PDA

View Full Version : No Oprah finale thread?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Japanfan
05-28-2011, 06:05 AM
Well from a philanthropic standpoint, the woman has done tons for the world. She's reportedly given away $300-400M of her own money to charity and various causes.

I'm not surprised to hear she was a hardworker. I don't think you get to be that successful and filthy rich without a tremendous amount of hard work.

Sure, she's worked hard. But I agree that she is very self-important (how could she not be?). And, sure she's given tons of money away. If you are worth billions you have way more than you could ever use anyways and giving to charity doesn't make you special or mean you are not greedy - except when compared to equally rich people don't give to charity and are even more greedy. I'll applaud a filthy rich person's charity when they give up their mansion, driver and personal chef, etc., to others in need.

And I also have an issue with people who think Oprah is the solution to the world's ills. The fact that the wealth of the world is concentrated in the hands of a few is fundamentally problematic. For folks like Oprah to be rich, others have to be poor. Oprah may help some people to become rich, but her help isn't going to really change the world.

And when wealthy individuals become leaders in charity, it is problematic because they get to decide who is worthy of help and who gets attention. Oprah starts schools for girls in Africa, and good for her. But there are plenty of other girls throughout the world who can't go to school and nobody is helping them. And plenty of other causes which remain ignored.

Aceon6
05-28-2011, 05:14 PM
And plenty of other causes which remain ignored.

Even Bill Gates had to decide, and he chose medical care. I think it's sad when people diss a philanthropist, just because they decide. As stated upthread, I'm no Oprah uber, but it's hard to argue with a contribution to the education of 86,000+ people in the US and Africa. This doesn't include the programs to equip classrooms that are funded by Lowe's and Target, but coordinated through the Oprah Foundation.

Cachoo
05-28-2011, 09:02 PM
I am an Oprah fan...part of her generation I guess but I did find the three day good-bye a bit much although I was moved by the Morehouse men who received her scholarships and attended the ceremony with their candles. Look---there is so much greed in the world that when you see a billionaire take philanthropy seriously (and not just a small check given at an event where your dress costs twice as much) then I have to respect that. I think she has done more good than harm even if SHE is over the top at times.

algonquin
05-28-2011, 09:34 PM
I neither hate or love Oprah, so I watched her show once and awhile. I enjoyed her shows with Dr Oz and made a point of watching those. I also enjoyed her shows with Nate. Dr Phil was much better when he was a regular on Oprah. I missed her interview with JK Rowling, so I hope that they repeated it again in the summer.

Like anything that has been around for a long time, it will be strange when Oprah is not on in the fall, but life will go on.

victoriajh
05-28-2011, 10:18 PM
The thing that bugs me about Oprah is her sense of self-importance. A couple of days after 9/11, when I was living in NYC, y'all may remember the huge gathering at Yankee Stadium with Giuliani, the Clintons, etc. Oprah was the host. When she got up and delivered her speech, continuously saying (in overdone fashion) "...AND WE WILL NOT BE MOOOOOOVED," it really made me want to hurl. To me, it came across so fake--I truly believe she was desperately trying to be thought of as the next Martin Luther King, Jr., during one of the biggest crises in American history. Yecch.

She's a media figure, to be sure: I certainly can't deny she's created her own success. But I have a hard time accessing the deification of this woman. I rarely watch her show, but I tuned in briefly about a month ago. Celebrities were saying, "Oprah--you have changed the face of America!" (Ummmm... how exactly has she done THAT?) And what's more, she said "thank you" with such a lack of humility, as if to say, "damn straight, honey--you may now kiss my feet and then slink away..."

You can bet this woman will run for public office in the not-so-distant future.

i too was thinking - really? you feel that about her? during the whole celeb parade at the show- seemed kinda bandwagon ish to me... I actually did not watch cause i knew it woudl be liek that- but that is the good thinng about online i can read and see the bits i want too with out wasting 2 hours of my life!!

kimkom
05-28-2011, 10:20 PM
I have enormous respect for her ability to become what she is from such humble beginnings, and I also admire her work ethic, but the self importance annoys me so much. I suppose it would be really difficult to not feel that way when you`re told over and over again that you`re the most powerful person in the world. None of us can imagine how we would deal with that.

I recorded Oprah every day forever, but usually ended up watching maybe 3 or 4 episodes a month. I liked her more lighthearted shows about fashion, celebrities and health issues. The rest were just depressing to watch day after day, and I got sick of her need to dish out advice like she was a mental health professional. Her constant interruptions so she could spew her pearls of wisdom left me screaming at my TV for her to shut up for 2 minutes. :wall:

Most of all I will never forgive her for bringing us Dr. Phil. :lynch:

Japanfan
05-29-2011, 12:20 AM
Even Bill Gates had to decide, and he chose medical care. I think it's sad when people diss a philanthropist, just because they decide. As stated upthread, I'm no Oprah uber, but it's hard to argue with a contribution to the education of 86,000+ people in the US and Africa. This doesn't include the programs to equip classrooms that are funded by Lowe's and Target, but coordinated through the Oprah Foundation.

