Charlie Rose, a brand name in American journalism, had a bad day today. PBS, Bloomberg and CBS News all severed their relationships with him following allegations of inappropriate behavior.
The Washington Post reported on eight women alleging behavior on the part of Charlie Rose ranging from nudity, groping and lewd calls while they were in his employ or looking for work. A further three women, former interns, have spoken to Business Insider about his inappropriate behavior.
As soon as the news broke Monday evening and he was put on suspension, PBS viewers of the Charlie Rose Show weighed in to our inbox.
“This is getting ridiculous when Charlie Rose is dumped for being a Man. The difference between a man’s sex drive and a woman’s sex drive is the difference between shooting a bullet versus throwing it,” said viewer Suzanne Phillips from Winston-Salem, N.C. And she is not alone.
“Stop persecuting men just because angry women accuse them. Rose deserves better than being thrown to the feminist mob,” wrote Robert Thomas from Fredericksburg, Va.
Thomas Salsman from Cypress, Calif., observed, “complete clueless ness about what nature intended for men and women (boys and girls) to be with, to and for each other. As dictated by nature, girls are powerfully sexual beings from a young age.” And, says Ingeborg Kelly from Rocky Point, N.Y, “Almost every woman has had to deal with male testosterone at some point in her life.”
There are more in that vein, times have changed, men are being persecuted unfairly etc. etc. There is also support for his in-depth interviews and his editorial competence, which has not been questioned.
But there are many believed he should never return to PBS’s air.
“Given the accusations against Charlie Rose, which he does not deny, you need to fire him immediately,” said Judi Irving from Seal Rock, Ore.
Dianne R. Layden from Albuquerque, N.M., wrote that he must go. “Don’t reward him with more access to women. I feel betrayed.”
Carol Rubiano from New York was clear: “No excuse for such abuses. Take him off the air – he deserves to retire NOW!”
In making the decision, PBS CEO Paula Kerger said: "In light of yesterday’s revelations, PBS has terminated its relationship with Charlie Rose and cancelled distribution of his programs. PBS expects all the producers we work with to provide a workplace where people feel safe and are treated with dignity and respect."
David Rhodes, president of CBS News, said in part: “I’ve often heard that things used to be different. And no one may be able to correct the past. But what may have once been accepted should not ever have been acceptable…Our credibility in that reporting requires credibility managing basic standards of behavior.”
Although many of his PBS viewers will disagree with me, I think this was the right call on the part of both PBS and CBS management.
Unfortunately our current discussion about sexual harassment has become, like almost everything else in this country, a partisan issue.
I’ve heard from people who can only look at the allegations against Mr. Rose in the context of allegations against Mr. Trump, something like, if he’s not out of the White House, why should anyone else lose their job?
With the torrent of revelations of the past few weeks, many have reverted to siding with their “political tribes.” Alabama Senate candidate, Roy Moore, accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with teenagers, still has a lot of support from Republicans in his state, even those who believe the women, because they fear a Democrat taking that seat. In fact they believe the story has been cooked up by Democratic operatives. Allegations against Senator Al Franken have many Democrats unsure about what the appropriate sanction should be, yes what he did was bad but he shouldn’t have to step down.
Sexual harassment is NOT a partisan issue but here we are, stuck in our corners rooting for “our side.” What the torrent of revelations of the last two months has revealed is that we as a society don’t know how to talk about this issue in a nuanced and constructive way.
The allegations that have been made against these men are a result of a power imbalance that manifests itself in a sexual way. Are there different grades of such behavior? Yes. Does that mean that all complaints against these men are not valid? No.
Hollywood, Congress, the media, Silicon Valley, every industry implicated has a severe gender imbalance that leads to a power imbalance.
The overwhelming sense of many women who are reading these stories is one of sadness and loss. How many female careers have been derailed because of incidents that we have read about of late? If there were more women who held positions of authority, wouldn’t things be different? Of course, we don’t know because we don’t live in a world where women are in the majority of powerful positions. But the reality of world we do live in has been exposed and there are many who want it to change.
To those of you who “blame” or denigrate the women making these claims, that they are in it for themselves, I would be interested in seeing examples of the benefits they have supposedly accrued by coming forward. My sense is that for every accuser who has come out on the record, her life is about to get a whole lot worse.
The conversation we ought to be having is how do we deal with all these allegations?
The charges range on a spectrum from occasional groping, to systematic physical harassment to rape and pedophilia. Is wielding the same sledgehammer for every indiscretion the right thing to do? The punishment should fit the crime or I fear we will enter a period of “backlash” where women will once again take cover, unwilling to risk telling their stories for fear of being ridiculed and not believed.
Just last night Mr. Rose refused to describe his actions as "wrongdoings" when doorstopped by a TV crew:
Charlie Rose has been a fixture on PBS for 25 years, and for many of his fans they may consider this punishment too harsh. I would ask them to think about the extraordinary power he has wielded as a journalist and celebrity for that time, in part thanks to his relationships with PBS, CBS News and Bloomberg. How he chose to wield that power broke the compact he had with these organizations and, I would argue, the audience.
Here is how PBS describes the nature of their relationship: “Charlie Rose” is produced by Charlie Rose, Inc., an independent television production company. Through a presenting station agreement with WNET/THIRTEEN, Charlie Rose, Inc. makes the “Charlie Rose” show available, non-exclusively, to PBS and its member stations at no charge. PBS does not fund the program and does not supervise its production. In addition, we do not have any involvement with the management or human resource functions related to the show. Mr. Rose maintains editorial control of his program.”
As a distributor, PBS is not in the position of being Charlie Rose’s employer, or anyone at his company. As the PBS editorial guidelines state, “In selecting content for distribution, PBS must rely heavily on the producer’s honesty, integrity, talent, skill and good faith.” In other words, both sides should operate in good faith.
Though there is no moral turpitude clause, the guidelines state: “PBS expects producers to adhere to the highest professional standards. PBS may reject content if PBS has reason to believe that a producer has violated basic standards of professional conduct.”
On CBS This Morning, Gayle King and Norah O'Donnell had strong words for their friend and co-host.
Gayle King said "Charlie doesn't get a pass."
I agree. By his conduct Mr. Rose did not operate in good faith and PBS made the right decision to sever their relationship with Charlie Rose.
Posted at 4:30 p.m.
