By the New York Bureau Chief
On October 15, 2004, Jon Stewart appeared as a guest on CNN’s Crossfire and told its hosts, Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, that they were “hurting America.” Stewart objected to Crossfire‘s amped-up partisan rhetoric, which, he said, fueled screaming matches instead of substantive discussions. A little over six years later, after the Tucson shootings, we’d hear congressman after congressman lodge similar complaints about the state of political rhetoric (ironic, or better put, telling that Crossfire, like the Sarah PAC crosshairs map, seems to be a literal call to arms). On Crossfire, Stewart said that he didn’t object to debate, far from it; he just wanted an honest show that would place a premium on the exchange of ideas, not Beltway spin. This past Monday, Jon Stewart finally found that show.
The subject was Libya. The host, we all know. The debaters, Bernard-Henry Lévy and Les Gelb, were perfectly matched. BHL (as his friends call him) is a dashing, libertine public intellectual 
who dabbles in film, writes high-minded books, and gets mentioned in Page Six for his romantic exploits. Gelb is a former ink-stained wretch (Times correspondent) and current President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also writes books. He does not dabble in film. He is not dashing. He has never been mentioned in Page Six.
There are also plenty of philosophical differences 
that separate the Sephardic Libertine from the Ashkenazi Schlemiel. BHL, we realize a minute into his opening remarks, is a policy idealist of the dreamiest order. He, like our friend Cory Booker, enjoys basking in big words like “freedom” and “liberty.” He loves the war in Libya because it’s a humanitarian intervention that reinforces our commitment to humanist values. In fact, he was one of the war’s intellectual authors. Gelb, who’s first words on the show are “I disagree with most of what our French colleague had to say, starting with his history and going to what he thinks we should be doing right now,” is a policy realist. He doesn’t think the US should be taking the lead in the Libyan war, not so much because he disagrees with its premise, but because he thinks it’s a regional concern. BHL sees the world as romantic poetry. Les Gelb sees it as chess. Here’s a sample BHL moment:
Needless to say, Les Gelb thinks that’s all hogwash.
The Libertine and the Schlemiel rarely engage with one another. There’s a bigger audience they’re trying to convince. That audience is named Charlie Rose. The dynamic is fascinating. At some points, the show feels like a debate in the Oval Office—Charlie is the president, BHL and Gelb are two senior advisers who love their boss almost as much as they hate each other. At other points, Charlie seems like the desired woman, two suitors warring for her affections. The dominant metaphor for a dedicated Charlie-watcher, though, is of a conversation occurring inside Charlie’s head. If fused together, BHL and Gelb might very well become something like Charlie Rose—the sober-minded, libertine, realist, Francophile American sort-of journalist. BHL’s enthusiasm and bravado and Gelb’s caution and skepticism are all signature Rose-ian traits. In fact, Charlie barely has to speak during the broadcast, his presence is already felt so strongly. The two guests’ desperate need to win Charlie’s approval becomes not only the show’s animating force but its subject. By the end, Libya is almost incidental.
Raises the question: what does Charlie Rose actually believe? Who does he vote for? Who does he think we should go to war with? How high does he think his taxes should be?
Charlie Rose never lets on.
Because he’s aspiring to…wait for it…journalism.
(OR, as the CBC might argue, is he just being a polite conversationalist? [i mean this in all seriousness] – and NO i actually dont think you can both be a good journalist and be a polite conversationalist. In fact, I think the two impulses are diametrically opposed.)
My strong bet is that Charlie has fairly typical Wall Street-Washington consensus politics: pro-free market, more or less fiscally conservative, liberal on social issues, was cautiously in favor of the War in Iraq but then turned cautiously against it. Charlie doesn’t need to tell us about his politics, his choice of guests and his choice of friends let’s us in on the basic parameters.
I think it’s hard to give a strict “yeah” or “ney” on whether Charlie is a journalist. I mean, he’s not a journalist in the way that David Grann or Dexter Filkins or Michael Lewis is a journalist, or even in the way that Lara Logan and Anderson Cooper are journalists. Charlie isn’t investigating anything, he’s not composing stories. That’s not his job.
However, I reject the idea that Charlie is just a “polite conversationalist.” He’s a wily interviewer who can often extract surprising information from his guests. He deploys his charm to woo subjects. That’s part of a journalist’s game. There are different kinds of journalists who have different skills. Some journalists are combative, some are charming, some play dumb, some play smart. Charlie can be all of these things. So I don’t think the issue is so much whether or not Charlie is polite, as to what Charlie is looking for in his interviews. I would suggest that when he’s on he’s trying to get to find out what makes a person tick. It’s a profiler’s impulse, and that’s what, I think, he ultimately is. At least, that’s where he’s strength ultimately lies.
Well argued.
I like this profiler angle.
But isn’t the classic profiler move to butter up your subjects over lunch, then chiv them to death in print? Most famous recent example: M.I.A. and Lynn Hirschberg.
So, I would argue that the (classic) profiler analogy falls apart because Charlie never gets to talk behind people’s backs. This raises the stakes, of course, and the degree of difficulty. And I suppose he’s not a Profiler in the New York Times Magazine sense. Maybe more the Terry Gross Fresh Air sense? But even Terry Gross asks tough questions, right?
Does Charlie Rose ask tough questions?
Ever?
IE: what separates Charlie Rose from Larry King? As an interviewer? You think Larry King wouldn’t argue that he’s trying to find out what makes people tick? Whether that’s actually true or not? (we get into ratings and advertisers and sponsors as actual motivators really quick [not to mention ego, pursuit of fame, getting to eat out at nice restaurants, etc]). Obviously Rose and King differ wildly in the people they choose (chose) to interview / the audience they try to reach.
But I’m asking more about Style. Journalistic Style.
And what it gets / doesn’t get you.