Christiane Amanpour Takes the Old ‘Charlie Rose’ Slot on PBS

With “Amanpour & Company,” a CNN veteran based in London brings a new sensibility to an hour that was once dark and clubby.

Comments: 110

  1. Awesome news! Ms. Amanpour is a first rate professional. Great choice. The vacant PBS slot is finally to be filled with one of the most talented correspondents in the business. Thank you!

  2. Horrible choice - she's boring and she's no Charlie Rose - I miss him so much. Dark and clubby? I guess you are really searching hard for negatives when it comes to Charlie. She won't last 6 months, and shouldn't. And, I agree, you're just filling the space, this is no replacement.

  3. She is great at her job. Honest and compassionate. We are fortunate to have a person that is so level headed and deeply intelligent.

  4. Great move. She is an excellent choice. Sincerely, Jack Disraeli

  5. Christiane Amanpour's show is such a refreshing change. She's dynamic, sharp, covers the latest issues and asks the hard questions. Her intelligence and positive attitude shine forth. So glad to know she will continue to be on the air.

  6. To be honest, I'm a bit tired of her style. It hasnt changed since 1990.

  7. Having an in depth conversation about important issues never requires flash and glitz.

  8. @Mark Her style? Does Hannity's style ever change? Did O'Riley's style ever change? Who changes their 'style'? Has your 'style' changed since the 90's?

  9. @Mark What do you mean? Sharp and direct?

  10. She brings insight and a depth of experience -- and a lack of artifice - that will enrich PBS.

  11. Hey, Maine PBS has been showing Christiane all summer long! And we're very glad to see her, but why the late, late announcement?

  12. An hourlong PBS show with no commercials is ideal for featuring guests with ideas or life histories too complex for regular TV. I watched "Charlie Rose" fairly often in day-after reruns at lunchtime, and he generally did a good job. He read the guests' books, did research to prepare to interview them, and usually listened to what they said before asking follow-up questions. He interrupted a bit too much and had certain guests on too often, especially Lance Armstrong (ugh). On the other hand, he talked with some fascinating people who had surprising hidden depths. Two examples were Mick Jagger and Sophia Loren. I look forward to seeing how Christiane and company take advantage of this opportunity to produce intellectually stimulating TV. The focus on "what's happening now" will make compelling viewing. Some of the best Charlie Rose shows were the ones where he assembled panels of experts to discuss major breaking news stories in more depth than the cable and commercial networks could.

  13. Christiane is a great interviewer - not afraid to ask tough questions - and journalist but with a warmth and sense of humour. She deserves the full hour and look forward to her show - breaking ground for women as well as the news!

  14. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Charlie Rose and his metoo problems, I take issue with the characterization of his show as "dark and clubby." I thought Charlie Rose was a fabulous interviewer, iconic even, on par with the best. He could switch back and forth between politics, science, world affairs, and especially the arts. I'm a musician and his interviews with some of the greats in the music industry were always a treat, he really understood these performers and what made them tick--he was a fan of that they did, and he was informed. I just can't wrap my brain around Christiane Amanpour interviewing somebody like Robert Plant, but I do hope her show will go as long on culture as I'm sure it will current events.

  15. I look forward to watching her show. She is an intelligent and informed interviewer. What I like best about her is that she allows the person she is interviewing to answer the question. If she doesn't agree, she will go on to ask the hard questions and not let the person get away with silliness. I stopped watching most of the interview shows because the host (O'Reilly, for example) would never give the interviewee a chance to answer and would shout over them.

  16. Amanpour is an absolutely solid journalist with guts and grit, who's been to some very hard country. Should be stimulating and, hopefully, less of a grind than the old Rose show.

  17. A name I can trust! She has always been a well balanced reporter. Congratulations Ms. Amanpour!

  18. YAY!!!!!! I can think of no one better suited to take over that empty time slot. I love her current show on PBS, but 30 minutes is too short for her level of professionalism. Looking forward to her enlightenment. Congratulations!

