If only he had joined a mainstream religion, like Oprahism or Voodoo.
— Professor Farnsworth, Futurama
In a previous blog post, I made the assertion that Oprah Winfrey and her current fame is a net negative for society, and that’s not a charge I’m willing to make lightly. I’m going to start this post by describing a number of good deeds that Oprah has performed, because I am anything but an unfair critic. Bear in mind that I reserve the right to temper any praise for any individual point after the fact, because there’s at least one “charitable act” that I can think of, that was poorly thought out and ultimately a waste of money.
Get some popcorn, this is a long one.
***
Oprah is practically a force of nature. Her power of proselytism is such that whole industries shudder when she makes an off-hand remark. When on a show about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow disease), her “it stopped me cold from eating another burger” comment led to meat sales dropping precipitously and a failed lawsuit against her by Texas meat manufacturers. She was right on this particular issue, but isn’t always — so, the damage to business was fortunately merited this time around.
She has millions upon millions of followers, giving her a huge base with which to raise funds and awareness regarding issues, including her whirlwind AIDS-and-poverty awareness tour in South Africa, and her pleas for donations after Hurricane Katrina. In 1998, she started a charity called “Oprah’s Angel Network“, for which she funds all administrative overhead out of pocket, so 100% of the proceeds go directly to charity. It has raised $51,000,000 in the ten years it’s existed. She’s also funded a $40-million school for women in South Africa (more on that later).
Beyond her charity works, she is a powerhouse in politics, championing gay rights since before the turn of the century, and is probably responsible for a good deal of the positive public perception gays enjoy in the media today. While this doesn’t fix the homophobes themselves, it does help prevent youth from being indoctrinated in homophobia as the old guard dies out. Also, during the run-up to the Iraq War, Oprah was one of the most prominent anti-war voices at a time when daring to not toe President Bush’s line was tantamount to treason (in the Republicans’ mind anyway), so she’s not afraid to take an unpopular political stand. Additionally, she is very likely responsible for tipping the Democratic primary in Obama’s favor by delivering, according to the University of Maryland, College Park, “between 423,123 and 1,596,995” votes in four sampled states. This is well within the margin for error between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in those states, so it’s very likely that without Oprah’s endorsement, Hillary would have won several states more and might have had a chance at buffering the Obama political juggernaut somewhat. Whether this actually turned out to be a deciding factor is not my game, but it sure was a heavy thumb on the scales.
***
Let’s leave all of those good points aside. They all come from judicious (or even just *accidentally* appropriate) use of the power that her bully pulpit and millions of devoted followers get you. I mean, even the Pope is right about stuff now and then. The problem I have with Oprah is that, as a certain web-slinger says, great power comes with great responsibility, and I get the sense, repeatedly, that this responsibility is being abused or shirked, and as a result the power she has is being directed toward some ultimately evil (in the sense of being detrimental to society) ends.
For starters, let’s discuss her worth, and the money she donated to charity. Oprah Winfrey reportedly made $260 million in 2007, according to Forbes Magazine, roughly a million a week from her show alone. She has a present net worth of $2.7 billion. Every cent she spends in charity work is returned to her tenfold by the good publicity garnered. She could theoretically give $200 million a year in charity and not hurt from it — how many millions does it take to maintain her empire yearly? And yet in ten years, she brags of having raised $51 million for her Angel Network. All of that money came from the viewers, her loyal fans, dropping their change in the basket then handing to the left. That she covered the overhead is laudable, but how much overhead could that possibly be?
Beyond that, the $40 million school for women in South Africa is apparently built for opulence. Between the yoga classroom, beauty salon, indoor and outdoor theatres, and high thread-count bedsheets, the school’s money is spent on maintaining that opulence, and as such can only handle a limited number of students (by my understanding, less than 300). That these disadvantaged students are being shown a life of luxury for the first time is nice, but how many more students could have been brought up out of poverty if they had, say, limited themselves to one theatre? Education is such a rarity in Africa that if, say, $30 million went toward the luxurious current school, and $10 million had gone toward more general education so that one need not be a member of the privileged few to be brought up out of ignorant poverty. It’s galling that people rush to her defense saying that such a mentality suggests that poor black folks only deserve the bare minimum, when really the issue is that while the tiniest sliver of a fraction of the population is given an education, the vast majority is still as poor as they once were. That tiny fraction with an education is now suddenly going to have a huge leg up on the competition, and while the uneducated girls in other villages are homeless and probably pregnant, these privileged few are built up into a new aristocracy.
