Oprah Has Best Ratings Week In Almost Three Years

A string of big guests gave Oprah her best ratings week in nearly three years.

"The Oprah Winfrey Show" drew a 6.1 rating from Nov. 7th-14th. That's the highest rated week for the show since February 2008. The week included the four highest rated episodes of the season, which featured Michael Jackson's mother Katharine, Oprah's former talk show rivals, Marie Osmond and George W. Bush, respectively. The Jackson episode won the prize for top rated episode of all, with a 6.7 rating.

The show remained the most watched talk show in syndication for the 602nd week in a row.

Comments

[CindyLA]

04:59 PM on 12/10/2010

I'm very disappointed in Oprah.. won't watch her show again. Didn't see the LMP, LMP & her mom shows trashing MJ. I became aware of those after seeing the recent "Lisa Marie" & "Katherine" shows.
When watch. those interviews, I noticed instead of focus. on MJ's endless humanitarian work, enorm. talent, or amazing personaltiy, O wanted to discuss his drug use, plastic surg. & the child molest. cases.
She pondered on those, instead of focus. on ALL THE GOOD abt. MJ. HE WAS THE VICTIM of two, very evil, vicious extort. attempts, at the hands of people he'd taken into his heart & into his life. Malicious, terrible lies were spread abt. him, causing him great pain & humility beyond belief, destroy. the man that he was.
Yrs. of FBI surveill. of him found nothing (started invest. aft. death threats against him in 1992 & cont. many yrs). Nothing incriminating was found during two extensive searches of his Neverland Ranch, (1993 & 2003). More law enforc. were used dur. the 2003 search than were ever used for any murder or serial killer invest. in the US.
There're far too many facts to mention here, that VALIDATE MJ's INNOCENCE (both cases) & NOTHING to valid. his guilt but the word of evil, money-hungry liars.
Still so many WANT to believe him guilty, including O. Why? The state of the human race is sad enough w/out hav. people w/ wealth, power & high status, using their standing in society to perpetuate filth

[CCinOC]

07:40 PM on 12/06/2010

The Dominic Cascio family appeared on Winfrey's show today to uncontrovertably dismiss the allegations and state forcefully that Michael Jackson was not a child molester. Michael was a friend of the Cascio family for over 25 years, since the boys were 3 and 5, and stayed with them many times in their home in suburban New Jersey. More and more people are coming forward to declare that Michael Jackson could not possibly have been a child molester. Haters! Take note!

[Mark Mcevoy63]

05:07 AM on 12/05/2010

In direct contradict­ion to writer Maureen Orth's claims see below:

Photos contradict Michael's accuser USA TODAY Jan 28, 1994:

"The boy's civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy's lawyers say the
settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though
prosecutor­s cannot force him to testify against his will. Reuters news service reported
Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptio­ns given by
the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct­. If so, this could weaken any
possible criminal actions against the singer..."

In 1993: Reuters, USA Today, News Press and the Orlando Sun Sentinel
in late January 1994, all carried reports that confirmed the non-match of the photos and
Chandler's descriptio­n.

Reuters itself: “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptio­ns given
by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct­.”

Orlando Sun Sentinel, “[police] photograph­s of Michael Jackson’s genitals,
which the pop superstar said deeply embarrasse­d him, may end up being his
salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child molestatio­n."

After these initial reports, the media did not report these crucial facts.

In 1997, Diane Dimond reported an untrue story that Jackson had molested his own
nephew. Jackson sued the originator of this story and won $ 2.7 million in damages.

And in 2004, Diane Dimond widely reported on 'love letters' that were strangely never
entered into evidence in the 2005 trial.

Those letters did not exist.

[Mark Mcevoy63]

05:38 AM on 12/05/2010

This process of misinforma­tion, in some cases simply lazy, copy and paste journalism
in others deliberate obscufication, was a constant and common thread throughout
Jackson's life -- and it still continues today.


Whether it's down to people like Ms Winfrey to rebalance the clear injustice of this is
debatable. In some senses it is not her remit.


Regardless­, the injustice extended towards Michael Jackson stands as fact.

