RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media The "O" woman really sucks....REALLY

That's cool...I'm tired of her as well.

Why don't you find out where she is, she is in your neck of the woods anyway, and tell her to give up her show next week instead of whenever the hell (not soon enough) she said she was going to.

Good idea alan! Maybe she can be G'Nort's spokeswoman for DC!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
i wonder if you'd react the same to a man in the same position?

---

You're right I have never heard him say anything bad about Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil.

Personally, speaking as a black woman myself, I find it difficult to refer to watching daytime television as 'Enlightenment'. Perhaps you should try reading a classic novel or visit a museum. "Hey bitch, Oprah's ON! It's time for self-empowerment, edumacation."

I assume you are as uneducated as Oprah herself.

Dogfucker.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
sounds like someone ate way too many sour grapes before bed last night. from your tone it sounds as though you have some issues with women to be resolved. what is it about self-actualizing women that you find so threatening? did someone leave you because of advice they heard on oprah? i wonder if you'd react the same to a man in the same position? you know, with the male (patriarchy, gotta love it!) societal structure all but turning us into stepford wives, someone like oprah using her platform to reach out and help women (and men) who may never have thought themselves capable of rising beyond their circumstances is a blessing. if you don't find that so, then just stay in your cave. if you wait long enough another ice-age will come right along. oh, and as far as labelling all women who may find a kernel of truth in oprah's words as "stupid bitches" - get a life and while your at it a set of balls. you know what those are, now don't you? you can disagree with someone all you want, but try to take down a large portion of my gender for seeking some enlightenment, and you show yourself for little more than some bloody pathetic remnant of a long dead era. i'd wish you a good evening, but the sentiment wouldn't be true.

-kassandra

---

So no,I'm not afraid of Oprah nor do I feel my masculinity is threatened by her & I sit just fine in my cave with or without Oprah on TV.I can't stand Jerry Springers' show either or Ricki Lakes' or Jenny Joness'.

Oprah is so full of self contradictions exploits people pain under the pretense of "help" ...that is if you define "help" as a limo ride to her studio and a free hotel room, while she on the other hand reaps milions.

Dr Phil is a fool too.

I don't really care for her, and I wouldn't be caught dead watching her show, but I respect what Oprah's accomplished. She's not some rich bimbo who whored her way onto the air, she earned her slot, she paid her dues. Maybe her fans are retards, but there has to be SOME reason why she's maintained uber-popularity status for FIFTEEN YEARS plus, she isn't a boy band, or some cancerous pop culture meme, so some people have to see substance in her show, otherwise they wouldn't watch it as religously as they do. She's the epitome of the hard working black woman that the world so desperately needed over the last 50 years, like it or not, she "helped" alot of people, whether or not that help was full of shit doesn't really matter.

If the world's biggest problem is an obese woman on a mid afternoon self help show(and it isn't), then the world is a beautiful, safe and happy place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
she could have used her influence for anything, but chose the high road. somehow i get the feeling this concept will be lost on you. true, there will always be lemmings, but that is widespread in our society. so many don't want to own responsibility for their own lives, they'll listen for the latest guru/spiritual teacher (not to belittle true seekers) buy up every hot self-help book, and then follow the next trend. but she's not about that. again, i sense this point being lost on you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:

last year when the world was so badly shaken for so many of us, did she immediately return to regular programming on 12th september? no. she spent weeks working to help those who needed it through the trauma we'd experienced. the 11th of september offered us a choice as to how we'd like to live the rest of our lives. there was a lesson in all of that, and sadly for many it only went skin deep. i don't recall any of the carnival barkers you seem to hold in such esteem as having given much of a damn about the world beyond the end of their nose. you seem to embrace so much negativity. i wonder, have you been asleep since last august? or did it just not matter to you in the least? that paints a picture best described as petty, shallow, and selfish. if you wish to go implode somewhere, be my guest, but there are many of us who choose to embrace life in all it's complexity, and would rather not go down the dark path you've seemingly chosen.

---

Actually I gave them more credit not to exploit the tragedy...Oprah takes every chance she gets to exploit those affected by that tragedy, to help nothing but her pocketbook. I credit Springer and the rest for not making a mockery out of Sept 11.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:

oh, and as far as i can tell, the only user here seems to be you. what have you done to help the world lately? next time, look in the mirror long and hard before you decide to spew such nonsense.

---

You're right as a registered nurse I rarely help anyone in the same way Wonderful Oprah does.

While I do think Kassandra has a very valid point, I have seen alot of media whores using the 9/11 tragedy to promote their own status, for their own agenda and not actually because they care about the people they're taking advantage of. I'm not saying Oprah is one of those people, but I do know that alot of talk show hosts have used that theme to get ratings, which is simply horrible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by THE Franta:
You're right as a registered nurse I rarely help anyone in the same way Wonderful Oprah does.

