Charlie Rose is target of sexual misconduct allegations

Broadcast journalist Charlie Rose is now caught in his past. Several women who worked for The Charlie Rose Show between the 1990s to 2011 have told the Washington Post he made unwanted sexual advances to them including ‘lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.’

Three of the women agreed to speak on the record.

“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” Reah Bravo, a onetime intern told The Post. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”

In his statement to the paper, Rose played the “I thought they wanted it” card.

“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement provided to The Post. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.

“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.

“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”

A woman who says Rose appeared nude before her says she reported the incidents, but Rose had his enablers, in this case, his assistant, Yvette Vega.

“I explained how he inappropriately spoke to me during those times,” Kyle Godfrey-Ryan said. “She would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’ ”

“I should have stood up for them,” Vega, tells the Post. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

After the Post’s report, PBS announced it’s suspended broadcasts of the Charlie Rose Show. CBS followed suit, suspending him from the network’s CBS This Morning program.

  • I just saw this on the WAPO site a few minutes ago. Rose will certainly be “spending more time with his family” soon. That “shared feelings” comment made me want to gag.

  • Gary F

    I’m thinking of starting a some sort of gambling board for friends choosing on who the next celebrity/political creeps will be. Everyone pitches in some money, and makes up their list. Winner next year at this time splits the pot.

  • Al

    2017: The year women stopped putting up with this crap.*

    * Obligatory note: Pretty much still white women, but it’s a start.

  • Khatti

    At the present rate there will be no men on TV or in the houses of government by February.

    • I’m pretty sure there are men who haven’t engaged in sexual misconduct in the workplace. But I’ll bet there are a whole lot of other men who are nervous right now.

    • Rob

      Not an altogether bad thing, by my reckoning.

  • Rob

    A Rose by any other name would still smell like a clueless, entitled pig boy.

    “I thought they wanted it.” ?? Jesus wept.

  • crystals

    I came home from work one afternoon and found a camera crew filming the exterior of my (rental) house. Turns out Charlie Rose’s parents used to live there and they were filming it to include in some sort of award clip for him. Charlie grew up in this small NC town where I lived a lifetime ago, so I always had fond feelings towards him just because of that connection. But hey, respect for the dignity of women trumps a small town connection every time.

    How the mighty are falling.

    • Al

      We name our kids after beloved family, and were very seriously thinking of naming our twins Charley and Rosemarie. We’d joke pretty often how cool it would be to have kids unintentionally named after Charlie Rose, because he’s awesome, right? #bulletdodged

  • Paul Drake

    I assume MPR is planning a new “Betrayed by Silence” expose about systemic sexual harassment/assaults by non-priests?

    Attorney Jeff Anderson has to be licking his chops at finding another sexual tragedy to make him $$$$$$ while looking empathetic.

    • crystals

      Super cool move to use a discussion about sexual harassment of women to take shots at MPR and Jeff Anderson for uncovering systemic sexual abuse of children in the church.

      • Paul Drake

        Because all their intentions are totally altruistic…Puh-leeze!

        It’s only a matter of time before investigative journalists and attorneys take advantage of a situation where people were victimized.

        Anderson ain’t working pro-bono. Lawyers working on contingency cases take at least 25% of the settlement money right off the top. Same thing as car insurance cases.

        • Rob

          I don’t know about you, but if I were bringing an abuse case against the Catholic Church or its agents, I’d sure as hell want Anderson as my lawyer. His fee would be the least of my concerns.

          • Paul Drake

            What would your top concern be?

          • Rob

            Umm, winning the case. Hence, picking Anderson to represent me.

          • As usual, the big crime was not just the crime; it was the cover-up. With knowledge of the crimes of its priests, the church moved them to other churches, to prey upon others.
            The crime belonged not only to the priests, but to the church.

            I suspect Congress’ secret payouts might be a similar cover-up though perhaps not on the same scale. But if it is,, I’m guessing you’ll read about it in the media first, and there will be similar blowback from the most ardent enablers.

