CBS Fires Rose
Steven L. Taylor
·
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
·
7 comments
Via the NYT: Charlie Rose Fired by CBS After Sexual Harassment Allegations.
David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, told the news division in an internal email that Mr. Rose, a host of “CBS This Morning” and a “60 Minutes” correspondent, had been let go after allegations were raised “of extremely disturbing and intolerable behavior said to have revolved around his PBS program.”
I am not surprised overall, but am somewhat surprised at the speed. We do appear to be at an overdue pivot point nationally on this topic.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
It would be interesting to see something like a flow-chart of how such a ‘sudden’ social moment occurs. Taking sexual harassment as an example of how the fabled ‘Overton window’ moves, we have seen growing awareness of the phenomenon and usefulness of exposing, opposing and blaming perpetrators since the Bill Clinton era when the sword was in the R’s hand.
I recall Wilbur Mills bath in the Tidal Basin pretty well. The general attitude was ‘Ol’ Wilbur got caught having too much fun’ back in those benighted days. I think most young men thought it was pretty cool if JFK actually did diddle Marilyn.
I bet the change could be charted by media analysis or such. Positive vs negative references, numbers of prime-time mentions on broadcast/cable news. That sort of thing.
@JohnMcC: It seems to be an example of what others have dubbed the Hemingway Law of Motion, from this quote from The Sun Also Rises:
It makes me sick that everyone in the media jumps on the band wagon on hot topics that were well known before. If just a few were not such cowards before, this would not have been so out of hand. The top execs should have known something. How could a man in his position not have been outed sooner, especially when some of the things he had allegedly done. I`ll bet a lot more men are scared crappless right now reflecting on their past. I am afraid though it may start to take innocent people down too. I have met some crazy vindictive people who have made false accusations about people and they were ruined. Many people believe anything they hear. We do live in a country where we are innocent until proven guilty in court, but the press is hanging all these people without trial. Do not get me wrong I am sure many are guilty. I hate to hurt anyone who is not guilty.
Appearances can be deceiving. I see in these stories not a reckoning but political convenience. “We have removed the cancer and now we will speak of it no more.”
Men will still objectify and sexualize women. Let’s get that right. Acknowledging this allows us to come up with strategies to reduce the harm. We can do what many religions do; compartmentalize, compartmentalize, compartmentalize. If not the hijab, then the bonnet. That seems rather destructive to individual freedom and plus it always seems to devolve into a system where this man will eventually claim some ownership over that woman. I say no. Nice try, religions.
But we still need boundaries. They can’t be “men will never objectify or sexualize women” though because that’s impossible. CBS fired Charlie Rose because they didn’t want to have this conversation. We all know what’s unacceptable.
But what’s acceptable?
@James Pearce:
Just because you objectify and sexualize someone doesn’t mean that you can’t treat them with respect too. It does mean that you cannot force them to take part in your fantasies — no exposing yourself, or grabbing them without consent, or describing how you want to bend them (or anyone) over a desk — but that’s not really so difficult.
An attractive woman can be a person AND an object, all at the same time. And, that might be as far as men are capable of going anyway.
And an unattractive woman still has value as a person, even if you don’t want to boink her.
Anyway, it’s not such a massive change for most men. Or I am woefully naive.
@barbintheboonies: It makes me sick that everyone in the media jumps on the band wagon on hot topics that were well known before.
The aforementioned Hemingway’s Law Of Motion has been the rule, not the exception, for some time now on large-scale social shifts.
Drunk driving was a joke — until a few people started taking it seriously. It became a huge social stigma virtually overnight.
Obama was actually officially anti gay marriage (he supported “civil unions”) when he ran in 2009, and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. That changed in very short order.
People didn’t think anything of displaying the Confederate flag for ages and ages. And then, virtually overnight, it was anathema.
That’s just how it is.
JohnMcC: “I recall Wilbur Mills bath in the Tidal Basin pretty well. The general attitude was ‘Ol’ Wilbur got caught having too much fun’ back in those benighted days. I think most young men thought it was pretty cool if JFK actually did diddle Marilyn.”
There was any “sexual harrasment” in these cases?
James Pearce: “Men will still objectify and sexualize women”
There is any problem with men objectifying and sexualizing women – the problem is doing things with them against their will.