Regarding interviews with Oprah

[canetoad]

There are two sides to every story and Oprah doesn't cover both.

That is all.

[elleng]

1. Don't most interviews usually contain one 'interviewee?'

[canetoad]

4. Well of course they do

But Oprah is not most 'interviewers'.

[pnwmom]

7. Uh, no. There's no "usually" about that. For instance,

[uriel1972]

2. Oprah spawned many shills and grifters

And promoted unhealthy and unhelpful things like the 'Secret'. I don't have much time for her because of that.

I recognise the difficulty of her struggle and her achievements, but I just can't warm to her and her style.


I can see why they chose her for the interview.

[brush]

3. Ya might not like her style but she's very effective.

She gets around to asking every question in peoples' minds about her interviewees.

As demonstrated by this most recent interview which everyone in the world is talking about going onto the fourth day.

Give credit where credit is due.

[uriel1972]

12. Like I said she has had the guts and the talent

To overcome adversity, she is extremely popular and I wouldn't take that away from her. She has risen to the top in a white, male field. That is truly impressive. That and her sympathetic style are no doubt reasons why they chose to go on her show.

However, her style seems to somehow switches off the critical switch in her audience. That and her seeming fervent BELIEF in what she markets, be it a product or philosophy makes her dangerous.

While I would in no way say she is the same as Trump, I truly think she cares about others. She seems to have a Trumplike hold over her audience. That scares me.

[brush]

22. Hahahahahaha! Comparing her to trump is so off it's beyong ridiculous.

[uriel1972]

26. You might want to read that paragraph again...

As I stated she is in no way like Trump. My point is that the hold Oprah has over many in her audience is similar to the hold Trump has over his.

In many ways she is the anti-Trump. However, that level of power over a large group of people worries me.

[brush]

31. Nah, IMO her effect is 180 degrees opposite of trump's.

Empathy v none whatsover for anyone else...except maybe his daughter who he's always wanted to fuck.

[uriel1972]

32. As I keep saying she is nothing like Trump..

Are you sure you are reading my posts at all?

[brush]

33. You wrote: "My point is that the hold Oprah has over many in her audience is similar to the hold...

Trump has over his."

I disagreed and wrote basically that her effect/hold is 180 degrees different from trump's. Empathy v none whatsoever... and so forth.

You say you keep saying she's nothing like trump while at the same time saying her hold over her audience is like trump's.

What?

Contradict yourself much?

[uriel1972]

34. The hold is similar if the use is not...

No contradiction.

[uriel1972]

35. The uncritical acceptance and adoration....

The 'Flock Think' the dependence, all of these are the same. The people and the methods differ, but as for danger, look up the 'Children's Crusade'.

[brush]

36. Sorry, it just seems you're trying too hard with this. It's just not an apt comparison.

Last edited Fri Mar 12, 2021, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)

[Deminpenn]

17. The trauma of Oprah's early life infuses every interview she does

It's what makes her a sympathetic listener and why anyone who might feel they've been wronged by any more powerful source, be it a business interest, group or person, would want to be interviewed by her. Oprah is also suprisingly credulous during interviews considering her success. She's not going to ask a hard or uncomfortable question. Oprah also has millions of dedicated followers. That made Oprah the perfect choice for Harry and Meghan's interview. They could have gotten a puff interview from other US TV personalities like a Robin Roberts for example, but none would offer all the benefits of Oprah.

[MicaelS]

5. Like any member of the Firm ..

Would sit down to talk to her.

[dawg day]

16. Prince Andrew!

I'm sure he's clamoring to give his side.

Lol, remember when he told the British interviewer that he can't be the one in the picture with the 16 year old because he didn't have the ability to sweat?

[MicaelS]

18. Missed that part. n/ t

[pnwmom]

6. The Firm has the whole UK media establishment to help get their PR out.

And they're going with the story that Meghan is a bully and was mean to staffers. And yet, that's not what former co-workers say about her at all.

