Charlie Rose has been accused by several women of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. He has admitted indiscretions and apologized although he has said some of the allegations are inaccurate or false. Rose has been fired by CBS and his PBS show has been taken off the air. Bloomberg has also canceled the reruns on its network.
This post is not primarily about the current sexual harassment and assault issues we are now going through. I will say that it is a real problem and the culture needs to change. I feel bad for the women he took advantage of. I feel bad for all the people who worked on his PBS program and production company. I feel bad for his CBS This Morning colleagues, especially Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King. They were truly surprised and upset by the revelations.
I am personally pissed at Charlie Rose. He has been a regular part of my day for many years. Back in the 80's, he was the host/anchor of CBS News Nightwatch. Having often worked night shifts or irregular hours, I would be up during that show. In the 90's, Charlie started his interview show on PBS. I would often watch that show over the years. During the last five years, I have tuned into the CBS This Morning show when I have watched morning TV. I have also been recording The Charlie Rose Show on PBS. I would either watch it live at midnight or the next day. That means I have invited Charlie into my home for anywhere from one to three hours a day. Then there were also the segments he did for 60 Minutes or substituting on the CBS Evening News. I guess I've regained some time in my day now that he is gone.
Here is why I am pissed. It's not because I feel sorry for Rose, it is because his PBS show was a rare oasis in the bombastic, loud, ill-informed desert of what passes for news, commentary, analysis, and discussion on TV. He was prepared and informed for the interviews. When there were discussion panels, there was no shouting or talking over others. He had the best and the brightest guests. The show or segment topics were very diverse. It was not just a news or political show. Charlie's guests included, besides the usual news reporters and talking heads, authors, scientists, medical professionals, actors, directors, foreign journalists, diplomats, heads of state and on and on. The show was interesting, informative, and educational. That's a rare combination on today's TV landscape. It was an adult show.
Will someone or some show come along to fill that void? Maybe, but it is not a given considering the current state of TV news. Maybe there is already another host/show doing the same thing. At the least, I have to scour the channels and look for another adult show. At the worst, there is no other show like Charlie's. That's why I'm pissed at Charlie Rose. Because he couldn't keep his hands to himself and his dick in his pants, we lose an accomplished journalist. His TV career is over.
There will be more fallout from this shift in how we deal with sexual harassment. The shift is long overdue but it will be painful.
In conclusion, thank you, Charlie Rose, for all the good work on TV over the years. Fuck you for being a derelict behind the scenes.
wjh
My biggest problem with climate change deniers is, if they are wrong and we continue to pollute and abuse the environment, we may be doomed. If on the other hand, those who embrace climate change are wrong, there is no longterm harm done. Their programs to slow, halt, or reverse the effects of man on the climate have no real downsides.
Some of us are old enough to remember when air pollution, especially in major cities, was pretty common. Los Angeles actually did have a "brown LA haze". My hometown of Jacksonville often had a terrible stink from the paper mills. The DFW area still has ozone alert days but not as many. I'm sure many of you can remember other areas where air pollution was a problem.
The climate change deniers claim that the measures needed to reduce carbon emissions are financially crippling. That financial strain will be more severe for the US than others, particularly China and India. In fact, the renewable power industries create thousands of jobs. The technology research also has benefits in other industries. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, thermal, and other energy sources are already competitive with most fossil fuels. Coal is no longer financially viable for new plants and most older coal plants have been or are being shuttered. The biggest problem with the new energy sources is the lack of infrastructure to get the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. We have been building pipelines and railroads to deliver coal, oil, and gas for decades. Our solar and wind generation sites are new and not as well connected.
The scientists and climate change believers have mostly done a terrible job of convincing the populace of the real dangers. The main problem is that it is complicated and slow moving. The raw data is solid and mostly undisputed. The problems arise when the historic and current data are put into the numerous models. It is almost impossible to precisely predict when, where or how much that the climate change will affect the Earth in general and specific locations. It is also difficult or impossible to determine what percentage of our current warming is due to mankind and what percentage is normal climate fluctuations. It is not impossible to measure and predict trends.
