[thirteen]

Lord Acton wisely and famously said that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Now, I am not sure how corrupt Oprah is (although having one's own magazine is a very powerful thing), but I do know that she annoys the crap out of me!
Her egocentrism also is glaringly obvious. Can you imagine having your own publication and choosing to appear on the cover every single freaking month?

[raisingirl]

Did anyone catch the Suze Orman rerun today? GIRLFRIEND!

[chachaheels]

I wouldn't have bothered admonishing her for that.

I'd have just made a mental note: Guess we hit a nerve with that topic, where Gayle's concerned. Wonder why.
(and I'm sure many watching the show made this mental note).

[pollystyrene]

I don't watch the show regularly enough to form a fair opinion of Gayle, but from the recent episode with Dr. Laura Berman, about talking to your kids about sex, I don't think very highly of her. When Dr. Berman suggested that parent's buy or enable their daughters to buy vibrators, "Gayle and some of the moms in the audience were totally freaked out by this. Gayle said it was "too much information," but the whole point of the show was that kids are learning about sex in other places anyway, so parents should take the wheel and edify their spawn themselves to ensure they are getting accurate information."

I mean, even Oprah admonished her for her reaction.

[chachaheels]

that's exactly what i ask of the opposition; name your funders, name you unbiased medical professionals involved in the research, construct an optimal study, reveal your data, and correctly interpret that data. i can find many solid studies debunking the link that also fulfill these criteria (the "headline" i cited was obtained via the CDC, not joe-schmoe blog or vaccinesareconspiracy.com, with multiple academic institutions behind the reasarch).

In total agreement here, though I'm on the opposite side of this issue from you. Sorry, I just see it all the time: so many kids completely healthy before vaccines; after vaccines, autism, or severe asthma, or infections that never heal from the site of the vaccine (which predispose the body to other infection). If I choose a remedy for them that is known for treating ailments resulting from vaccination as well as for everything else that is relevant in the child's case, we can make a hell of a lot of progress, even in supposedly "incurable" ailments like Autism. That being said, the only time I ever advise parents not to vaccinate is when a clear correlation can be made between deteriorating health and vaccination as the etiology of the disease. In every other case, I give information on resources available. Journals that can be accessible (many of them are decidedly unavailable to the public--and many should be discredited, lets face it) as well as sources of information about the vaccines themselves, parents' groups, etc. etc. People have to make their own decisions about this issue, but they need good information to do this. They need to learn about the debate before entering it.

And good science, as I say, supports both sides. However, I did say (and I will always say) that the media has always played this issue short, and one sided: big Pharma has a hell of a lot to lose here, and media is protecting their interests (because their interests are always shared). Oprah is not the reason for this, but she does do a great job of making sure the debate never gets underway.

and, like you suggest, and like phil donahue supposedly did,

No, Phil never really did this--he knew he had limited time and the debate wouldn't really go far, he only had an hour to spend on air, too. However, he did provide a lot of information on resources so that YOU could go out and make up your own mind when researching it, whatever it was.

i'm also going to avoid dragging this out in this thread, since there are so many other oprah-related things to choose from. i'll start: gayle. discuss.

Hee hee. I love you COCL. I'll start the response: Gayle is one lucky bitch, and proof of "it's all about who you know" as a law of nature.

[thirtiesgirl]

I just thought I'd throw another opinion about Oprah in the mix. It doesn't come from me, although I support it whole-heartedly, and doesn't have any relation to the current discussion, but I think it's an interesting and valid opinion nonetheless. Worth a read.

[crazyoldcatlady]

cocl: there are millions of valid and thorough studies on both sides of that whole issue--you're citing a headline from one that is con on the issue (and we should all be asking who paid for the study, who conducted it, what were the conditions and variables, let's see more than the abstract of the study but also the complete methodology, summary article and findings...etc. etc. etc.) My point isn't one against you--it's that media have made us so used to being complacent just by naming a study with a fancy university behind it. We have to be prepared to dig deeper to find out what was really studied and how, and who paid for the study--what results did they want to get.

that's exactly what i ask of the opposition; name your funders, name you unbiased medical professionals involved in the research, construct an optimal study, reveal your data, and correctly interpret that data. i can find many solid studies debunking the link that also fulfill these criteria (the "headline" i cited was obtained via the CDC, not joe-schmoe blog or vaccinesareconspiracy.com, with multiple academic institutions behind the reasarch).

and, like you suggest, and like phil donahue supposedly did, it would be great to have two equally legitimate conflicting studies go head to head, but i have yet to find a convincing and appropriate study that argues the link between autism and vaccines effectively and correctly. i'm throwing it out there; someone get me a good study. these aren't fighting words, i really would like to see one.

i'm also going to avoid dragging this out in this thread, since there are so many other oprah-related things to choose from. i'll start: gayle. discuss.

