…and this is a 
I'm impressed. It's a highly critical article about Oprah's peddling of quackery, and it's about time one of the big media players pointed out that she is promoting dangerous fake therapies…all with a happy smile, of course, and a message of positive self-esteem for women. It's still credulous glop, though.
It also summarizes why she's successful.
At some point, it would seem, people will stop looking to Oprah for this kind of guidance. This will never happen. Oprah's audience admires her as much for her failings as her successes. In real life, she has almost nothing in common with most of her viewers. She is an unapproachable billionaire with a private jet and homes around the country who hangs out with movie stars. She is not married and has no children. But television Oprah is a different person. She somehow manages to make herself believable as a down-to-earth everywoman. She is your girlfriend who struggles to control her weight and balance her work and personal life, just like you. When she recently related the story of how humiliated she felt when she arrived for a photo shoot to find that she couldn't fit into the clothes she was supposed to wear, she knew she had every member of the audience in her hand. Oprah's show is all about second and third and fourth chances to fix your life, and the promise that the next new thing to come along will be the one that finally works.
And then it goes on to talk about how she touted "The Secret".
Comments
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
May 31, 2009 11:32 AM
I think CNBC (or one of those cable networks; I don't watch TV) recently had a program called The Oprah Effect that was also critical of her. Yay!
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 31, 2009 11:37 AM
Found out at last, but we knew it all the time. To the Deranged Institute with you Oprah; you can be their public relations officer and occasional book reviewer. Your true calling at last.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2009 11:38 AM
When she returned to her office after the show, there, on her desk, was a silver Tiffany bubble blower.
A Tiffany bubble blower. That pretty much sums up who Oprah is.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 31, 2009 11:42 AM
Whoa indeed! This is lèse-majesté at the very least, and probably one of the signs of the apocalypse. Consult the flowchart.
Posted by: Colin J | May 31, 2009 11:46 AM
I likely will have the opposite effect. The wacko's love to think of her as the underdog, just like them. Pointing out how she's wrong will simply enforce (for them) that she's right.
Interesting to watch though!
Posted by: JD | May 31, 2009 11:51 AM
This is exactly what country music stars do. "I'm just like you...although I'm a multi-millionaire."
The fraud game is protected by the corporate manufacturing of desire akin to the mana personality (which is what Oprah is becoming).
Posted by: Bachalon | May 31, 2009 11:53 AM
Don't get me started on the tremendous opportunity she wastes with her book club.
I've always thought she selected "The Road" to show people how 'literary' she was after the debacles with "The Secret" and "Million Little Pieces."
Posted by: Sabazinus | May 31, 2009 11:56 AM
Wow, never thought I'd see something like this. Praise Cthulhu!
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 31, 2009 12:01 PM
Oh here's the last word on Somers: a Daily Fix article entitled "Suzanne Somers’s vagina will live to be 110"
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 12:11 PM
Finally, a media article that tackles a purveyor of woo instead of tackle-hugging them.
Posted by: Rakehell | May 31, 2009 12:19 PM
That is profoundly disturbing. Oprah is pretty much off my radar, so I thought her influence was limited to pimping out mediocre books and really expensive weight loss methods. Sounds like she really needs a reality check.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 31, 2009 12:23 PM
Chris Davis @ 9
A truly pathetic and puking article. Does she expect her vagina to be used, much less her brain at that age?
Posted by: Andrew Campbell | May 31, 2009 12:25 PM
Good article. Though it lets Dr. Oz off the hook if you ask me. It's not that he doesn't question the quack medical advice given on the show, he's practically a cheerleader for it. He's recommended accupuncture, rolfing and other garbage.
“But let’s broaden the discussion, because it’s not just about acupuncture,” Dr. Oz says. “The reason I’m so excited and passionate about alternative medicine is … [because it is] the globalization of medicine.”
Posted by: llewelly | May 31, 2009 12:29 PM
Pills, injection, wants to live a lot longer ... Am I the only person who reads the bit about Suzanne Sommers and is reminded of Ray Kurzweil?Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 12:31 PM
"She believes doctors, scientists and the media are all in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. "Billions are spent on marketing drugs, and these companies also support academic research.""
""I take about 40 supplements in the morning," she told Oprah, "and then, before I go to bed, I try to remember … to start taking the last 20.""
One of these quotes is not like the other.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 31, 2009 12:32 PM
Ray Kurzweil injects hormones into his vagina?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 31, 2009 12:32 PM
DAMN YOU LLEWELLY YOU BASTARD YOU STOLE MY JOKE.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 31, 2009 12:34 PM
Holbach @ 12: I think the implication is that the rest of her will eventually crumble to dust, leaving just a few vulval subassemblies, pink, turgid and throbbing with vitality.
This phenomenon is frequently observed in men, after all: the person dissipates over time, leaving just an overstimulated cock.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 31, 2009 12:35 PM
AND DAMN YOU P-ZED MIEERZ YOU RUINED MY BRAIN FOREVER.
Posted by: Vhyrrimyr | May 31, 2009 12:37 PM
@PZ, 16
It wouldn't surprise me if he did.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 31, 2009 12:40 PM
So do I, if she lets me.
Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 12:41 PM
Llewelly: Um, no, that was pretty much my first thought too. "So Suzanne Somers is taking advice from Ray Kurzweil?"