We also have the alarmists and doomsday faction who think the world will end next week if we don't stop all carbon emissions immediately. They are no more useful to the discussion than the climate change deniers. Hyperbole is very rarely useful or convincing in the long run.
As usual, those in the middle of the discussion have the best chance to come to a workable agreement. Those who question (not deny) climate change must be willing to accept that the data indicates our global temperatures are rising. They must also be willing to accept that the polar ice caps are shrinking and the oceans are rising. Those are provable facts from measurements and photographs. The debate might be about what caused this and is it a trend or a climatic cycle. It can also be debated what part man played in this.
Neither side can continue to summarily deny science that does not fully support their views. Any study funded by a person, group or institution that has a financial or political stake in how we deal with climate change must be taken with many grains of salt and skepticism. That goes for studies funded by the fossil fuel industry, by alternative energy companies, and even by the Sierra Club. Claims about the benefits of "clean coal" by the coal industry are suspect, just as the benefits of wind power by a wind turbine company are.
As I've mentioned in other opinion pieces about current behavior and its effect on the future. Except for maybe nuclear war, none of these issues will directly affect me. I'm too old for climate change to destroy the planet before I'm gone. I do have children and grandchildren. I would like them to have a long, healthy, and happy life. I hope they don't look back on our generation and blame us for ruining the environment and wonder what in the hell we were thinking.
Let's give cleaner energy and other anti-pollution measures a chance. What could it hurt?
wjh
- Were the original Houston Colt 45's (now Astros) named after the gun or the malt liquor?
- Sometimes in sports, especially in baseball, we talk about a player air-mailing a throw, pass, shot. Is air-mail still even a thing?
- Somebody needs to write an app that shocks people when they say "like" or "whatever" or "you know" or "I mean". Other obnoxious phrases to be added as needed.
- Most popular does not mean BEST.
- I wonder which baseball player discovered you could make a double play? Was the first one a traditional 6-4-3 or was it a line drive that caught the runner off the base?
- I hate it when a website won't display the price of an item or event until you get most of the way through the checkout process. Show me the price upfront.
- Where and how do you think those Taco Bell fried egg "taco shells" are made? A perfect but off-center yolk.
- I think the baseball "championship" celebrations have become too staged and predictable. It used to be spontaneous and mostly beer. Now it is champagne, goggles, plastic draped locker rooms, cameras, and preprinted t-shirts and hats. Plus, we now have division, wildcard, wildcard game win, divisional series, championship series and finally the World Series celebrations. That's a lot of champagne.
- I get crazy about the righteous indignation of politicians, both Republicans and Democrats.
- When I was a kid, my Mom would tell me not to pick at scabs. Didn't work then and I still do it today.
- Wouldn't it be nice if TV broadcasts turned down the background noise so that we could hear the people speaking? Sports are the worse, but not the only offenders. Old ears have trouble separating background from foreground.
- OK Apple. We now have the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X (10). Where is the iPhone 9?
- I just opened a bottle of cheap wine to be used in a recipe. It is OK for cooking, but you wouldn't really want to drink a bottle. Largely displayed on the label is 600+ Medals Won. Doesn't say what color or who awarded them. Marketing BS.
- There are two baseball stadiums named for orange juice companies. The Astros Minute Maid Park in Houston and the Rays Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg (Tampa Bay). Has anyone ever actually drank orange juice at a ballpark? Now Coors Field and Miller Park make perfect sense.
- Remember that old commercial for the United Negro College Fund? The tagline was "A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste". I often think I have been wasteful.
- Oxymoron - The Korean demilitarized zone is heavily militarized.
- Does every damn 30 second video on a webpage full of advertisements have to have a 15 second video advertisement?
- Why is it that sometimes I can point the remote directly at the TV/cable box and it doesn't work? Other times I can barely touch it while it is pointing in the wrong direction and the channel changes.