  19. I agree that the 30 minute slot is too short and wonder when will Amanpour fill the entire 60 minute slot.

  20. Absolutely THRILLED to read this! She is the consummate professional.

  21. Help me understand the business side of this. The current 30-minute show that Amanpour does for CNN International (and I assumed owned by them) has been given for "no fee" to PBS to broadcast for the last 10 months. The new show will be broadcast by PBS in the U.S., and later broadcast (or nearly simultaneously?) by CNN international abroad. Will the show be owned and /or produced by PBS or CNN, or some type of joint venture? I would normally not be interested in the business side of it if the article had not dangled a limited number of these details about the two media entities working together. Charlie Rose had a wide range of interesting guests and exposed me to subjects that I had never explored. However, Rose had an annoying habit of filibustering his guests with questions aimed to reveal his own knowledge (once wonderfully parodied by the New Yorker) and not allowing them to finish their cogent and complete arguments. He did this to such a degree, that for the sake of clarity I was often left hungry to hear the argument conclusions of people with whom I disagreed. Amanpour’s interviews do not have that failing. I look forward to watching the new show, but I will miss the black set. In a chaotic visual TV world of chyrons and breaking news flashes, the simplicity of a table with talking faces around it, helped focus attention on the serious subjects being discussed.

  22. Very true. What I most liked about Charlie Rose was that his show was not funny, unlike other late night fare. Rose was often annoying (especially when his guests were movie directors and members of the cast: the conversation consistently and predictably became a mutual love-fest), but I appreciated that he elevated late night television to more cerebral level.

  23. So, not too many Americans are qualified for the big jobs at PBS & the other networks. I’m not complaining. American education is & has been third rate for the past century with this result.

  24. I would think that being American shouldn’t be considered a special qualification for, well, anything. Christiane is a spectacular journalist and deserves her success. Being from Boise instead of Britain means absolutely nothing.

  25. Amanpour is a solid reporter and interviewer who demonstrates a depth of knowledge that can rival anyone of either gender. Charlie Rose tended to be a fawning interviewer and a fanboy of his guests, which can either be seen as charming or seriously grating on one's nerves. It's a pleasure to see someone with a vast international background take her place interviewing players in this most complex of times. I have always appreciated her ability to expand my understanding of current events by bringing a less parochial view than that of her American colleagues. And by the way, good idea to lose the glass tables. We have had quite enough of Katie Couric-style display of gams, thank you. Substance is what we want.

  26. She's intelligent, pretty and very believable. Good luck to her on this important type of program.

  27. @Abe: Happy to hear that you think of Amanpour as being intelligent and believable--but, what does being "pretty" have to do with anything?

  28. @Cate agree, a person's face is not relevant. commenting on it is intrusive and insulting.

  29. @Abe & @Cate "Pretty" is for sure the wrong word, no matter how you parse it. She's "beautiful," like Edward R. Murrow: a face you admire and respect and trust.

  30. What a great choice. She knows how to interview a guest, drawing them out and then allowing them to speak rather than interrupting and moving on too quickly. I look forward to seeing her new show.

  31. Rose was too clever by far. Too sneaky, for me, by far. Always liked Amanpour. She does a good, professional job.

  32. @James F Traynor Very honest comment. I’m glad we’ve reached a consensus about getting rid of clever media personalities and their clever programs. There’s far too much cleverness in this world.

  33. Christiane Amanpour is a first class journalist and a great interviewer, maybe the Chuck Todd's of the world can tune in and pick up some pointers from a pro... I look forward to her new show!

  34. I watched Charlie Rose after listening to Rush Limbaugh, for balance. Both are biased. Christiane will be the same. So nothing has changed.

  35. @Joe Paper Listening to RL is a sad admission.

  36. @David Henry Davey, I have an open mind, as I also watch CNN. Those who hate and shut out opposing views are living an unhappy life.

  37. I always felt many of Rose's questions were designed to show the audience how much he knew. I found him vain and wordy.

  38. @pollyb1 And he often talked over his guests. His style drove me crazy - especially when he had a guest who was very smart and articulate.