---

????????

And Oprah sinks even lower based on a commercial I just saw aas she is now resorting to exploit children on Televison forcing children to talk about how they feel about their parents divorce! What joys will greet them as they return to school and become further tourmented by classmates who saw them on tv!

On a side note a guy I work with was on Oprah talking about his crazy mother-in-law...Oprah's producer told him what he could and couldn't discuss also tweeking/embellishing his true story a bit to "make it more interesting for the viewers".

I mean c'mon, it is a TV show.

Perhaps you should start a missionary. To try converting these ignorant non-viewers. they really are like athesists. you God-less monsters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"there are many of us who choose to embrace life (Oprah fans) in all it's complexity, and would rather not go down the dark path (an 'Oprah-less' existence) you've seemingly chosen."

oh, and as far as i can tell, the only user here seems to be you. what have you done to help the world lately? next time, look in the mirror long and hard before you decide to spew such nonsense.

-kassandra

[/QB][/QUOTE]

whut're yer thoughts on howard stern? (shut it, franta, i want her response ... and yes, its a trap! mwah hwah haaaah)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Animalman:

????????

---

Franta's an RN.

But... yeah, Oprah sucks.

quote:

---

i think he's more intelligent than he'd like the majority of his audience to know, and that his show is a bit insulting to women. actually, i always had more of an issue with the woman who served as his dimwitted (hi, franta!) sidekick, not seeming to care about how she allowed herself to be played.

---

dimwitted?

lordy, m'lady -- robin is the smart one on the show! (seriously!)

i know people like you n'franta like to dismiss the show as being scum or LCD kinda stuff, but...

there's actually a lot to it. everyone on there speaks their mind, and says all the stuff they want to, instead of the stuff they're supposed to (and, quite frankly, most of the time, saying what you want to say would make you the 'LCD' as well!)

but they say it, anyway, decorum be damned. does that make them a raunchy show? to some, certainly. but, when you actually follow the show for a while, you eventually realize that they're just being themselves. yeah, sometimes they're rude, sometimes they're mean, sometimes they're this and that... but EVERYone is like that -- or wants to be at least (just read around this board for cryin out loud! )

so does he appeal to the lowest common denominator? maybe. is that so bad? does oprah? lets start a comparison here -- lets compare audience demographics (majority-speaking).

howard: business men on their way to work.
oprah: housewives.

at worst, those audiences are equal.

further, i guarantee you, there are more "trailer parkers" watching oprah than howard.

so, lets compare show hosts, and their perceptions.

howard: non-listeners (franta included) see him as an egomaniac, supposedly controlling all men to think his way.

oprah: non-listeners see her as a woman-guru, supposedly controlling all women to think her way.

again, at worst, these are equal.

lets compare average daily guests:

howard: strippers, freaks, porn stars
oprah: housewives, divorcees, victims

taking the above comparison a lil further -- a commonality between the two (and any talk show host) is that there is always the aspect of "taking advantage of your guest." they need the guests to get and/or maintain ratings. thats it. but do the guests, themselves, benefit? lets compare that, with each show's average guest (detailed above).

howard's guests: get exposure, "fame," jobs and money.
oprah's guests: get to cry on tv, or receive various forms of "tough love."

so who is being taken advantage of?

lets compare how each host uses' their show as a vehicle

oprah: uses her show to discuss woman's issues, and bring them to the forefront.
howard: uses his show to discuss man's issues, and bring them to the forefront.

"but howard is disgusting -- he talks about masterbation and farting"

true. but, lets face it, those are guy issues!

and, quite frankly, i think talk about menstruation and woman under arm fat is just as, if not more, nausiating. yet one is perceived as being worse, when, again, i feel that, at worst, they are equal.

lets compare how they handled the 9-11-01 tragedy

oprah: was off for a few days, then came back and talked her audience thru the grieving.
howard: stayed on the air THAT DAY (mebbe 2 miles from the wtc) in a 'calming' effort to his audience. he came back the next day, and did another show, in an effort for "normalcy." in fact, he went in every day after that.

there's more...

further, howard started his own fund, in conjunction with giuliani's, and his audience raised millions of dollars (howard matching every penny with his own money).

still more...

some of the "trailer trash" that listens to his show dont have much money. howard publically asked for no more than a $5 donation, and because they respect him and the show and the events, people were more inclined to give to that fund (even above and beyond giving elsewhere)

STILL more...

those at the wtc to help out for hours, days, and weeks after... the rescuers, the brave and noble squads that reported there to help out... they werent listening to oprah.

they had stern on.

lowest common denominator?

says you!

