Everyone's legacy is up for review.
Nobody is safe.
Not even Tom Hanks.
Time to stop idolizing celebrities.
If it comes out that he was also a sleaze bag along with Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Jeffrey Tambor, (along with an incredible family movie director in the rumor circles) I don't know what to think of Hollywood and my childhood heroes anymore.
Tom Hanks, if you have to say anything, do so now rather than later!
yet somehow they consistently booked very interesting guests. i'll give you that, but that's what the show had going for it, not the eponymous interviewer.
He was absolutely atrocious at the actual interviewing part.
He would constantly make stupid paragraph-long statements and then at the end ask “don’t you agree?”, then when the guest started to explain that no the statement was wrong or oversimplified, he would interrupt them and repeat his point again. He was constantly shitting all over guests who he disagreed with or didn’t think were cool enough, telling them they were wrong and trying to get them to repeat whatever he happened to think, even if they were world-class experts on some topic he didn’t know anything about. He was constantly kissing up like crazy to anyone he thought was rich or famous or powerful, in a way that was really uncomfortable to watch (his numerous sycophantic interviews with Tom Friedman make my skin crawl). He never seemed to listen very closely to what anyone was saying: I don’t think I ever heard a poignant or insightful follow-up question in the hundreds of his interviews I have seen. Instead he would often interrupt right in the middle of some complicated interesting thought, and throw in a non-sequitur, jolting the conversation to a new (often stupid) topic.
My favorite Charlie Rose moment was sometime like 15 years ago when he had on (if I recall correctly) Bill Joy. Charlie made some incredibly banal and obvious paragraph-long statement with a question mark at the end, and then looked at the guest, who was just staring at him. There was a long uncomfortable pause, after which the response was, “well, duh.”
If you want to see a stark comparison, find any week where the same guest was interviewed by both Charlie Rose and Terry Gross, and listen to the two interviews back to back.
Terry Gross has big flaws, the biggest of which is how she approaches her interviews much more from a political activist's lens, to the point of being absolutely obnoxious about certain topics or people. There are a wide array of issues I would never want to hear her interview someone about.
The nature of interview shows is that often topics are inherently political (e.g. interviewing a politician, a journalist, an economist, or a political biographer), but Terry Gross is one of the least political interviewers in the media (apart from maybe some late-night comedy hosts who do 5-minute bits), and frequently gets her guests to talk deeply about their lives and families and hobbies even when they originally came to discuss some political topic or shill their latest book or whatever.
She approaches her interviews with careful preparation every time (e.g. she actually reads the books), universal politeness, and close listening, and responds to what her guests are saying with interesting topical follow-up questions rather than sticking with a canned script.
You might be misinterpreting knowing something about the topic (as Rose typically does not) as “political activism”.
I quite strongly agree with you btw. The fact that Charlie Rose is held up as some high standard of interviews should be an inditement of the entire profession in the US because he - compared to actual maters like David Frost, Louis Theroux, and so on - is quite poor.
It was his format that was great, not him.
And unlike Gross, he kept his own politics closer to his chest, which, in combination with everything else, gave him access to everyone.
Who else is out there from a younger generation on the way up? Weirdly enough, like the other person said, the Hot Ones guy is the closest I can think of. Maybe someone from the podcast realm, but it's hard to think of someone with the range and intellect. I guess it will be a more fractious world.
I agree it would be nicer very to have more of that kind of content but it doesn’t make him very good at it - just one of the only ones doing it
I fear that it will be difficult for anybody to re-create this atmosphere and find enough of an audience to remain on air (I was always surprised Charlie Rose was able to stay on air, honestly), and I doubt that anybody will even try. But I believe there are many great podcasts that can fill the void - I'll just have to create my own dark, quiet, distraction free place to listen to them in.
I'm actually excited about what the housecleaning of the old guard means for the future. Many of the men implicated in these cases should have retired years ago to give the fresh faces some breathing room. The message is coming out loud and clear now: If you sexually harassed your coworkers/secretary/etc... back in the 60s or 70s as was the custom your day of reckoning is coming. Get out now before the scandal hits.
(And that will be how Roy Moore wins.)
Yes, because it was clearly known internally at CBS and PBS for years before becoming public. And yet Charlie Rose only gets fired--near instantly--after the Washington Post publishes a piece about him.
and to your parent comment, this isn't limited to older men.
I've had conversations at work in the distant past that I'd probably get fired over today. What about 20 years from now? I've recently mentioned in co-worker chit chat that I like to go the the range every now and again to shoot clays and targets. How do I know at some point in the future I won't be forced to resign for a "history of discussing weapons in the workplace," after those cultural norms shift again?
For the most part, we're not talking about perfectly innocent things suddenly shifting into unacceptable. We're talking about behavior that was merely tolerated from people in positions of power. And 20 years ago most of these were probably already covered in sexual harassment advisories. As far as I'm concerned, the change took too long, not the other way.
Who do you see having been fired for stuff done 20 years ago and that was completely acceptable back then?
I wonder how long until we see folks like Mick Jagger getting forced to resign their jobs due to using their status as rockstars to pick up women. Especially since most rockstars are also producers or executive producers, i.e. the same job that Harvey Weinstein or VCs have.
Someone like Jagger or Weinstein may have both kinds of status, but there is still a difference.
There are plenty of types of relationships that are consensual, but that are still either illegal or else forbidden by the ethics standards for various industries. Just because something is widely accepted today, doesn't mean that it will be acceptable in the future as long as there is consent.