  39. These shows, almost no matter who asks the questions, might be entertaining, but are rarely revealing. Most guests are there to promote themselves in some fashion, and few will tolerate hard questions. Rose was good at creating the illusion of good questions, but he was essentially a hack. Maybe this one will be different.

  40. I'm not quite sure what all of the commenters have been watching lately. I think Amanpour's current show on PBS is awful. She is a good reporter, not a good interviewer. I also can't believe that the commenters think that Charlie Rose's show was not good. Whatever you may think about Rose's Me Too issues, he was a great interviewer who was able to get anyone on the show. I sorely miss having something to watch at 11pm on PBS. I gave Amanpour a number of chances, but she just doesn't have it. Too bad that PBS could not have found a better person for this time slot. There is now no good journalistic interviewer on television. Too bad that PBS deems it necessary to limit their seach.

  41. @Michael Ditto Michael I could not have said it better. I am so happy that I am not alone in this opinion, I find I am avoiding watching her for that half hour and only watch out of desperation when I can find nothing else and then am always, ALWAYS, disappointed. I think part of the reason she was chosen to fill this slot is because she is a female. But as good a journalist as she is, she is totally lacking when it comes to interviewing and so far her guests have not been inspiring or even much informative. I had hope for more from PBS and am truly disappointed.

  42. @Annie One more thing I feel I need to add; I always get the feeling that Amanpour and her guests seem 'on edge', meaning there is not the relaxed atmosphere that was always present during the Rose segments. She seems in a rush to get her next question in ... well you get the picture. She is just not so good at this and I so wish this was not the case. All I will say on this subject, about which I am very passionate since it airs at midnight here and I am somewhat of a night owl.

  43. @Michael What choice did PBS have? Men who were fired for MeToo aren't replaced with men.

  44. Ms.Amanpour is a gutsy reporter who can report intelligently from war zones - in the early years I wondered why she risked her life to go to perilous war zones.She knows history and will encourage a world view on her program.It will be a refreshing change from the rambling biographies that Charlie Rose featured.

  45. There is no reason to think that she will be a better interviewer than Rose, and the deprecatory comments about the previous show being clubby is plain silly - look at the diversity of interviews Rose had held. There will likely be less discussion of topics outside of this week's news cycle, which will be a loss for the viewers. Rose covered science extensively, something that we see very little of these days, and an area that Amanpour might be at a loss to cover intelligently.

  46. @Mr. Blandings I am in complete agreement with you Mr. Blandings. I have been watching the half hour segments presently on PBX with Amanpour and more often then not found them uninspiring and boring, only watch occasionally. Whatever Charlie is as an individual, he was a pro at his job and opened up a whole world of topics not often seen on other interview/talk shows. I found much of what was presented mind expanding and I miss seeing him. This lady, although probably a good journalist, is no good replacement for Charlie Rose. His was a unique program because of the diversity of topics and guests. Not another like it and I miss it mightily.

  47. @Annie Correction to my previous post ... I watch WGBH, a PBS TV station, not PBX. Forgive the typo.

  48. With the except of a glass table, I'm deeply appreciative of your decisions - all professionals with long histories of outstanding contributions. We US citizens will benefit from a European perspective as well as those from the NYC correspondents. I'm particularly grateful for Michel Martin as I hoped she or someone like her would have been selected to host Washington Week. Also, Hari Sreenivasan whom I've missed on NewsHour (although WETA's decisions with NH staffing respect the viewing public and make up for the loss of WW).

  49. The dark background of the Charlie Rose set was ideal for its purpose, and helped the viewer focus on participants. The proposed glitzy background to a brightly lit set and the plastic tabletop are terrible choices and miss the preference and character of the target audience. Given the character of the content of her show, a Christmas tree setting will not attract the vast majority of younger viewers, while distracting and, sadly, repelling many older viewers. I love Christiane Amanpour for the quality of her reporting and for her interviewing talent. Sadly, the above showman choices will not help her audience fully appreciate her talents, and it will make it inclined to associate her with the current prevalent hit-and-run approach of journalism. Pity, but good luck anyway, Christiane.