[Lo Mjjackson]

11:24 AM on 12/02/2010

Over the years I have loved O l but was very disturbed and hurt when I felt she disrespected Michael Jackson the most kindest most loving Legend ever to walk our planet. I will not watch her new program until she faces this issues with class and respect.
How she disrespected him through the years.
The day after “Living With Michael Jackson” aired, Oprah's plan was to discuss a different topic, but she couldn't resist talking about Michael. She began by saying, “This show isn't about Michael Jackson but OMG, did y'all see the documentary yesterday?” Then she and her audience talked about Michael for the entire show. She turned straight to the camera and directed a personal message to Michael saying, “Michael, if you were my brother, I'd say to you that it's not appropriate to have kids sleep in your bed." She then urged guests to malign Michael and laughed heartily at their disrespect. She asked several people about their opinions about the trial and Michael, when Michael wasn't even the topic of the show.
As Randy Jackson has stated, during jury deliberations, she aired a show about pedophilia.
Larry King once asked her if she felt sorry for Michael. She smiled slightly before saying, "No." You had to have seen the look on her face. Clearly, she indicated she thought Michael was guilty.
Of course, we all know how she bookended her shows with the Jacksons with programs about pedophilia.

MICHAEL'S ARMY OF LOVE

[Cecelia Quarles]

04:01 PM on 12/01/2010

Michael Jackson life love and murder, is a glaring reflective proof of that evil is alive and kicking in this world. Make no mistake about it MJ was murdered, systematically, methodically and gradually. When MJ acquired Sony Publishing and Music Catalogs the witch hunt began. because he was much more intelligent and strong than the evil bargained for (stupid-he has been the business since before some of them were born, and if they were born, they were so used to the music bus. system of exploiting artists/musicians for their talent and then keeing all the ownership/publishing so that they will continue to get paid for writing/music they had nothing to do with creating. MJ knew all about this. He knew what they were going to try to do before they did it. The hatred and fear that killed MJ is as old as the hills. It just blows my mind how many people now are seeing and defending MJs pure goodness. He never ever possessed the dimented evil it takes to hurt or molest a child in anyway. I have loved The J5 and MJ since 1969, why did MJ have to die for people to start to get it ?? What a world Please read:
http:://musicmichaelandme.blogspot.com or Google Search Music, Michael and me...Memoir of A Life Fan, not fanatic...
It will help to heal, surprise, enlighjten and educate you on MJ and the part we played in his murder...

[nan f]

02:49 PM on 12/01/2010

bottom line is i am sick of oprah and he antics..i dont have to defend jackson ,his defense proved his innocence on every count in a court of law by twelve conservative white and hispanic jurors.
if oprah keeps disrespecting him and going all tabloid , she is off my radar

[nan f]

02:33 PM on 12/01/2010

recently an elementary school that had covered michaels name when the accusations came out uncovered his name because it was a travesty as the man was completely vindicated...if a school could see tehr truth surely oprah can too. she just doesnt want to.
i had tuned into the remembering michael show and was very disturbed that she mentioned nothing but tabloid junk leaving out all his humanatarian works , instead once again stressing the false allegations.
if she doesnt like the guy , that is one thing but stop piggybacking a sagging show on michaels shoulders.
jackson has a fan base world wide that recognizes his musical genuis but even moresos his humanatarian works.
just because winfrey repeatedly like to paint him in a negative light does not mean people cant see through her..

[Mark Mcevoy63]

10:11 PM on 11/30/2010

This process of misinformation, in some cases lazy, ' copy and paste ' journalism
and in some deliberate obscuficat ion, was a constant and common thread throughout
Jackson's life -- and it still continues today.

Whether it's down to people like Oprah to rebalance the clear injustice of this is debatable.

In some senses it is not her remit.

Regardless, the injustice extended towards Michael Jackson stands as fact.

[Mark Mcevoy63]

09:08 PM on 11/30/2010

In direct contradiction to writer Maureen Orth's claims see below:

Photos contradict Michael's accuser USA TODAY Jan 28, 1994:

"The boy's civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy's lawyers say the
settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though
prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will. Reuters news service reported
Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by
the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any
possible criminal actions against the singer..."