[pollystyrene]

An article from Jezebel about Oprah's response to the recent criticisms.

[girltrouble]

um, cha? i lurve you.

[chachaheels]

All of that being said, I can understand some the criticism of the episodes involving controversial medical practices. Personally, I usually don't watch those episodes, but when I have they were not as balanced as I would like. It's one thing to be biased or soft when you're interviewing a movie star who is promoting a new movie. It's another thing when you present a controversial medical treatment & only give the other side 2 minutes to defend their opposing view. That's just dangerous. And that's why I usually don't watch those episodes.

Precisely.

Oprah gets a lot of ad money from Pharmaceutical corporations. You'll never see a real debate on any health care issue on any of her shows. It would be great if she could be a resource--or a link to resources--that would help people get access to the scads of studies and articles on each side of every one of those debates (hell, Phil Donahue used to do just that, and his talk show was the model Oprah likes to quote as the blueprint for her own...). But that is not what she's about. If you're old enough to remember the Phil Donahue show and exactly how different it was in nature to what Oprah's become, you'd know what I'm talking about.


cocl: there are millions of valid and thorough studies on both sides of that whole issue--you're citing a headline from one that is con on the issue (and we should all be asking who paid for the study, who conducted it, what were the conditions and variables, let's see more than the abstract of the study but also the complete methodology, summary article and findings...etc. etc. etc.) My point isn't one against you--it's that media have made us so used to being complacent just by naming a study with a fancy university behind it. We have to be prepared to dig deeper to find out what was really studied and how, and who paid for the study--what results did they want to get.

As for the book club: she bought a publishing empire, people, in a country where practically NO ONE READS. She has to make it profitable somehow--the book club idea is ingenious for that. In my mind, there's nothing wrong with promoting good writing, and reading.

What she did to "discredit" James Frey, however, when it was "discovered" that he wrote a confessional narrative in which he (shock! horror! literary tradition!) embellished with not-quite-fact in his book was utter, complete bullshit showmanship. But, hey, she was trying to keep a best selling book on the best seller list and she had to do something spectacular and sensationalist to accomplish that. Mission accomplished--and, true to her word I'm sure, she let Frey publish another book with her firm (though if she'd really been as shocked and betrayed as she wanted us to believe she was, he'd have been finished as a writer anywhere).

[Persiflager]

*delurks*

cocl, didn't one of the follow-up studies also analyse the errors in the original study that led it to falsely conclude that there was a significant correlation?

*relurks, 'cos I don't watch Oprah*

[roseviolet]

I don't have a problem with the book club, either. Frankly, the people who poo-poo it sound elitist to me. I have never read a book just because Oprah put it on her book club, but I've become more interested in a few titles because I heard about the books or saw an interview with the author on Oprah's show. There are a number of books that I've read because I heard about them here on Bust or from other areas & then that book later became a part of Oprah's book club. So am I somehow a better person just because I heard about the book from a different source? If I'd heard about the book from Oprah instead, would that suddenly invalidate the impact the book had on me?

As for "mindless consumerism", can't you say that about everything on television? Even shows on PBS have some product placement involved. But just because some guy on The Victory Garden gushes about some new variety of plant, that doesn't mean I have to buy it, just like I don't have to buy any products that appear on Oprah. The consumer must be responsible for her own actions.

And yes, there is going to be some simplification of the issues. That is because the show is only an hour long (probably closer to 40 minutes once you remove the commercial breaks). I don't know of any important topic that can be covered fully is such a short period of time.

All of that being said, I can understand some the criticism of the episodes involving controversial medical practices. Personally, I usually don't watch those episodes, but when I have they were not as balanced as I would like. It's one thing to be biased or soft when you're interviewing a movie star who is promoting a new movie. It's another thing when you present a controversial medical treatment & only give the other side 2 minutes to defend their opposing view. That's just dangerous. And that's why I usually don't watch those episodes.

I, for one, think that Oprah is trying to accomplish something good in the world. You may not like the way she's doing it, but I think that at least some of her actions are motivated by a desire to do good.

