September 5, 2008 11:15 PM
Oprah shuns Sarah Palin - ABC asks 'Is Oprah biased?'
Oprah fans are clamoring for her to do a show with Sarah Palin, but Oprah refuses.
Her excuse: she doesn't want to get involved with politics. She's gonna wait until after the campaign.
But Oprah's already involved in politics - as a campaigner and fundraiser for Obama, whom she's had on her show twice.
Yes, her two Obamaramas were before he announced his campaign. But after his announcement and her endorsement - as she said, the first she's ever made - she she shut the door for any other candidates and went to work off camera for her guy.
So we're supposed to believe that she is being neutral by not having Sarah Palin on her show - a woman millions of American women are dying to hear from? A woman almost unknown 8 days ago, who within a week had drawn a record-breaking television audience - for a vice-presidential acceptance speech? A woman whose popularity rating according to polls is higher than McCain's or Obama's?
Oprah, the consummate business woman? It doesn't really add up - or does it?
For more perspective:
Five reasons why Palin should appear
And from ABC News:
Is Oprah Biased? Host Won't Interview Palin
Republican VP Nominee Sarah Palin Isn't Welcome on 'Oprah'
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
Sept. 5, 2008She may have let Tom Cruise jump all over her couch, but Oprah Winfrey says that Sarah Palin can't even sit on it.
Fans of Oprah debate whether the talk show host is being bias but not invited Palin on her show before the election.
(Getty Images/AP Photo)At least not until after the presidential election, that is.
Responding to media reports first publicized on Matt Drudge's "The Drudge Report" claiming there was turmoil at Winfrey's Harpo Studios about whether to book the GOP vice presidential nominee on the popular talk show, Winfrey's camp said today that while she has nothing against Palin, the veep hopeful won't appear on the show anytime soon.
Read entire article here.
As a Palin supporter, I urge Oprah to keep up the good work. This snub will only increase Palin's appeal while peeling away a hefty layer of Oprah fans.
Posted in Campaign 2008, Media Bias | Permalink
Comments
Hi Barbara,
I hope you allow people to disagree with you in the comments section of your blog. I thought Oprah's decision was because she was so out there for Obama, not because she didn't want to get involved with politics. She's been so public for her guy, wouldn't any interview with Palin turn into a defacto debate instead of an interview?
I also had questions about your piece in the Monitor. I think you read much more about her having kids in "the pro-McCain press" if you will, and more mentions of her record in the "the pro-Obama press."
Posted by: WhyWeType | September 6, 2008 9:07 AM
WhyWeType -
Of course I allow people to disagree in the comments. It gives me a chance to say more :)
However, I do delete any comments which contain ad hominem attacks or that are vicious or ugly or a complete distraction.
My policy is to email the person and tell them why so they can rewrite their message in a civil way. Most of the time, the email addresses left are phony.
Sometimes the email addresses are real, but people don't care to reframe their concerns in a civil manner.
Honestly, over 3 1/2 years of blogging, I have not used the delete key often until this week when I have seen some really irrational stuff on my computer screen.
Thinkers produce their own material. Reactionaries go around looking for places to spew their hostility. I respect the right of people to disagree, but I do not feel obligated to provide a forum for drive-by snipers.
Posted by: barbara | September 6, 2008 9:22 AM
For those who want to learn more about Sarah Palin or show their discontent with Oprah:
There's a section of links on http://www.USAMediaGuide.com to:
--The "Get Sarah Palin on Oprah" petition and website
--The Amazon.com page where you can buy her biography
--The Anchorage newspaper's biography of her
--The Palintology.com blog that has followed her career
--The local Anchorage news outlets that cover her
--Other Sarah Barracuda-related sites
Posted by: Harry Knopp | September 6, 2008 10:06 AM
I wasn't surprised by her decision- she's made no secret of her support of Obama. I think it's her show and her choice. That's freedom of speech and the right to your own property. I agree that it will force some women to choose between supporting Palin and supporting Oprah. That's the free market. I think suggesting she's a racist is unfounded by her decision and way over the top. We can't call someone a racist just because they make a decision we don't like. ABC is just trying to fan the flame of controversy surrounding Sarah Palin. The media would love it if they could create a Sarah vs Oprah war. A nice way to distract us from the election and make Governor Palin look bad.
Posted by: Sandy | September 6, 2008 10:52 AM
Should the conditions that affect job and family for working women be reviewed collectively or case-by-case? Subtle shifts in the skills, time, mood focus, and demands on any person--male or female--who is in the number two national office--are different from fixing school lunchess, folding laundry, offering quality time,and being fully engaged in the large and small events that mean so much to our children. Few mothers are ever called to weigh in on sending troops into harm's way.Few mothers are dispatched to nations to discuss the consequences of military actions. Few mothers have demands that range from the politically, presiding over the senate, to the ceremonially, attending state dinners and posing for photo opps.