  50. @J.M. Paris Second that motion! Christiane Amanpour is marvelous but that sparkling set is absurd, and serves no purpose except to distract from the excellent conversations she manages with both critical attention and empathy.

  51. I agree J.M., Rose's dark set focused one's attention on the guests. It also had the effect of elevating the importance of Mr. Rose, which, I my humble opinion, wasn't lost on Charlie.

  52. She has already been on the late night slot for quite a few weeks. I was so pleased to see her - a strong, well known correspondent - and a woman - replacing the fallen Charlie Rose. I have watched her for years in her international reporting. A very good choice.

  53. Thank you PBS for bringing this show back. 10 months is all, seems like it has been off the air for 10 years as I've really missed it ! She should be fine but the content , who her guests are is really what's most important.

  54. But here in the Bay Area, on KQED, her show is scheduled to air at 4pm and midnight. Charlie Rose ran at 8pm.... you know, when people could watch it. Thus l'm a bit reluctant to celebrate the end of the boys' club just yet....

  55. Excellent! Amanpour is an enormously experienced, superlative reporter and analyst. Looking forward to this program.

  56. Ms. Amanpour will be a welcome change to the imperious Mr. Rose. Important guests were seldom shown much deference on Charlie Rose's show. The closer Ms. Amanpour can be to NPR's Terry Gross, the better.

  57. @Jim I agree with Jim about Charlie Rose. I stopped watching him because he was imperious, deattached, and sometimes not interested in his guest. His show no longer was essential watching. I felt he often looked tired...maybe stretched himself thin with the CBS Morning Show also on his plate. Even on the Morning Show he started to seem disinterested. I look forward to the potential of this replacement with Ms Amanpour and colleagues.

  58. I admittedly only viewed "Charlie Rose" via clips on Youtube, but what I liked about it -particularly in the '90s- was that it could wildly diverge from "the pulse of what's going on." A discussion of the state of the American novel is not breaking news, but it *is* what I went to that program to hear. It sounds like "cultural and nonpolitical work" is going to be shunted to the side for yet another breathless news show.

  59. Charlie Rose is a national treasure who should soon be allowed to return to the airwaves. Christianne Amanpour is bubbly but no Charlie Rose.

  60. @Marty O'Toole. Bubbly. Are kidding me? Obviously said by a man would never apply the term to a man.

  61. @Marty O'Toole The show is about International events and topics, so Amanpour is the right choice. She has far more cred in that dept. than Rose did. Also, Rose should never be allowed to work again. He is clearly a sexual predator.

  62. Amanpour is not, and never has been "bubbly".

  63. Charlie Rose was a brilliant interviewer and I loved his show. But a precursor to his fall and that of Tavis Smiley was their obvious disdain for Hillary Clinton when they interviewed her, showing a contempt I have never seen them display for anyone else. Contrast this to the boy's club reception Charlie Rose would give to some of the worst dictators on his show. It is as if the very act of being prepared for the Presidency makes a woman an object of contempt. For heaven's sake, this is the 21st century and we still are not there yet!

  64. @Deborah I knew it: this isn't about Charlie Rose per se, as much as it is about ridding the airwaves and corner offices everywhere of men-especially men who do their jobs well-and replacing them with women-regardless of their ability. I hate to say this but it is true: women, when we allowed them the vote, brought as a warming gift, from the W.C.T.U., the Volstead act: Alcohol Prohibition, which even they, after 12 ugly years of bloodshed and a new kind of organized crime-it was the one and only amendment to our constitution which has ever been repealed- and by women voters also. I suspect that in a few more awful years where men must watch their backs, American society may again reconsider and decide that allowing aggrieved women-heurt 40 years previously-to decide how and how long to punish men they accuse but cannot or do not prosecute. The Salem witch trials showed how a mania and social pressures can convince people that black is white. In Salem, at least, nearly 300 years ago-the remaining congregation finally admitted its errors and everyone was absolved and forgiven. We can only hope for similar behavior on the part of #metoo.