Count me in as another person who found Oprah's Book Club picks a little too Samey McSame for the most part. I read half a dozen or so before stopping, because while the books seemed good, they weren't what I was interested in. (Nor did they hit that sweet spot of "Normally I wouldn't be interested in this, but wow, this is really good." Naw, they were competent stories but I didn't really love or even like them. And I'm pretty voracious as a reader. So I guess Oprah and I have non-overlapping Venn circles of interest.)
Generally, my opinion of Oprah is otherwise fairly positive, but I was unaware that she was peddling the woo, and I find that disappointing. Unlike some people *cough cough*the Nemenhah group*cough* she seems to have a conscience and a bit of an idea when one of her promotions has gone too far, because at least she told that one lady to get treatments for her cancer instead of having her sacrifice her life and health on the altar of Oprah's infallibility. But I hope that incident has caused her to think what her endorsements mean to millions of people.
Posted by: Rick | May 31, 2009 12:42 PM
Essentially, the article bemoans the lack of critical thinking of the Oprah audience. A society-wide problem, really. This is why Richard Dawkins made the "Enemies of Reason" that examines problems deeper than just religious credulity. Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" also pounds this drumbeat.
Posted by: Marc Abian | May 31, 2009 12:54 PM
The constant applause from the audience a sure sign of a lack of thinking too.
She once instructed the audience not to open the envelopes they were given at the start of the show until she said so. They cheered.
Posted by: kaje | May 31, 2009 1:00 PM
Off topic, but breaking news: more terrorism on American soil.
Abortion Provider Dr. Tiller Shot Dead at Wichita Church
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/05/31/abortion-provider-dr-tiller-shot-dead-at-wichita-church/
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 31, 2009 1:09 PM
Chris Davis @ 18
Ha, funny! "Pink, turgid, and throbbing with vitality". Yes, definitely referring to her vagina and not the brain! But if one were to come upon them lying side by side on the road, would you be able to distinguish one from the other, as the saying goes, we get to resemble those things familiar to us, like a dog taking on our facial features?
Posted by: James | May 31, 2009 1:24 PM
Nice. Very nice. The article I mean - not Oprah.
Posted by: Libbie | May 31, 2009 1:35 PM
WONDERFUL article. Newsweek, I love you. I'm going to write them a letter thanking them for this article. I hope more people will do the same. Ideally, if people speak up in opposition of Oprah--and in support of those who oppose her--she'll eventually be forced to change her pseudoscience tune. I liked her show a lot better when it was all Maury Povich-type stuff, anyway.
What we need is a skeptical Oprah-type figure with a show of her own. Who's that hot girl from The X-Files who opposes the anti-vax crew? She should get her own talk show and rip up all the dumb claims Oprah makes. Wouldn't it be great to have most of America's women idolizing a skeptical woman?
Too bad Penn Jillette doesn't pass well in drag.
Posted by: Skeptical | May 31, 2009 1:40 PM
SO glad to see an article like this...especially from Newsweek, who I find often has some really dismal reporting (especially on religious topics). Recommend everyone DIGG this article to get it some exposure. People should read this.
Posted by: mxh | May 31, 2009 1:43 PM
I'm with you Libbie, we need to encourage Newsweek on having the guts to take on she who can do no wrong. I'll write a letter also.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 1:43 PM
I literally L-ed OL, is that a LLOL?
Posted by: Tony P | May 31, 2009 1:45 PM
Interestingly a M2F friend has been taking hormones for years. So quelle surprise that she was now diagnosed with lung cancer having never smoked and having relatively low risk factors otherwise.
It is always risky business playing with hormones.
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
May 31, 2009 1:47 PM
My favorite part of that article:
There are many lessons that might be drawn from this anecdote. One is that if you give Oprah a thoughtful gift, she may not bother to notice it or thank you for it. This is not the lesson Oprah took away from her story. Because the way she sees it, her assistant hadn't really given her the gift at all. She gave it to herself. Using the power of The Secret, she said, "I had called in some bubbles."
That says it all, really. On many, many levels.
Posted by: robotczar | May 31, 2009 1:47 PM
Haven't her viewers noticed that her advice on some things, like weight loss, have been staggeringly simplistic, foolish, and unproductive? Wait, don't answer that, I just got an image of her typical viewers.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | May 31, 2009 1:49 PM
Even if Suzanne Somers's claims about her beauty/health regime are true (and I'm sure they're utter nonsense), are they really worth all that trouble? In between all those pills, injections and treatments, does she even have time to LIVE anymore?
I'd rather just go through menopause and get old, personally. Looking 62 when you're 62 years old is not a bad thing.
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
May 31, 2009 1:49 PM
Sorry...blockquote fail. No idea why it did that.
Only the first line and the last line were mine, in post #33.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 1:49 PM
@Chris Davis #9: you a fan of Croshaw, or is just that Fully Ramblomatic happens to be hosting such a useful and humorous image?
@All you people using this indent-a-quote feature: how you doin' it?
Posted by: Prince of Dorkness
|
May 31, 2009 1:50 PM
#15 - so I wasn't the only one to spot that. Somers sticks it to Big Pharma by... erm... buying loads of crap from them. That'll show 'em.
Posted by: pcarini | May 31, 2009 1:56 PM
Almost. Ray Kurzweil injects hormones into his nano-gina.
Posted by: CJ | May 31, 2009 1:58 PM
Let's not forget her promotion of the myth of Obama - change agent, transformative leader, rather than the Chicago hack politician that he is.
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
May 31, 2009 1:58 PM
Anon @ #37:
I'm the one who forgot to blockquote each paragraph separately in #33, so I suppose I should be the one to explain!
