“On reflection, and after having the benefit of discovery, we realize that different people could interpret the conduct in different ways, and therefore we have resolved the claims,” the women said. “We do not assign any bad motive or ill intent to Charlie Rose.”
I assume it was a written statement and the group of women didn't recite this in unison.
I don't think this settlement in itself will do anything to repair Rose's reputation but his re-emergence is more facilitated by the public and media generally stepping back from a propensity for extremely severe judgements in the years following Trump's first election victory and the downfall of Harvey Weinstein.
I was never particularly a fan of Charlie Rose, although he's been a respected interviewer for all of my 46 years of existence. But Rose has been a kind of journalist never intended for fandom, one who seems to see his job as presenting his subject as clearly as possible without the noise of his own opinion. It's not that he actively conceals his opinion and I've heard him give voice to it now and then, it's just that he seems to hold himself secondary to the person he interviews. So while I may not have felt a fondness for Rose himself, I might greatly appreciate his interview with George Lucas or Jimmy Carter or Quentin Tarantino for the clarity with which Rose allows his guests to present themselves. Its this almost invisible quality that constitutes Rose's greatest asset though it's a philosophy of journalism that has been falling out of favour with the public over the past forty years.
So far it doesn't seem like he's gotten many opportunities to interview the kinds of high profile figures he once did, though his first episode in April 2022 was with Warren Buffett. The biggest names he's gotten in the past few years are Isabella Rossellini, Jimmy Carter, David Petraeus, Candice Bergen, and Chris Christie. Last month he interviewed Douglas Murray, which may be as much a marker of Murray's fall as Rose's rise.
This is largely, I believe, the fallout of Murray losing the argument with Dave Smith on Joe Rogan's show, which I wrote about at the time.
I should note that while I respect Murray's commitment as a journalist, I fundamentally disagree with him on many topics, especially his opinion on transgender people. A key moment I would point to is a somewhat recent appearance made by Murray on Real Time with Bill Maher in which Maher and he directly stated their divergent opinions on whether people can be born in the wrong body. Maher believed it happened, Murray did not. Plenty of people on the left have criticised Maher's tone on trans issues but I think it's important to recognise prominent allies to a cause rather than dumping them for their imperfections. At the same time, I think a component of potentially one day healing an increasingly divided culture is recognising when the opposition is cogent, graceful, and presents reasonable arguments without resorting to ad hominem.
The fundamental problem is that so many people seem disinclined or unable to dispassionately evaluate evidence. I'm not actually convinced it's a new problem, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment