day time TV can be a religion. it is on at the same time everyday. usually during lunch or something like that when people who stay at home most of the time would generally have the time to just switch the TV on and watch whatever that might be of *interest.
if done properly (
unlike in M'sia not necessarily because the TV people don't know what they're doing but i think more so that M'sians in general don't have much faith in local TV - but then again, can you blame them?), people get hooked on the show. they unconsciously end up watching it everyday thinking that they are not hooked simply because they are not going out of their way to watch it. it simply becomes routine. like going to church on Sundays is for some - just routine.
anyway, i've been wanting to address this issue of Oprah for a while now. 2 particular episodes specifically. however, i digress for just a tiny moment - just in case there are any Oprah fans who happen to read this, (
although unlikely - since i doubt i have any friends who are into Oprah), i take nothing away from her ie the fact that she has a good show (
think res ipsa loquitur ie the thing speaks for itself - in this sense, her success speaks for itself). no doubt, she has also donated millions to various charities ... bla bla bla.
but, one cannot deny that in the process of doing what she does, she has attained great power over the masses. and i'm talking international proportions here. although, fortunately it is really only quite prevalent in her home country and that effect is somewhat subdued in other countries.
and as cliched as it sounds - ala Spiderman - "With power, comes responsibility." and i sometimes wonder whether in Oprah's case - it gets to be abused every once in a while.
1. the use of the word 'N*gger / N*gga':
on one episode, Oprah invited most of the cast of 'Crash' - she was promoting the movie. they talked about racism and what-not and finally they reached the topic of using the 'N' word. i give props to Don Cheadle and Ludicrous for sticking to their guns on this issue.
basically, Oprah's angle was that the N word has a lot of racial history and its significance is such that it should outlawed.
most of the cast then continued to say that the use of the N word can be used as a term of endearment - representing the bond between 2 people when used properly. in fact, the 'er' at the end and the 'ga' ... both have different meanings. the latter has a 'Yo Brother, whats up' feel. whilst the former actually has a derogatory feel. nevertheless, these terms should still be kept within people of the same colour although i think a person (of different ethnicity) who has established a level of 'closeness' can use the terms too.
the argument posed mostly by Don Cheadle was that, the N word is just a word. a word that has bite but that 'bite' can be taken out of it.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words can never hurt me."
once you don't give a shit about the word, people will stop associating negative qualities to the word and would be less likely to use it against you. it may be a long process, especially so with a word such as the N word i s'pose, but i believe it rings true anyway.
Oprah strongly disagreed but was careful to say that 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion' (
not very convincingly though if i may add) and one by one, the cast members who were at first in agreement with Don Cheadle, began to fall.
only Don Cheadle was brave enough to voice his disagreement with Oprah whilst, Ludicrous who uses the word frequently in his songs - remained somewhat silent but stood by his position nevertheless - i believe he did state that he doubts he would stop using the word in his songs.
the thing is, the audience members were all clapping in agreement with Oprah quite enthusiastically. and i find it hard to believe that people watching her show would be any different.
more importantly, i don't think it would have been any different if Oprah decided to go down Cheadle's road and agree with him. the masses would have just as easily followed her down that road as they did the argument she stood by anyway.
2. Strippers anyone?
on another episode, Oprah got one husband and wife to appear on her show. the facts of the situation is basically :
- the wife and husband have 2 sons and a young daughter.
- for the son's 16th or 15th b'day, the mother hired a stripper to come to the house.
- things got a little 'hot' and the boys who were at the part pooled their money together and got the stripper to strip completely.
- explicit pictures were taken of the stripper 'simulating sexual positions on some of the boys'.
the wife then took the film over to a local photo developing shop and the husband got arrested - something to do with exposing minors to indecent elements.
the husband pretty much said from the get go that he was against the idea from the very beginning. but when Oprah asked the wife how she felt about it and whether she regretted it, the wife basically replied that she regrets the consequence but does not really think that the actual act of hiring the stripper was a mistake.
Oprah of course voiced her 'outrage' albeit in a subdued tone at this. subtlely lacing all her comments with hints that the Wife was 'not thinking' when she hired the stripper and that she was 'foolish / stupid' and 'terribly wrong' to think that the act of hiring the stripper was not a mistake to begin with.
and of course, once again, it felt as though that the masses mindlessly followed Oprah. in a sense, she was imposing her own sense of right and wrong on the masses without really putting enough emphasis that it is OK to disagree.
i would agree if you think that the 'masses' should bear that in mind themselves and that it is not necessarily the responsibility of one such as Oprah to inform or place emphasis on that element. however, in light of how things are in reality - i'd be forced to rethink that position.
in fact, the wife says that she was not showing the sons or the other boys' at the party anything that they had not seen before (
and i would agree with this part in today's day and age) and that by doing the hiring herself and being 'around' whilst the boys were being exposed to the sexual elements - she could protect her son by being in 'control'. suffice to say, that the stripper *riding the boys or assuming *sexual positions on the boys did not spiral into an outright orgy
ala Roman times nor did it lead to the boys' losing control and raping.
there are various movies and stories like 'malena' for instance, which shows how a young boy's sexual
encounters at a young age can stay with the boy for life. and the effect of which is more positive than negative. i myself was exposed to racy sexual elements at the tender age of 9 but i developed more of an appreciation and respect for the 'female' rather than anything else.
and of course i'm sure you've seen or heard of stories where young boys who hit a certain age are brought to a 'prostitute' or something like that by his own parent as some form of 'right of passage'. you can agree or disagree with this as something to be taken as 'morally reprehensible' or not. it is your choice. i wouldn't judge a person who has done it or a person who thinks it is right or wrong.
i will however deem one to be narrow minded if you ONLY believe that it is ONLY wrong or ONLY right.
IN CONCLUSION, i think Oprah is a show to be very careful with. she's a bit of a power-mogul and people would generally *listen to her.
but then again, it doesn't really affect me lah. these are just a couple of issues that have been bugging me for a while and seems to make for good blogging material.
alrights then. later.
