Enabling Charlie Rose
By 
Remarkable reporting by Amy Brittain and Irin Carmon:
Incidents of sexual misconduct by Charlie Rose were far more numerous than previously known, according to a new investigation by The Washington Post, which also found three occasions over a period of 30 years in which CBS managers were warned of his conduct toward women at the network.
An additional 27 women — 14 CBS News employees and 13 who worked with him elsewhere — said Rose sexually harassed them. Concerns about Rose’s behavior were flagged to managers at the network as early as 1986 and as recently as April 2017, when Rose was co-anchor of “CBS This Morning,” according to multiple people with firsthand knowledge of the conversations.
Rose’s response to the new allegations was delivered in a one-sentence email: “Your story is unfair and inaccurate.”
The new allegations follow an earlier Post report on Rose’s behavior at his namesake PBS program, in which eight women accused the TV star of making lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas. Rose issued an apology. His PBS show was canceled and he was fired from CBS News.
[…]
At CBS News, where in addition to the morning show Rose worked as a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes,” some women who said they were harassed said they feared reporting the violations to executives, whom they viewed as prioritizing the careers of male stars.
“I had been there long enough to know that it was just the way things went,” said Sophie Gayter, now 27, who worked at “60 Minutes” in 2013 when, she said, Rose groped her buttocks as they walked down an office hallway to a recording studio. “People said what they wanted to you, people did what they wanted to you.”
When Rose got one of the most desirable and well-compensated jobs in American broadcast journalism, a lot of the people involved in the decision had to know what he was. They didn’t care.
The remarkable number of major media figures who have been revealed not merely as sexists but as harassers or outright predators is sobering. It’s revealing of the conditions that allowed an admitted sexual predator to be not only remain a viable presidential candidate but to benefit from having his opponent portrayed as the more corrupt and dishonest one.