Use the less-than symbol (shift+comma) then BLOCKQUOTE (all caps) then the greater-than symbol (shift+period) to start what you're quoting, then at the end do the same thing but put a forward slash before the word BLOCKQUOTE; i.e., /BLOCKQUOTE. No spaces in the command.
The problem is, you have to do that for each paragraph. I forgot I was quoting multiple paragraphs.
Posted by: Jambe | May 31, 2009 1:58 PM
@Chris Davis #9: you a fan of Croshaw, or is just that Fully Ramblomatic happens to be hosting such a useful and humorous image?
@All you people using this indent-a-quote feature: how you doin' it?
Posted by: mothwentbad | May 31, 2009 2:23 PM
There's one time on air when Oprah denied fundamentalist Christianity and its one-size-fits-all turn-or-burn thing. I think my mom thinks Oprah's a cultist now or something, but she used to be a fan. Not anymore!
Posted by: Prazzie | May 31, 2009 2:25 PM
But Northrup believes thyroid problems can also be the result of something else. As she explains in her book, "in many women, thyroid dysfunction develops because of an energy blockage in the throat region, the result of a lifetime of 'swallowing' words one is aching to say."
So by being a woman and following the advice "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all," (I was raised on Psalm 141:3) I gave myself an overactive thyroid gland. All along I thought I had Graves' disease, treatable with antithyroid drugs, but it was just an energy blockage in my throat region! A symptom of my hyperthyroidism is irritability. Being aware of this, I've bitten my tongue often, thus unknowingly aggravating my condition.
If only I had a guardian angel to shield me from these harmful energy blockages.
Posted by: Orac
|
May 31, 2009 2:25 PM
Actually, the article isn't all good. It praises Mehmet Oz as one of the guests Oprah has on her show who actually gives good advice. Dr. Oz is one of the prime movers for hijacking the Obama Administration's health care reform plans to insert provisions to get the government to approve and pay for "alternative" medicine.
Posted by: rimpal | May 31, 2009 2:48 PM
Oprah (un)consciously keeps alive the shallow unfounded stereotype of the wise old single black woman who has a cure for every little problem while being ignorant of the big picture. I am glad Newsweek is calling her out on this quackery
Posted by: Kevin Schreck | May 31, 2009 2:57 PM
That was a satisfactory article, for the most part, particularly that excerpt on why Oprah is famous.
I watched "The Secret" a couple of years ago, having received it as a graduation gift from someone who adores any sort of supernatural mumbo-jumbo with the word "quantum" plastered on it. I couldn't help but riff my way through watching it, ala "Mystery Science Theater 3000," to keep my sanity.
Posted by: Troy | May 31, 2009 3:53 PM
Finally!
I had that opinion of Oprah for years and was very confused as to why nobody mainstream in USA doesn't call her out on her inanity and dangerous ignorance.
Oprah is just insipid.
Posted by: robin m
|
May 31, 2009 3:55 PM
Interesting since Newsweek was the one who did the article around election time - "Is Obama the antichrist?" (http://www.newsweek.com/id/169192)I was letting my subscription lapse.
Posted by: Gay | May 31, 2009 4:00 PM
I find it funny how people are so critical when everyone has the right to pick and choose what and who they watch or give their money and support to. People always want someone to act and be the way they want. Oprah lives her life on her terms and we all know she's the greatest sales woman but the reason people hate Oprah truly is because she's influential, rich and makes her own rules. I think the fact that she's a woman and a racial minority aren't far behind in America's critique of her. America will always find a way to send minorities fifteen steps back no matter how much they've done or accomplished. And how does a woman who's been in a 20+ year relationship, albeit not married, be considered single?
Posted by: justanotherjones | May 31, 2009 4:02 PM
I have a friend who is into all sorts of woo. She told me last week she's read most of Suzanne Somers' book and "...so much of it makes sense!"
Since, until reading this Newsweek article, I knew nothing about it, I just said "hmmmmm". Think I'll forward the article to her.
Posted by: justanotherjones | May 31, 2009 4:04 PM
I have a friend who is into all sorts of woo. She told me last week she's read most of Suzanne Somers' book and "...so much of it makes sense!" Then, right afterward she told me if she were dying of cancer she'd do anything she could to cure it - she'd go to Mexico and have her blood oxygenated.
Since, until reading this Newsweek article, I knew nothing about Somers' regimen, I just said "hmmmmm". Think I'll forward the article to her.
Posted by: Skeptical | May 31, 2009 4:09 PM
@Gay: Huh? America is critical of Oprah? If anything, most of America blindly embraces her. If you read the article, you'll see that it is criticizing her for her support of dubious medical treatments and her un-scientific claims. Nowhere does the fact that she's a woman or a minority enter into the discussion....until, of course, you felt compelled to bring it up.
Posted by: Brent Royal-Gordon | May 31, 2009 4:10 PM
From what I've been told, the major pharmaceutical companies aren't involved in the manufacture and sale of supplements. Indeed, they've long lobbied to get these classed as medicines so that they fall under the same FDA regulations that make drugs so slow and expensive to develop.
Though she has nothing but contempt for Oprah, my mother does do some of the stuff Sommers talks about. She doesn't go to nearly the lengths Sommers does, but she does take a ton of vitamins and supplements with each meal. But other than a handful of pills, daily exercise, and some time spent reading research[1], she has a pretty normal life. She also contributes money to longevity research; her goal is basically to live for a very, very long time.
