Oprah,mind-control for the masses

[Reject_Bunnies]

Seeing as how the subject of Oprah is such a hot topic,I chose to stop threadjacking and start a new thread. I can also freely admit that I have little repect for Oprah,to me she is just an ego-driven spokesperson trying to expand her empire(Make MONEY) under the disguise of a "Feel Good" blanket. I really don't care how rich and famous you are,I'm not buying your clothes or reading your magazine simply because it has your face on the cover and is full of your ideas and opinions on something. No person in the Media can force you to chose one thing over another,but when you hand over your free-will to them and let that person do the thinking for you;that's scary and wrong.

Oprah has a grasp on the sheep hanging on her every whim,by the fact that she influences everything from book sales to clothes,by giving her stamp of approval(Or rejection..remember the Beef Industry fiasco in '96?).
As one article reads concerning the recent:"A Million Little Pieces":

"As the Smoking Gun reported, thanks to the huge boost from Oprah’s endorsement, A Million Little Pieces sold more books in the US last year than anything except the most recent Harry Potter offering."

"After initially standing by Frey, Oprah, in a cold fury, stripped the bark off the hapless author sitting impassively next to her on the couch. Viewers winced at the spectacle. The next day, Frey’s spanking made the front pages of newspapers with editorial philosophies as diverse as the New York Times and Boston Herald. But the sheer shrewdness of Oprah’s handling of the situation was reflected in the fact that it was her punishment of Frey — rather than her own poor judgment — that became the story."

"But as one headline on an Associated Press story suggests, Oprah’s real interest in ultimately demolishing Frey was to “protect” her “brand,” and the mighty Oprah empire. And in a strange way, the whole ugly episode may have caused her legend and power to grow."

"The Post’s Eugene Robinson wrote a January 31 column marveling at “the wrathful, Old Testament Oprah” who gave Frey “that awful public smiting,” and asserting that “if there were justice in the world, George W. Bush would have to give his State of the Union address from Oprah’s couch.”

The moral to the story? People need to wake up and live their own life,not hand all power over to a television celebrity to do the thinking for them.

-Thanks to:
"Attack of the 50ft Oprah"

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Since you felt this burning topic needed its own thread...

Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars

It's not a matter of having control over people's minds..

It's a matter of most of the books she features, are amazing novels.

I'm not a Oprah watcher by any means, but I have read many of the books on her list and have never been disapointed. Specifically for books written about women's issue, and seldom discussed topics like Genital Mutilation or Incest. She isn't afraid to feature writers who explore these topics, that many people consider to be taboo.

She also was extremely disapointed that a book she featured, was filled with lies. She had him back on her show to publicly admit his falsehoods and to offer his apology to her and her readers for his lies. She has no way to check every fact offered by an author she features, it could have happened to anyone.

As far as the woman herself goes, she is one of the most prolific Philanthropists on the planet. She donated 45 Million Dollars to a University in Chicago, which one of my close friends attended at the time. The University was about to close its doors, for lack of Federal Funding and she stepped in and wrote a check. Just like that.

In addition, just to hit some of the highlights;

"Oprah's commitment to children also led her to initiate the National Child Protection Act in 1991, when she testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to establish a national database of convicted child abusers. On December 20, 1993, President Clinton signed the national "Oprah Bill" into law"

"In December 2002, The Oprah Winfrey Foundation expanded its global humanitarian efforts with her ChristmasKindness South Africa 2002 initiative that included visits to orphanages and rural schools in South Africa where 50,000 children received gifts of food, clothing, athletic shoes, school supplies, books and toys. Sixty-three rural schools received libraries and teacher education. On December 6, 2002, Oprah announced a partnership with South Africa's Ministry of Education to build the "Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls—South Africa," which is scheduled to open in 2007.

"She also has developed schools to educate thousands of underserved children internationally and created "The Oprah Winfrey Scholars Program," which gives scholarships to students determined to use their education to give back to their communities in the United States and abroad."

Source

She gave over a Million dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina, and personally went down to my Hometown and visited the Astrodome where thousands of the victims were relocated after evacuations FINALLY began. She worked tirelessly for hours and hours handing out supplies to the victims, and praying with many of the families who were missing their loved ones. She didn't HAVE to do that. She chose to because she has a kind and caring heart.



She is one of the few 'Rich People' on the face of the planet, that gives back substantially to those who are less fortunate, worldwide.

For that fact alone, she has my Utmost Respect.

I'll just slide that over here..

The facts speak for themselves..

I can list more if you wish...

