn't like him. Why? It was the way he interviewed women, although most of his guests were men. He would frame his questions in such a manner and be so detailed, that all she could do was answer Yes or No. He hogged the limelight and diminished his female guests. With men, he was more respectful and seemed to think they could tell their own stories. Was it just Charlie or is this a guy thing?

I also never cared for Bill O’Reilly’s interviewing techniques, but he was rude to everyone—showed no bias toward women.

Amanpour on PBS

I’ve had a cold, so my sleeping is a little off, and I happened to be awake at 11:30 last night and caught Amanpour on PBS, which is a half-hour replacement for Charlie Rose who left in disgrace. It’s a CNN program, so not sure how that works, but it is apparently shown in other venues, probably Europe.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/pbs-charlie-rose-replacement/index.html

Anyway. It’s an interview show, not news.  Definitely not news.  She interviewed the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. (or maybe England)  and tried to trap him into saying something negative about Trump.  I didn’t have a pen and paper, but I do recall her using the phrase several times, “do you fear. . .” rather than “do you think.” The Ambassador, however, was more careful and professional than President Trump or Ms. Amanpour and delicately stepped over her trap. Yes, he used a lot of weasel words, but he definitely had been coached.  Also his English was so good, I was then not prepared to try to figure out what the next guest, a Brit, was saying.

https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/christiane-amanpour-brags-about-bias-i-insist-being-truthful-not-neutral

Her next interview was with two women, one a Brit with mid-chest length stringy gray hair and the other with shoulder length stringy dark hair, but a lovely smile. It was about the MeToo movement and whether there is now a backlash. 

So Amanpour felt “led” as we say in prayer groups of sharing intimately to bring up Anita Hill and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas back in fall of 1991. I was a Democrat back then—didn’t change my party for another nine  years.  I distinctly remember being sickened by the way Democrats treated a black justice—he was at that time a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. By that time we knew all about the sexcapades of the Kennedys and if any woman starlett or aging movie star had been brave enough, the whole “Weinstein me too” story would have tumbled out 25 years ago instead of late 2017. 

In 1991 I was horrified when I heard other liberals on the OSU campus deride his qualifications and say Bush had only nominated him because he was black. As if Democrats would NEVER do such a thing—play games with race or sex.  It was definitely a “high tech lynching” and I think Justice Thomas has done a fine job.  I also read his very moving autobiography.

But then Amanpour commented that the cases Justice Thomas as been a part of have actually led the women’s movement backward.  She cited no case, just threw it out for the self righteous liberal head nodders.  Hill was the only woman to bring this charge, which as I recall was an off-color joke.  Perhaps I didn’t take it seriously because I’d heard worse, and the world didn’t collapse. Obviously, if so many women have kept quiet all the years since of current women’s rights movement of the early 70s, many people were ignoring work place chit chat.

The identified sexual assault/harassment/rape/tighty whities cases—including Charlie Rose whom she was replacing--are currently identified as about 150.  All but 3 or 4 of the charges are against high profile Democrats in politics or media/entertainment. Yet, the only case she can find to recall a historical precedent is from 25 years ago? And this is the drip dribble of biased information Americans and Europeans get every evening.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437603/christiane-amanpours-daniel-hannan-interview-exposes-her-leftist-bias

Here’s the NYT account from 1991 and it is also biased and negative toward Thomas.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/16/us/thomas-confirmation-senate-confirms-thomas-52-48-ending-week-bitter-battle-time.html?

Remembering how the media helped get us in this mess

October 30, 2008

CHARLIE ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

TOM BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

CHARLIE ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

TOM BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

CHARLIE ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

TOM BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

CHARLIE ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very inspirational (sic) speeches.

TOM BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

TOM BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

A conversation about white guilt

and the damage done to African Americans by liberals. This interview with Shelby Steele by Charlie Rose was done in 1998, and the topic is perhaps even more important today. It’s also classic Charlie, where he tries to get the guest off track (starts out talking about Clinton’s morality and affairs) if he doesn’t agree with him/her, thus eating into their time. I was vilified by liberals by even suggesting that Obama’s “blaccent” wasn’t authentic even to my ear, but Steele said it first and better as did trained linguists. Unfortunately for Steele, his book on Obama had a very unfortunate subtitle: “and why he can’t win.”