I'm a lot more skeptical than her, so I doubt I'll join in this stuff. (I haven't had to decide yet; the organizations she pays attention to don't recommend you do anything at all until you're at least 25.) But I don't really see it as much of a problem if she's wrong. Clearly she has a difficult to control fear of death, and spends part of her disposable income to reduce it to something that lets her live a fulfilling life. She is not so convinced it will work that she doesn't save for the future, nor does she put off things she wants to do in the belief that she has lifetimes ahead of her. She just spends money that she doesn't need on pills that may or may not do anything.
I've actually been struggling with this ethical question lately. When something is genuinely impossible to solve, is using a solution that doesn't really work (assuming it has no significant side effects) actually so bad? Are there cases where the placebo effect is better than nothing?
[1] Yes, research. People do perform small controlled studies of some of this stuff, and she reads up on them and tries to decide if the claimed benefits outweigh the costs, and if there's enough evidence for her tastes. A lot of stuff does get tossed out as bullshit—everyone in my family, including her, mocked shark cartilage from the moment we heard about it—or deferred until there's more evidence.
In truth, she's just willing to accept a lower degree of certainty than most people. She is not so credulous that she buys everything someone claims will help her. She doesn't buy into pure woo; I don't know of anything she believes that couldn't fit into the framework of modern mainstream medicine.
Posted by: natural cynic | May 31, 2009 4:25 PM
When I think about The Secret, I keep thinking that it's all those embryo's and fetus's fault that they got aborted, spontaneously or otherwise. And why should I worry about children starving and disease-ridden in the streets of Lagos, Port au Prince, Calcutta or Dacca if it's all their fault they were born there.
Posted by: Susan | May 31, 2009 4:56 PM
*Snort* Oh, very!
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
May 31, 2009 5:15 PM
Are magnetic monopoles out of style? ("You only want to use the negative magnetic poles" - paraphrase from a fitness magazine several years ago.)
I guess they're made by taking a lot of magnetized iron filings and cutting them in half.
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | May 31, 2009 5:40 PM
Cool! I don't know if PZ posted this because I pointed it out to him or if somebody else did but it sure is nice to see Oprah get outed like this. Bravo!
Posted by: Kagehi
|
May 31, 2009 5:46 PM
Hmm. I would have to say yes, it still is. Why? Because wide acceptance of a solution that doesn't work can undermine efforts to find a solution that "does", should, at some point, it actually become possible to find one. The cost of finding a real solution is usually much higher than the bad non-solution, so you get something like the alternate transportation issue in California, where everyone knows that you can't "fix" the problems with the roads by adding more lanes, but where both the "study" of the problem, as well as the "solution" to it, are perceived as too costly to consider. So, they keep using the non-solution, which they know won't actually work *ever*. The result is, nothing changes, and a state, that used to have the #1 best roads in the nation, has what is probably now the "worst" roads. And this is a "simple" problem. something like longevity is a "complex" problem, and its surrounded on all sides by people peddling the equivalent of everything from people claiming cars that run on water, to crazies that think the problem would disappear if you changed from asphalt to cotton candy as a road surface (i.e. everything from homeopathy to sugar pills), even without the "massive" list of *real* issues involved with longevity, genetic damage and finding ways to extend the first, while repairing or preventing the later.
We know the solution for the roads, but no one wants to pay for it. We only have *clues* to the aging issue, and every idiot for a thousand miles figures they can sell false solutions, which have muddied the waters so badly that "valid" research, what little of it their is, gets buried under silly BS like, "Well, if taking a few vitamins can give you 2 more years, then 50 should give you 100, right!?" No... It may even kill you faster, idiots!
Posted by: Kismet | May 31, 2009 6:38 PM
Brent Royal-Gordon, why so critical of someone striving for such a beautiful thing like a long and fullfilling life? I.e. healthy life extension in contrast to the (possible) decrepitude and pain of old age?
"She doesn't go to nearly the lengths Sommers does, but she does take a ton of vitamins and supplements with each meal."
I really hope for her that she does not take some ridiculously overdosed multivitamin, actually harming herself instead of extending health span or life span.
"the organizations she pays attention to don't recommend you do anything at all until you're at least 25"
Well, those organisations are clearly mistaken. It is widely accepted that any interventions to promote long term health or to try to increase life span should be performed as early as possible.
"Clearly she has a difficult to control fear of death"
Maybe you are right as you know her personally (but the conclusion does not follow from your post), but not everyone who supports research into life extension or has such a lifestyle suffers from "a difficult to control fear of death".
"She just spends money that she doesn't need on pills that may or may not do anything."
That's the wrong approach. Either you misunderstood her approach or she doesn't understand science. Knowledgable people will only use stuff that is more likely to work (and provide real benefits) than not *and* very safe. For instance a combination of vitamin D3 and K2 in most people (not necessarily everyone).
"I've actually been struggling with this ethical question lately. When something is genuinely impossible to solve, is using a solution that doesn't really work (assuming it has no significant side effects) actually so bad?"
(Kagehi is right that it's a bad thing if it diverts resources from real research to solve the problem; but not all supplements and "alternative" approaches are actually useless)
I'm just wondering if you are talking about aging and the inescapability of age-related death? If yes, you couldn't be more mistaken. Aging is not unavoidable and unsolvable and we're pretty sure that it can be slowed down considerably. Let's not focus on extrinsic causes (accidents), just intrinsic (aging):
Many multicellular organsisms (even if they differ a lot from humans) can live ridiculously long, some of them probably do not age at all: clonal colonies (e.g. quaking aspen) can survive for tens of thousands of years, pinus longaeva; some medusa do not age. Whales and tortoises live almost twice as long as humans.