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

I'll add this to what I have already posted;

" Oprah's Angel Network introduced the Use Your Life Award on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2000 and has since awarded it to individuals who, through their charitable organizations, are making a difference in the lives of others. To date, 54 Use Your Life Awards have been presented, totaling more than $6 million in funding. The "Use Your Life Award" helps small to medium-sized organizations expand their programs in order to help more people in need. "

SOURCE

Oprah Winfrey Debuts as First African-American On BusinessWeek's Annual Ranking of 'Americas Top Philanthropists'
By BusinessWeek via PRNewsWire

"Television talk-show host Oprah Winfrey debuts at No. 40 on BusinessWeek's annual ranking of America's top givers. Oprah's $151 million in gifts and pledges to various charities earns her the distinction of being the first African-American on BusinessWeek's list"

SOURCE

[Godslayer Jillian]

I don't think the wrong in here is that Oprah is so influential in people, but that people blindly let her be so influential.
I do know Oprah is very smart, but the thing that pissess me off is that most people who buy the last book Oprah reccomended buy it because Oprah reccomended it, not because of WHY Oprah reccomends it

[Reject_Bunnies]

E_P_S-
You sort of missed the point of why I started this topic,it was:Oprah has too much control over peoples' minds,because they let her have it. People should think for themselves;not let a television celebrity make their decisions(That and she's in the business of making money).

"No one wields the kind of power the talk show host/media magnate does on the literary world"

"Lest we forget, however, what she actually does for a living is mediate a "lifestyle" fairly composed of cultural fluff and self-actualizing trivia. For every bird flu piece or softballed "exposé" on Katrina fallout—none of which actually address the institutional bulwarks that impede vital solutions—we get ten hunks of pointless tabloid hokum like the "two-headed baby miracle," "Look younger! Live longer!" or, say, Tom Cruise parading his insanity over his latest SeaOrg-brokered coupling."

"The Oprah Empire sells easy answers, happy endings, pop-cultural zit cream to ease blemishes on the soul, thus, unfortunately, exacerbating its deeper malaise. Oprah should be an episode on Oprah, a gross enabler of the victims of the trivial, validating people's petty insecurities by offering televised snake-oil, not to mention foisting upon us a dedicated agent of such voodoo, Dr. Phil. Ceding Winfrey a role as the ultimate arbiter of our literature is like looking to Maxim to break the Watergate story."

Source

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Reject_Bunnies

E_P_S-
You sort of missed the point of why I started this topic,it was:Oprah has too much control over peoples' minds,because they let her have it. People should think for themselves;not let a television celebrity make their decisions(That and she's in the business of making money).

[

No, I got your point just fine..

Originally Posted by Reject_Bunnies

I can also freely admit that I have little repect for Oprah,to me she is just an ego-driven spokesperson trying to expand her empire(Make MONEY) under the disguise of a "Feel Good" blanket.

I was merely offering another insight to your "ego-driven spokesperson" remark..

Hence the sources I cited which highlight the charitable works she has done above and beyond her need to "make money".

Maybe you missed my point.

As far as turning people into mindless drones, I think Martha Stewart is far more guilty of that than Oprah.

Besides with so many negative people in the Celebrity Spotlight these days, what exactly is wrong with having a positive role model?

At least she makes an attempt to do something worthy with her Celebrity Status.

More than you can say about most of the Celebrities these days.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars

As far as turning people into mindless drones, I think Martha Stewart is far more guilty of that than Oprah.

Ah yes, that Martha Stewart. I wouldn't mind stabbing her with all those needles she used for that needlework she taught.
Guess what, Martha Stewart. We don't need to know how to make chocolate chip cookies. The Chips Ahoy aren't bad at all

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

You are a Goddess among Women..

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10...dorazione2.gif

Huzzah!!

And there was MUCH rejoicing..

[Reject_Bunnies]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

So take your non-grounded reasons for hating Oprah and stuff it.

I'm not even going to argue with you on this one,
you made some valid points(She could be another Paris Hilton...*spuuuuwh*).

-And thanks for telling me to 'stuff it' instead of ripping me a new one because we have a different opinion. (I still think you're cool)

[ExistentialDisorder]

I like Oprah. I don't know who or what Frey is, or what the latest Oprah bashing is about, but I've never seen or heard her do anything that insulted or irritated me in the least. I don't watch her show often because i'm usually working. If i'm home and bored and remember she's on, then I'll flip over and see what she's talking about. If it's some fashion show or celebrity gossip then I keep on going to something else. Back in the day her shows were a lot more interesting a lot more of the time, when she talked about serial killers, r*pists, various other crimes and injustices, etc. Then a point came, sometime around the mid 90's when she decided that she wasn't going to do that type of show anymore, because she felt it was making celebrities out of the criminals she was interviewing, when that wasn't her intention at all. I agree. But that's when her show turned more towards the holywood glamour and bull shit, and I lost interest.