I'm not dissing her for her contributions or saying she hasn't help many, many kids. I'm just questioning the amount of applause that people deserve for giving away money they could never use themselves and how much of a real different it ultimately makes.

Cheylana
05-29-2011, 02:11 AM
Regarding Oprah's sense of "self-importance," I'd guess she's no different from anyone else in the entertainment industry, or many other industries for that matter. Is she really any more self-important than Michael Jackson was, or Donald Trump Martha Stewart are? I guess the only difference is that she's very much been in the public eye for 25 years with her TV show, other appearances on TV, movie projects, her magazine and now her new TV channel, so over-exposure may be a factor.

Rafter
05-29-2011, 04:41 PM
And when wealthy individuals become leaders in charity, it is problematic because they get to decide who is worthy of help and who gets attention. Oprah starts schools for girls in Africa, and good for her. But there are plenty of other girls throughout the world who can't go to school and nobody is helping them. And plenty of other causes which remain ignored.

Your logic is flawed IMO. It could be worse. These uber rich people could just choose to give NOTHING away to charity and help NO ONE. Some is better than none at all.

Aussie Willy
05-29-2011, 11:39 PM
Regarding Oprah's sense of "self-importance," I'd guess she's no different from anyone else in the entertainment industry, or many other industries for that matter. Is she really any more self-important than Michael Jackson was, or Donald Trump Martha Stewart are? I guess the only difference is that she's very much been in the public eye for 25 years with her TV show, other appearances on TV, movie projects, her magazine and now her new TV channel, so over-exposure may be a factor.
I think the difference is though not many people would have 3 shows solely dedicated to people fawning over them with over the top and vomit inducing platitudes.

PDilemma
05-29-2011, 11:58 PM
I think the difference is though not many people would have 3 shows solely dedicated to people fawning over them with over the top and vomit inducing platitudes.

Or a magazine that they appear on the cover of every single month. :rolleyes:

Japanfan
05-30-2011, 12:22 AM
Your logic is flawed IMO. It could be worse. These uber rich people could just choose to give NOTHING away to charity and help NO ONE. Some is better than none at all.

I agree with you and did not state the contrary. In my post I did acknowledge that Oprah's charity was valuable and that the help she extended was "good".

But the context I was using probably needs to be clarified.

First, I am referring to the right wing anti-big government notion that charity and aid are best controlled by the private sector. Note that I did acknowledge that the issue of who deserves help also applies to government.

Second and more importantly, some believe that the charity Oprah (and others like her) extends has the power to change the world in that the empowerment of others (i.e. education of girls in South Africa) will allow them too to become wealthy. From this perspective, Oprah becomes a saviour. Certainly, her help has the power to change the world for x number of children. But she and those like her still get the biggest pieces of the pie and all the wealth and power that goes with it. And the rich have long given charity to the power, there is nothing new in the notion.

And the hero worship from those who see Oprah as a saviour is troublesome. I don't think she merits hero status and in real terms, does not challenge or change the status quo. The rich remain rich while the poor get poorer while people like Oprah wield far too much power. And given her extreme largesse she's not exactly making a sacrifice in giving away money. While others of equal largesse may not do the same or as much, it is still not hard for her do. And she gets paid many times over in adulation from the masses and affirmations of her power.

essence_of_soy
05-30-2011, 01:29 AM
My favourite Oprah tribute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcI-rHO0yko

Queen of the O Face!

skaternum
06-01-2011, 06:16 PM
I'm amused by the posts calling Oprah "self-important." Oprah's impact and importance is no greater than what "the public" has freely given her! Every book she mentions becomes a best seller. Every business she likes becomes swamped. Every face cream she adores becomes a must-have. How can you not be "important" if you have such enormous influence?

Yeah, she was annoying at times with it, but the collective "we" made her a deity. She didn't do that herself. Is she always right? No, but apparently the public doesn't know any better. Clearly, a lot of people adored her and put stock in what she had to say.

Criticizing someone for giving away millions is ridiculous. No one has the right to criticize someone else's charitable choices. How many of your belongings have YOU given up to help the poor? Oprah lives in a capitalist society. She made her money because people willingly watched her show and bought her magazine and paid to see her speak. It's not like she hustled or robbed anybody or forced little kids to work in sweat shops. Honestly, why so critical of a woman who has done so much good, where others would not have?

Cheylana
06-01-2011, 11:05 PM
^ What skaternum said.

I think the difference is though not many people would have 3 shows solely dedicated to people fawning over them with over the top and vomit inducing platitudes.
I dunno, Donald Trump's TV show has featured an awful lot of fawning and other vomit-inducing moments. :lol: