Oprah's Big Oprah: You Will Be Inspired... or Else
Until recently, I didn't face much bitter indignation when I chose to write stuff that poked fun at the Divine Miss "O"; most visitors to my little corner of the internet, understanding what they were getting themselves into by being there, either played along with my light-hearted mockery, waited it out until I had something slightly less juvenile to say, or just went away.
But with a broadening audience comes new points-of-view, and there's no getting around the fact that, more and more, I find myself in the crosshairs of those for whom a slight against Oprah is nothing less than blasphemy. The arguments are always the same: she's done so much for the world; she's a force for good; the ever-popular "you're just jealous"; and of course the gauntlet-throwdown that demands to know what I've done in my life that's worthwhile. (This is invariably followed with "besides make crude jokes on a blog" -- the exclamatory "blog" oozing the kind of contempt and condescension usually reserved for words like "queer" or "NASCAR," depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon line you happen to live.)
I admit that I've never understood the allure of Oprah.
In addition to the fact that the eternal subversive in me demands that no authority figure be beyond reproach -- and let's face it, Oprah has been anointed the ultimate authority on anything and everything in our culture -- I really am of the opinion that her affinity for annexing even the most authentically vital art, repackaging it as she sees fit, then spitting it back out to her legion of frenzied, 28-Days-Later-style zombie soccer-mom acolytes is nothing more than a gruesome form of self-obsession. Of course we are talking about a woman who blithely puts her own face on the cover of every issue of her magazine, so, go figure.
But while the arguments challenging the Oprah-as-Jesus sententia could fill a studio audience, it's the talk show queen's brand new venture that, ironically, just might highlight the strongest of them.
A few days ago, my wife and I were watching TV when a commercial flashed across the screen promoting Oprah's latest philanthrotainment extravaganza, Oprah's Big Give -- which premiered last night on ABC. The premise of the show involves Oprah handing out a truckload of money to those less fortunate than her (anyone basically), but with a catch: the nouveau riche then have to turn around and spend the cash on those less fortunate than them. At one point in the ad, Oprah leans into the camera as if sharing a delicious secret with the seven-million people ostensibly watching; she whispers the show's real twist -- that when it's all over, the person deemed to have done the "most good" with the grant will win a million dollars. (I presume he or she gets to keep that money.)
Needless to say, this mammoth monetary prize will come as a huge shock to the winner, provided he or she has never seen one of these shows before and has no idea who Oprah is.
While I won't argue with the good that Oprah's Big Give will probably do -- helping people who need it is inarguably commendable and maybe the end will always justify the means in a case like this -- it's the messianic bombast with which Oprah goes about every one of these altruistic endeavors that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I get that I'm considered more cynical than most, but I can't be the only one who notices that Oprah's good deeds, as with all her other deeds, never seem to be done outside the presence of a phalanx of cameras. A tendency toward philanthropy-as-photo-op alone should be enough to raise questions as to who benefits most each and every time Oprah decides to play Santa Claus. Likewise, there's the Oprah "brand" -- the one that ensures you never have to wonder, even for a second, who to thank for all the glorious largess. When Oprah inexorably attaches her name to books, magazines, self-help gurus, chefs, presidential candidates and so on, it's irritating but somewhat understandable from a business point of view; when she slaps that giant "O" on an act that, in theory, is supposed to be selfless -- in the case of the new show, making her name the very first thing in the title -- it automatically ceases to be completely free of self-interest. Quite the opposite.
By broadcasting every benevolent impulse to the world with all the subtlety of a WWE cage match, she ensures more great PR which strengthens her empire which brings in more money for her, the TV networks lucky enough to be associated with her -- basically everyone involved.
There's of course an argument to be made that Oprah's over-the-top brand of philanthropy inspires the masses and encourages them to go and do likewise. Once again, perhaps the end justifies the means -- but it doesn't change the means. Oprah's still getting rich every time she pulls one of these stunts.
After the commercial was over the other night, I turned to my wife and asked her, "Do you like Oprah? I mean, am I the only jerk in the world who has a problem with her?"
Her response: "I look at Oprah the way I look at Christianity or the Grateful Dead. I don't necessarily have a problem with her, it's her fans -- the ones who do whatever she says."
She's absolutely right. It's the Oprah Nation that elevates everything tagged with Oprah's name to zeitgeist levels, treats any silly whim of hers as gospel, and makes her millions in the process.
Oprah's multi-media hegemony is based on ensuring that the fans get what they want -- Oprah.
