Charlie Rose

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





Charlie Rose Fan Reviews (11)

Write A Review
out of 10
67 votes
  • Art show directors

    CHARLIES shows about art and architecture are very interesting, would be very nice to see the pictures you are talking about for more than a few seconds. The program goes on with talking heads looking at the artwork and talking about it, but we have had only a few seconds to memorize all the details. This happened on April 8 with MOMA, and with several architects and, unfortunately, the director of the Hermitage. We got a few glaces at the art, and nearly an hour of the director talking about pictures we had had only a glance at, and Charlie responding.

  • just a simple question

    I'm a big fan and enjoy his time on CBS and on his own show, but a simple question. Does Charlie have a diamond earring in his right ear?

    I ask this out of simple curiosity - all his camera angles are from the left, when he is face on to the camera his right earlobe is clearly bigger and different than his left, and, finally, a week or two ago his make-up crew must have overlooked it, but I think he went on CBS in the . with earring in.

    Doesn't matter to me either way, just wondering. Anyone have an answer?
  • Charlie Rose critique

    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.....
  • The most intelligent interview show on TV today!

    Charlie Rose is well deserving of being in the same category as the best-of-all-time TV interviewers.
  • No More Charlie Rose for me after hearing Dick Cheney on Iraq

    How horrid it was to watch Cheney support the decision to begin the war and NOW support use of the military again. Turned it off after 3 minutes or less. this Rose's decision or NPR's?

    How dare Rose allow this man ANY time on his show?
  • health care critique

    The other night I found myself watching an interview on Charlie Rose with former Vice President Dick Cheney. Charlie was asking Dick about his recent heart transplant. And Dick was so happy to tell Charlie just how great he was feeling and how great his medical treatment was. Well, as if this weren't more then any one person should be made to bare, I then allowed myself to watch a second interview with Dick Cheney's cardiologist! He went on to tell Charlie about what a great patient Dick was and how well he was doing and then went on to talk about all the great advances that were being made to combat heart disease. Of course, it should be no surprise to anyone that at no point in either of these discussions did the words medical insurance come up. Not even once.

    Am I supposed to feel good, knowing that former vice presidents and members of our Congress are enjoying the best that health care can offer while many of us are left wondering how we will be able to live after having to mortgage off the house to pay the medical bills that have accumulated while waiting for a Congress to finish trying to destroy any and all health care reform that this administration proposes?

    This same Congress, this same Dick Cheney, who have the best that health care can offer, would do everything in there power to drive Obama Care, any care it seems, into the ground.

    Today I had to watch as the Republician Congress-woman from Tennessee pounced on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' for her problems getting an Obama care web site off the ground. Here is a Republican led House who could care less about we Americans and only in themselves. After all, there health care is secure. There driving purpose, to move against anything The Obama Administration attempts to advance.

    These same Republicians, who just a few years ago were fighting an illegal war in Iraq , A Republican Administration who totally screwed up recovery after Katrina, A Congress that has yet to offer a single alternative to Obama Care or any Care for that matter, A Congress that can't even pass a simple background check or ban on assault weapons, A Congress that kisses the feet of gun lobbies and drug lobbies. This Congress, This Republician led House, probably the worse this country has seen in recent history, has the bold faced nerve to pretend to act in our best interest. Well I for one am sick of it. How bad does it have to get before "We The People" rise up and take our government back from the special interest groups and these big corporations that have been running our country into the ground. What will it take?
  • Our Next Secretray of State

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

    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......
  • 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.

    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.
  • late evening, interview of various people across the table in a dark background

    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.
  • I catch myself watching "The Charlie Rose Show" more and more lately.

    I enjoy watching "The Charlie Rose Show". His guests are always fascinating and intriguing. The best thing I love about this show is that you get in-depth interviews with all kinds of different people (authors, celebrities, business tycoons, etc) that you don't get with anyone else. That would be because it's on PBS and doesn't have commericals. He's also good at getting interviews from people who don't like doing talk shows because they don't like a studio audience. No worries there with Charlie's set. It's just him, the interviewee, and cameramen (and probably assistants). Charlie always seems to know the right questions to ask and is alway seems to know a lot about the topic or person he is interviewing. The man does his research. I love the minimalist set that he has. It goes to prove that you don't have to be flashy to get a good interview out of someone.