Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates toliving or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, any expectedstandards of behaviour, or anynormal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Biography:Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported bythe arts and entertainment work group (assessed asMid-importance). United StatesHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. MediaLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMedia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup :Media influence,Video game culture,Sound bite NPOV :Content (media and publishing) Verify :Multimedia,Alternative media,Alternative newspaper Other : Answerrequests for comments JournalismLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofjournalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Ok, what the hell is going on here? This page is basically an attack/exposition on Charlie Rose for some connection about Coca-Cola.

I don't particularly get political about this, but it's obvious from the sourcing (Le Show and FAIR) and tone that this is a politically liberal diatribe about Rose. There's almost no information Rose himself or his work, other than the supposed Coke connection. There's something about an article from the Washington Post, but no source reference to it.

I would appreciate any help in expanding this and making it something other than an attack article on Rose.--Orporg

"it's obvious from the sourcing (Le Show and FAIR) and tone that this is a politically liberal diatribe about Rose."

Why is it obvious that this is a diatribe against Rose? It's clear the article may not show Rose in a favorable light, but I don't think even you dispute the accuracy of the statements in it. By all means, put more information into the article, but making the claim that it fails to be neutral is not justifiable, in my view. There are other more suitable banners, if you are unhappy with the article.--CSTAR 8 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

"Rose is sometimes criticized for going too easy on his guests, possibly in exchange for getting them on the show. Such criticisms appeared to be substantiated when Fox News Channel executive Roger Ailes told the New York Times Magazine (June 24, 2001) that he had received a written assurance from Rose that he would not be asked about politics during his interview."

it's been substantiated that he goes too easy on guests because he agreed not to talk politics with a businessman? that's ridiculous. much of this article is ridiculous. wikipedia is turning into a huge joke. (unsigned byUser:68.49.27.20) 9 November 2005

I agree, this is trash. There was anawards section once?AaronSw seems to have a little thing for Mr. Rose? She's getting reverted to a much glorier day the next time I come back. Ahh well, Wikipedia is like so 5 minutes ago anyway..Heck,thecrazycar chasesonKCAL-TVarebetterentertainmentthanthis. (unsigned byUser:68.171.60.35) 9 and 10 November 2005)

not a MENTION?

http://gothamist.com/2009/03/22/book_mob_mistakenly_targeted_talk_s.php66.105.218.5 (talk)02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it's been substantiated that he goes too easy on guests because he agreed not to talk politics with a businessman?"

Regardless of whether or not this page has an anti-Rose bias, the notion that politics should be off-limits in an interview with Roger Ailes is simply poor journalism, no matter who is conducting the interview. Ailes' business strategy cannot be isolated from his politics - any discussion of his business that purposefully avoids politics will be totally superficial.

I would argue that regardless of whether it's bad journalism, it's a wikipedia article about a journalist that includes an unsubstantiated allegation from one of possibly thousands of people the journalist has interviewed; do you think we should apply that standard to all wikipedia articles? This one also doesn't include a response by the journalist, or even a quote on the topic from the journalist. It doesn't even include the response of The Charlie Rose Show's executive producer, which is in the FAIR article. And again the allegation itself is unsubstantiated, it comes from an article (which is not viewable) in the NY Times which is summarized 3rd person on a media-watchdog group's website -- in a piece that also laments the media's unwillingness to treat Henry Kissinger as a war criminal rather than treating him objectively, as public figure many critics think should be charged with war crimes. Also, let's remember who the source of the allegation is exactly; a man who was CEO of a network in direct competition with PBS at the time. Now, I'm open the possibility that the allegation is true, but the discussion of that doesn't sound to me like something that belongs in the article. Besides, the intentions of the person who included the allegation became clear as soon as they chose to exclude the Show's response. --Knuckle Bean20:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article onCharlie Rose (show) also cites J.P. Morgan Chase, and Bloomberg as funding the show which I believe should be added in the "criticism" section along with coca-cola as "Big Media" and "Big Money" are obviously a conflict of interest in investigative media. Also i think perhaps pointing out that he has (at least in the past) been hailed by "leftist" or "liberal" organizations such as Adbusters and IndyMedia as a "good" journalist despite these connections. Also... what about a see also with perhaps Bill Moyers, and some other "similar" journalists. ...just some thoughts... --._-zro20:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can "welcome to the broadcast" be one?Stan weller08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WNET-13's broadcast of Charlie Rose led with a guest host, who said that Charlie Rose was recovering from mitral valve repair surgery.[1][2]Lent03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should medical history be part of a biographical article? I don't think so but feel free to disagree. I think this entire section should not be part of the article. Otherwise we could start listing other