Furthermore, mammalian life span has been extended a lot in the laboratory, by several mechanisms. Although, only Calorie Restriction seems to be applicable to humans so far. Many lines of evidence suggest that CR will work in humans, among those are studies on non-human primates which should be concluded in 5-10years, but are already quite promising.
Many other interventions are slowly emerging. A considerable extension of human maximal life span is not out of reach.
Posted by: RobertDW | May 31, 2009 7:29 PM
Brent@54
Logically, if she was convinced that the treatments would prolong her life, she would be saving more for the future; she would expect to have to live longer in retirement.
Posted by: Jake | May 31, 2009 8:12 PM
Oprah's no perfect, but if her critics were honest they would admit that they can't stand the idea of a billionaire black woman who is so influential she can dictate the best seller list, launch hit shows (i.e. Dr. Phil) and elect presidents (Obama). Over the years Oprah's had 10,000 guests so it's very easy to cherry pick some things that some of them have said that is not supported by mainstream science. I did not find the article particularly strong.
Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 8:15 PM
But I don't really see it as much of a problem if she's wrong.
Except that supplements aren't regulated, and independent tests have shown that they vary from having none of the active ingredient to several hundred times the stated dosage. And that overdosing on particular vitamins and minerals can lead to severe health problems of their own. And that people who put a lot of stock in "alternative" medicine are more likely to delay or avoid getting real treatment.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 31, 2009 8:19 PM
"but if her critics were honest they would admit that they can't stand the idea of a billionaire black woman who is so influential"
Yeah, that's it exactly. *eyeroll*
Posted by: Troff | May 31, 2009 9:07 PM
Jake@62:
> if her critics were honest they would admit that they can't stand the idea of a billionaire black woman who is so influential she can dictate the best seller list, launch hit shows (i.e. Dr. Phil) and elect presidents (Obama).
... I can't stand the idea of ANYONE who is so influential they could do all that. Because if they're crazy, they'll be influencing from the perspective of... um, *crazy and destructive*.
Posted by: Mark Thacker | May 31, 2009 11:04 PM
Impressive article. Well researched, well written. And that passage that was quoted reads like it was written to be remembered and quoted by bloggers. Score. It contains the strongest claims of the entire essay, and is repeated, twice. PZ, one reasons I keep reading is because you tend to keep up with the fallout of things you cover. Let us know if this event generates new news!
Posted by: Moxie Hart
|
June 1, 2009 12:43 AM
I really enjoyed this article and found it to be solid and well-reasoned.
@ Jake & Gay: I didn't see anything in the article to suggest that the author thought Oprah's inferior because of her race or gender. I know it's crazy, but women and people of color are capable of promoting the same amount of woo as men and white folks. Oprah has a nationwide spotlight that she could use to promote scientific literacy but instead she promotes dangerous and questionable procedures like taking hormones when you don't need them and thread face-lifts. She's like a slightly more credible Sylvia Browne without the terrifying nails.
I strongly encourage everyone who enjoyed this article to write to Newsweek because you know the Oprah & Jenny McCarthy Army will be out in force.
Posted by: astrounit | June 1, 2009 3:00 AM
Well, it's about time SOME critic put that lousy act into proper perspective.
Nothing worse than a Pied Piper. EXCEPT when the piper is exploiting the plight of the disadvantaged.
Then it's HIDEOUS BEYOND ENDURANCE.
Wait a minute! This looks alot like the line I included in another post eleswhere having to do with RELIGIOUS leaders...
Never mind. Still works. Same thing goin' on...
Uh...yep. She's got a jet too.
Guess what HER "Secret" is?
Posted by: astrounit | June 1, 2009 3:47 AM
Mark Thacker, # 66: "PZ, one reasons I keep reading is because you tend to keep up with the fallout of things you cover. Let us know if this event generates new news!"
Mark, from my 4+years of hanging, PZ is second to none in this respect. Not only is he on top of the situations as they first sprout, he's on the case with any worthwhile further developments.
This one I don't particularly find all that important (Oprah WHO?) but if anybody with that much power and influence gets a decent dressing-down, I'm sure I'll hear about it first from PZ right here.
It's also where I got my main political news cleanest and fastest during the last pres campaign...
Couldn't happen now though. It's too much of a lousy mess right now.
Posted by: shonny
|
June 1, 2009 3:55 AM
The sickest in all this is all the people and TV-stations that use Oprah as an oracle.
Though, profit and sensationalism trump knowledge and understanding. Bread and circus . . .
Posted by: Jake | June 1, 2009 6:49 AM
You guys are supposed to be skeptics, but you are mindlessly assuming that an overweight black woman watched by housewives by definition must be full of crap, and the white male media establishment (Newsweek) must be correct.
Did it ever occur to you that Newsweek might have agenda? Paypack for Oprah endorsing Obama? Resentment that a black woman entertainer is the most influential force in media? Elitist resentment that someone outside the political, social and professional elite was able to acquire so much influence?
Did it ever occur to you that the doctors (or the corporations that fund them) might have a vested interest in discrediting & silencing some of the more unconvential medical ideas discussed on Oprah?
Did it ever occur to any of you brilliant skeptics that you can make anyone look like a nut by cherry picking (out of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of hours Oprah's been on national TV) the most controversial advice ever given and presenting it to sound as crazy as possible?