  65. When I heard the news I was quite pleased, and am very happy for Ms. Amanpour. I always enjoyed watching Charlie Rose's interviews, and I am confident Ms. Amanpour and her colleagues will do an excellent job with the program. Looking forward to it!

  66. I've been able to watch Ms. Amanpour each night at the same time as the old Rose show for months now. Just the length of the program - one hour now - and the format are changing. I like her and always have. Serious journalism is always welcome. But, I also miss Charlie Rose. He was like a friend each night who's wide range of interviews made the show like a mini-course on everything you could imagine. I think the new show with Amanpour will be likewise. Question: when do we get to the topic of rehabilitation and reconciliation for the perpetrators and those oppressed by sexual abuse of any kind? How long should a Charlie Rose or those he thoughtlessly victimized be out of the conversation - he never to work again. They, living with the horrible experience. Any reconciliation would be between the parties. Could it lead to a re-normalization and ability to move forward with acknowledgement, learning, healing? Maybe forgiveness? In Rwanda, after one of the worst genocidal, murderous events of human on human slaughter, there were formed "Truth and Reconciliation" commissions - a process of transformation and reconnection of a society torn apart in the most bloody way. Research here: https://www.google.com/search?q=rwanda+truth+and+reconciliation+committe... If that torn nation could move forward, surely there is hope for humanity. Surely for Charlie Rose, other men and the women they egregiously agressed upon.

  67. @Paul King and al franken, mercilessly hounded out of office for stunts pulled as a comedian. i would rush back to watch charlie rose, and i would vote for al franken for president.

  68. how's this for a juxtaposition: John Koblin describing Rose's program: "Dark and clubby." Amanpour's Producer: “It’s not the darkened room and table ...We, as TV producers, labor over them, but people don’t watch the set. They watch the host and the guest.”

  69. I do not share and cannot understand the enthusiasm for Ms. Amanpour. Her current 30 minute program on PBS in the old Charlie Rose time slot is terrible.She is a good reporter, but her interviews are not interesting or enlightening. I frequently begin watching her current show but usually stop watching after 10-20 minutes out of frustration. Her program on ABC’s This Week was similarly unrewarding. The quality of Mr. Rose’s program decreased considerably when he added the job at CBS This Morning—Far too many guest hosts and uneven quality. Prior to that, I got a lot out of watching his interviews and was a frequent viewer. Old Rose interviews on YouTube are still worth watching. PBS should have demanded that he either devote full time to the PBS program or started looking for a replacement at that time. Mr. Rose’s interviews, while never having the “edge” of, say, Mike Wallace, were generally interesting, insightful, and relevant to current events. Yes, he used to grandstand too much, but he was always well prepared, organized and energetic and this was reflected in the quality of his programs. I do not feel the same way about Ms. Amanpour. Ms. Amanpour should, of course, be given a chance to prove herself (again), but I am not optimistic based upon her current and prior interview programs. If PBS wants an interview program that is of similar quality to the Charlie Rose program in its heyday, it should keep looking.

  70. Ms. Amanpour is a fine commentator on current events and a good interviewer. I hope however that the program does not give up on some of the cultural content that was evident on Charlie Rose. There were many Broadway and other shows and books (such as the great Robert Hughes' work, especially on Australian history) that I would never have seen or read had it not been for Rose's attention. He was a bit of a know-it-all, as has been mentioned by others, but he knew a lot. More than I do, and he shared it, and his guests.

  71. I have missed an evening dip into the intellectual pool that took us to other topics than the droning sameness of the evening news. Rose got so ego-ed out that he became unwatchable the last several years, though at its start I always watched. I have watched a few of the 30 min shows with Amanpour, and wanted to find something similar to the early Rose years, but it's simply that she speaks too hard-edged and fast for later evening viewing. It doesn't allow for the same contemplative reprieve after a full day. I hope she can tone it down a bit because I do welcome the other differences and professionalism she certainly does bring to the (not glass) table.