But to me she's always seemed to be very giving and tries helping various causes in whatever way she can. of course part of it is fame, i'm sure. so what? It's much better than watching Jerry Springer. What the hell has he ever done for 'the people'? I think Oprah's earned her possition, and tries her best to give back. One of the few that have actually earned their status and riches. There's always going to be somebody trying to dig up dirt to throw in the face of a celebrity, no matter what cause that celebrity stands for. its part of being famous.

[Ben Lahnger]

Reject it is useless to argue that someone building a money-making empire is inherently evil. I do believe power (and by extension, money) can corrupt most people. Hell, I don't have any love for Bill Gates, but he is the largest single financial contributor to fighting AIDS in Africa. And yes, I know he can afford it. I know he is one of the richest people on earth. But he doesn't have to. That's the point - he's long past needing my or your or anyones approval. He's just doing it because he wants to.

And so is Oprah. Yes, she's a smart business woman. But she is also well past needing public adulation and has said that she could have retired years ago. Her motivation for continuing to build her empire and "protect her brand" as you put it? To continue to increase her ability to influence the world for the better. I'm not a big Oprah fan ... I watch it once in a while. But I've seen enough of her actions that I don't question her motivation. And your implied slander of her character irritates me a bit.

Also, you should question your sources better. I watched the episode in which she questioned Frey. I don't know where you got the quote "Oprah, in a cold fury, stripped the bark off the hapless author sitting impassively next to her on the couch. Viewers winced at the spectacle", but that is inacurate. This was hardly the bloodletting that the media reported. Yes, she was blunt and direct. I would equate it with a 60 minutes correspondent questioning a corrupt politician. There was no wincing at her questioning of him. However, I did cringe at his spineless backpeddling on what was and wasn't factual in his "biography."

You criticize people following her like sheep? Most people follow someone ... The Catholic Church, Marilyn Manson, The KKK, PETA, The NRA, Wicca, whatever. Some things are evil to follow, some things are good to follow and some things require constant reassessment. But of the many people on this earth, and in particular all the ones illuminated by our all-too-powerful media, I have no problem with people following her. I can't believe you got this riled up because people might buy books because she tells them too. I wish more people were reading books, frankly. More power to her.

And by the way, I do understand being critical of people for blindly believing everything that comes from a source they don't question. When you address your own blind acceptance of bad information from sloppy reporting, I'll have more respect for you.

[edible_eye]

oprah? she initially made a living as a precursor to jerry springer.

when the world according to jerry reared its ugly, interesting head - she switched gears, making her mark as a "compassionate" soul.

she's a phenomenal business woman.

that's pretty much it.

[Disfunction]

Oprah wanted to get out of the "Jerry Springer" style media. She wanted to do something meaningful and was contemplating ending her career. Something something something.

[edible_eye]

of course she wanted to get out. she's a business woman with decent people at her side.

the market was flooded. she was just another face.

she re-made her mark doing the anti-springer stuff and the tv-watching masses rejoiced, despite the fact springer's stuff was much more fascinating.

it's not socially acceptable to say you like 'the jerry springer show'. it's perfectly acceptable to say you enjoy 'oprah'.

she's capitalized on being socially acceptable. and she's good at it.

[Ben Lahnger]

um, yeah, but before you attribute all her actions to wanting to make more money, and before you take the jaded and cynical view that she's just a shrewd business woman, you should be aware of the stuff she does with that money.

[edible_eye]

she does what anyone deemed acceptable in the public eye would likely do with such massive amounts of money earned - figure out how to make more while maintaining an image of "do-good", especially if that's where her paychecks are coming from.

maybe she's legit. maybe she's not. that's not up to me to decide.

all i know is, she got her start in the trenches of wretched human behavior - and she was perfectly comfortable with it. when her act was duplicated and her audience diluted, she switched gears.

she loses nothing by donating x-dollars to charity. tax write-offs alone likely constitute a win-win situation. that doesn't mean she's not effecting good to some degree - it just means she's not to be judged, in my opinion, on that basis alone.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

maybe she's legit. maybe she's not. that's not up to me to decide.

Well, you are making judgements about her, so why cop out on the half that might make her legit? You can judge the entertainment media, but not the person and her character? Huh?