The Newsweek article was nothing but anecdotal cherry picking. There were no objective aggregate statistics showing that advice given on Oprah was on average any less accurate than any other media. The article was a hit piece intended to discredit an amazing woman who overcame every disadvantage to build one of the greatest media empires of all time. The article has no scholarly value whatsoever; it depends on the sexism, racism, & classism of its readers to dismiss Oprah without critically examing the methods & agenda of the article.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 1, 2009 7:49 AM
Jake @71: If a writer had a desire to keep down women, poor people and black people he'd be encouraging Miss Winfrey not attacking her. After all what better to keep people in their places than "The Secret", a book she spent weeks shilling for and which tells people all their problems come from attitude (so no need to change the way society works). As much as she clearly cares sincerely about the disadvantaged she is as useful an idiot as any privileged class could hope to have.
You say the article is cherry picking. Of course it is; it's an op-ed, not a work of scholarship. I note you don't go so far as to say it's claims are false.
The question is: is how it describes the Oprah Show correct? How about this for a neutral methodology for answering that question: list all the public figures whose opinions have an audience primarily based on exposure on Oprah. Do they consist largely of people selling easy solutions, woo and bullshit? I think they do.
Or just watch a couple of random episodes and count the number of times it is suggested that what is needed is woo (whether faith in God or "positive energy"). The author may have an agenda; he may have cherry-picked to make his case. He is also right.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 1, 2009 7:53 AM
HA. On the subject of Oprah's useful idiocy on behalf of the over-class I just saw (in a comment a Respectful Insolence) the perfect phrase to sum up her "pseudo-empowerment and easy solutions in place of really fixing things" bullshit: "the Oprium of the masses".
Posted by: Jake | June 1, 2009 8:34 AM
Matt@72, the Secret does not tell people all their problems come from bad attitude. It simply advises people that they will be more successful if they have a positive attitudes and an internal locus of control. Oprah recommended it, perhaps in part because positive thinking was instrumental in her surviving the adversity of illegitimacy, racism, sexism, sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, and weight discrimination to become one of the successful people on the planet.
Personal empowerment is not incompatible with societal reform. That's a straw man argument as well as being totally ridiculous. And if Oprah were serving the interests of the privileged class, why did she use her influence to elect Barack Obama; someone who wants to raise taxes on the privileged class to give benefits to the poor? Obama is by far the most important endorsement Oprah has ever made, and he doesn’t sell easy solutions and woo; but tangible structural solutions.
Posted by: Jake | June 1, 2009 8:56 AM
And btw Matt@72, Oprah doesn't even believe in God in anay kind of conventional sense. She was attacked by Christain fundamentalist for arguing that there is no one path to God because God is just a feeling; the combined awareness of all living things. That God comes from within. You attack Oprah for promoting woo, when in actuality, the secular church-free spirituality Oprah's been preaching for over a decade has done more to contribute to the decline of organized religion than Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, & Bill Maher combined.
Posted by: tigerlily55 | June 1, 2009 8:59 AM
The problem I started having with Oprah over the years was that when she does have experts on she doesn't shut up long enough for them to say very much. She has become her own expert.
I thought the part about her weight issues was very shallow. She's hardly the only woman (or man) in the world who starts on a new regime full of passion to finally lose the weight and ends up gaining it back.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 1, 2009 10:57 AM
Hm. We're talking about Opera right? Ya know the lady who touted bombing Baghdad and invading Iraq because she was mad at terrorrists! (shouting down her sensible guest and getting her crowd to scream with her) The lady who likes putting Octi'mom's on pedestals in front of her constituents and praising them for being stupid and not knowing how to use fertility drugs. The lady who keeps putting quacks on her show and telling everyone that they are listening to sound advise, like that chick who wants to take vaccines off the market because she 'cured her son of autism but he got it from the vaccine' and Dr. Phil who lost his psychology license but doesn't need it because his show is listed as "entertainment" oh and Suzanne Somers telling us the secret to staying *cough* young.
Oh I'm sure I'll get called a sexist for this but: Oprah, it's what's wrong the gender-feminist movement. *among other things*
Oh and I can tell you the real secret to Suzanne Somers's youth. It's called plastic surgery.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 1, 2009 11:00 AM
I spelled her name wrong. whoops. Meh. my bad.
Oprah*
Posted by: Jake | June 1, 2009 12:46 PM
Actually Ouchimo@77, Oprah did more to try to stop the war in Iraq than anyone else in media. The day after Colin Powell made his Feb 5th UN presentation making the case for war, Oprah hosted a massive two day anti-war show. You can see part of it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7254048331572558471
Michael Moore was so impressed by Oprah's anti-war shows during the run-up to war that he begged her to run for president.
And Oprah never shouted down any anti-war guest. What your thinking of was a guest who disagreed that Sadam Hussein tortured people during a show when Oprah was first learning about the Iraq debate. Oprah never shouted her down, she just told her she had a right to her opinion & cut to commericial.
Posted by: tus | June 1, 2009 1:17 PM
what no mention of that hack "dr" phill?
Posted by: Ted Powell | June 1, 2009 4:12 PM
David Gorski at Science-Based Medicine has posted The Oprah-fication of Medicine.
Posted by: Ryan C. | June 1, 2009 5:43 PM
My wife is a fan of both Oprah and "un-licensed" Dr. Phil while I am not.The only shows of Oprah's that I will watch with my wife are the one's with Dr. Oz since he is the most honest guest I have ever seen and he consistently provides great info.