And we know about The Firm's history with royal wives.

I believe Meghan and Harry. Good for him for supporting her. He's a good man, unlike his father.

[NanceGreggs]

8. Oprah interviewed two people.

She never proported the idea that she was "'covering both sides" of anything.

[Mike Nelson]

9. True...

... people know that, or they should... these two wealthy outcasts, Oprah, and the British Royal Family are all part of a meg-Celebrity world that has little to do with my life. For many, they are a distraction, and that's okay with me... but I have other distractions.

[GoneOffShore]

10. You have echoed the column in The Irish Times by Patrick Freyne

The Union of two great houses - The Windsors and the Celebrities - Is Complete

[Klaralven]

27. ++

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

[Aussie105]

11. Oprah interviewed Meghan.

Meghan talked openly about her experiences and her feelings while in the UK as she remembered them.

What is the 'other side of the story'?
It was an interview.
Oprah did what a good interviewer does, gets the person being interviewed to vocalize their feelings and describe their experiences.

No accusations were made. Who should have been there to put 'the other side'?

If there is a two sided conflict in your mind during the interview, that's entirely your imagination.
As are any conclusions you make from the interview.

[lapucelle]

14. Meghan was factually wrong about her son's title. Oprah should have done her research

Last edited Wed Mar 10, 2021, 08:29 AM - Edit history (2)

about that issue.

Princess Anne's children don't have titles, and Prince Edwards children are not HRH.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-mountbatten-windsor-royal-title/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-meghan-harrys-son-archie-not-prince-because-rule-1574631

[obamanut2012]

24. The Princess Royal turned down titles for Peter and Zara

[lapucelle]

28. The Queen offered courtesy titles to her daughter's children. They were not born with the right

to a title, even though they were the Queen's grandchildren. And when the Queen's son Prince Edward married, it was announced (with Edward and Sophie's consent) that their children would not be styled HRH, even though that would have been their right as grandchildren of the monarch through the male line.

As a great-grandchild of the monarch, Archie was not born with a title, so Meghan is wrong to say, "[his] title was not royal family's right to take away".

Unless the Letters Patent of 1917 are revised, if and when Charles becomes king, Archie will become HRH Prince Archie because he will be a grandchild of the monarch (Charles) through the male line. When Harry dies, his son will become Prince Archie, Duke of Sussex.

With the exception of William's three children, none of the Queen's other five great-grandchildren have titles.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-mountbatten-windsor-royal-title/

[uriel1972]

13. Are the allegations true?

I don't know. However, anyone critically aware of the firm wouldn't be surprised in the least. Follow the public utterences and doings and an incomplete picture emerges.

The Queen seems to be an authoritarian control freak. Prince Phillip the Greek is an utter racist buffoon, there seemed not a year woyld go by without hom making an absolutely vile racist comment in public.

Charles the Unready never intended to love or be faithful to Dianna. The others are so tight to the oublic teat they go along with the whole vicious charade.

That's my take anyway.

[lapucelle]

15. The part about making an exception to custom and rules in order to deprive

Archie of a title is not true.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. Okay Elizabeth

[Beringia]

20. I'm sure the Crown will have their side out in a truthful manner soon (sarcasm)

[BannonsLiver]

21. It's become clear that most people couldn't care less about the other side of the story.

We don’t do nuance in America. Two sides of any issue is too much to process.

[brush]

23. You do know where you are, right? Tnis is DU, a progrssive site...

with pretty critical thinkers who usually are not inclined to favor authoritarian racists far to the ride.

There is that nuance.

[BannonsLiver]

25. LOL

[tinrobot]

29. I'm sure Oprah would be happy to interview the Queen or Prince Charles.

[maxsolomon]

30. Oprah barely covered Harry's side.

"How are you 'trapped'?"

Um... have you ever watched "The Queen"? "The Crown"? "The King's Speech"? "Elizabeth"? Etc...