Also, the entry merely states that Charlie Rose got heart surgery on the way to Syria while the surgeons page actually states that he was on his way to interview the Syrian president.Danieljaeger00:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in a _World Almanac_ that I came across the fact that there was a Senator (from North Carolina, I think) named Charlie Rose. Just now, I used Google to search for "Senator Charlie Rose", and got *one* hit! Funny how a shopkeeper's son can become so famous, while his own namesake and senator is utterly forgotten. Incidentally, Wikipedia really needs articles on George Crile III, who just died recently and was well memorialized on Charlie's show, and who worked with him on 60 Minutes II. Crile's father deserves some treatment, too. His father was the famous surgeon found under "Crile" in Wikipedia. --D021317c 10:07, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

You may want to reread the first sentence of the article. There you will find reference and link to the politician's article (you were thinking of a congressmember). You should by all means start articles on the surgeons as well.Jokestress00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking that Rose has a unique status as journalist: that is he can easily get an audience with presidents, kings, and anyone who wants to matter. I often find Rose's excessive talking (as interviewer, arguably putting words in mouths) irritating, but perhaps it helps make him effective. I don't want to put fluff in the main article, so I ask some questions here: Is Rose unique because American journalistic interviewers occupy a low standard? If Rose retires, can he be replaced? At a time when the powerful seem to control all popular expression, what is the best journalism that can be hoped for?Anthony71705:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is the Second Coming, isn't he?Desperado57 (talk)00:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so.Hondo77 (talk)02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do say so.Desperado57 (talk)16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Rose I think is generally well respected, and I think there should be some praise and/or awards section—Precedingunsigned comment added by204.52.215.67 (talk)19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section is seven years old. Hundreds of shows have been done since then. Is there anything more recent to substantiate the allegations?

Would anyone criticize Charles Kuralt for not asking demanding questions?—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.89.192.125 (talk)01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody watched his show? He appeared beat up. Anybody know how this happened?—Precedingunsigned comment added byBleach 2982 (talk •contribs)04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Seehttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/18/charlie-rose-sacrifices-face-for-macbook-air/ and/orhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/17/charlie-rose-face-plants-to-save-his-macbook-air/. --KFP(talk |contribs)11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this incident relevant?Ars Technica wrote about itcitingTechCrunch[3]. TechCrunch says Apple got free publicity. Is this even notable enough to be a part of Charlie's article on wikipedia?Kushal02:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this term used in a an issue of the "Electrical Engineer" (Nov 11 1891). The context pertains to enumeration of the american population in the US census;
"The work of counting all those Charlie Roses might still be going on, but...".
Can anyone enlighten me as to what the colloquialism may mean? It's obviously unrelated to the subject of this page, but, depending on significance, may be worth a disambiguation link. --BlueNovember (talk)23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rev'd the edit where a 3-edit contrib'rinserted ", originally slated as a vaudeville show," which is farfetched, has the ring of stealth vandalism, & should await verification if true.
--Jerzy•t22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys/girls will be boys/girls, you know.Snickerdoodle09 (talk)04:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...is?I have a hunch he's an agnostic.—Precedingunsigned comment added by89.212.2.86 (talk)15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch? I'll take aneach way bet onQuaker orRastafarian orMahayana Buddhist.Tsinfandel (talk)19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from:http://www.bloomberg.com/tvradio/tv/crose/bio.html. It was introduced inthis series of edits. Infringing material has been removed by the restoration of an earlier version of the article. It must not be restored,unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) Forlegal reasons, we cannot acceptcopyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source ofinformation, but not as a source ofsentences orphrases. Accordingly, the materialmay be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the originalorplagiarize from that source. Please see ourguideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violatorswill beblocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.Moonriddengirl^(talk)12:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section makes no sense and should be removed if it can't be substantiated.

• It says that he has a relationship with Coca-Cola, but doesn't actually mention any conflict. Merely having a sponsor and having a logo on the side of a mug does not amount to a conflict of interest.
• On the cable news thing, it says he offered to broker a detente between hosts on NBC and Fox, supposedly because the feud was bad for business. I don't see how this would be a conflict of interest, even if Rose had a relationship with either network (and as far as I know he works for CBS/Viacom and PBS).

Jkiang (talk)19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That "broker" thing was recast in another section, now titledCharlie Rose#Quiet influence, which claimed the NYT said he "brokered a deal". NYT didn't say that, nor "because it was hurting their parent corporations' unrelated business interests", and the rewording is PoV speculation at best -- they do say

...cease-fire, which was orchestrated in part by Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, and Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president who oversees corporate affairs at the News Corporation.