I keep coming back to the conclusion that Oprah spends exactly enough on charity work to make sure her public image is such that followers continue to flock to her, so she can spend her capital with them promoting various companies and woo-peddlers. I mean, look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — a “charity” wherein they donate copies of Windows to schools and get to write off a big chunk of their corporate taxes as a result. Every one of her big give-aways (the cars, which were taxable by the way, trips, etc.) was donated by the company in question (or paid for by the advertising the company bought with Harpo to begin with), and not given to her audience by Oprah herself. And yet, these “miracles” lend to her divinity, as though all blessings flow from her.
Worse and far more dangerous than her self-serving charity, is her utter credulity. It’s well known that she rarely even knows anything about a topic before the guest in question appears on her show, so her reactions “are genuine”, and as a result, none of the questions she asks are any harder than a cotton ball. James “The Amazing” Randi, mentalist and skeptic par excellence, once had it out with her regarding her one-sided presentation of pseudoscience — he describes one particular instance where a skeptic is presented alongside a psychic and is only once referred to by name (other times being called “science lady” or “Skeptico”), blamed for “blocking… [and] not accepting her father’s energy” when the psychic’s cold-reading on her failed, then set up for the fall by being asked at the end whether she believes in God. The evidence is in: Oprah wholeheartedly believes this pseudoscience. She is, as Orac would put it, a “crank magnet”. She is drawn not only to one pseudoscientific belief, but as a result, to a whole range of quackery.
She recently bought the Discovery Health Channel and redubbed it OWN – the Oprah Winfrey Network. No doubt its health-related shows will be replaced with all the quackery she’s promoted over the years: Dr. Phil, with his psychological advice scavenged from his copious rectum, now with his very own show with which to promote all manner of nonsense medicine and self-help; Dr. Oz is getting his own show too, where he’ll no doubt promote some ridiculous medical advice derived from theories about imaginary “energy” lines in your body; and now Jenny McCarthy, anti-vaccination crusader extraordinaire, gets a slice of airtime as well. Words honestly fail me at this one. Why people would trust a woman best known for displaying her vagina, over actual scientists who have done actual studies refuting her claims, on the issue of vaccines, is wholly beyond me.
***
Ultimately, the problem here is that Oprah is revered to the point of deification (see: Roseanne Barr calling her “the African Mother Goddess of us all”), and yet she is all too human — prone to the same faulty programming that we all have, yet her bully pulpit means that if she gets duped by a particular piece of woo, then her followers get infected as well. As the leader of what amounts to a modern secular religion with a focus on good deeds, anything she says should be scrutinized and agonized over, and because every idle utterance is going to become canon, she has a great responsibility to make sure whatever she promotes is grounded in reality.
I almost fear we’re witnessing exactly what Futurama predicted — the birth of a new religion that, a thousand years from now, will codify every belief Oprah herself had. I have little doubt this is exactly what happened with every other religious leader in history. A thousand years from now, when everyone’s practicing Oprahism, what will her legacy be? Or will we even make it there, with woo being put on par with real science everywhere you look?
On the off chance that Oprah should read this herself: Understand, please, that I fully respect your background, your rags-to-riches story, and your honest attempt at doing right. You’ve championed some noble causes, and you’ve made some headway in them. However, your success at capitalism does not necessarily mean your moral compass is pointing in the right direction, and your ability to convince people of the efficacy of treatments means you should research the treatments and, where appropriate, ask follow-up questions so you can expose some of these quacks for the charlatans and frauds that they are. You’ve done it before, after being burned by James Frey and his Million Little Pieces, so I know you’re capable, if you’re affronted directly. I suspect the thing you don’t understand is that these quack alternative medicines and feel-good new-age spirituality gurus, that these supernatural events and superstitious mumbo-jumbo that you probably genuinely believe with all your heart, are in fact a direct affront to you, your audience, and the very notion of human decency. If you don’t speak up, especially if you don’t even recognize the need to speek up, and if you don’t stop these people at the gate, then nobody can possibly set the record straight and counter the boost that these frauds get by being able to stick “as seen on Oprah” on their book covers. People are hurting and dying over this, as surely as they’re hurting and dying in South Africa because they aren’t getting proper educations.
If anything in this world is a sin, this is.
It occurs to me that I haven’t even mentioned her pimping The Secret or A New Earth. Guess what? They’re both crap. Prove me wrong.
Be careful Jason, Oprah sees and knows all, you should start wearing a disguise.
Who is this Jason you speak of?
Jason: I came here to your blog and fully expected to see more of the same old fauxleft crap and pandering that sciblogs is known for–and I found it.