...ahem...

granted, there certainly is a wide variety of talk show hosts. i just dislike the perception a lot of them get.

the springer show, for example, is just bad. (and now, its just fake!). sure, its great to watch and laugh at retarded hill billies, but... there's no beneficial value received from the show, or its participants, other than entertainment (and, for that, to each their own).

however, some easily dismiss howards' show into the same classification, with little or no justification.

saying "i dont like howard cuz he's rude and crass" is the same as saying "i dont like 'seinfeld' because its about nothing"

realistically, anyone who makes that seinfeld claim is an idiot, and stole their opinions from someone else. those who actually watch(ed) seinfeld know that the show is never about nothing, but rather about commentary on every day minutia (always coupled with extreme coincidences).

its a perception flaw.

and getting back on oprah... (i hope to god that is the only time in my life i ever say that!) granted, i never really watch the show, so im not exactly an expert, but... i could easily see a relation being made between her show and, say, jenny jones or ricky lake (some of the "less classy" daytime shows).

but, where ricki lake aims at the high school crowd, oprah aims at the people who were in high school 20-30 years ago. its the same show, just with bigger words, longer skirts, and nicer chairs.

so is the difference because ricki lake "discusses" and oprah "helps"?

montel williams' show, for example, is ALWAYS about "healing the world" in some way, shape, or form. he's always solving all of mankinds' problems in little sum-up speeches at the end of his shows and proving, with 99.9% accuracy, that jamal is the baby's daddy.

and yet, even with all his helpfulness, im sure his show would never be classified on the tier that oprah's is. rather, his would be lumped with the springers and richard beys (wuhoo!).

so whut the dilly?

i really dont understand the appeal of oprah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
ooooh, i so hate it when you do that! i'd never consider those brave souls down at the wtc as being trailer park trash. what i was refering to are the mindless psych hospital wannabes that regularly appear on low-rent "talk" shows such as the ones franta seems so enamoured of.

---

i love elitism! wether you like it or not, these people are a part of our society, i suppose their crowd does not deserve a place on television? granted these are some weird people but who are you to say springer, stern ect, is scum because they present them? some people like to read books once a month, others like to have sex with midgets, but its what they like to do, i love how elitists fiond Oprah an goddess and Stern the Devil.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chewy Walrus:
When I first saw the title of this topic, I thought you were talking about Julia Stiles, who was in the movie O and I thought I was gonna have to bust some skulls.

But... yeah, Oprah sucks.

---

Feel free to bust her skull.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
wannabes that regularly appear on low-rent "talk" shows such as the ones franta seems so enamoured of.

---

Uhhhhh when did I say I watch talk shows?!?!?
Unless you consider Politically Incorrect and David Letterman.
I hate them all I only said I give credit coz folks like Jerry and Rikki are at least honest in their explotations.

Oprah on the other hand is a very talented con artist much like the Medicine Men of old times. Her I do consider evil as she takes advantage of people under the pretense of helping them. The View offers women a sense of empowerment with controlling or exploiting people. SO if you cant function without a positive female role model turn off Oprah turn on the View.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chewy Walrus:
When I first saw the title of this topic, I thought you were talking about Julia Stiles, who was in the movie O and I thought I was gonna have to bust some skulls.

---

Hahahahahaha, that's exactly what I thought too!

Great minds think ali-.......errrr....

Oh jebus...I watch too much TV.
In Howard Stern's defense....he had Pamela Anderson on his E! show last night.She was wearing a see-through white top & no bra.Them nipples was there for all!!

Where's the outrage? Just six or so months ago, it seemed that almost all of America had embraced Oprah Winfrey as the good and great tribune of its reading preferences. She had duly trounced the perfidious, elitist fop Jonathan Franzen in the court of public opinion, and scores of commentators, publicity managers at major publishing concerns, and novelists eager to endear themselves to her marketing clout all marveled at her democratic grandeur.

Now, however, our Book Queen has announced her abdication. "It has been harder and harder to find books on a monthly basis that I feel absolutely compelled to share," Oprah declared somewhat wearily last week in the surprise announcement that she would be discontinuing the Book Club, which has efficiently minted 46 national best sellers in its run of five-plus years. (Though she still may highlight the odd title when she's moved to.) As though to underline her point, Winfrey announced that the club's April selection was to be Toni Morrison's Sula, originally published in 1974. Sula, moreover, is the fourth Morrison title to be graced with the Book Club imprimatur. (Truly devoted Oprah watchers might further surmise that the sequence of titles she selected in the immediate wake of The Corrections dust-up was in fact a coded cry for help: A Fine Balance, then Fall on Your Knees.)

There seems something churlish and—dare I say it?—elitist about this majestic dismissal. True, trendy academics have been issuing gnomic declarations about the death of the novel for the last 30 years or so. But Oprah? How could she and her staff have exhausted the range of existing share-worthy fiction (including backlists!) in a mere five years?