In 1993: Reuters, USA Today, News Press and the Orlando Sun Sentinel
in late January 1994, all carried reports that confirmed the non-match of the photos and
Chandler's description.

Reuters itself: “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given
by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.”

Orlando Sun Sentinel, “[police] photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals,
which the pop superstar said deeply embarrassed him, may end up being his
salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child molestation."

After these initial reports, the media did not report these crucial facts.

In 1997, Diane Dimond reported an untrue story that Jackson had molested his own
nephew. Jackson sued the originator of this story and won $ 2.7 million in damages.

And in 2004, Diane Dimond widely reported on ' love letters' that were strangely never
entered into evidence in the 2005 trial.

Those letters did not exist.

[Mark Mcevoy63]

09:53 PM on 11/30/2010

This process of misinformation, in some cases lazy, ' copy and paste ' journalism
and in some deliberate obscufication, was a constant and common thread throughout
Jackson's life -- and it still continues today.

Whether it's down to people like Oprah to rebalance the clear injustice of this is debatable.
In some senses it is not her remit.

Regardless, the injustice extended towards Michael Jackson stands as fact.

[Mark Mcevoy63]

10:10 PM on 11/30/2010

This process of misinforma tion, in some cases lazy, ' copy and paste ' journalism
and in some deliberate obscuficat ion, was a constant and common thread throughout
Jackson's life -- and it still continues today.

Whether it's down to people like Oprah to rebalance the clear injustice of this is debatable.

In some senses it is not her remit.

Regardless, the injustice extended towards Michael Jackson stands as fact.

[nan f]

07:04 PM on 11/30/2010

i watched a few shows she did on michael jackson and was disappointed because she always seems to go toward tabloid fodder.
this man was one of the greatest humanitarians the world has ever seen and a musical genius. yet she talks about his children, surgery and the allegations he was completely vindicated of
.surely her staff knows how to research court documents. why does she continually use her platform to perpetuate salacious stories that were proved false in a court of law.
facts are facts and that is why a conservative jury dismissed every single count including the 4 misdemeanors the judge threw in.
perhaps she should do a story on an ambitious , and bigoted district atty trying to take down a very wealthy black man.
this was definately a malicious prosecution by govt official with a vendetta
a govt official who knew their was exculpatory evidence and was told he was infringing on mr jackson civil rights by the very group he had follow jackson fora decade that found no evidence of wrong doing..the f.b.i..

although i think oprah knows a thing or two about grudges and vendetta and evidently michael jackson is on her list but doesn't mind using him as a sort of rating cash cow..

i think the other story gives her more ratings so she sticks with that , but i have lost a lot of respect for he i no longer find her to be fair minded

[lcpledwards]

05:09 PM on 11/30/2010

continued.....

5. Toocoldcut, another thing that confirms MJ’s innocence is the fact that Jordie told the FBI in 2004 that if Sneddon subpoenaed him to testify against MJ, he would take legal action to stop it. In fact, he told that FBI that he had “done his part”. Is that consistent with a “victim”? What kind of “victim” threatens legal action to AVOID testifying in court against the person who they claimed molested them? And before you try to rationalize his decision by saying he wanted to avoid the media attention, let me tell you that Mesereau said he had witnesses ready to testify against Jordie! Jordie was afraid of being cross examined, and he even said that to Dr. Abrahms in his interview on October 16th, 1993! (Not surprisingly, Jordie’s uncle Ray Chandler also threatened legal action to squash his subpoena in 2004, and he won because he hid behind the California Journalist Shield law, claiming that he was a “journalist’ when he published “All that Glitters”, which was ghost-written by Evan Chandler!)

6. I would recommend that you visit the blog http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/ and read through some of the posts, and if you have questions we’ll answer them! I’m one of the administrators of the blog, and I can respectfully refute Orth and Dimond’s claims!

[lcpledwards]

05:08 PM on 11/30/2010

continued.....