BUT…I like to say that a crow can find the corn in a pile of cr^p, and here in this post about Oprah, I found the corn on the cob. An excellent post indeed.
I have long sensed that I wasn’t the only one who despises her for more than being a man hating fat-manipulating ( as in attention getting ) closet lesbian. Your post covers many points I hadn’t even thought of. However, you missed the issue that I like to talk about as often as I can: Oprah made her living demonizing men and accusing men of being per4verts of every shade, with her personal fetish being her mantra that she was sexually abused by a man.
I have always suspected–and also know statistically–that underneath many claims like hers, is a cover-up for another set of facts: women who admit/claim they were abused by a man when they were children often have FIRST been sexually abused by a woman!
Oprah not only refuses to discus that at any length, but when a girl at her boarding school actually was sexually molested by a woman, Oprah went into full blown cover-up mode, and whitewashed the whole event.
This is damaging on so many levels, but at the very least, and worst, it exhibits a tendency among women who cry ‘abuse’: when a woman does it, they cover it up, and keep it a secret; the system calls it “innapropriate touch’ or some other minimizing label–but when a man does it itinstantly becomes a criminal action. This is the base of power for what I have called the “hidden matriarchy” because not only ios there a whiole industry of social workers dedicated to rooting out ‘male’ abuse, but also dedicated to covering up female abuse. Add to that the courts, the cops, and the judges; the psychiatrists,and the foster care folks, and you have an industry that rivals GM in its prime–and many female heads of those industries.
Either way, thanks for a long overdue post on Americas favorite faker. Now how about a post on Tyra Banks-Americas favorite maternal incest victim?
Shorter meme: [backhanded compliment] [baseless assertion] [slur] [citation needed]
I think in your rage over the misuse of the “big mis***** word”, which I will not post for fear of making you post more frequently here, you are overcompensating by seeing conspiracy and man-hating everywhere, without any evidence of such. There is some tiny kernel of truth to some of your claims, e.g. that abuse of men is underreported, and that women “over-report” crimes against them (and in fact, I’m a victim of such baseless assertions and still bear the mental scars that go with it so don’t fucking tell me I’m some kind of mindless feminist), but every time you open your goddamn mouth you spew out so much extra crap that what tiny bit of truth you speak is buried under mountains of effluence.
I mean, why did you throw out another scareword like “fauxleft”? Why did you say she’s got a fetish about accusing all men of being perverts, when she plays up all sorts of men of dubious morals without any sort of critical eye? And why the hell did you have to assert that a woman who’s been in long-term relationships with men for her entire life, is a closet lesbian? Anything you say that isn’t evidenced, attached to this thread, diminishes what truths I put forth, so could you please back up some of your assertions for once in your trolling career? I mean seriously, for fuck’s sake, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is that so hard?
You can feel free to refer to these points in your own Oprah-bashing, because I’ve tried to provide evidence of each of my assertions (though there are actually a number of links missing from this that I originally intended to include). But I warn you that every assertion you make that isn’t evidenced hurts the cause. So leave bashing sacred cows to people who can actually build their case.
Also, I read about that molestation incident in researching this post — Oprah flew straight down to the school as soon as news broke, and had the woman fired immediately. That there were *any* repercussions in a country where molestation likely goes completely unreported and unanswered is amazing enough,
though I agree that it’s horrible that the school matron did not have criminal charges pressed against her, and that she goes to this day unidentified to the English-speaking public is a travesty.But your assertion that the event was covered up is wholly baseless and uncited. (What a surprise.)Edit: yeah, a little more Googling shows that the matron DID get arrested.
Edit 2: and more Googling finds the matron’s name: Virginia Mokgobo. So what have you got left?
Wow. Ain’t you just king douchebag? Look at that strut.
Do I think she should have explored it on her show? Abso-fucking-lutely — in fact, it was yet another dereliction of her duties as a media mogul with her name on every damn thing you look at nowadays. Do I think her NOT doing so, constitutes a cover-up? No.
A cover-up is when you lie, alter documents, or kill people involved to prevent the truth from getting out. The truth was already out. The fact that it was a woman, is probably less to blame than the fact that Oprah’s own name was attached to this molestation incident. Her business is predicated on building herself up as the most gloriously wonderful woman that ever did live. She pulls her audience of bored housewives mostly by showing them facile, brainless ways of feeling better about themselves. These ways include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO showing certain men as abusive or certain women as put-upon by these men. Abuse of women is a real issue in society. Abuse of men is also a real issue, but it IS NOT AS PREVALENT. (Note that I did not say it’s not as serious, because it is as serious. It’s just not happening nearly as often; either that, or it’s not being reported as often.) And it IS NOT systemically controlled by a shadowy matriarchal underworld. There is no gigantic fucking vagispiracy, okay?
