The Rose Paradox

I am a fairly serious person when it comes to real issues, issues that most American's don't care about or refuse to actually think about because they are so busy being entertained. Nothing is wrong with being entertained, but as an old man trapped in a younger man's body, I think American's clearly indulge themselves way too much.

Moving onto the point...I watch shows like Charlie Rose, the interviewing show on PBS. Often Charlie has some of the biggest movers and shakers who make, shape, and really determine the policy in America (as opposed to the politicians who are bought off by people like these, or are influenced heavily by these people).

I like Rose's show simply because of the access it grants us into the minds of people like Richard Holbrook, and businesspeople like the CEO of E-Trade or something.

However there are two things I dislike about his show:

1. Rose is not a truly disciplined interviewer. Anyone going on his show can essentially provide his/her own road map as to what topics they want to cover by making some random point, which Charlie too easily takes onto another direction. He's got ADHD interviewing skills.

2. The second is the paradox of news in general, and it goes back to why I want to institute mandatory debates in order to be eligible for the office of Presidency or VP: Charlie gets tremendous access at times to these movers and shakers, but how does he get such great access? By being essentially an easy interview, an interviewer who won't really push hard or address the interviewee with tough topics and questions that makes one squirm.

For instance, consider this past Friday night's show. Charlie had on Robert Nardelli for what appears to be the whole hour. Honestly, I didn't watch it, but I venture that if Charlie touched what Nardelli did to Home Depot under his watch, it wasn't hit hard. Home Depot was a wicked awesome store that was well known for it's very real ability to have real experts help you design and teach you how to implement a home improvement project. Nardelli took that fantastic company and ran it through the sewer. Home Depot is a shell of it's former self. I've been in there and what Nardelli did was shameful.

He fired all the local experts they had hired before he came on board, and hired in their stead, some regular retail knuckleheads who couldn't tell you the difference between a two-by-four and a two-by-eight. All in an effort to maximize the bottom line, where his stock options, but more importantly, bonuses were maximized before he jumped out and cashed in. Leaving a company that has yet to recover and whose stock has nosedived.

My problem with Charlie is that he doesn't hit hard enough and he lets people like Eisner, Nardelli, etc, come on his show and give voice to their side of the story without seeking out an alternate explanation/investigative look into what really went on behind the scenes.

The paradox. Oy.