  72. This is awesome good news. For her and all of us who value great reporting and journalism. She's a serious and significant person among the ranks of her craft and I give her the same high level of respect I did for Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. I hope the “Amanpour & Company” product is a stepping stone for her to become head of a major news organization. My wish is for her is to become head of CBS News, legendary for Murrow, Cronkite and reports like Harvest of Shame and so much more significant work. I congratulate her on the new assignment and wish her all the best for a long career bringing us what's in short supply these days ... the truth.

  73. This is an excellent choice for replacing Charlie Rose (who could be a top interviewer when he allowed his guest to speak without constantly interrupting them). Ms. Amanpour is intelligence, experience, and has a good world view. She is also very familiar to many so there is an immediate comfort level with her and many of us are looking forward to the expanded show.

  74. Christiane Amanpour is intelligent. Charlie Rose is not. He also had no background as a journalist and so hadn't the foggiest idea how to conduct an interview. Not only that, he always seemed to be half asleep, whereas Ms. Amanpour always acts as if she is more than ready to go, ready to question her guests and, when necessary, ready to challenge them. I'm sure she'll be a great success in her new program.

  75. amanpour and PBS are a perfect match. please don't predetermine her exposure; please don't have the same kind of expectations you have about early-morning or late-night hosts because this lady topples over all of them; please don't set the show solely on her shoulders as she is a journalist, not a celebrity; please don't give her show a time frame; and lastly, please don't ever try to change her.

  76. Now we must endure her lackluster interview style and horrible and hard to understand accent.

  77. @Chris Anderson Her “hard to understand accent”? are you kidding? you need to get out more.

  78. Americans love listening to a British accent give them their news and political satire (John Oliver, Piers Morgan). And it is not just the gravitas that the accent lends, it is the method with which Brits were trained to question politicians in particular. According to David Carr in the NYT, "The one question all young reporters on Fleet Street are taught to keep foremost in their mind when interviewing public figures can be best paraphrased as, 'Why is this jerk lying to me?'" So welcome, Christiane! Fire away!

  79. I welcome Amanpour to the 11 pm hour.....I am now guaranteed to save money by skipping my usual sleeping pills....

  80. Poor choice as Amanpour has a negative bias towards many issues that is never far from the surface. She pontificates and colours her opinions without substance. She is a great example of a journalist whose reporting should be more open and honest than it is., yet she gets away with suggestions and inferences which honest unbiased journalists would never opine. PBS you could have tried to do better.

  81. Hopefully Christiane Amanpour's style is a little different from Charlies. No hidden, simmering personal/professional scandals and no interrupting the guests in mid sentence.

  82. Brava, Christiane!

  83. A terrific choice. Charlie Rose always annoyed me by his interview techniques of inserting comments and interrupting the person who was being interviewed.

  84. I quite like CA, she's very well-connected and like Robin McNeil, Charlayne Hunter-Gauilt or Gwen Ifill but unlike, Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer, Judy Woodruff, she shows no signs of degenerating into a self-parody of folksy mannerisms and ineffectual chumminess.

  85. When will Amanpour fill the entire 60 minute slot?

  86. Sorry but all things aside I miss Rose. "Dark and clubby" please, the sets gave an intimacy to the conversational nature of the show. Maps with flashing lights, one can get that on Fox. As to establishment guests what is wrong with having establishment guests, they are people too and they have experiences and opinions. Besides exactly what is an "establishment guest".

