Oprah Winfrey

Dave!

Alright folks,

What do we think of Opera Winfrey?

For a long time she's been a promoter of all sorts of new age spiritual crap and pseudoscientific nonsense. For example she's had Deepak Chopra on the show multiple times to espouse his brand of spirituality. She's also had Jenny McCarthy on to promote hysterical anti-vaccination scare-mongering, and provided little in the way of skeptical balance to the segment (if she were really interested in 'balance', or facts, then she wouldn't have Jenny on at all, because the science is clear-cut). Now she's apparently begun promoting John Of God, the scumbag charlatan 'healer' who uses carnival tricks like sticking spikes into people's nasal cavities before ripping chicken parts out of their bodies and claiming to have cured them.

So what's Opera's M.O.? Is she just a credulous believer who laps up all this sh*t? Or is she cynically showing pieces that she knows her audience will enjoy for ratings? Or what's her deal?

Bit of a sh!tebag if you ask me

Giselle

I can't stand the woman, never could. She refers to her 'heavenly father' far too often for me to take anything she says seriously. And that was before she promoted the likes of 'The Secret' on her show.

That tripe is popular enough for me to think she plays to the audience and gives them what they want, but she seems to buy into a lot of it personally.

She also popularised 'Dr' Phil, which I can never forgive her for.

In a nutshell, I think she's astute enough to feed her audience according to their appetite, but stupid enough to believe at least some of the crap she helps flog.

Oryx

Its popular TV, which is always only about ratings. She is using items with popular appeal to get bums on seats in front of the telly. In fairness, what percentage of her audience is going to have the scientific nous to understand the background to the vaccination scare?

If there was no audience there for this stuff, then they would show something else. But people like to be entertained, and they like it to be easy. Of course Oprah is cynically exploiting people for ratings. If she was really a spiritual person in search of enlightenment she would be doing it in a hut in Tibet with no cameras or makeup artists or revenue spinning ad breaks.

Dave!

Oryx wrote: »

Its popular TV, which is always only about ratings. She is using items with popular appeal to get bums on seats in front of the telly. In fairness, what percentage of her audience is going to have the scientific nous to understand the background to the vaccination scare?

If there was no audience there for this stuff, then they would show something else. But people like to be entertained, and they like it to be easy. Of course Oprah is cynically exploiting people for ratings. If she was really a spiritual person in search of enlightenment she would be doing it in a hut in Tibet with no cameras or makeup artists or revenue spinning ad breaks.

That's a bit presumtuous You could easily argue that she's so interested in spirituality that she uses her TV show (and network) to promote it whenever she can. If she thinks it's important, then it makes sense that she would use such a forum to promote it.

Given that she has such a forum, she has a responsibility to ensure that she is giving accurate information to her audience and to make sure she isn't endangering any lives. By giving lunatics like Jenny McCarthy a forum with little by way of opposition, she is endangering lives -- and I don't think it's hysterical to suggest that.

Oryx

Given that her website is currently posted with articles on 'Surprising things your eyebrows say about you' I think I can safely say she is not aiming high with her show.

Dave!

Her audience (and I imagine her too) are into eyebrows as well as spirituality. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I have no doubt that the majority of people who read Heat, Hello, etc., magazines would also consider themselves 'spiritual'.

Riamfada

Id say its money orientated. Humans are too smart for the organised religion thing and are trying to fill the void with a new form of "science" backed spiritualism. There is a big market for this.

KeithAFC

Oryx wrote: »

Its popular TV, which is always only about ratings. She is using items with popular appeal to get bums on seats in front of the telly. In fairness, what percentage of her audience is going to have the scientific nous to understand the background to the vaccination scare?

If there was no audience there for this stuff, then they would show something else. But people like to be entertained, and they like it to be easy. Of course Oprah is cynically exploiting people for ratings. If she was really a spiritual person in search of enlightenment she would be doing it in a hut in Tibet with no cameras or makeup artists or revenue spinning ad breaks.

Fully agree. Its a huge TV show. Most spiritual people would not go onto that show anyway. Or serious spiritual people.

Dave!

Who says what qualifies as a 'serious' spiritual person? Deepak Chopra has sold millions of books, so I'd say his fans would consider him pretty serious.

sambuka41

Oprah is entertainment,light entertainment. There is a time and a place for skeptical examination and Oprah is not it!!!:p At best she is offering new ideas I dont really see a major harm in that. Considering there was a time when 'the church' (whatever church was in power at the time ) ruled and people didnt have choice I would think it was a good thing to be aware of different types of spirituality.


As for her being in a position of responsibility i would agree to an extent. As a general population we cant expect others to be responsible for everything,she does have a lot of control for what she chooses to expose us to but we have the choice not to watch, or to educate ourselves further on what has been shown on the tv.

People have to take responsibility for themselves too.


I am by no means an expert but it seems spirituality has come against a backlash of organised religion,and as a result its expected to be singular, as in its a personal thing. So if someone is loud about it then they aren't genuine. But there are folks out there who are loud mouths,and even if what they practice is meant to be personal they will want the world to know. Of course most of these are making lots of cash off it too,their motives maybe sinister but maybe they are genuine or serious.