I reworded, in the accompanying article to

Rose encouraged a discussion between the leaders of NBC and Fox, that led eventually to a mutual reduction in ad hominem attacks between Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly on their respective news programs.

and removed the following because even if Greenwald sees it that way (i didn't check), jamming one against the other connected by just "however" is aWP:SYNTH violation:

It was also Rose however, who previously toldAmy Goodman while elaborating on the subject ofindependent media, "I promise you, CBS News and ABC News and NBC News are not influenced by the corporations that may own those companies, since I know one of them very well and worked for one of them."Greenwald, Glenn (August 1, 2009)."GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe".Salon.com. RetrievedNovember 7, 2010.

--Jerzy•t10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Rose is shown on Bloomberg, and the trailers make it clear that the interviews take place in Bloomberg offices.— Precedingunsigned comment added by219.77.148.133 (talk)11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an opportunity to listen to Charlie Rose speak this afternoon, so I came here looking to see if I might be interested. This article does little more than say "Charlie Rose" is a television journalist. That's terrible! Is he involved in philanthropy? Is he politically active? What does he stand for? All I get instead is brief resume and a list of residences he owns. As uninformative as this article is, you'd think this article was written by the main stream media.Rklawton (talk)16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links onCharlie Rose. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20091120230228/http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/ncawards/nca2.asp?bn=crose tohttp://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/ncawards/nca2.asp?bn=crose
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20150114083158/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2010.html tohttp://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2010.html
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20110828210925/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html tohttp://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onCharlie Rose. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080627001124/http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/my-analysis-of-bilderberg-2008/ tohttp://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/my-analysis-of-bilderberg-2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)16:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Early Life" section contains no mention of church attendance or influence, or his parents' religious affiliation (or lack of it), which is highly unusual for that area of the farming south during those years. Aren't both of his wives Jewish?Starhistory22 (talk)05:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose got out of law school in 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam draft and war. How did he manage to avoid military service? This is a factual, historical question, not any sort of attack on the fellow. Being of draft age in a hot war brings anyone who has experienced it to one of the biggest decisions of his life, yet this enormous issue is almost never discussed in articles.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.152.216.213 (talk)01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently people who weren't around at the time don't remember that there was a draft lottery, by birth date. If you got a high number, you had little chance of being drafted. And unless we're delving into the draft history of every notable person who graduated from college around that time, this seemsWP:UNDUE. --Tenebrae (talk)15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be putting end dates on the shows he hosts on CBS and PBS? He has not officially been terminated by either network as of yet.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMikeb0728 (talk •contribs)23:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon, as suspension is not termination; & active investigations are underway by CBS, the Washington Post, & others. —Lentower (talk)13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBS and PBS have fired himhttp://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-rose-cbs-fired-20171121-story.html. --В²C☎19:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Rose credited with winning several Emmy's & other awards not in this article. Emmy's are notable & should be included. —Lentower (talk)16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He won oneNews and Documentary Emmy Award, which is included and cited here. --Tenebrae (talk)15:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

he *was* a tv host2604:2000:B0C1:1D00:68B8:1EBA:C624:C559 (talk)22:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk15:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links onCharlie Rose. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20100505081032/http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/15/438633/charlie-rose-to-speak-at-ncsus.html tohttp://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/15/438633/charlie-rose-to-speak-at-ncsus.html
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20141019063105/http://www.oswego.edu/news/index.php/site/news_story/charlie_rose_honor tohttp://www.oswego.edu/news/index.php/site/news_story/charlie_rose_honor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)14:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the text of the lead and honors section read as a newspaper rundown of the day's scandal. I have toned down the lead, the details are in the article. The Honors section should have been prose. I have converted it from a bulleted list of what honors he has lost and hasn't yet lost to a neutral prose section that does not speculate on whether he might lose honors which officials have not yet said were in jeopardy. SeeWP:Ten year test.μηδείς (talk)06:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These Epstein allegations which I added to the article (which have been reverted multiple times) seem very muchWP:DUE for this article. There is a decent amount of coverage in a number of different (non-tabloid) sources, and covers similar ground to the sexual abuse allegations already included in this article. --Bangalamania (talk)02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have stricken all the info which in retrospect seemsWP:UNDUE and possibleWP:SYNTH. I still maintain that the amended text is relevant to the article. --Bangalamania (talk)19:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of his ties to Epstein should be moved to the Sexual Misconduct sectionLenbrazil (talk)01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section is pretty small considering 1) his stature before the scandal broke 2) the number of women who have made allegations and 3) the time period (about 20 years). It should be bigger. Unfortunately I don't know enough about it or have enough free time to research and write an expansion. Hopefully some reading this has both or at least one or the other.Lenbrazil (talk)01:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here's thesource69.55.122.53 (talk)23:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Biography articles of living people
• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
• C-Class vital articles in People
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Media articles
• Low-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia pages about contentious topics
• All Wikipedia vital articles