Do women desire the opportunities? Yes. Do women who are mothers desire the same opportunities as all women? Yes. But as a father who supported his ex-wife in her decision to thrive and advance up the career ladder, one in which she ultimately became the public relations director for the Congressional Black causus, I too know firsthand how the absence or inattention or schedule of one parent can have a deep effect and lasting impressions upon a child.
Moreover, the debate with Sarah Palin is not framed as whether mothers can be tasked to achieve high office while loving their children. It is framed as a case involving a particular woman--Sarah Palin.
There are lingering, small signs (including the announcement of her 17 year's old engagement, even pregnant, how many of today's 17 year old's are ready for marriage?)that Palin's motherhood is being used to serve a political agenda, to advance her career. For instance, how can a governor who is the mother of a special needs children, cut the education budget of her state for specdial needs children by 62 percent, takng away more than 3 million dollars for special needs education. The balance and demands and sacrifices that working woman and mothers make should not be used to "hide" or "cloak" these women who share the labels, but whose performance, in either or both spheres, serves an agenda that is opposite to the best of qualities shared by leaders and parents.
Posted by: walterrhett, Charleston, SC | September 6, 2008 11:11 AM
I think the charge of racism is a bit much. Obviously Oprah's not a racist, just a liberal. She supports Obama, and doesn't want to give the other side her time.
Honestly, I don't really think this is so awful. I don't think she's even trying to claim that she's somehow neutral. I think what she's done is to say, "You all know where I stand on this issue, I've been very clear that I support Obama, so let's not bring it onto the show." Her interviews with Obama on the show were all before he was running for president; she's studiously avoided bringing him back (even though I'm sure she'd love to!) probably for the sole reason that if she did she'd be almost required to interview the other side, too.
How interesting... for the spam filter this time I'm being asked to type an 'O'.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | September 6, 2008 11:45 AM
Walterrhett, there is nothing inherent to being 17 years old that makes a person "unready" for marriage, except the unnatural way that our society pushes young people to put off the trappings of adulthood for as long as possible. 17 year olds are not "ready" for marriage because *we* don't prepare them, and discourage them from doing anything to prepare themselves. Bristol Palin is about to be a mother, and she is going to have to grow up regardless of what we think. The decisions to keep her baby and get married are proofs that she is already maturing.
Secondly, the 62% cut in funding for Special Ed is a myth. That budget was created and approved by Palin's predecessor; she had nothing to do with it. In fact, Palin has INCREASED funding for Special Ed by 150%!
Posted by: Michelle Potter | September 6, 2008 1:55 PM
I am not an Oprah fan, so I'm OK with the Palin non-appearance.
Posted by: Kelly | September 6, 2008 3:20 PM
yes she is a RACIST.
Posted by: tony sacco | September 6, 2008 10:14 PM
I have two points to make about this Oprah shunning Governor Palin controversy. First, Oprah didn't have Hilary Clinton on her show either, but I didn't hear one word about racism or any of that crap. I also didn't hear any women--Republican or Democrat--threaten to boycott her show then. I did, however, hear some women claim that Oprah was a traitor for supporting Obama, but no boycott. Second, I agree with one of the earlier posts. Oprah controls the show, the format and content. I actually haven't seen Sarah Palin on any show by herself and her foray into Oprah-land could have been disastrous. Sarah would not have necessarily been in a supportive audience like the Republican convention. I know Sarah is the barracuda and shoots moose all that, but Oprah is no pushover either. You don't rise from nothing to become a female billionaire by getting pushed around. Personally, I think the Republican women ought to be happy Oprah passed on this one.
Posted by: Greg Harlston | September 8, 2008 12:37 AM
hi.
i think Oprah is racist. she had a choice between Obama and Hillary, but she chose color over gender. i mean, she clearly made it a point in her show to enculcate what pop culture calls "girl power" in her viewers, most (if not all) of which are women. and then when the time came for her to endorse someone, she chose a guy, who happens to be of color.
and i disagree about it being her right not to put Palin in her show. her show, as well as she herself, is already an institution. it is widely viewed. it is beyond doubt that her show moves and influences people. i daresay her show has become a public property, that she is duty-bound to show what the public clamors, what the public should see.
this is so out there already, but i thinking out loud, not only is Oprah a racist, she's also a chauvinist.
Posted by: felize | September 8, 2008 11:13 AM
Is Hannity neutral? Is O'Reilly neutral? Is Fox news neutral? Come on, give us a break. Imagine Oprah having Sarah on her show & treating her like O'Reilly treats his guests. People are going to learn all about this recently unknown person from Alaska from many other sources. Why can't O'Reilly have Medea Benjamin on his show? What? Is he sexist? But then again, would he even let her say one word? That's doubtful.