        • Laurie K.

          Do you work for free?

          • Paul Drake

            There’s a notable difference between thousands and tens of millions of dollars. Think of it like the CEO vs lowest paid employee differences that are brought up.

        • Paul Drake

          The concept of punitive cash settlements in civil lawsuits has always seemed a little strange to me. I’m not talking about awards for damages or to cover future expenses and life changes related to the case.

          My sister is an attorney who represents hospitals and clinics in malpractice suits. She rarely has a case go to court. Most of her work is doing depositons and negotiating the settlement. Typically the parties come to agreement on the damages reasonably quickly, but the punitive settlement (“Pain and Suffering”) is problematic. It’s totally arbitrary. The amount people receive for the same type of injury depends completely on public appearance and perception. Many cases that go before a jury get lower punitive awards than were offered before trial because of the perception of the plaintiff.

          What does this have to do with harassment and abuse? Rich or famous perpetrators get investigated by journalists and their victims get big lawyers to get big cash settlements. If the perp doesn’t have money or status to lose it’s unlikely they will have to face any consequences regardless of what they did.

          • Laurie K.

            Punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering are two completely different things. Punitive damages are awarded when there is clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others.

  • AL287

    For every man who gives women the respect and consideration they deserve there are probably 10 who treat them as object d’art and good only for a roll in the hay.

    At this rate any man who has even whistled at an attractive woman is fair game.

    It’s going to be a depressing holiday season.

    It’s time to start binge watching Christmas movies on Netflix. The news is too depressing.

    • Rob

      I recommend “The Holiday.”

    • Kassie

      My favorite Christmas movie of all time is Tangerine. Highly recommend!

  • Robert Moffitt

    Re: the headline, it seems the young women who worked with him were the “targets,” not Mr. Rose.

  • Khatti

    Well, if we’re are at the start of a new social era, I have some questions I’d like considered if not answered. Why is it still in my self-interest to be involved with a woman, or is my self-interest irrelevant in the face of more pressing, social concerns? Who does, and who doesn’t, get to define the term Love? Who does, and who doesn’t, get to define the term Human Being? Who does, and who doesn’t, get to set the criteria as to who gets to answer the two, preceding questions? You may consider any, or all, of these questions irrelevant–but if so, why?

    • You’re asking other to tell you why it’s in your self interest to have a relationship with a woman? Maybe it’s not. How are we to know?

      If the point you’re trying to make is you find it risky to have a relationship with a woman, and are considering withholding yourself from women, I would say for the sake of you and women, “follow your instinct.”

      • Khatti

        Thanks Dad. But I find this whole subject interesting. For one thing, it is assumed that I would have to prove to any woman I wanted to be involved with why it’s in her self interest to be involved with me. Why is the reverse illegitimate?

        Truthfully I’m a few weeks away from turning sixty. However, if I had a son or grandson in his twenties, I would be urging him to scream this question out within minutes of arriving in that mandatory woman’s studies class he’d be taking in college. I’m also a firm believer that social progress is the process of replacing old problems with new problems. Why not get a head start on dealing with the new problems?

        Last, but certainly not least, I’ve found the reaction of most of you uncomfortably self-righteous and self-satisfied: forms of psychological masturbation that do indeed cause blindness. Anything that gives you a moment’s pause is probably a good thing.

        • I would guess there are a lot of men feeling uncomfortable as women are finally getting some traction on the issue of sexual harassment. It must be quite a shock.

          Their passive aggressiveness notwithstanding, I welcome their discomfort . It’s been a long time coming and is an affliction most richly deserved.

          If they’re unable to have a relationship with women in this developing climate of professional respect in the workplace, well, I’m sorry for that , but they’ve mocked and insulted their way to that state. Perhaps they should’ve paid attention and listened to what women were telling them when they had the opportunity.