Posted on 01/26/2007 9:34:35 PM PST by beyond the sea
Yes, as I understand it, it was at least something more than usually could have been expected from a report(er) from the New York Times.
I haven't seen it yet........ something wrong with the computer. But, from what I heard it was definitely a decent interview.
But I did hear this excellent set of words --- “the frozen world of Saddam Hussein”. Excellent.
Mr. Burns is a very hard worker by the way.
Most definitely more than what I would expect from the New York Times. As it turns out though, it was more than I have gotten from the conservative side as well. Of course how are you going to beat a guy who has been on the ground there for over 4 years when it comes to insight.
Yep.
Thank you for posting. I saw the interview. Burns came across as frank, fair and honest. He was obviously struggling to be truly objective and caring about the situation in Iraq. He also freely admitted to the limitations of his perception, which were only too apparent in places. His premise about Vietnam being "one of the most prosperous countries in Asia" for instance.
By contrast, Rose was positively unseemly at times. He appeared to dig for a chance to vent his spleen at Bush. He was in this attack dog posture constantly throughout the interview-just waiting the cue for his 'I told you so' moment. If Rose is typical of the vaunted media news establishment, I shudder to think.
But I will definitely continue to look for Burns' byline in the future. I have never been disappointed in the past and this interview seals the case for me.
Thank you for the post and the rundown on the interview. (I use the word 'interview' loosely.)
I gave up on trying to watch Charlie Rose a long time ago. To me he is unwatchable. He seems tormented and doesn't listen to what his guests say in response to his convoluted, runaway questions.
I've seen Rose often over the years. He is a skilled interviewer, unlike so many others (like the conservative Sean Hannity) and keeps things moving along well. But of course he's a socialist/lefty, but I have seldom seen him come off like a spitting 'Spitball Chris Matthews' type.
As I visualize in my mind the way he stoops his long body over his notes asking questions however, I can see how he was ready to pounce on anything to try to skewer the President.
But, as you kindly report, Mr. Burns was pretty darn fair. Good for him. He's a real reporter. I despise most of the media, and for about the thousandth time:
****
The socialist/Marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.
"He is a skilled interviewer"
Eye of the beholder, I guess?
For me, two of the best interviewers are Brian Lamb and Don Imus. I care not about the interviewers politics, but I do want to hear what the interviewee has to say. Maybe after a few years of getting irritated by Chris Matthews (probably the worst interviewer in the business), I can go back and give ole Charlie Rose another chance?
Does he still do them?
****
I guess I have the answer to that (just looked it up) --
Booknotes.org is the permanent online archive for C-SPAN’s award-winning author interview program, Booknotes. For nearly sixteen years, from 1989 to 2004, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb interviewed contemporary non-fiction authors for one hour, discussing their books, their research, and their lives.
http://www.booknotes.org/home/index.asp
Anyhow Brian Lamb was the best, very calm and informative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.