The dark underside of Oprah's Big Give -- Generous? No doubt. But...

[Bozita]

The newspaper is the Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/416086

The dark underside of Oprah's Big Give
Generous? No doubt. But the mogul's approach only underscores a shameful story on social infrastructure
April 19, 2008
LINDA DIEBEL
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

-snip-

In a recent Big Give episode, for example, contestants tackled problems at two elementary schools in Houston where conditions were Third World. At one school, Team Forgotten Christmas gave gifts to "disadvantaged" kids, while at the other, Team Field of Dreams replaced outdated computers, bought basic supplies for the children and built a playground to replace cold concrete.

Visibly moved, contestants bowed their heads as they listened to teachers and (tracked in close-up) wiped furtive tears. The show is studded with celebrities (hey, how `bout pilot John Travolta?) and, that week, teams raised money with tennis great Andre Agassi, skateboarder Tony Hawk and generous commercial sponsors who got generous plugs. The show's primary sponsor, Target stores, showered children with toys as if it were Christmas. Yeah Target.

George H.W. Bush dropped in, living as he does in the area and having raised his family, including his son, the president, in the great state of Texas.

But not one contestant turned to another and asked how such bleak Dickensian conditions could exist in American schools in the first place. Seemed like the obvious question.

-snip-

more...

[Heddi]

1. that's a very good article and I bet

You'll get a shitload of replies from people who don't read the WHOLE article and attack you for sullying the altar of St. Oprah

WHEN THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS: Why do we need Oprah to provide basic services (updating ONE school, paying the bills for ONE family) that the government SHOULD BE FUCKING PROVIDING ANYWAY.

The point of the article is--yeah, Oprah does great things, but she's not CHANGING a thing in the overall sense. She rebuilt ONE school, yet thousands of other schools are and will continue to fail to third-world standards and NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT. She gives christmas presents to SOME kids but MILLIONS of kids still go without the basics of food, housing, clothing, and education.

The article isn't as much about Oprah (hallowed be her name) than it is about our shitty country and our acceptance of shitty conditions and our reliance on half-bit measures that don't fix a damn thing but gosh, it sure is good to see on TeeVee, isn't it>?

[Richard Steele]

2. Sadly, I'll bet you're correct. K&R

[Hannah Bell]

3. Yes.

<Why do we need Oprah to provide basic services (updating ONE school, paying the bills for ONE family) that the government SHOULD BE FUCKING PROVIDING ANYWAY.>>

Yes.

Ditto, corporate giving often reduces surplus inventory in exchange for tax breaks; Oprah's foundation, like all foundations, allows her to retain control of some of her capital (using it to affect policy directions, pay high salaries to herself or others, etc.) while reducing taxes on the rest of her capital. Plus, a nice PR boost for Oprah & her corp donors.

We all pay for the "generosity" and "charity" of the rich.

[guyanakoolaid]

4. Who are you to say what can and can't be attacked? The headline here is BULLSHIT

meant to do nothing but smear Winfrey. "The Dark Underside"??? All she is doing is spreading generosity, much more respectable than the lies and war that spread from people like Hillary Clinton. While it's right to question why she would have to help, deriding her help with mean-spirited headlines is an insult and deserves all the flame it attracts.

[Beaverhausen]

5. how is this about Hillary Clinton?

[guyanakoolaid]

10. How is it about Oprah?

It is nothing but a smear against her. She is an Obama supporter. It doesn't take a very long leap of logic to deduce this is from a Clinton supporter. And if we're going to throw smears against multi-millionaire hypocrites, Hillary is my favorite target.

[Heddi]

11. READ THE ARTICLE

the article isn't a smear against Oprah.

It is a smear against how the US Government SHOULD be doing the things that Oprah is doing---but isn't. And because we all get a little feel-good tickle when we see small-scale philanthropy on TeeVee, we (americans) Don't ask ***WHY*** the government isn't doing these things.

Seriously, the more you spout off about this being a hit-piece on Oprah, the sillier you seem. Keep it up, though, it's kind of funny

[alstephenson]

14. Paranoid much?

Get a life.

[Donnachaidh]

6. I'll bet the TAX BREAKS that benefitted St. Oprah and all the other billionaires

Would have done MORE for those kids than her *generosity* for the benefit of the cameras. :sarcasm:

Sorry, some of us ain't buying into the false philanthropy of the uber-wealthy in this country. I don't care how many shows she has.

