Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I haven't watched the interview yet. When I watch it maybe I'll understand what you mean. But at the moment I'm confused. Charlie Rose is a journalist whose job is to simply ask the person questions and let the audience hear their responses and judge those responses for themselves. Your claim makes it sound like his job is to be in some sort of win/lose conflict with his interviewee and try to "defeat" them or something like that.

 

Isn't Rose's job to be as unbiased and uninvolved as possible and remain objective? If so, how can he get his "ass handed to him" by someone who is just answering his questions as they see fit to answer them?

Posted

Yes I'm sure I didn't watch it :) But I hope to watch it soon. Like I said, maybe when I do I'll see what you're talking about. But it would be an odd situation for a journalist like Charlie Rose to be pitted in a win/lose struggle with an interviewee. That would seem like pretty poor journalism.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.