She's just making the best of the situation, which is all well and good -- until she starts making the best of someone else's bad situation.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Oprah is setting an example by giving away as much as she does--an example to all those who have so much (and there are a lot of these people out there) but who give, dollar-for-dollar, so much less than she does. On the other hand (and I could get in trouble here, since I'm not an Oprah show watcher), giving people lots of money often ends with them in a worst state than they were before they got the money. I think if Oprah really wants to help people, give them the tools to *manage* their money *first*, then give them a wad of cash and watch what happens. She probably wouldn't even have to give as much as a result. How many horror stories have we heard about lottery winners who were in the poor house one year later? Giving away stuff to people requires thought and effort. You can't just do it and expect everyone to walk off happily into the sunset. And insofar as the manner in which she does her public giving, she's in *show business*. It would be fiscally irresponsible for her to go about it significantly differently from the way she is now.
That said, there's no telling what Oprah does under the radar in the way of helping those less fortunate. I'd like to think that she's doing various things that don't get publicity, funding this or that non-profit or social program, helping to remedy some social ill here or there. I do find it odd that the only person ever to grace the covers of O magazine is herself. What IS that about? There is an oddness to her strain of vanity, but I think it unlikely there's anything malevolent about it.
I think you should keep on questioning those in authority, Mr. Pazienza. It's your job, on our behalf, even if you might get it wrong (and don't let the Opraphiles get you down).
Thank you. THANK YOU.
I was having this exact discussion, as I have many times now, almost to the word with my friends at dinner last week, and it is as if you snatched every word from my mouth. My opinion of, and my reaction to, Oprah is exactly that of yours. I do NOT understand the control or influence this woman is able to wield over our country, nay, the world. It utterly boggles the mind. Many people manage to give away large amounts of money, often in amounts much larger than her (Gates, Buffett, etc), yet none seem to require the adulation and fanfare that Oprah requires at the drop of every dollar into a bank account other than her own. Do people not see that Oprah makes more money from many or her "charitible" ventures than she actual spends? Yes, she does do good. But it is never without anything to gain, whether intentional or simply by circumstance.
With regards to "The Big Give," it seems to be just one big celebration of Oprah, built to feed her ego as well as the bottom line sales of all of the obnoxiously product-placed sponsors. Doing good seems to be a mere afterthought, mere gravy on the "all about me" steaming plate that is any of Oprah's supposed philanthropic undertakings. Do people not see that $2M is nothing to Oprah? In relation to her wealth, that would be like any of us handing spare change to a needy individual on the street. Also, I highly doubt a penny of Oprah's money can be found in that $2M; I mean, do you really think that the money was not provided by the sponsors? Oprah herself probably received some exorbinant backroom payment in order to play host to this spectacle because everyone knows wherever she goes also goes and audience of 70 million sycophants. Yes, Oprah's drone army of consumers, ready to plunk down their money for whatever product (often questionable in quality, if not out an out fraudulant - from the flunky experts she promotes to the books of questionable merit or authenticity) Oprah commands them to buy. And of course, this is where the sponsors come in...
Oprah does many charitable things that she never reports, and how can she really be criticized for anything when she uses her platform to support books like Eckart Tolle's, "A New Earth?" If there's anyone with as much influence doing as much good for people as Oprah, name them. And out of all the talk show hosts to come and go, she has remained relevant for millions of people who watch. Her reality show isn't about her--it's not cameras following her around her house while she makes tea and does other zany antics, it's not about people stranded in a house or on an island or fighting in lycra suits or dancing in a dance war, it's about giving and changing someone's life, and the contest is about how efficiently can people be philanthropic...the most efficient philanthropist wins...not the person who was booted out by a vote or by deceptive politics/ 'alliances.'
I saw an interview with a woman that I believe used to be a Fortune 500 executive. She retired (from a rather hefty salary and cushy lifestyle) and dedicated her life to educating the less fortunate in Africa by moving there and establishing a charity that builds schools all over the continent.
She was interviewed after Oprah built her "Leadership Academy" for 10's (if not 100's) of millions of dollars. The woman smiled and then mentioned that while her heart seemed to be in the right place, Oprah didn't have a clue. The money that Oprah donated to build one academy could have been used to build 2500 (or possibly 25000, I can't remember) schools.
I think that's Oprah in a microcosm. She has lost all touch on reality; she goes in to help by making a big splash...and totally misses the point. Good intentions only get you so far.
I have worked with a South African education non-government organization since the late 90s, and I, like the woman you saw interviewed, had the same reaction. After visiting townships and small villages that had schools made of crumbling stucco/adobe like materials and metal roofs, the amount of money Oprah spent on that one, supersized and ostentatious boarding school, could have built many much needed school buildings in underprivileged towns, paid for many promising students to become teachers and benefitted thousands of S. African girls (and boys). But there wouldn't be the hooplah, nor the self service of the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy title that would cause world attention. And the title itself is rather insulting--Africa and especially South Africa has many black women who have been legendary leaders and it would have been so appropriate to have named the school for one of them, but then, that wouldn't be self serving.