  87. I like Ms. Amanpour, and she will certainly make a great show. What I deeply regret, however, is that the Charlie Rose format (both the sober visuals and the content) has been completely abandoned. "Charlie Rose" was absolutely unique in that it focused 100% on content (which the dark background illustrated perfectly) and was the only show to both go that deep and cover such a wide range of topics - from politics to art to science. And that, of course, is only possible with a highly cultivated interviewer. I will never forget Rose's absolutely outstanding interview with Cate Blanchett and Liv Ullmann (for the NYC theater production that they made together, "A tramway called desire"). Rose new, on any kind of "serious" subject, how to go so deep that you end up touching our common humanity and what really matters in this world. He allowed the viewer to feel what really makes someone tick and why that's something so unique and valuable in this world. I have been very sad when I heard about "he too", because it was such flagrant contradiction with the way he did his job on camera, but I understood why he had to go. I don't understand at all, however, why the program itself had to go too. Is there really no English-speaking "homo universalis" who's good at interviewing in the entire world anymore ... ? Wishing Ms. Amanpour good luck nonetheless.

  88. Rose made me crazy with his softball questions and questionable selection of guests. Clubby isn’t the half of it. I hope Amanpour doesn’t not develop starry-eyed syndrome like southern boy Rose. Can she be charming and tough? I hope so.

  89. Rose was a pompous narcissist but he knew how to select fascinating guests and solicit scintillating conversation from them. I don’t miss Charlie specifically per se but I definitely miss his show.

  90. Amanpour is a good choice, but kicking Rose when he is down is low and unnecessary. Rose presided over one of the, most informative shows on TV. Covering pretty much everything worth coverage, while shaming the print media's lack of depth. Amanpour is right about a glass desk, how stupid is that? And the suggestion that there was anything "dark" about the Charley Rose set is preposterous. Having the cameras focus on the participants only was very effective. Especially when compared to many of the current colored plexiglass sets today most of them, hideous, with the Newshour leading the way. I'd like to throw another thing that really bothers me. For several months now each morning when I open the Times it turns out I have read most of the news and opinion previously! Often over a week ago!

  91. I will be watching. Good luck!!!

  92. Always loved her style, her...guts. And I definitely like the idea of making foreign news less, foreign. But usually foreign news consists of pompous dictators using our platform to justify their actions and disparage U.S. actions. Propaganda as news, as an “in-depth” interview. Forget the room, the silly table- I want to see guests, interviewees challenged. For example, if the Saudi prince is interviewed, perhaps background video of women being persecuted for religious violations- while being asked why he wants Saudi students to go to college in the West? What are his views on the long history of Christian religious wars....Protestant v. Catholic, etc. what did they accomplish? But...no....it will probably be, just a glass table. She deserves better, and so do we. Good luck, Christiane- fight back!!

  93. If the idea was to go for a woman interviewer with a British background, I would have chosen Katty Kay.

  94. Agreed. I am a fan of Amanpour but Katy Kay is my favorite. She will not leave BBC though.

  95. Love her. I think it would do us a world of good to have more serious journalists like her on the air and fewer vitriolic beauty pageant extras that unfortunately dominate most cable news. Perhaps we would regain a sense of decorum and start some considered conversations instead of watching a bunch of Stepford Wives complain about everything and offer no actual context or solutions.

  96. The Rose Show was a special place on TV and Ms Amanpour does not have feet big enough to fill those shoes. PBS would have done better to find someone not a castoff of commercial TV. She is not a good TV host, not a good interviewer and not that special a reporter. Never understood the hoopla. In a country of over 300 million we need not import another foreigner for TV.

  97. Gone will be intelligent coverage of the live arts in NYC.

  98. Your subhead is way off base. Charlie introduced us to fabulous minds. Creative artists. His show wasn’t “dark” at all. What’s the matter with you?

  99. For her sake, hope her new gig does better than the boring "Let's talk about sex" silliness she tried on CNN.

  100. I can't help but feel the "dark and clubby" bit says as much about the author of this piece as it does about Rose's show. It didn't take many years of watching Rose's show to understand the man is not perfect. (For example, there was something of a conspicuous absence of black guests, particularly notable in music. Rose almost certainly doesn't like hip hop. For the kids tuning in from home, this is what we call "bias" as opposed to the much more nefarious "racism." Manicheans, eat your hearts out.) However, watching the author of this piece take a dig at Rose's show (as though "dark and clubby" were universal opinion, or part of the reason the show was cancelled), seems par for the course at this point. This kind of oblivious, naive moral preening is what I expect from NYT now.