I'd like to tell you a story about Oprah that I sincerely believe to be true.
My friend/co-worker and I were talking about Oprah one day when he shared this with me. His mother is a flight attendant on a major airline. I think it was Delta but it's been a couple of years and I can't be sure anymore.
She and the one other flight attendant had a fair system where one would work coach on the outgoing flight while the other worked first class. They would switch on the return trip. They had done this for a while now. The mother was working first class on the return trip from LA to Chicago (having previously worked coach) when she noticed Ms Winfrey in first class (I guess her plane was broke or she decided she needed to "mingle" with "commoners" or was on one of her stupid road trips or whatever). She offered to help her with her bags, and whatever she needed when Oprah noticed the other flight attendant working coach. This did not please Ms. Winfrey as she immediately demanded that "the African-American* attendant work first class" presumably because she was black and my friend's mother was white (her last name was Rodriquez). The two attendants tried to explain their fair work arrangement but Oprah wouldn't listen and still demanded that the Black woman serve her drinks. So much for the Civil Right's Movement Oprah. Cue the in-flight movie "White Man's Burden.*"
I have no reason not to believe the accuracy of this story. My co-worker and I are both Active Duty US Air Force so lying and making up stories about people we don't know isn't something we do. His mother is a very nice woman and married a Hispanic man so I have little reason to think she is racist or discriminatory.
I had already formed a somewhat low opinion of Oprah prior to this story and believed she may be discriminatory. After hearing this story I felt I was probably right about her. The woman had done some great things like build her school in Africa (for black children) and rebuild homes for Hurricane Katrina victims (mostly Black) and give away tons of $$$ to other needy people and charities. I just feel that she always gives it to minorities just because they aren't White. I'm not saying White people deserve special attention, just that she could try to spread her wealth around more evenly to non-Blacks if she is going to give it away. There are lots of groups that could use her support and she really could impact the lives of people other than minorities to better this country and world. Build some schools here in the US for all races, not just Black children 10K miles away.
She should also stop having loons like Jenny McCarthy on talking about shit they have no real education about. Being in Playboy and hosting an MTV dating show for three years doesn't qualify her to preach medical advice to millions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000189/
I apologize for the long post. It's my first in a while here.
*Personally I hate to use the term African-American. If you are two generations removed from relatives who lived on the continent and have brown-black complexion, you are Black. A-A can include white South Africans
and Arabic Egyptians so it's more of a misnomer and poor descriptor of race.
* White Man's Burden is a film starring John Travolta where Caucasians are the minority and Blacks the majority.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 1, 2009 7:23 PM
Ted Powell, I don't think Oprah lacks critical thinking skills when it comes to science. In fact some of the stuff she's pushing is actually correct, but mainstream science has yet to catch up. Keep an open mind.
Posted by: Jake | June 1, 2009 10:05 PM
Ryan@82, the airline story you were told about Oprah is an urban myth. Oprah's had a private jet for the past two decades or so.
As for Oprah not giving enough charity to white people; the point of charity is to help those in need. Africa is the poorest continent in the world with a generation of children being raised by their siblings. They need the help more & if the richest black person in the world doesn't help them, who will?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 1, 2009 10:15 PM
wait
What?
Dr. Oz is an apologist for pseudo-science and "alternative" (read untested, unproved, non empirical based) medicine. He's far from honest or providing great info.
Posted by: Moxie Hart
|
June 1, 2009 11:25 PM
It's good to have an open mind. Just not so open that everything falls out.
If Oprah's promoting something, there's a good chance that it's; 1. Prohibitively expensive and 2. Makes you feel good but isn't necessarily based in reality a la The Secret.
Posted by: Jake | June 2, 2009 8:42 AM
Rev.BigDumbChimp@85 Dr. Oz is one of the best doctors in America. He operated on Bill Clinton's heart. Just because you're too narrow minded & dogmatic to even consider alternative medicine, doesn't mean those who do are quacks. I'm so sick of the dogma on this blog. You guys are as bad as religous fundamentalists.
Posted by: Daggerstab | June 2, 2009 9:05 AM
This is a bit ironic, coming from a guy that sounds as if he's Catholic and Oprah is the Virgin Mary...
Posted by: monecar | June 4, 2009 12:43 PM
This country is about Freedom of Speech ... if people don't talk about things and someone doesn't step forward and say here is a different opinion ... we all should just be lemming's and never question anything. Small minds end up being no mind at all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 1:00 PM
You can be a genius on some areas and a total fucking wackjob in others.
Dr. Oz promotes some unproven questionable woo.
There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine.
It either works and you can demonstrate that or it's unproven and the efficacy can not be shown. Show it actually works and you have medicine.
You'd hope a man with the credentials that Dr. Oz has would stay true to empirical based medicine, and maybe he will, but promoting CAM is not staying true to that.
I do take back my statement above that "nothing Dr. Oz says can be trusted". That was extreme hyperbole and was over the line.
Lets hope he sticks to promoting proven medical advances or to requiring that "alternative" ones have to go through the same ringer.
I'm fully open minded to new forms of medicine as long as they can be show to actually be effective. Not just assumed they are for the multitude of bogus reasons that CAM is.
Why not put them through the same rigors that everything else has to go through?
Posted by: jes'fine | June 6, 2009 5:17 PM
"The darkness is vast and the campfire is small."
Would love to give proper credit for that quote if someone knows who made it. Only heard it once long ago and all searches have been fruitless.
