JohnRice

OK, I never watch Oprah, but an episode today just begged for my attention. She had the Author James Frey on, who wrote a "Memoir" about his former drug addiction and all he went through. As it turns out, he made up, or at least embellished much of what is in the book. Now, I haven't read the book or followed the story all that much, so I really can't give details. I'm sure others here can.

My real point is this. Oprah seemed to condemn the publisher for believing the story, when she also not only believed it but made the guy millions by promoting it. It does seem the guy made quite a few changes from reality, many of them rather significant, but only kept saying "I made a mistake." Gimme a break. What I wonder is this. I'm sure millions of Americans think Oprah gave away something like 100 new cars to "deserving" viewers several months back. She had a big, heavily promoted show all about bringing together all these people who needed cars and giving them all one, then taking the entire audience out to the parking lot where they received this wonderful gift she had bestowed on them. The only problem is, there was never one mention of the FACT that Pontiac provided the cars, not Oprah. What about that is at all different from what the author she is bashing (deservedly) did? I'm sure this is just one of many examples.

So, is Oprah just one of the world's biggest hypocrites, as I think she is?

They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.

MickeS

No, she's not.

Would a hypocrite have taken him back on the show and taken him to task for what he has done?

I haven't watched this show, but I did watch the one where he promoted the book. And I do agree that the published probably has some kind of responsitibility in checking the facts if someone comes to them and says that what they've written is a meoir. But mostly, of course, the responsibility lies with the author.


Uh, all of it...? I don't make the connection?

I thought it was obvious that she didn't give away the cars herself (who the hell would do that, no matter how rich you are???)? She regularly gives away stuff on her show, and I don't think I've ever assumed that SHE pays for what she gives away.

I think you'll have to look elsewhere for affirmation of your opinions about Oprah.

/Mike

JohnRice

Thanks for your feedback Micke. I am looking for opinions and that is what you have provided. However, I suspect you don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrite."

They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.

Greg Kettell

I think it was made clear that Pontiac was supplying the cars. but Oprah (or her staff) convinced them to do it.

Of course the car deal wasn't all that great - the recipients had to pay income tax on the cars, as I recall.

As far as the book is concerned, the author bears almost all of the responsibility. IMO the publisher would only be complicit if they knew some details were false and still published it as a true story.

Henry Gale

Quote:

The only problem is, there was never one mention of the FACT that Pontiac provided the cars, not Oprah.

JohnRice,
You knew.MickeS knew.Greg knew, and I knew.
Do you think we four are so much more discerning that the rest of America?

Joe D

Not all that great because they had to pay tax on it?

Heck, sign me up for a 100 free cars and I'll gladly pay the tax on them. I'll sell the cars, pay the income tax with the money made, and be way ahead.

JohnRice

Henry, it's interesting because I have brought it up with several people and every one of them, until this thread, thought Oprah had provided the cars. The distinct idea I got at the time was that she was also trying to give that impression. It wouldn't exactly be a bad investment. The cars cost a total of 6 million dollars and I suspect she made far more than that as a result of the publicity.

Joe, talk about missing the point. She gave away cars to people who couldn't afford usable cars themselves, without thinking about the fact that meant they also couldn't afford the taxes to actually keep them. Sure, they can then sell the cars they were given, pay the taxes and buy cheaper cars to keep, but that wasn't exactly the purpose of the gift in the first place.

They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.

BrianB

So, how do you know there was never 'one mention' that Pontiac provided the cars, or are you simply going on web hearsay?

high resolution ipod featuring dlp hd programming is the best, almost as good as playstation 2 with wega windows media on a super cd! ps2 and tivo do dolby tv with broadband hdtv!

Michael_K_Sr

Part of the problem is the misleading headline grabbing promotion of the media. If I recall, most of the headlines on news sites like CNN and MSNBC said Oprah "gives" her studio guests new cars. True she gave the cars to her guests, but you had to read beyond the headlines to find out that she actually didn't pay a penny for them. By the way, that MSNBC article I linked to quoted a Pontiac spokesman as saying the auto company was picking up the cost of the taxes.

Henry Gale

Michael beat me to it but I just did a search on the subject and the first 3 articles that came up include variations on this information:

The cars, priced at $28,400 fully loaded, were donated by Pontiac, according to the carmaker. Pontiac, a division of General Motors (GM: Research, Estimates), has also agreed to pay sales tax for each membr of the lucky audience.

It's obvious to me that most people don't actually read, or read carefully. The facts are usually available but it's easier for the masses to get their news in soundbites.