  101. Christiane Amanpour is certainly first rate and Charlie Rose indisputably brought cancellation and disgrace upon himself. These two shows do seem more different than alike however, other than sharing a slot on the schedule. Show’s like Rose’s “Brain Series” provided extremely deep, multi-episode dives into single topics that were never covered on other discussion shows. I am sure Ms. Amanpour will go equally deep into many worthy subjects, but will she cover the same under-reported topics as Rose did? Most people find hour long, conversations on subjects like medical research and the structure of financial markets very boring. Rose provided a deep video record of many historically important political, business and scientific leaders in a dry but intellectually informative format, one that is worthy of continuing under the guidance of someone new. I am sure Christiane Amanpour’s show will stand out well on its own. That said, if she will really not be covering many of the same topics while employing a completely different format, then she is really not “replacing” what was an uncommon program.

  102. This NY Times crowing about putting a woman in Rose's job reveals the continuing goal of the MeToo Inquisition, to exterminate men from leadership and good jobs like the Communists did millions of innocent in Russia - so that easier for our 1% to control inherently weaker and dependent women can take their place. But the mediocre abilities and performance of women often hired to fill diversity quotas will tell in the television medium through reduced ratings just as it has everywhere else. Like the filling of book shelves in Barnes and Noble with lousy woman authors, and making most fictional characters women now can not force people to buy books or watch movies in which a 80 pound 14 year old girl is suppose to conquer the universe. But well unfortunately regarding the survival of human civilization this does not apply in the government service, and in universities ... where actually getting a job done is irrelevant or even undesirable to our 1%, and a couple of working or middle class men hired as 'subcontractors' or part time can be made to do all the heavy lifting for slave wages while the women do the equivalent work of a high priced 9-5 secretary and pose for heroic 'diversity photos'.

  103. @winthrop staples Lol ... except that there's no scientific evidence at all backing up your hypothesis that women are "inherently weaker and dependent". What women have less than men, anatomically, is muscle mass, proportionally to bone mass (which means that some women have much more muscles and muscle power, in absolute terms, than certain men ... ;-)). Apart from that, women have a bigger "corpus callosum", so more "cables" connecting the right and left hemisphere, which makes it easier for them to put words on feelings and thoughts. And that's about it. That being said, I adored Charlie Rose, who had a unique talent among a male-dominated interviewer field, which I will sorely miss. In the 21th century, being an outstanding pro is no longer enough to keep your job though. You also need moral character, and unfortunately, Rose was highly cultivated in many different and important fields, but clearly didn't have the chance to train his character in such a way that would allow him to have a strong moral spine. So he's out. And that's what he deserved. Being a man is no longer an excuse for weak moral values. Sorry if that frightens you ... ;-)

  104. @winthrop staples Say what? Could it be you tend to avoid stronger and independent women? Why would that be I wonder. Just thinking.

  105. On the pure professional front and despite its flaws I’m grateful for Charlie Rose’s show!

  106. I hope Jeff Glor will be available to substitute as he did for Charlie.

  107. Amanpour is terrific. I just hope her co hosts don’t distract. She doesn’t need “help” from others to have a successful show. I hope PBS /Shapiro doesn’t screw this up.

  108. I like Amanpour. But will she be interested in CONVERSATIONS, especially about ideas? Now just news and opinion?

  109. She’s a good choice for news and politics, but I hope this doesn’t mean another venue for arts, culture, books, architecture and music will be lost. Too early to say, but I’ve heard nothing about keeping the wide range of guests. Perhaps it will be like the New York Times, all the political narratives fit to print

  110. I am delighted with CBS’ choice of Ms. Amanpour to fill the nightly slot Charlie Rose held. I hope the interesting mix of “movers and shakers” remains, along with current ideas and trends in art, literature, dance, music, and of course, politics. Ms. Amanpour is without parallel in distilling international news. I was a loyal fan of Charlie Rose and have missed his program. I will never understand how such an intelligent man could be so lacking in circumspection.