[crazyoldcatlady]

Even if I was a really big Oprah fan, I wouldn't read a book just because it had her book club sticker on it. What bothers me is that there are people out there who would. What about having your own taste in books? It's one thing to take notice of what she has listed on the book club, read the description of it and decide whether or not to read it. It's another to blindly go out and get the book just because Oprah wants you to

.

the thing that saddens me most about the book club is the untold numbers of oprah fans that bought the books but didn't read them.

eta:

vaccines and autism literature review

additional studies:

A November 2002 study by CDC and the Danish Medical Research Council that followed more than 500,000 children over 7 years and found no association between MMR vaccination and autism. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An April 2006 study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of NIH and the CDC assessed data from 351 children with autism spectrum disorders and 31 typically-developing children. The study did not find a link between MMR vaccination and autism. The results were pubished in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[eyelet]

Briefly going off-topic here. Great thread idea--plenty to work with.

here's the thing about vaccines and autism, how many of us did get the MMR vaccine and *didn't* get autism.

M

I'm not anti-vaccine but a lot of people don't realize that the MMR that coincided (coincidentally or not) with the rise in autism was a very different formula than what we were given as kids (as detailed in this article if you're interested).

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/olmsted...-shot.html#more

[missladyj]

word cha cha!

it's funny that I agree with everything you said . The only time we watch her show is to listen to see if the music hubby sold her is played. Royalty checks are nice.

[girltrouble]

i don't have a problem with the book clubs. it's how you learn what you like. i learned about film via film classes, which, if you strip everything away is just a movie club, where you are handed/shown a gaggle of movies that the teacher likes, and they tell you why you should like them. if you have a good teacher they tell you your tastes are valid, but a bit of education is a good thing. while that last part is often missing with oprah, very few people read too many books they dislike, and eventually they learn what their tastes are, and the book club will fall away. i think you have give people credit to not do things they dislike. but let people have their training wheels. sooner or later they will lose them.

[sybarite]

I guess my bottom line is the more people read good books, books which challenge them or make them think, the better. I don't live in the US so I don't know if all the books in Oprah's book club are thoughtful, intelligent reads, but if even some of them are it's better that more people read good books, no?

My problem with celebrity book clubs is that we live in a culture where the celebrity stamp on a book is enough for someone to go and buy it, rather than seek out new books on their own. But saying that, I would love more time to look for new books but currently don't have it--which is why I use the Reader thread here for recommendations.

The biggest problem with Oprah is perhaps that once she celebrates anything--a book, a dubious health product or plan, anything--it instantly becomes a commodity. In that sense her show is no more than a long infomercial, which is a crappy use of her considerable power IMO. But as GT says, when that power is used for good, good things can come of it.

[culturehandy]

I should clarify my book club thing, the only reason some people went out and bought the books is because Oprah says so. It is a double edged sword however, because she did bring some authors some incredible publicity. I suppose it's more an issue with the classics. People didn't read these books until Oprah said someone should.

Just as CCG said, some people wouldn't buy until it was endorsed by her or had her sticker on it.

[candycane_girl]

I just wanted to pipe in on the book club thing. I don't know if it's quite the same as what CH was saying but my issue with the book club is that, just like with a lot of products, people would go out and buy it simply because Oprah told them they should.

Even if I was a really big Oprah fan, I wouldn't read a book just because it had her book club sticker on it. What bothers me is that there are people out there who would. What about having your own taste in books? It's one thing to take notice of what she has listed on the book club, read the description of it and decide whether or not to read it. It's another to blindly go out and get the book just because Oprah wants you to.

[girltrouble]

while i agree with you in large part, cha, i have to defend the O.

the things that she has done for the trans community have been astounding, and have made life for trans children, and trans people in general much better. yes, she has trannys on to hawk their books, but those books are picked up, read change the minds of many people who would be freaked out by the idea of a trans child, or spouse. if there is one counter to the dsm, and the sick psychiatric community who insist upon being the gatekeepers for a community that they loathe and are loathe to understand just to make a buck, it is the sort of exposure trans people have gotten on oprah's shows.

i cannot say the same for the queer (lgb) community however, with her pushing of the gay/straight binary, but i don't really worry about them generally, since they care very little about my community when the rubber hits the road. that said, i do agree with you. look at her tepid support of obama-- a candidate she "believes in." she did a little work, but when she started getting push back from right wing pundits and polling showed they didn't like her being political, she retreated. no, she likes her little empire, and doesn't want to risk losing it. i think it might be asking a bit much for her to look at things too closely, after all, she is the establishment.