Originally Posted by edible_eye

all i know is, she got her start in the trenches of wretched human behavior - and she was perfectly comfortable with it. when her act was duplicated and her audience diluted, she switched gears.

If you'll remember your history correctly, you'll recall she entered the industry imitating Phil Donahue, the gold standard for afternoon talk shows at the time. Phil made lots of hay talking to freaks and psychos. She just got better at it than Phil and built an empire. At a certain point she herself became frustrated with the vacuousness of the forum and decided to elevate the level of the conversation. The rise of Jerry Springer was not so much impetus, as coincidence of timing with her own sea change.

She took a thing that was broke and fixed it (against conventional wisdom.) Donahue's show taught everyone in the industry that the masses wanted to watch fools and tragedies. And the industry frequently believes that path is the easy way to ratings; hence Springer, Ricki Lake, Maury Povich, Sally Jessie Raphael, Judge Judy, Court TV, Cops, Geraldo Rivera, The National Enquirer, ect. The lowest common denominator.

It was never an obvious or a shrewd business move to make her show speak to higher moral issues. She went against sage and respected industry advice to do so. She took a risk of losing her audience when she did so.

Now you want to start a rant about how Phil Donahue wallowed in the trenches of wretched human behavior, and I'm with you.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

Well okay, lets judge her on some other basis.

She's an amazing role model for over-weight people in America. She has publically struggled with her weight for 20 years, and at the end of it all, she's come out saying "You know what? FUCK IT! I'm going to be happy with who I am, no matter what size I am, and so should everyone! Fuck this trend of being skeleton skinny. That's not normal. People should be happy with how they are, and so am I will be."

And she is. She eats healthy, promoting a healthy lifestyle, but she's not starving herself to be a size her body wasn't meant to be.

That's a GREAT role model. Way better then Nicole Richie and her ever starving self. Or Lara Flynn Boyle, Calista Flockhart, Hillary Swank. I can go on and on.

What else? She's also a great role model to people who come from nothing. And for black people AND women. She's black, a woman, and she came from a poor family, and look at where she is! She is living proof that ANYONE can be what they want, make as much as they want, no matter what. That's pretty comendable.

She's just a genuine good person.

despite this, she makes headlines when she loses weight - or when she gains it. is that the fault of the reporters, or the fact that she is not comfortable with her weight and it fluctuates frequently, despite what she says publicly?

Originally Posted by ben langher

Well, you are making judgements about her, so why cop out on the half that might make her legit? You can judge the entertainment media, but not the person and her character? Huh?

i don't know her personally. if you do, then i'll listen beyond all this conjecture.

i understand human behavior. that's not a cop out.

Originally Posted by ben langher

If you'll remember your history correctly, you'll recall she entered the industry imitating Phil Donahue, the gold standard for afternoon talk shows at the time. Phil made lots of hay talking to freaks and psychos. She just got better at it than Phil and built an empire. At a certain point she herself became frustrated with the vacuousness of the forum and decided to elevate the level of the conversation. The rise of Jerry Springer was not so much impetus, as coincidence of timing with her own sea change.

ok. that's your take on it and it's as fair as my own, i'll argue. when someone is making money on a certain strong stock and that stock is starting to go sour, it's a smart and shrewd business person who sells even when it doesn't look like a good idea.

oprah sold. and she picked up a new stock and ran with it.

Originally Posted by ben langher

She took a thing that was broke and fixed it (against conventional wisdom.) Donahue's show taught everyone in the industry that the masses wanted to watch fools and tragedies. And the industry frequently believes that path is the easy way to ratings; hence Springer, Ricki Lake, Maury Povich, Sally Jessie Raphael, Judge Judy, Court TV, Cops, Geraldo Rivera, The National Enquirer, ect. The lowest common denominator.

It was never an obvious or a shrewd business move to make her show speak to higher moral issues. She went against sage and respected industry advice to do so. She took a risk of losing her audience when she did so.

yup. she took a chance and won. that doesnt make her a better person than any of the others you mentioned. it just makes her lucky.

she found an as yet untapped niche and capitalized on it. more power to her for that. i don't see how that makes her soul any more pure than any other talk show host who showcases humankind for ratings and money.

Originally Posted by ben langher

Now you want to start a rant about how Phil Donahue wallowed in the trenches of wretched human behavior, and I'm with you.

bah. he was a visionary (read that as a lucky stock holder), the original run-around microphone who brought the drama of human life into the public eye.

[Ben Lahnger]

uh, you really think that? Then I'm done.

[edible_eye]

and you really think she's more than that?