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

So what's Opera's M.O.? Is she just a credulous believer who laps up all this sh*t? Or is she cynically showing pieces that she knows her audience will enjoy for ratings? Or what's her deal?

Again what is it with believers and non believers.

If you are skeptic shouldn't beliefs stay out of it ?

barnaclebill

My girlfriend told me the other day the Oprah is getting her own channel! Time to ring Sky and cancel that subscription.. at least then I can concentrate on quality RTE shows like this

http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/new-tv-reality-show-drives-nell-and-lisa-crazy-2478650.html

Dave!

Deleted User wrote: »

Again what is it with believers and non believers.

If you are skeptic shouldn't beliefs stay out of it ?

What are you talking about?

Oprah is not a skeptic, and believes in all sorts of unproven nonsense.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

Who says what qualifies as a 'serious' spiritual person? Deepak Chopra has sold millions of books, so I'd say his fans would consider him pretty serious.

a serious spiritual person does not have to sell books or own a tv show. spirituality is personal. you can be as spiritual as you can and live in the mountains or you can promote spiritualism from your multi billion dollar embasy.

with Opera, i dont think its all about the money, as she gives **** loads away anyway, i think its about ratings and social status.

plus,, she may be gulable

gman2k

Oryx wrote: »

Given that her website is currently posted with articles on 'Surprising things your eyebrows say about you' I think I can safely say she is not aiming high with her show.

So you are saying her site is not highbrow?

milehip1

Riamfada wrote: »

Id say its money orientated. Humans are too smart for the organised religion thing and are trying to fill the void with a new form of "science" backed spiritualism. There is a big market for this.

Agree on the money point,but then again religon's always been about the coin plate.

On the other hand if someone's to smart for organised religon,how do they get caught up in its replacments?

Guess some people are just born to follow.

RuneKnight3

Dave! wrote: »

That's a bit presumtuous You could easily argue that she's so interested in spirituality that she uses her TV show (and network) to promote it whenever she can. If she thinks it's important, then it makes sense that she would use such a forum to promote it.

Given that she has such a forum, she has a responsibility to ensure that she is giving accurate information to her audience and to make sure she isn't endangering any lives. By giving lunatics like Jenny McCarthy a forum with little by way of opposition, she is endangering lives -- and I don't think it's hysterical to suggest that.

I have to ask though that if Oprah is a believer, and therefore using her show to promote those beliefs, why then did it win over the public (in America especially), and fail for Madonna who came out several years back as a hard core Quabbalist? Arguably it has more to do with the cult of personality around key television personalities and less to do with any real new age faith.

bnt

Newsweek carried a long hard-hitting article about Oprah's delusions back in 2009: it focuses on guests such as actress Suzanne Somers, who embodies just about every form of quackery under the sun and isn't afraid to promote it:

Somers makes astounding claims about the ability of hormones to treat almost anything that ails the female body. She believes they block disease and will double her life span. "I know I look like some kind of freak and fanatic," she said. "But I want to be there until I'm 110, and I'm going to do what I have to do to get there."That was apparently good enough for Oprah. "Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo," she said. "But she just might be a pioneer." Oprah acknowledged that Somers's claims "have been met with relentless criticism" from doctors. Several times during the show she gave physicians an opportunity to dispute what Somers was saying. But it wasn't quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat onstage next to Oprah, who defended her from attack. "Suzanne swears by bioidenticals and refuses to keep quiet. She'll take on anyone, including any doctor who questions her."

It also goes in to the case of cancer patient Kim Tinkham, who rejected all medical treatment on the basis of Oprah's endorsement of The Secret, something that even Oprah thought was going too far:

In March 2007, the month after the first two shows on The Secret, Oprah invited a woman named Kim Tinkham on the program. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and her doctors were urging surgery and chemotherapy. But Tinkham wrote Oprah to say that she had decided to forgo this treatment and instead use The Secret to cure herself. On the show, Oprah seemed genuinely alarmed that Tinkham had taken her endorsement of The Secret so seriously. "When my staff brought this letter to me, I wanted to talk to her," Oprah told the audience. "I said, get her in here, OK?" On air, Oprah urged the woman to listen to her doctors. "I don't think that you should ignore all of the advantages of medical science and try to, through your own mind now because you saw a Secret tape, heal yourself," she said. A few weeks earlier, Oprah could not say enough in praise of The Secret as the guiding philosophy of her life. Now she said that people had somehow gotten the wrong idea. "I think that part of the mistake in translation of The Secret is that it's used to now answer every question in the world. It is not the answer to all questions," she instructed. "I just wanted to say it's a tool. It is not the answer to everything." The Law of Attraction was just one law of many that guide the universe. "Although I live my life that way," Oprah said, "I think it has its flaws."There were limits to The Secret's healing powers even for Oprah.

There's been a lot of stuff on the Internet about the Tinkham case since 2009, but it can be summarised as follows: while she appeared to go in to remission a couple of times, and credited just about everything for that, she died in December last year.

MinnyMinor

Oryx wrote: »

Given that her website is currently posted with articles on 'Surprising things your eyebrows say about you' I think I can safely say she is not aiming high with her show.

maybe OT but i once read that when she did a show on prozac the 'audience' ,who were doing well on it, had all been specially flown in by Lilly the manufacturer