From an Associated Press article:
PBS says it is immediately halting distribution of Charlie Rose’s interview program and CBS News suspended him following The Washington Post’s report of eight women who accused the veteran newsman of multiple unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate behavior.
The women, three of whom spoke on the record in the deeply-reported story, accused Rose of groping them, walking naked in front of them and relating an erotic dream.
Rose told the Post that he was “deeply embarrassed” and apologized for his behavior.
Well, the “what if he did” appears to be a fait accompli. Rose apparently admits to his behavior.
But – and this is something the holier-than-thou types in media and politics should pay close attention to – what if he didn’t do it. What if these women came forward in exactly the same way, but instead of apologizing Charlie Rose said none of it ever happened? And what if he were telling the truth?
How could Rose possibly defend himself against these charges? There is no smoking-gun evidence, is there?
In other words, Charlie Rose as an innocent man would be just as vulnerable to bogus charges of sexual predations…
…as these women are vulnerable to being called liars even if everything they said is true.
It would be good to remember this as more and more people (don’t assume they’ll all be men) come forward with sexual accusations against more and more entertainment and political personalities.