[ExistentialDisorder]

I think Oprah has always tried to have honest, TRUE stories on her show, regardless of what the topic is about. I don't see how anyone can compare her show to Springer, or Povich. Maybe Donahue. I remember watching Donahue when I was a kid, with my mom. I think he retired right about the time Oprah started, or shortly after. And I really don't think Springer has been on as long as she has. I may be wrong on that tho.

Regardless, I know first-hand that a lot of the bullshit that people like Povich and Springer have on their show is completely written. I knew two people that were on Povich's show personally, about 10 years ago. They were paid $500 each, plus travel expenses/hotel, food, etc. They made up their story themselves and Povich people filled in the bullshit details. Some of Povich's topics were legit tho, but for the most part they're completely bull shit nonsense.

Maybe this has something to do with why Oprah took what this Frey guy did so personally?

[ExistentialDisorder]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

What else? She's also a great role model to people who come from nothing. And for black people AND women. She's black, a woman, and she came from a poor family, and look at where she is! She is living proof that ANYONE can be what they want, make as much as they want, no matter what. That's pretty comendable.

She's just a genuine good person.

Isn't she also a r.ape survivor? If I recall correctly, she was molested by her uncle, or some other family member... I know she got her start on Channel 2 news in Baltimore, MD as an anchor.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

and you really think she's more than that?

I think you and I have different views on this. I am normally fairly cynical when it comes to the motivations and actions of my fellow human beings. However, there is an exception to this philosophy. When I see someone consistantly acting in a way to improve the conditions under which other human beings exist, I have a choice on how I percieve that. I can attribute that to manipulative machievelian objectives, or I can attribute it to selflessness and empathy; the thought that maybe the person just wants to do some good in the world. I choose to believe the latter. Basic optimism and Occam's Razor both tell me that's where the smart money is.

For example, Oprah is currently orchestrating the building of leadership schools for young girls in Africa. Your reasoning would suggest that she is doing this as a sound business strategy to convince more people to buy her brand and absorb her media. To undertake this project she has to travel to Africa many times, coordinate financing and planning, oversee each building project and staffing, and be invested personally and financially to some degree. The payback ain't worth the cost. She's already one of the most popular human beings in America. Saying she should do this as a business decision is like saying Denzel Washington should go help some Katrina victims to bolster his appeal. Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably correct: she just wants to do some good.

So that is what I assume, lacking any other personal evidence either way. We disagree on that. No biggie.

[WolfMoon]

edit:Replying to ED



Yes, she is.

It's one of the reasons she does so many shows featuring ****/child abuse/protecting your kids from child abuse.

I'm glad that she brings things into the spotlight that a lot of people are unaware of nowadays. I've known about the FGM that goes on in a lot of countries and the problem with fistulas that many girls live with because they are married off when their bodies are undredeveloped for childbearing.

I read of those things long before I started watching Oprah(Yes, I watch it, Dis!), but she makes these things real for people that have probably never heard of it. She speaks out about it. I guess you could say that she's a do-gooder, but hell I think someone should speak out about the things she does. And if some middle-class house wife somewhere starts caring about things other than the diminuitive wrinkles only she can see, then it can't be bad.

Bah!

Am I making any sense today?

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I think you and I have different views on this. I am normally fairly cynical when it comes to the motivations and actions of my fellow human beings. However, there is an exception to this philosophy. When I see someone consistantly acting in a way to improve the conditions under which other human beings exist, I have a choice on how I percieve that. I can attribute that to manipulative machievelian objectives, or I can attribute it to selflessness and empathy; the thought that maybe the person just wants to do some good in the world. I choose to believe the latter. Basic optimism and Occam's Razor both tell me that's where the smart money is.

For example, Oprah is currently orchestrating the building of leadership schools for young girls in Africa. Your reasoning would suggest that she is doing this as a sound business strategy to convince more people to buy her brand and absorb her media. To undertake this project she has to travel to Africa many times, coordinate financing and planning, oversee each building project and staffing, and be invested personally and financially to some degree. The payback ain't worth the cost. She's already one of the most popular human beings in America. Saying she should do this as a business decision is like saying Denzel Washington should go help some Katrina victims to bolster his appeal. Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably correct: she just wants to do some good.

So that is what I assume, lacking any other personal evidence either way. We disagree on that. No biggie.

i agree. no biggie.

although, to what you just outlined, what sponsor wouldn't want to be associated with her when her corporate empire's out there doing all this humanitarian work?

good p.r. begets sponsors. sponsors beget money.

she's america's sweetheart. i just don't buy the selfless motives of her actions.