One answer, of course, is that Oprah was selecting a very special kind of fiction. To be sure, she had occasionally selected works by writers who fell outside the established club profile, such as Bernard Schlink, Rohinton Mistry, and (half the time, anyway) Joyce Carol Oates. But the club's principal mission has been to champion recovery, loudly and often. From the first year's Oprah picks, The Deep End of the Ocean and the Book of Ruth, through 1997's triumvirate of Bill Cosby titles, to your Wally Lambs and Billie Lettses and Anna Quindlens, Oprah selections have purveyed much the same message that O herself (in both televisual and periodical guises) continues to hammer away at: Bad things happen, women suffer, and one day, further along, once you undertake that perilous journey from bitterness to forgiveness, you will be vouchsafed the reason for your tenure on earth.

Small wonder that Oprah should find these works of didactic uplift to be of finite interest, if not, strictly speaking, in limited supply. But another, more suggestive answer is that the Book Club was never really a taste-making enterprise in the first place. Its potential for launching enterprising readers anywhere outside the immediate orbit of Oprah and her pet obsessions was always extremely limited.

As such, Oprah's outfit brought the history of American book clubs to its logical, if unfortunate, conclusion. The earliest big-name reader consortiums—the Book of the Month Club and the Literary Guild, both founded in the late '20s—as well as later congeries such as the Quality Paperback and History clubs were market-enabled gatherings of self-selected readers, whom they placed in contact with books they might not otherwise find or even think of looking for. While these clubs usually employed judges to review and nominate selections and alternates, their personalities and professional standing were decidedly beside the point. Of much greater import was the clubs' innovative use of direct-mail marketing, which competed with reigning bookstore distribution—and which publishers vigorously battled in the courts through the 1950s. The success of the Guild and the BOMC signaled that readers could determine the viability of published work in ways that were formerly unthinkable. Indeed, the clubs would tap so much pent-up reader demand that they would on occasion double as publishing houses (as the Literary Guild had) or morph entirely into publishers (as did Basic Books, which began life as the psychoanalytic book club).

Later clubs, like the Mid-Century and Readers' Subscription clubs, abjured the big-ticket marketing strategies and pursued a vigorous critical sensibility across a dizzying range of genres, new titles, disciplines, and intellectual movements. These two clubs were energetically staffed by Jacques Barzun, Lionel Trilling, and W.H. Auden, three of the least Winfrey-esque literary eminences you could imagine, but they nevertheless managed to be more than modestly successful with their own high-culture-to-the-masses business model.

Today the largest segment of the book club market is owned outright by a single publisher—Doubleday Books, which oversees a vast range of specialty clubs from the Mystery Guild to the Venus Book Club ("sophisticated erotic books, relationship building, self-help and more!"). Where book clubs had formerly been loose posses of general readers trekking across new literary frontiers, most clubs are now the means by which publishing conglomerates can direct content to groups of niche-marketed readers: mystery and sci-fi buffs, natural history enthusiasts, art fanciers, etc. General interest clubs still exist, but in attenuated form.

Most commentators have confidently placed Oprah's club in the great tradition of middlebrow uplift pioneered by the BOMC and Mid-Century Club, but it actually represents this later stage of bundling readers into pre-existing niche demographics. The Oprah club is now its own recognizable market brand—and its very titles serve as shorthand for commonly recognized genre conventions: tales of lurid family abuse, tales of the individual struggle of redemption, and—God help us all—tale upon tale of three generations of women absorbing life's hard knocks in a small town.

Oprah certainly lorded over the largest marketing niche that American publishing has yet seen—but curiously it never became anything more than a niche. One informal but telling measure of her club's studied insularity is the "Customers who bought this book also bought ..." feature on Amazon.com. Consult these cross-purchasing entries for any given Oprah pick, and they will be almost entirely of other Oprah picks. (This is even true for the Book Club's great seduced-and-abandoned orphan pick, Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections.)

Some may hope that the Today show, which has stepped briskly in to fill the void left by Oprah's curtailment, can reverse some of this market sclerosis with its promised cast of writers who will select and introduce lesser-known titles, thereby reviving for television some echo of the format of book clubs past. Today's pluralistic model certainly seems better equipped than Oprah's readocracy to broaden the public's literary taste. That is, if Katie Couric's agent isn't already deep in negotiations with Doubleday.

I found this on the MSN hompage right after I left the boards.What a coincidence.

[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: allan1 ]

Another fine example of Oprah logic is when I point out how Oprah manipulates people those who have been manipulated by it cannot see my logic instead blindly call me a chauvinistic pig instead!
Sorta like when you try to rescue someone brainwashed from a cult.