My own take on the blow back on the Newsweek story is that Prometheus was chained to the rock not because fire brought heat but rather because it brought light. And you can quote me on that. People don't like their beliefs messed with.
The pity/tragedy is that Oprah could use her unmatched reach and influence to bring light.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 5:22 PM
You can be a genius on some areas and a total fucking wackjob in others.
Michael Egnor comes rapidly to mind...
oh, and Francis Collins.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 5:25 PM
This is a bit ironic, coming from a guy that sounds as if he's Catholic and Oprah is the Virgin Mary...
Projection is the most common form of communication among the religious.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 5:29 PM
It [the Secret] simply advises people that they will be more successful if they have a positive attitudes and an internal locus of control.
wrong.
It really does say that if u wish for something with all your will, you'll get it.
In fact, that's much more how Oprah supported it using personal examples.
don't know why all the BS, but you're way off here.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 5:32 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/shame_on_oprah.php
^here's a bit about the Secret.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 5:34 PM
my favorite Oprah moment:
Unlimited Power!!
Posted by: Jake | June 7, 2009 12:21 PM
Hey guys, I thought you might be interested in knowing there are people a lot more credible than Jenny McCarthy who agree with some variants of her ideas. Check out this recent document by Robert Kennedy:
http://statismwatch.ca/2009/02/24/vaccine-court-autism-debate-continues/
Posted by: Andrew MW | June 7, 2009 10:30 PM
PZ, your comments on this have made it all the way down here to NZ...
"Oprah rushes to defend show's 'credulous glop'"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10577013
I think this is a reprint of an article in the Independent?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 7, 2009 10:37 PM
Hey guys, I thought you might be interested in knowing there are people a lot more credible than Jenny McCarthy
*yawn*
why do you think this any more credible a source? Has Kennedy got a degree in epidemiology?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 7, 2009 10:40 PM
Oprah sez:
"I trust viewers, and know that they are smart and discerning enough to seek out medical opinions to determine what may be best for them."
...because sure as hell SHE'S not discerning enough.
Posted by: Andrew MW | June 7, 2009 10:44 PM
PZ, your comments on this have made it all the way down here to NZ...
"Oprah rushes to defend show's 'credulous glop'"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10577013
I think this is a reprint of an article in the Independent?
Posted by: John Morales | June 7, 2009 11:01 PM
Thanks, Andrew, that is interesting.
cf. the Simon Singh: principled and brave thread.Posted by: Jake | June 8, 2009 3:48 AM
"...because sure as hell SHE'S not discerning enough."
If she's discerning enough to become one of the richest and most influential people in the world, I'm guessing she's discerning enough.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 8, 2009 4:32 AM
If she's discerning enough to become one of the richest and most influential people in the world, I'm guessing she's discerning enough.
If you think richness = discerning intellect, you might wanna start dating Paris Hilton.
Posted by: Jake | June 8, 2009 5:52 AM
"If you think richness = discerning intellect, you might wanna start dating Paris Hilton."
Oprah's much much richer than Paris Hilton, and unlike Hilton was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth, but overcome adversity of every kind. Beyond that Oprah did not just figure out how to achieve stratospheric wealth, but stratospheric influence to boot (and used it to elect the first black president). That level of success demonstrates good problem solving & a long pattern of good decision making.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 8, 2009 6:46 AM
That level of success demonstrates good problem solving & a long pattern of good decision making.
uh...
sure...
it has nothing to do with the vast pool of credulous morons like yourself that have become fanboys and buy her magazine?
Posted by: Tod | June 8, 2009 7:49 AM
"it has nothing to do with the vast pool of credulous morons like yourself that have become fanboys and buy her magazine?"
Either way, good marketing still requires good problem solving and good decision making, especially to make to the absolute pinacle as Oprah has, and stay there for so long. It's an extremely competetive world.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 8, 2009 7:58 AM
*finger twirl
She preys on her audience who gobbles up anything she says as if they were words from a wise master.
She pushes idiocy and irrationality.
Just because someone is rich and powerful, it doesn't make them right and it sure doesn't make them good.
Oprah should be ashamed of herself, but you know she isn't. She's bought into the myth of Oprah as much as anyone has. You included.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 8, 2009 8:02 AM
Argumentum ad crumenam
"[R]eality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Corollary: You can fool a person's mind into believing medical pseudoscience, but you can't fool their body.
Posted by: lin | July 18, 2009 12:03 PM
You guys are a bunch of sheep. My mom has severe problems in her vaginal area at a late age so the doctor gave her an estrogen ring that she has to replace every 90 days. I imagine the syringe of estrogen is a similar concept. Also, most of the remedies you state as "quackary" actually have a lot of scientific research behind them. As far as being far fetched..most are pretty well known amongst the cutting edge scientists. So if you want to wait 10 years for the main stream to catch up with the double blind placebo studies..go right ahead... Because it took 40 years for the first person that found that scurvy was cured by vitamin C to be accepted by the mainstream medical profession. I for one admire Oprah for letting us know, I am one who goes boldly where few have gone before. PS> I have also reduced the process and symptoms of my mom's parkinson's disease by vitamins and supplements alone.
Posted by: msn nickleri | August 28, 2009 11:29 AM
How about this for a neutral msn nickleri methodology for answering that question: list all the public figures whose opinions have an audience primarily based on exposure on Oprah.
Posted by: Posicionamiento | September 13, 2009 6:34 AM
I dont like Oprah, she'll do anything for money.