The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Thoughts on Oprah

Text Size

Thoughts on Oprah

By Aaron Goldstein on 5.25.11 @ 11:17AM

With Oprah Winfrey officially ending her long running show today let me share a few thoughts.

To start with I do not count myself a fan of Ms. Winfrey. Of course, I am well aware that millions of people in the United States and Canada do not share this view (my 91-year old maternal grandmother amongst them).

Please bear in mind that my opinion of her formed long before she endorsed Barack Obama. Indeed, my impression of her came about during the early years of her show in the late 1980s and early 1990s. When I would get home from school her show would often be on. Frankly, she just rubbed me the wrong way. She came across to me as patronizing and condescending with a 'I'm better than you' attitude. Now that I think about it I can see why Oprah and Obama took to each other.

Of course, I am well aware of Oprah's philanthropy. In fact, I remember getting into a discussion with an old friend from university a couple of years ago about this very subject. I told her that hen it comes to giving there are people who give and then there are people who want to be seen giving.

I cited the late Baseball Hall of Fame Ted Williams as an example of someone who gives. The Splendid Splinter did not have the best of relationships with the media in Boston even at the height of his success. Yet despite Williams' cantankerous and surly reputation, he made time for The Jimmy Fund, the Red Sox charity for children afflicted with cancer. He visited them regularly at the Dana Farber Institute and would often pay their parents' hospital bill. Yet Williams eschewed any publicity for these efforts. When one reporter had the temerity to ask Williams about his good works he brushed him off and said, "What I do for the Jimmy Fund, I do for the kids." For Williams, good deeds spoke for themselves and did not warrant additional attention.

As for Oprah, I view her as someone who wants to be seen giving. Now I don't doubt that her efforts have helped people who might not otherwise get it. But if there weren't cameras or a newspaper headline lauding Oprah's generosity would she be there to give? Even my friend, ever the Oprah fan, admitted that she had to wonder. It is worth noting that when Oprah announced she would be ending her show a year ago, she subsequently shuttered her charity, The Angel Network.

View all comments (22) | Leave a comment

Oldefarte| 5.25.11 @ 11:33AM

Just as Lisa Fabriso's excellent article ENOUGH indicated concerning the Democratic Party, so too is it ever going to be enough of Oprah's continual manipulation of women [her audiences are almost completely composed of same, to the entire exclusion of males]. Oprah is IMO a complete fraud and huckster, and represents no redeeming social value of any way, shape or form; and it saddens me that the opposite sex is so completely taken in by her BS!!!!!!!

JmsA| 5.25.11 @ 12:35PM

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

NO RINO ROMNEY| 5.25.11 @ 3:45PM

Not ALL women, Oldefarte, just the gullible ones. Jeez!

Oldefarte| 5.25.11 @ 3:48PM

True, but again her audiences are all females. Thank the Almighty for the intelligent Palin/Buchanann types that can think for themselves!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 5.25.11 @ 3:51PM

PS: I'm no sexist-pig, okay? These Oprah darlings' significant others are all home watching wrestling on their big plasma screens while downing a few brewskies!!!!!!

NO RINO ROMNEY| 5.25.11 @ 7:11PM

I know you're not a pigster. I just wanted to point out to the gentlemen on this blog that not all of us girls are Oprah drooling idiots. :)

Thanks for the Sarah compliment!

LarryK| 5.25.11 @ 12:21PM

Hey, they're just there for the free goodies

Bob Grant| 5.25.11 @ 1:25PM

When it comes to high-profile celebrities , charity is a business investment. These charitable causes to which they attach their names require very little psychic energy, time, or out of pocket money but provide bigtime payouts in the form of future endorsement contracts or any other lucrative future project.

It's all about upping your Q rating.

Claypoole| 5.25.11 @ 1:51PM

Speaking of ratings, I seem to remember a report that came out during the 2008 campaign about Oprah's brief attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ. I can't remember the exact phrasing of the report (it tried to put a spin on the whole business), but the upshot was that Oprah recognized the virulent racism coming from the pulpit could do her no good with her audience, many of whom were white. She did not return to the church, but Obama did--for 20 years--and, still, Oprah endorsed him.

Bob Grant| 5.25.11 @ 2:01PM

This Chicago corruption/hate syndicate (Obama, Wright, Ayers, Emanuel, Daley family, and possibly Oprah) has spread it's poison to the entire country.

Occam's Tool| 5.25.11 @ 2:41PM

Yeah, well, except for adoption of kids. It's one of the reasons I love the Minnesota Bombshell, Jane Russell.

Bob Grant| 5.25.11 @ 3:27PM

Um...yea, I'm even cynical about high-profile celebrities adopting children. Madonna, Jolie, etc. Vacation to third wold countries shopping for children who would attractively complete their perfect little United Nations family. It seems like the same mentality as shopping for rugs and furniture to finish out a room.

Time to start adopting kids from this country. Cute or not.