You don’t have to cite me when the post is visible on the same page, and the meaning of that citation is clear. You DO have to cite me when you claim I (or ANYONE ELSE) said or implied or did something that I (or ANYONE ELSE) didn’t say or imply or do. (For instance – your assertion that Oprah’s gay.) If you don’t cite it, that’s because it didn’t happen, and they didn’t do it, and that’s how others will perceive you — as just making shit up. Get it now? And learn to blockquote, noob.
The fact that I had skimmed over the source material about that incident and didn’t include it in my post does not mean I didn’t research it. It does however mean that I didn’t do as much research as I should have, before replying. The mere fact that I went back and revised my statement as I found more information is not backpedalling any more than changing strategies during war because you gained new information is “cutting and running”.
Don’t worry, Meme. I know you’ll be back. You do so love to shit on people like me, people with clear heads and the facts on their sides. And I’ll be more than willing to bring the fight right back at you.
“which I will not post for fear of making you post more frequently here”
Jason, as I suspected: you are a piece of shit. I tried baby boy, I weally did. Here’s the deal: Oprah has made her career talking about her alleged male abuser–and in the one time it affects her life–and hence the propaganda value of the issue at large–she minimized it, bro. Do you have any idea how many women of Africa could be said to be victims of female sexual abuse, if we employed the western model oif so-called abuse? The matron got arrested, yteah, Oprah flew there, yeah–but then what? No exploration on her show about how women routinely do this stuff? How women routinely ‘fly down there’ and then you hear nothing at all, no follow up: which renders the issue moot, and a cover-up.
Ooops, I am wasting my time–I sensed you were a piece of shit over at Gregs, and now I know for certain. Claiming you researched this abuse incident for your article here( here’s your citation you little pedant) https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/?p=775 ”
on 14 May 2009 at 5:59 pm #
Also, I read about that molestation incident in researching this post — Oprah flew straight down to the school as soon as news broke, and had the woman fired immediately. That there were *any* repercussions in a country where molestation likely goes completely unreported and unanswered is amazing enough, though I agree that it’s horrible that the school matron did not have criminal charges pressed against her, and that she goes to this day unidentified to the English-speaking public is a travesty. But your assertion that the event was covered up is wholly baseless and uncited. (What a surprise.)
Edit: yeah, a little more Googling shows that the matron DID get arrested.
Edit 2: and more Googling finds the matron’s name: Virginia Mokgobo. So what have you got left?
Wherein you go into backpedal mode and stumble trouggh an explanation of how you didn’t do the research yourself.
Steadman as a lifelong companion or a shield to hide behind when she is outed? Get real.
Count on me to never visit your blog again, I don’t wanna make your mom mad–you DO still live in your moms basement, right? and when I pass you in the blogosphere–and I will–I will recall what a useless wanna be argumentative little squirrel trap of a pedant you are. I got bigger fish to fry.
Good luck in your mating career–I hear the fauxleft ( scareword?is that what it is?) loves little boys like yo, you’re easy and oh so willing to be cuckolded.
vagispiracy
Wow, that has go to be my new favorite word.
Can I use that in Scrabble???
Meme, wasn’t that the fat clown lady from the Drew Carey Show??? no wonder they have a beef with Oprah…she got dumped for the price is right…
Please don’t bother proving me inaccurate, I am very happy in my ignorance.
And for the record, I live in my parents house and Pickles lives in a basement, but Thibeault owns his own home with his long term girlfriend…
Welcome to the show boys. I’ve levelled up my debating skills a bit, whaddaya think?
Yankee, this guy’s skull is impervious to facts, so don’t even try. He’s filled it with nonsense and tinfoiled it over. (And you’re giving him the wrong impression regarding your own housing situation, which I’m sure he’d take advantage of in his petty way.)
Besides, he claims he’s never going to return. While it would be nice to never see him again, at least some small part of me wants to “troll” him right back into posting again.
I’m also thinking about posting about the LHC to see if I can bait JTankers back on here, so I can school him once and for all. Call it an unsettled grudge, since I robbed myself of truly taking him to task for his ridiculously unscientific and unfounded claims.
[…] a follow-up to my recent Oprah post, here’s an open letter to Oprah asking her to reconsider giving Jenny McCarthy a voice on her […]
Wait……. so according to this guy I’m nonexistent? I knew it.
Yup, you’re a figment of my imagination.
A SEXY figment.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDX5c3nXexc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0%5D