Ethical standards are shaped by the conflict between the world as it exists currently and the type of society we'd like to have. They're not immutable, nor are they guaranteed to move in any particular direction. E.g. if the human population outstrips the supply of cheap natural resources, liberal western values may go out the window very quickly around the world, just like they did in Iran.
History has also been going the opposite direction of what you're claiming anyway. Promiscuous consensual sexual behavior was much more heavily penalized in the past than in the present. It's going the other way. Many people were calling for rock music to be banned back in the day because of this kind of behavior they said that it idolized. Now, if anything, it's celebrated.
That's the thing - 'what is it'?
A 'slap on the butt' is point blank harassment and never really accepted in any culture. You could 'get away with it' but it was not ever considered perfectly ok.
'Sexual innuendo' - that is normal in many places in the world,
'Commenting on a woman's appearance' is a positive trait in many places in the world.
'Showing up at your door in a bathrobe' - is not unethical behaviour. There has to be a lot added onto that to make it inappropriate.
And there are huge levels of inappropriate.
What if you are out drinking with a co-worker, then back at your place drinking, you're both flirting - and then you go in for the kiss?
A sales lady jumped in the pool naked at a hotel where we were staying. Nobody cared, we were drinking, it was funny. But if it's a dude - it's wrong?
Putting drugs in a girls drink and then raping her ... well that's beyond immoral and very illegal.
The problem I think - is that a lot of this stuff is getting lumped together.
A lot of this behaviour is really only 'no acceptable' wherein there are very high bars for behaviour.
You don't put your hand on a woman's knee at the office. You can put your hand on a woman's knee if you're out on a date with her.
What if you are co-workers? What if one works for the other.
...
This is all complex and nuanced stuff, I don't think we can just lump it all together.
FYI - it was 'progressives' in the 1960's pushing for sexual liberation - and 'consent' is in the vast majority of even positive cases, not exactly given verbally.
So there is a 'new set of norms' but a lot of it is based in fear.
Have you seen the 3 second video of Gigi Hadid who received a 'buddha doll' (possibly not buddha, just a fat man), it's really cute. She makes a face, puts the doll next to her, and smiles like the doll. It's just fun, I don't think racist at all - and yet the Chinese government got involved.
The smallest mis-step - one person - in one place - can say something - and it blows up.
The 'new order' will not be a 'moral order' - it will be a 'sanitized order' - wherein every word - every action - every thought - will be scrutinized so intensely that I'm weary we're giving up a lot for this.
So yes - the 'new norm' of 'don't harass your interns and grab their asses' is really good - but I fear it won't just create a 'safe place' for people, it may ultimately create a hostile place where we can't just be human.
I stayed at a friends house in SF recently, she came out of the kitchen naked, and went into her bedroom - just as I was falling asleep on the couch. She was giggling. She was not flirting with me - just kidding. And I laughed because it was funny. We work in the same industry. Should I charge her with sexual assault?
Anyhow - it's complicated. A few steps forward a few steps back.
You can bet they are in a position where not only are they uncomfortable saying anything, they are also is absolutely looking to jump ship to a company where this does not occur. I can guarantee you that allowing these people to continue these actions without punishment will certainly hurt the long term success of these organizations.
Anyone with half a brain knows these actions are unacceptable, the problem is those with more than half a brain realized they were able to get away with it previously and chose to continue acting in a way that provides them a sense of power and satisfaction as up to this point they simply could. This is no longer the case and a lot of people who aren't all bad and simply thought they could get away with it will (and should) lose everything for this.
The line between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior at work is obvious.
binary values of up and down ought to be taken to the slaughterhouse and replaced. society has become a public-shaming gladiator ring. i'm sick of it.
However, if the insinuations we are hearing is true about unwanted kissing in the workplace to the point women have to turn their head when they pass him that goes beyond a double standard. That would be unnaceptable if a woman did it.
Speaking of which, Janet Nepolitano is a clear example of abusing power wrt gender who needs to be fired.
Sometimes a frenzy of outrage is earned and deserved.
Sources say some women at Pixar knew to turn their heads quickly when encountering him to avoid his kisses. Some used a move they called “the Lasseter” to prevent their boss from putting his hands on their legs. A longtime insider says he saw a woman seated next to Lasseter in a meeting that occurred more than 15 years ago.
“She was bent over and [had her arm] across her thigh,” he says. “The best I can describe it is as a defensive posture ... John had his hand on her knee, though, moving around.” After that encounter, this person asked the woman about what he had seen. “She said it was unfortunate for her to wear a skirt that day and if she didn’t have her hand on her own right leg, his hand would have travelled.”
That's been true forever. Innocent until proven guilty has only ever been a legal standard.
This recent uptick in wealthy people being brought down by it is only newsworthy because they were previously seemingly immune to the normal rules everyone else lives by.
You make it sound like this is a recent phenomenon. When, in history, has public opinion been subject to a legal standard like 'innocent until proven guilty'?
I'm not seeing anyone thrown in jail just because of these accusations.
Seems like it doesn't. It may be that I'm from Eastern Europe, where the social aspects are a little bit more pronounced compared to more puritan countries like the United States, but wtf is wrong with hugging? Honest question. Also, I know I used to drink heavily at "company social events" and thank God I was not let go because of that. Well, to be honest almost all of my co-workers should have been let go if I were to judge them based on their drinking outside of working hours.
Hugging by itself is harmless, but when you're physically embracing someone and forcing a hug on them (especially if you're in a position of power) you're basically robbing them from their chance to exercise free will, which is of course problematic.