TV.com

Charlie Rose

Favorite

Watched It I've Watched This 19

Weekdays 11:30 PM on PBS Premiered Jan 01, 1991 In Season

USER EDITOR

RoxieVelma

User Score: 2269

7.1

User Rating

58 votes

Your Rating: 10
Your Rating: 9.5
Your Rating: 9
Your Rating: 8.5
Your Rating: 8
Your Rating: 7.5
Your Rating: 7
Your Rating: 6.5
Your Rating: 6
Your Rating: 5.5
Your Rating: 5
Your Rating: 4.5
Your Rating: 4
Your Rating: 3.5
Your Rating: 3
Your Rating: 2.5
Your Rating: 2
Your Rating: 1.5
Your Rating: 1

Rate Now

SHOW REVIEWS
By TV.com Users

Write A Review

Show Summary

EDIT

This talk show has no frill involved. Just a round oak table and intelligent discussion as journalist Charlie Rose engages newsmakers, celebrities, and authors each night.

Previously Aired Episode

AIRED ON 6/13/2013

James Bamford; Graeme McDowell

Season 2013 : Episode 20130613

Episode Guide

S 2013 : Ep 20130613	James Bamford; Graeme McDowell	Aired 6/13/13	go TV.com Free Hulu Free
S 2013 : Ep 20130613	John Galliano	Aired 6/12/13	go TV.com Free Hulu Free
S 2013 : Ep 20130607	Julius Genachowski; Phil Libin	Aired 6/7/13	go TV.com Free Hulu Free
S 2013 : Ep 20130606	China-US Relations and MacKenzie Bezos	Aired 6/6/13	go TV.com Free Hulu Free
S 2013 : Ep 20130604	Floyd Abrams; "Ghost Brothers"; Joss Whedon	Aired 6/4/13	go TV.com Free Hulu Free

See Full Episode Guide

Cast & Crew

EDIT

Charlie Rose

Host

See All Cast & Crew

Newest Full Episode

Charlie Rose Listings

Full Listings

Tuesday

No results found.

Wednesday

No results found.

Thursday

No results found.

Fan Reviews (6)

Charlie Rose critique

1.0

By sherryamanpou, Apr 23, 2013

Charlie Rose continues his inauthentic and 'small' formula for inteviewing great guests. He continues to interrupt . when you ask Rebecca Miller for the role of a about not answering your own question and LISTENING to the answer. His frequent 'exactly' to responses of his guests attest to his self -importance (which many believe is sorely a manifestation of his HUGE ego)and ALWAYS trying to seem more intelligent than his guests is super annoying. Cuffs still open at time you pretending to be a 'faux laughs at inopportune times -again attesting to his own self importance whereas many of us see yet another example of someone ill equipped to he would get off the wonder he has been called a 'diva' and.....moreless
DO YOU AGREE?
0 0

Flag
Share Hide
Our Next Secretray of State

9.0

By JnaneshwarHel, Dec 22, 2012

Dear Friends and dear Senator Hagel,

I have been following politics for twenty years. C-Span has been most helpful. Typically I enjoy watching the Senate. Informative, educational in many way. Chuck Hagel always strikes me as a very intelligent man of exquisite judgment. Frankly you don't know that he has a given political party because he constantly focuses on that which is altruistic, a rare treat but not completely uncommon, thank God. I would work for this man in a minute,

based on integrity and philosophy alone.

If there is a higher intelligence at work, I can only say

Good luck and congratulations Mr. Secretary.

Sincerely, Helmut Eckart

Southern Marylandmoreless
DO YOU AGREE?
1 0

Flag
Share Hide
Scalia's defense of Originalism could be associated with the history of the Catholic Church versus Protestantism and the rise of the Enlightenment.

10

By junosboy, Jun 28, 2008

I enjoyed watching last night's interview with Justice Antonin Scalia and your attempts to probe the reasonings of what he calls originalism regarding the U.S. Constitution.

I wonder if Justice Scalia would have agreed that the differences between originalism versus the living constitutionalists was similar to the history of the Catholic Church versus the rise of Protestantism?? After all, the Church virtually ruled Christianity for about 1500 years, establishing an institution (and therefore a tradition) not only to safeguard the interpretation of scriptures but to anoint figure-heads of Jesus Christ (Is this not a form of absolutism?? Who would dare to argue with Christ himself!!) to make further clarifications of what the scriptures actually meant, not only for individuals but for governments as well; this, in contrast to the rise of Protestantism which basically brought on the Enlightenment with the fundamental idea that each individual man should be the interpreter of God's wisdom and the source of his own salvation and destiny: each man was to make the bible a living testament adequate to the age of his time and to the growing sciences that such individual investigations produced. The U.S. Constitution was a product of the Enlightenment and certainly not of the Catholic Church, which must always maintain even to this day its ascendancy of the divine right to interpret scriptures for everyone else. What I am suggesting is there is a kind of absolutism inherent in Scalia's view of the constiution, similar in kind to the differences between Catholic Church and Protestantism...

Abraham Lincoln himself used the Declaration of Independence as a source for the argument against slavery in his Cooperstown Speech in 1860 arguing that the majority of the signers of the U.S. Constitution intended to stop the spread of slavery because they thought that the essence of slavery was a contradiction to the country's highest ideals, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Another way to put this is that Lincoln was INSPIRED by the Declaration of Independence and that this inspiration was calling for the ultimate abolishing of slavery. Although inspiration itself may lead a country through difficult conflicts and maybe even reparations and reconstruction, it is up to the individual to make such substantive documents alive and humanly relevant, and not an engraved tablet of absolute unchanging dicta of worship from God or Jesus Christ. So the differences involve tradition and absolutism and (in a way) divine right on one hand, and the freedom of the human spirit to investigate, to understand, and to creatively adjust the tradition toward a better future on the other--all this, for man and not gods......moreless
DO YOU AGREE?
0 0

Flag
Share Hide
I am 18 years old & have been watching The Charlie Rose Show since I was a child. My parents clearly have influenced me, but if I'm not proof enough of how great the show is, then maybe the end of the world will be in 2024, as the Mayans predicted.moreless

10

By SourGoddess89, Aug 11, 2007

I dont think there is any further needed to reaffirm The Charlie Rose Show"'s importance to Americans. In a country where everything is dangerous & untrustworthy,both physcally & mentally, depending on foreign correspondance like France's "La Figaro," Britain's "BBC," or Germany's "DW", Charlie Rose is our source for no bull information & enlightenment. He is a less agressive & a classier version of Bill Maher, & his efforts to save the salavgable souls of the U.S. I will continue to watch as much as I can, but for sure Charlie Rose has been influential to me. It is a fun program, did you see Bill Nye or Steven Colbert on the show? It's smart & cool. Long live Charie Rose & his legacy.moreless
DO YOU AGREE?
0 0

Flag
Share Hide
late evening, interview of various people across the table in a dark background

6.0

By limbodrive, Mar 13, 2007

The guy is a slight air-head (not saying I could do better), not sure if he needs to research more or simply dumps the information mentally. I don't watch it much mainly because of it being at odd hours for me. I also don't see people that I am passionate about on here enough. He also asks questions that aren't always reaching the general audience that may not know about the subject or background of the person. The interest isn't as high often compared to his peers in this area.moreless
DO YOU AGREE?
0 0

Flag
Share Hide