Interviews: Oprah VS Charlie Rose

One thing really strong about Oprah is that she actually 'reads' the books of authors that she interviews. Whereas, a lot of interviewers will simple 'wing it', and when they do, they get the author doing their best to tell the audience about 'what the book is about' rather than 'what they think about the topics discussed in the book'. The former is an introduction, one that you will see over and over again if you watch more than one interview with the same author. The latter is what the audience (a knowledgeable audience) is waiting for. The sweet nectar of thought. We want the ideas in the book discussed in depth, not just a mere introduction to them. Introductions are usually the most boring part of any book. The juicy part, the ideas and theories come out in the middle which is then followed by the, hopefully, conclusive ending.

I find interviews by Charlie Rose incredibly boring. He puts a fascinating book on the table, and has an opportunity to speak to the mind behind the ideas, just blows it.

Charlie must have a lot of issues with self esteem for someone who has put himself in a position where he is able to interact with the greatest of minds. He tries so hard to impress his guests with his intellect, that all left is an annoying and painful conversation with someone that's yelling 'no, really, I AM smart!'

He cares so much about coming up with an intelligent questions, ones that sound knowledgeable, inquisitive and challenges the author at the same time, that all that comes out is ...pointless questions from someone who is trying too hard. I think Charie Rose is very intelligent, and if he just let himself go, and just TALK to these people like he would to an ordinary human being, the discussion would become a lot more interesting.

however, it seems like he, himself doesn't see himself as intelligent (even though he is) to be on equal footing with the people that he interviews. I'll reference the Interview with Freakonomics authors: Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. He treated Levitt like a god, and Dubner as some idiot that wrote an essay because he was instructed by this god-like brain that was Levitt.
You could see Levitt becoming increasingly uncomfortable, and then angry at the way Charlie was conducting the interview; treating his friend and literary partner like that. He wasn't the only one. My heart went out to Dubner. (but according to Daniel Gilber, I probably found this experience more painful than Dubner, himself)