No doubt this does some good, but the greatest good is when one performs philanthropic acts and no one knows about it....don't think that will happen with Miss O.
She's done a million times more good than you ever will, so why are you even questioning it?
She has lost all touch on reality; she goes in to help by making a big splash...and totally misses the point. Good intentions only get you so far.
*********************************************************************************
.....and she endorses Obama, who's own approach is pretty similar.
I was prepared to not like the Big Give - the promos made it sound like a silly venture - a cross between a scavenger hunt and the old tv show The Millionaire - rush around and give money to a needy person, with swelling sappy music. But - I do think the show managed to show that philanthropy and a reality show do mix. The contestants had $2,500 - but their task was to help find solutions to help the needy person. This was the good part of the show - the contestants had to think of ways to access help and this is where the show could be a model for ordinary citizens. One woman, with three young children, was a recent widow, her husband shot randomly while at work. The contestants rallied her neighbours, her church, her community to give support to this family - in a way that any friend could do. Hopefully people watching the show will realize that there are ways to help - and that it only takes some inspiration and community effort. Let's face it - there is lots of work to be done - and the more that we all help, the better for all.......
So, although I'm not an Opraholic, I did think her show is a reality show worth watching.........
Howard Stern used to have a black male listener who would leave messages on his machine that always went something like: "Oprah Winfrey...negro woman of the south..when are you gonna get real girl..?" Stern would play these snippets and they were hilarious. The guy was calling her out on being a fake, white wannabe. Which makes you wonder what motivates her? Is she so emotionally scarred that she feels the need to make up for it by becoming the most famous person on earth? I mean, we live in a capitalist society where making money seems to be the object, and the 'Oprahnatics' perhaps live in constant hope that she will toss a new car their way. Whatever. I've learned one thing about life, and that is all is not what it appears and there is a great leveller somewhere, who decides that you've had too much of a good time and then throws something at you to wake you up. I'm not suggesting I wish anything negative for the woman, I just hopes that deep down, she doesn't believe her own press, cause thats when her jet just might develop engine trouble. Keep it real 'O'.
What's not to love?
I don't watch daytime TV - but who can live in America and not know what the Big O is up to this week.
She seems to be a thoughtful celebrity who is trying to use her success to help others. She seems to work overtime trying to reinvest in America and Africa.
Although I consider Africa a lost cause - [Africans + penicillin = disaster for every other living thing]
I understand the instinct to spread sunshine where ever you can - and if I were that rich, I'm sure I would be doing the same thing.... it's not any different than spreading your wealth to your extended family when they need it --
She doesn't bother me.... but I think she bothers men.... because they aren't hardwired for charity the way women are.... I think once womens' primary needs are solved - they tend to look at how they can make a difference for others.... and men find that behavior to be alien and therefore must be self serving..... it is not.
I am sick of everybody trying to inspire me. Oprah wants me to be inspired to give money away. Yeah it's called being crazy.
I discovered how off-putting Oprah is in 1995 when by chance I had her show on one afternoon when she made a big todo about having gone down to Oklahoma City with cameras rolling to visit some poor child who was disfigured in the McVeigh bombing. The baby's face was wrapped in guaze and had tubes in her was probably comatose. Ms. Winfrey called the child's name followed by "it's Oprah!"
There was no miraculous recovery for the cameras to record. The whole thing struck me as self-serving and causing unecessary stress on the hospital staff.
I'm an admirer of Oprah. I don't watch the show much and I don't read the books. I don't read her magazine.
But I'm the same age as Oprah and I am amazed at what she has accomplished (and overcome) in her life and in comparison to mine, I feel inadequate. I feel like a slacker.
But my admiration goes beyond the pulled up by the bootstraps kind of stuff.
It's what she's done and doing with what she's accomplished.
She motivates people to do the right thing. (I think that's what this show is really about.)
She could sit back and count her money. She could just write checks to charities.
But she actively practices what she preaches. She looks at money as a means to do something positive and worthwhile; to make a difference in the lives of others. She doesn't delegate this to others. She realizes she has more money than she could hope to spend. So...why not spread it around. She finds ways to help that no others have thought of. Things that don't make the papers or the lists of charity organizations.
When I look at Oprah and what she's done with what she's built and I look at Martha Stewart and what she's done with what she's built I'm proud to say I'm an admirer of Oprah. I like the way Oprah lives her life and shares her success.
Yes, I'm a fan of Oprah the woman. I really should watch her show more often.
Oprah and Martha are buds.
