Live Your Best Life EVER

I have been known to watch Oprah. I have even been known to watch Oprah and like it. Sometimes, I even use her show as a platform for conversation. Now, I don't ALWAYS like what Oprah is discussing and frequently delete episodes after reading the info blurb on my PVR because it is just too trite or boring.

I am ambivalent about the woman and her show.

I believe she has more power than any other woman on earth and that she can use it for good and sometimes does. I realize no one can be perfect all the time and that we all have our own guilty pleasures and indulgences-- we just don't display them on international television.

It bothers me, though, that rather than being on the cutting edge in terms of significant societal issues, she waits until they affect the middle and upper classes to care. It bothers me, too, that she rarely revisits topics to explore them in any more depth and instead acts as if one hour of television (minus commercial breaks) is enough to do... anything. I am also irked by the fact that she promotes consumption in the way that she does-- as a cure all. It's easy to see it doesn't work, because Oprah herself still manages to have so many issues.

But that's why we love her, right? Because she is evidence that we are all imperfect, even the most billionaire-ic among us.

One thing that I have appreciated about her show is that she resists a positivist view of the world. She is willing to go out on a limb and support things that mainstream culture would poo-poo without her endorsement. I think this life is about exploration and asking questions for which there is no one answer. I believe that the universe has secrets we will never understand, in the healing powers of "energy" (though not to the extreme degree of The Secret) and alternative ways of knowing.

I do not believe that there is a "cure" for aging. I do not believe that vaccinations cause autism. I don't believe celebrities have any real authority on any issues other than the paparazzi and their next big movie/album/show.

This article is an interesting read and I think, probably troubled a lot of people's notions of Oprah.

Here's a portion:

Oprah routinely grabs viewers with the sort of tales of the strange and absurd that might be found a few clicks over on Maury Povich or Jerry Springer: women who leave their husbands for other women (another recent Oprah episode); a 900-pound mom (ditto). But there is a difference. Oprah makes her audience feel virtuous for gaping at the misfortunes of others. What would be sniffed at as seamy on Maury is somehow praised as anthropology on Oprah. This is Oprah's special brilliance. She is a gifted entertainer, but she makes it seem as though that is beside the point. Oprah is not here to amuse you, she is here to help you. To help you understand your feelings; drop those unwanted pounds; look and feel younger; get your thyroid under control; to smooth your thighs, nip and tuck your wrinkles, awaken your senses and achieve spiritual tranquillity so that you can at last be free to "Live Your Best Life."

Oprah takes these things very seriously. They are, after all, the answers she hopes to find for herself. If Oprah has an exquisite ear for the cravings and anxieties of her audience, it is because she shares them. Her own lifelong quest for love, meaning and fulfillment plays out on her stage each day. In an age of information overload, she offers herself as a guide through the confusion.

Her viewers follow her guidance because they like and admire her, sure. But also because they believe that Oprah, with her billions and her Rolodex of experts, doesn't have to settle for second best. If she says something is good, it must be.


While insightful in many areas, my issue with the article is that it sends the attitude that anything "alternative" to the mainstream is completely whackadoo. I'm not going to pretend to know whether Suzanne Somers is a quack or a pioneer, but I do agree with both of these women when they assert that if menopause were a male "change of life" that its symptoms would have been addressed by the "science" community long ago. There is a happy medium between choosing The Secret as your cure for cancer and thinking only science can answer life's questions-- I just wish the media could find it.

I also wonder if Newsweek is any less guilty of shallow investigation, trend-jumping and the use of pop-pseudo science for sensational headlines. And have they ever criticized Bill Gates or other billionaires for using their influence and claiming to be experts in areas where they really don't know their heads from their asses? Or are they immune because they are white males who appeal to other white males? Newsflash, Billy-Boy, the "factory model" of education fell out of favour decades ago because some Einstein figured out that because we're not starting with the same raw material we can't possibly expect the same end product. Don't get me wrong, you make some valid points-- like the fact that supervision is necessary to produce a stronger teaching force and that teachers are really what makes the difference-- but there is no standardized test that will prove who is a master teacher and who is not. Human behaviour with respect to education is better measured by qualitative research than quantitative.