Posted by: Pete | September 8, 2008 11:38 PM
Medea Benjamin? Who is that?
Oh, I looked her up - the founder of Code Pink. Wow. That would be quite a score, wouldn't it? Sure to draw the ratings and $$$ Sarah Palin would for Oprah.
Also, who's to say they haven't asked her?
The point is that while Oprah is certainly free to do what she wants, the fact that this savvy businesswoman is passing up this opportunity is just one of the symptoms of what we're seeing everywhere: Democrats are running scared because of Sarah.
And, Peter, I've noticed that whenever liberals comment here, they can't seem to help themselves, but always interject something condescending or arrogant - like Come on, give us a break. .
It truly is possible to disagree peer to peer and be respectful. I always wonder why liberals troll for sites they don't like to put in their 2 cents and then waste the opportunity by turning off their audience by talking down to them.
Posted by: barbara | September 9, 2008 6:28 AM
Isn't it funny that all of a sudden there are lots of men interested in MommyLife? ;) It's also interesting that I see rude words like 'crap' in their comments. That's not usually seen here.
Medea Benjamin is on Fox News all the time, especially Hannity and Colmes. I'm sure she's been on Bill O'Reilly. It's always interesting to listen to her.
Oprah doesn't want Palin on the show because it will help them win the election. If you look back to the 2000 election, she had both Gore and Bush on the show. Bush did good, very front porch kinda guy, and some people credit that appearance to turning the election to his favor. Oprah will not make that mistake again.
Posted by: Alison C. | September 9, 2008 8:50 AM
Alison -
I don't watch Fox News so I wouldn't know this obviously media-created star then.
As to the guys - I am so enjoying that real men are supporting Palin - I'm going to respect their right to say "crap" - which I actually say on rare occasions when there's no other word to describe something :) - (hear the sound of a few readers leaving for that personal moral failure? - I'd rather be real than try to put up a perfect facade.)
These are men who are confident in their masculinity and not the feminist men who've been around for decades now sending me the nastiest comments and email you would ever want to encounter.
Also, I suspect some men have been reading MommyLife for a long time. Not to mention that I just published an article - Sarah Palin Can Have It All - that drew national attention.
What exactly is your point?
~~~~Men: Why they like Sarah Palin~~~~
Posted by: barbara | September 9, 2008 9:24 AM
My point is that men are obviously cruising web sites (like you noted)to bash Palin. I know that there are men who regularly read you and comment. These are not normal commenters. I like your 'crap' comment. That was funny. And this is by far the most times I've seen 'crap' in your comment thread :)
Medea Benjamin is interesting to say the least. I was trying to be P.C. but I should probably be more direct. She's one of the screamer types--like those that disrupted McCain's speech. I believe she was one who disrupted Gen. Petraus' testimony to congress. Or one of those congressional hearings. She's a piece of work. I understand that she's got the right of free speech but I'm also free to think she's full of...well you know. The point was that the commentor made a mistake in trying to say Fox is like Oprah in that they don't allow dissenting views. His comment was moot because he didn't have his facts straight.
Thanks for all the Palin coverage. I checked your site right after watching her speech in Ohio. I knew you'd be all over it.
Posted by: Alison C. | September 9, 2008 1:03 PM
I personally think that Oprah has the right to do whatever she wants with her show. It's her right to choose who comes on and who doesn't. I don't think race has anything to do with her decision. I think people just use that word "racist", because that's the only way to justify their misguided reactions to Oprah's decision.
Posted by: zjojor | September 10, 2008 12:54 AM
Personally, I don't like the sickening feeling of being duped. I don't like the sickening feeling that comes when you realize that you thought someone was "playing" you. This was a long time coming, but was thrown in our faces when Oprah played games with that last statement she issued re: Palin. And why wouldn't she want to have both Clinton and Palin on the show? The reasons are too numerous to mention...none of them good or legit.
Maybe Obama/Oprah (O2) got this idea to rip off and lie to white people from that hateful church that they attended. The one in which Obama didn't realize after 20 years of attendance that at least part of the message was "white folks are the devil." At least Oprah realized that hanging out at this church was problematic. Or was it the notion that a "jealous God" might want some of that dinero of hers? I've been a fan (now a former fan) for twenty years and I think I have got her number...although I'm a little freaked out that it took me so long to figure it out. I got to hand it to her, she held her breath for a long time. She and Obama are playing games and it is obvious. I guess they are panicked 'cause Oprah has turned her nose at her fan base and Obama has developed a verbal tic..."pigs/lipstick." This is the real cost of dishonesty:
Turn off Oprah and tune out Obama. Use any and all extra time to better yourselves, family and nation. Remember: Crime doesn't pay.
Posted by: AwakenedOne | September 12, 2008 10:43 AM