David Nordahl, MJ’s personal painter who has worked closely with him for over 20 years, confirmed Evan’s attempt become a 50% partner in MJ’s film company:

“I was working on sketches for his film production company, called “Lost Boys Productions”….Sony had given him (Michael) $40 million to start this production company and that little boy’s dad (Evan Chandler), who considered himself to be show business material, because he had written part of a script….after that he considered himself a Hollywood screenwriter, and being friends with Michael and his son being friends with Michael, this guy had assumed that Michael was going to make him a partner in this film production company and that’s where the $20 million figure came from. He wanted ½ of that Sony money. It was proven. It was an extortion. Michael listened to his business advisors and they all told him to keep his mouth shut and to go on to Korea, go on with your tour, you’re in the middle of a tour. We’ll take care of it….”

You can hear the entire interview here:
http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html

[lcpledwards]

05:07 PM on 11/30/2010

4. Evan Chandler has a motive for extorting MJ! It wasn’t a situation where Jordie claimed to be molested, and then Evan just decided to extort him for a movie deal instead of prosecuting him. In May 1993, he told MJ he wanted to be a 50% partner in MJ’s “Lost Boys Productions”, which Sony had given him $40 million dollars to start. When MJ rejected Evan’s offer, MJ withdrew from him, and that deeply offended Evan, which he mentioned in his taped phone call to Dave Schwartz:
MR. CHANDLER: I respected him and
22 everything else for what he is, you know. There
23 was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He
24 could have called me.
25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
168
1 MR. CHANDLER: In fact, Dave, I — you
2 ask Jordy. I sat in the room one day, and I talked
3 to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of
4 this whole relationship, what I want [tape
5 irregularity], okay, so he wouldn’t have to figure
6 me out.

[lcpledwards]

05:06 PM on 11/30/2010

continued........

2. You emphasize the amount of the settlement, as if that has any relevance. For example, you mentioned Oprah’s $70k settlement (which proves to me that you must be an Oprah insider, otherwise how else would you know that?), yet if MJ had settlem for “only” $70k, you would STILL perceive it as a sign of guilt! You’d say “I wouldn’t pay my accuser a dime if I was innocent!”.
3. You said that just because it was extortion, it doesn’t mean he was innocent because there are parents who are willing to accept millions of dollars over justice. But the two are NOT mutually exclusive; Evan Chandler could have prosecuted MJ and put him in jail, and THEN sued him and won, so why didn’t he do that? Why didn’t he just go straight to the cops, instead of bringing Jordie to see a shrink when June Chadler won custody of him on August 17, 1993?

[toocoldout]

07:15 PM on 11/30/2010

I'm not an insider and I have no inside information. I simply googled the law suit against Oprah you cited and it appears they were suing her for around $70K:

http://news.tvoneonline.com/scandal/oprah-settles-latest-lawsuit-8281.htm

And I never said Oprah settled for $70 K, I said "the lawsuit Oprah settled was for $70,000". If the law suit was for $70K, I imagine the settlement itself would be much much less, otherwise there would be little point in setteling.

[lcpledwards]

05:05 PM on 11/30/2010

toocoldcut:
Your logic is totally flawed, so I'll briefly rebut your talking points. Your argument is that despite all of the exculpatory evidence that the fans provide you, it is cancelled out by the likes of Orth and Dimond, so therefore you will stick your head in the sand and treat it all equally, instead of taking the time to thoroughly evaluate everything and see that Orth and Dimond’s “research” is false and full of lies and insinuations. You’re giving them too much credit!

This comment will consist of several parts due to it’s length.
1. You keep using MJ's settlement as a sign of guilt, and the funny thing is that you keep getting the amount wrong, which is indicative of your lack of research! You keep saying it was $25 million, when it was only $15.3 million. That is the amount paid by the INSURANCE COMPANY, not MJ! Yes, Aphrodite Jones is right as far as MJ being advised to settle, but ultimately it was the insurance company’s decision to pay the settlement above MJ’s objections. That doesn’t mean that they put a gun to his head and forced him to sing the settlement, but it means that MJ didn’t approve of it but nevertheless consented. They paid the $15.3 million in 5 installments, ending in 1999.