… because they are both “entertainers”. Limbaugh, in fact, makes a point of this when people accuse him of skewing or misrepresenting this or that fact, and says effectively “I am just an entertainer, you can take or leave my views and information, so chill.”
In this thread it is asserted by the OP and a few others that people upset with Oprah for promoting dangerous nonsense need to chill if they are upset, because in the end “Oprah is just an entertainer” and using your critical reasoning skills you can take or leave the information she presents.
Is this perspective reasonable given the huge influence of both these media stars? Is “they are just entertainers so relax” a reasonable position?
The minute Rush Limbaugh opens his mouth, he makes it obvious that he has no credibility as a source of information. I have reached this conclusion, so I act accordingly - I don’t listen. Basically, same with Oprah.
What would you be looking for beyond an individual’s choice to evaluate and choose? Some Truth certification? Wow - and who would monitor and enforce this certification - and how often would it be renewed?
I love all the 1st Amendment implications of all this…I am sure Orwell would dig this, too…
To me, the thing that connects Oprah, Rush and Bill O’Reilly is they are all hypocrites when it comes to thier personal lives vs the moral values they publically expouse, yet none of them were held to accountability (by thier fans or the media) when their hypocracy was brought to light…
All three attract followers who are cultlike in their devotion, and do not hold their idols up to scrutiny.
Perhaps I was unclear. The position being discussed is not that is that a truth commission is necessary, but that the very nature of any individual holding them to some critical standard for truth and accuracy is misguided, because as “entertainers” they should not be subject to rigorous analytical critiques about the accuracy of their views.
Who should perform the analysis - and on a regulatory basis or merely as a counterpoint form of entertainment? Jon Stewart does this - but mainly for folks who really have power: politicians. I suspect he is too busy with them to focus on Oprah - although he has time for Limbaugh when Rushie Boy seems to actually be influencing GOP policy…
How does a community balance the need for “critical standards for truth” with upholding Free Speech?
What would the costs be to maintain this standard and would the larger community really be served?
You keep trying to make this a public works project of some kind that needs to verified by a committee when I think I’ve been pretty clear I am talking about the ability of individual to critique these 'entertainers" using whatever critical reasoning tools they (as an individual) wish to avail themselves of.
“Accuracy of thier views” doesn’t make sense to me. How can a view (= opinion) be accurate? One could argue the sensibility of their views, but that’s probably an exercise in frustration if they don’t care about facts.
Accuracy of information/statements presented as if factual is another matter. It certainly makes sense to call them on false or misleading proclamations.
What it comes down to, though, is they don’t seem to care whether what they say is accurate, and the people who are influenced by them don’t seem to care about accuracy or sensibility either. Those people are the ones we’d like to see use critical thinking skills, but they’re probably members of the audiences and influenced by these entertainers precisely because they don’t use such skills. How ya gonna change that?
Basically, the folks who think they’re lying sacks of dogturd don’t want to listen to them, and the folks who want to listen to them don’t care if they’re lying sacks of dogturd.
You’re right - I am asserting that, and no, your OP is not clear. So, instead, you are saying that because Oprah and Rush are SO big, and SO pervasive, it may be tough for an individuals to make a true evaluation of their positions?
Well, sure, to the extent that any Child of the Media can be swayed by marketing. Does GEICO really save you money? Well, the cave men, lizard, goofy money-pile and D-list celeb’s all tell you that. But it is up to you to ultimately decide. So?
…didn’t Obi Wan say that only works on the weak-minded…
The issue for me with Oprah and Rush (or their apologists) using the “I’m just an entertainer” disclaimer is this: they both encourage their listeners to take action. Rush doesn’t just say that he thinks this or that. He tells the dittoheads what they ought to do, who they ought to vote for. He is consulted by members of congress. These are not the roles or actions of an entertainer, and when an entertainer like Barbra Streisand strays into this realm, she legitimately gets criticized for it. Oprah doesn’t just have Suzanne Somers on her show spouting her inanities, Oprah endorses those inanities and even tells her viewers that she (Oprah) is following Suzanne’s regime.
I don’t think anything ought to be “done” about either of these people. I just think that they do in fact bear personal responsibility for the harm they cause. Not legal responsibility; personal, moral responsibility.
But do you have a cite for him actually making this point in this situation?
[The point is valid if he makes it in reponse to accusations that such-and-such parody is inapropriate, or that an obvious caricature is not accurate. It’s not valid if it’s a response to misrepresenting the facts.]
Absolutely! I was listening to him detail this position with my own ears approx 2 years ago while heading down the highway. He was talking about people who were criticizing him personally for some view or another and who sought to take him to task by explaining very explicitly that he was NOT a politician or a policy maker, but that he was first and foremost a paid entertainer whose main job was to run a successful radio show.
I’m a registered Republican although I’m not a big Limbaugh fan, but I have to admit I was momentarily impressed by his candor until I realized it was just a fairly clever bit of rhetorical jujitsu to make him immune to people criticizing his positions and tactics.
I might take this rant a little more seriously if I saw some evidence that you are capable of distinguishing Oprah’s views from the views of those featured on her show, such as those of Jenny McCarthy.
Or perhaps you also believe that the president of Columbia University in the City of New York thinks, for example, that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Just like one of their featured speakers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has claimed.
Re Oprah and the anti-vax issue you do not appear to be understanding in any way, shape or form the point of contention. Oprah’s views re the legitimacy of the anti-vax movement are quite clearly reflected in her actions which have been to give the anti-vax proponents unparalleled, uncritical access, multiple times to a hugely influential media portal, and tacitly personally bless these views by not allowing knowledgeable critics and medical experts the opportunity to take them on head to head. To compare this to the access they have gotten via other media portals is not comparing apples to oranges, it’s comparing apples to bowling balls.
So what you’re saying is “Yes, I believe Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, believes there are no homosexuals in Iran.” Columbia did not have a point-counterpoint session (not even Lee Bollinger reading a disclaimer that repudiated the remarks and stated they were without scientific support, like Oprah did! Uh oh!!), there were no knowledgeable experts on hand to contradict what he said, it was just Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet nobody thinks that these beliefs are those of Columbia University’s.
So, again, do you have any evidence, beyond selective retellings of what transpired on the show (they always leave out the CDC disclaimer reading) and conclusive statements as to the ineluctable takeaway of the show, that supports your position? Or are you just a Jenny McCarthy of anti-Oprahism who knows in his gut that the show is bad?
Because I don’t afford much credibility to such accounts when they come from people who cannot even restate my position – while they are looking at the very paragraph that contains it.
I objected to the use of selective retellings of what transpired on the show, such as where the fact of JM appearance is noted along with the content of her remarks, but the salient fact that Oprah read a CDC disclaimer indicating that JM’s position has no scientific support is omitted.
The anti-Oprah contingent’s charges are predicated on the alleged fact that Oprah does not indicate that JM’s views are scientifically heterodox. You will agree then that this fact takes the wind out of their sails, yes?