[Heddi]

9. But the OP didn't write the headline

the author of the article did. Take your gripe with the person who WROTE the article. The OP was just following DU Rules (generally for LBN) and posting the entire article title along with a snip of the article itself.

And you didn't read the article, did you?

[alstephenson]

12. Oh, for cryin' out loud.....

It's all Hillary's fault!

[Bozita]

21. Article written by Canadian journalist. Title written by Canadian editor.

Just like here in America.

This post was written in a border town. When the weather's really nice, we pretend we're Canadians.

Eh?

[OneBlueSky]

22. I've watched one or two of the shows, and I've found the idea of voting off someone . . .

each week because their charity wasn't "good enough" rather revolting . . . to apply the American Idol model to doing good for others totally cheapens the notion of giving and turns the whole thing into a sick joke, imo . . . but, hey -- anything for ratings, right? . . .

[DS1]

23. Uh, that was pretty obvious

but don't let that STOP YOU FROM THE ALL CAPS berating of ANYONE you decided was UNABLE TO GET IT.

[krkaufman]

26. And I have to wonder what will happen to the new facility absent Oprah's largess.

Won't the same lack of funding that created the problems cause the physical plant to deteriorate again?

[LisaM]

7. I agree with the OP. The dark underside is that these problems exist

And they are not being addressed at their root cause. In the meantime, everyone gets a little feel good boost.

They had someone here (Seattle) who was the recipient of some of this generosity, in partnership with the local TV station.

It was absolutely appalling, They went into an area where we'd had extensive flooding. The man they were trying to help was too embarrassed to be on TV. They went into his house and talked to his wife, who was appropriately humbled and grateful. But what they "helped" him with made no sense. They moved in some fancy furniture and a big screen TV, and got some Costco gift certificates. They didn't address people like this don't get assistance from the government so that their house isn't still messed up five months later, or their insurance claims weren't met. They don't tell if the recipients are going to be taxed on this sudden de facto income. The thing that struck me the most was the TV. Are the providing eternal cable or satellite service to go with it? Who pays for that? Do they provide the dish/cable hookup?

[Heddi]

15. There was an article recently about that Home Makeover or whatever

And how the people whose houses were rebuilt couldn't afford the houses they were given. The taxes went up because the size of the house was increased exponentially, the utility bills went up because of the energy-sucking mega appliances they'd install. Overall the contract work was shady--leaky roofs, unstable walls, etc.

People felt "duped" after Extreme Makeover---they got a new 40,000 sqft house where there used to be a 1500 sqft house, but when ABC packed up and left, all their "philanthropy" went with them and the home owner was stuck with the unexpected and drastic increase of costs of the house.

[flygal]

48. I live in Germany and I have never seen benefits held for sick people

When I go home to Montana there's at least one a week advertised in the local paper. My cousin put together two last year for coworkers. People here are amazed and I think a little embarrased at us for doing that. Why are Americans so damn proud that they aren't Socialized but have no problem taking handouts - I say that because I know the two people are rabid right wingers and even asked me how it was to live in one of those socialized countries.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. I have never been a fan of Oprah or followed her stuff.

That experiment between rich and poor or blue and red has been done
in one form or another in schools for a long time to teach about cliques and intolerance.

[Heddi]

13. I was right about people not reading the article-=--just four posts

before someone screams OH GOD HOW CAN YOU CRITICIZE OPRAH SHE IS GOD and makes it *very* apparent that they didn't read the article. Had they read the article (asking much, I know), people would see that this isn't a hit piece against Oprah. It's a hit piece against the USA.

[DS1]

24. Who said that? No, really. Who said that Oprah cannot be scrutinized?

[progressoid]

16. Damned Canadians.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

17. Oprah seeks to,...reinvigorate "dreams". What's bleak is a government unwilling to protect them.

This nation, a democratic republic, was built upon a DREAM of people NEVER EVER EVER EVER being oppressed, again.

It was merely a dream.

BUT, the truth be known, our life IS WHAT WE MAKE IT.

The greediest of our lot have proven THAT. They have succeeded assuming they had the power to oppress. All we have to do is live in spite of them. After all, living in spite of the greediest most aweful of humanity is how Martin PROVED we are MORE than them.

The true patriots and warriors are those who walk in the path of social justice no matter what others do. Even RFK said, "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."

[LisaM]

19. But the dream is to be given the ability you need, and to start from the same gate

Not to have someone wave a wand and grant it to you. When I was little, I wanted to be a great ice skater. Well, guess what? I never could have committed the time and training to it. I wanted to BE a great skater - not BECOME one, through the tools I was given. There is a difference.

[Hannah Bell]

46. nobody starts from the same gate.

[sandnsea]

18. I watched one show and it was too exploitive

And just more of the same, swoop in for a day, spend massive amounts on one remote problem, and never address the reasons the problems exist in the first place. That ABC Home Makeover show is the same way, except I think that guy does seem to genuinely care.

[Initech]

20. "how such bleak Dickensian conditions could exist in American schools in the first place."

I think that we can blame the 40th president for that one - a guy who sliced every penny from the education budget so he could give it to his criminal war profiteer buddies.

[ColbertWatcher]

25. THANK YOU (k&r)

Something didn't sit right with me about that show. I even tried to make fun of it (Oprah's Big Give!

Sadly, nothing is more pathetic than the truth.

Thank you for posting this article.

[slampoet]

27. "When I feed a starving child they call me a saint, but when i ask why that child is starving.....

....they call me a communist"

[TNOE]

28. Amen.

As an avid "watcher" of Oprah's Big Give it would seem some of the posters (who didn't watch, yet comment) completely missed the point.

The POINT was to INSPIRE people to give more. They showed the great "need" - and yes, in order for the show to be successful (i.e. ratings for the network) they did it "game style" with eliminations - all leading up to a Grand Prize Winner of $1 million. $500,000 to go to the "charity" of his chosing - and $500,000 to his family. The giving continues. Each person kicked off was given $30,000 - and the final two were given $100,000. They were rewarded because they asked for no reward, they just did. The last competition they were given $0 - all they had were their hearts. And it worked.

Personally, I have always been a generous giver, but I must say - watching this show inspired me to think of more and different ways I could give more. So, pray tell, where IS THE HARM??

I believe there is a saying - maybe Gandhi said it - I'm not sure - but to save one life is to save the world. I find that very relevant. Its the pay it forward premise.

One person can't do EVERYTHING but one person can do alot with what they have - and Oprah has done that - and she has inspired others to do the same - with whatever they have. It is not her fault that the country has gone to hell the past 7 years and that our schools are falling apart as well as our infrastructure, etc. But I can GUARANTEE you - that MANY MANY lives were changed for the better.

[TNOE]

29. And from memory:

Appliances were given out to a poor neighborhood - Washers, dryers, refrigerators, stoves. Yea, what a waste. those people don't have any money to buy food anyway.

A chef from Redbud was brought in for cooking classes at Shriner's - the kids loved it - and he promised to come back to do more shows, he loved it. The giving continues.

$47,000 raised for one shelter for battered women - for supplies they'll never need or use.

$100,000 raised for Chicago Hope school for an athletic field. Yea, what a waste that was. Everybody knows poor kids have way better things to do than exercise and play.

And all the money raised for computers for classrooms - yea, that's a complete waste.

The above are just a "few" examples.

God, the negativity is disgusting. I'm so sick of people bitching because somebody does something GREAT - but they didn't do EVERYTHING. Oprah is NOT GOD, she can't fix EVERY SCHOOL & EVERY PROBLEM. But reading the article - I wonder how sarcastic the writer was being - especially the last sentence?

And now, the soul-less downward spiral continues, from Harlem to the elementary schools of Oprah's Big Give in Houston. Of course the schools benefited from the experience. Winfrey works magic; nobody would argue students were better off before her show hit downtown. But nothing fundamentally changed. There was no revelation that decent education and health care are rights in a developed society, not privileges to be bestowed by charity or through Winfrey's good graces .

It may be she expects Obama can bring change as president. It's what he's about. But then again, consider his take on health care. Both he and fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton pledge reform but their truncated plans depend at the core upon Americans buying private insurance for themselves. The right to buy.

Who doesn't know what it can mean to have to depend on an insurance company in the crunch? I mean, really, who needs 10 whole fingers anyway?

[ColbertWatcher]

30. