bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:10 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:43 pm, RHF wrote:
Oprah Winfrey has a Duty and Responsibility to her Viewers*
* The All American Women's TV Audience -or- Are Only Liberal
Democrat Women ALLOWED to Watch 'The Oprah' ?
No she doesn't. She can have on or not anybody she likes, just like
any other talk show. If a conservative talk show guy/gal just wants
McCain and Palin on, that's his/her business.
Actually, yes, she does. Oprah has declared her program, for the
purposes of McCain-Feingold, a NEWS program. In that case, yes, she
DOES have a duty and responsibility.

I understand why she would do this, but I am very unclear why
declaring herself a NEWS program gives her a duty or responsibility to
her viewers, to give equal time to all opposing viewpoints. There are
plenty of news programs on both sides that are as lopsided as a one-
legged horse. For that matter, there are lots of non-news programs
that do likewise, and I doubt they are in violation of McCain-Feingold
any less than she might be (emphasis on word "might" - the lawsuits
aren't settled yet).


Oprah has made a great issue out of raising her show above the
other chat shows that pander to the more or less prurient interests
of the public. Springer, Maury, to a lesser extent Montel...and the
balance of the banal. Only Oprah has declared herself and her show
to be about the higher plain...a higher standard...and she's someone
who's gone out of her way, over the years, to bash so called news
that has been unfair, unbalanced, or lopsided. Only Oprah has
declared herself to be the arbiter of what is mete, right, and
salutary, and that we should at all times and in all places give
thanks for her bountiful grace.

And then came Obama. Now, in previous campaigns, she's had on
candidates. Both sides. With Obama's declaration for the
Presidency, she's now taken the position that she's not going to use
her program as a platform for any candidate, conveniently pointing
out that Obama was interviewed, more than once, before he officially
declared. And yet, she's endorsed him. On her show, in fact. She
hosted the soiree for him and his campaign, at her home. She's
stumped for him.

But declaring that her show will not under any circumstances
interview Sarah Palin because her program will not be used as a
political venue is disengenuous in the extreme.

Oprah IS the show. Wherever. Whenever. And she's clearly decided
to endorse Obama, eschew Palin, while declaring her show's
neutrality, after offering it to anyone with a candidacy. Nonsense.




Where did you get this "All-American" slogan from? Is that hers?
Yes, actually it is.

Does she say this on her broadcast? If so, that's just silly. I have
no intention of watching her to find out, in any case.



She has said it numerous times, yes.



Anybody can watch or avoid her show. I don't think her program
amounts to a hill of beans in this election, frankly, so who cares?
This amounts to the same level of effectiveness as those misguided
nuts sitting in trees on the UC-Berkeley campus.
She does have considerable influence. Whether or not she can
swing an election among female voters is a legitimate question. But
clearly she thinks she can, or she would not have defined her
program as 'news.'

Whether she thinks she can or not is beside the point. I do not
believe she has a significant amount of influence. She is one voice,
albeit a loud one, out of hundreds, all of whom clamor for whatever
they want you to hear.

Then, again, media believes itself to be the Fourth Branch. Which
isn't anything new. History points overwhelmingly to Robert
McCormick being responsible for the election of Abraham Lincoln.

You must be referring to Joseph Medill, the predecessor to McCormick
in Chicago - Mr. McCormick the elder was far to young to have much
effect on Mr. Lincoln's election (he was not yet 12 years old at the
first one), and his son Robert was born after Lincoln had been gone 15
years.


Crossed wires, here...yes, you are correct.


Been writing too many things at once, here.