I think you love her. Theres a thin line between love and hate, and if you've sat around long enough to dislike a person that hasn't done anything to you it probably means you really have a deep affection for them, and are just to uncomfortable with the idea to admit it.
That being said, I think your objections with the things she chooses to get involved with or put her name on is more than slightly off.
There are plenty of things Oprah does that isn't done in front of cameras. But that's not the point I want to make.
The argument that she only gives in front of cameras doesn't fly.
I cant think of a single thing she's done by herself. Everytime she talks about giving money (or whatever) she isn't sitting on tv writing a big check. She is always asking for others to get involved. I've worked in non-profits for a long time. You'd be amazed at how many people want to give, but dont know how, and are just waiting for someone to ask. I think she makes a point to put good deeds on tv to help all of us see that the world is still full of people that care. Its a point that I appreciate seeing. I've made a point to stop watching the first 15 minutes of local news because its all negative. Some one was killed, arrested, going to jail, negative, negative, negative. We're contantly bombarded with negative. Television shows: police dramas that all start off with someone being killed, "reality" shows that have more cursing and fighting than an old western saloon, sitcoms with a majority of jokes based on peoples negative traits. Cartoons are more negative, movies are as bad as television, video games...don't even get me started, and music has taken a turn for the worse too.
But back to Oprah......
She has to put her name and face on stuff. She's not paying for cars, and trips out of her pocket. Just like any other show (and if you've noticed every talk show is now giving their audience gifts) the stuff gets donated by companies. That's how the bills get paid.
Im not gonna knock someone that does such a huge amount of good. Our media is full of images of overpaid "celebrities" that don't do anything with their good fortune. Oprah doesn't have a drinking or drug problem, and she's not screwing a new person every other week. There are plenty of celebrities out there that deserved to be disliked, I don't think she's one of them. Im not saying that she can't be disliked, what Im saying is if you dislike her you probably need to look inside yourself and figure out why. The arguments that have been presented in this article are lame.
i don't get Oprah either. everything you wrote about her is true. she's a "brand" name, like a fast food sandwich that makes a person fat, listless and self-absorbed. OH-PRAH! i can smell the putrid onion breath. all of those daytime tv personalities are bogus. i can't think of one that comes across as "real" to me. i suppose they are as real as anyone who watches those shows, tho. it just goes to show that an informed person shouldn't get upset about all the unusually warm water in the shallow-end of the community pool.
Ah, as usual, meanness is alive and well on the HUFFPO comment section. Why in the world do you jaded people not use the energy you devote to criticisms to do something in the world half as meaningful as Oprah has done?. She never asked you to think she was God or Jesus or Buddha (and I am absolutely not a "devoted" fan, I just happen to admire what she has done). So what if she makes money; she needs a lot of money to give away so much. Lift your mean-spirited selves up and go do something with some love in it for a change (oh who cares if you think the world LOVE is tainted, too)
What IS IT you guys are getting from being so absolutely rotten mean and cynical??? I hardly ever read these blogs any more, it's simply not worth it...but I just happened to see the heading of this article and decided to see what it was about. Wish I hadn't looked. GROW UP, guys. Your envy is showing!!
You have crossed the line! Anyone questioning Oprah's quest for world domination will be crushed. Prepare to meet your maker.
Count me in with your wife. I've never been a fan of hers and am proud that I'm not one of her minions.
If I see a book with "Oprah's Book Club" on it, I will not buy it or read it.
I have had a couple of books that I've read that she has picked, but I bought them and read them BEFORE she glommed her frikking name on them.
It sickens me when I see clips of shows where women actually shake and weep in O's presence.
It also sickens me that the only time she seems to be able to do her 'philanthropy' is in front of a camera.
She might want to inspire other people to give, but does she realize that when most of us give, we FEEL it. By that I mean, when I write a check to the ASPCA for a hundred dollars, that's a hundred dollars that could have gone into my child's college fund.
Oprah practically creams her jeans when she gets a pair of Laboutin shoes, or however you spell that.
Her magazine is all about consumerism. Have you ever seen her page of her favorite things? I mean, how many of us could go out and spend over a hundred dollars on a jar of lotion? I think she's lost touch with reality and that she's surrounded by sycophants and yes-men. She has no clue about any negative press or what is going on in the real world.
The few times that I've tried to watch her show recently I can't stand it...she interrupts her guests, she always makes everything about HER HER HER. I don't even know when her show airs...around here they show a repeat late at night and sometimes when I'm surfing channels I catch a couple of minutes.
I will never understand this woman's appeal. Never have. Never will. btw, to those of you who say that those of us who are critical of O are jealous, forget it...I would not trade my life for hers ever.
Loading comments…
Posted March 3, 2008 | 04:22 PM (EST)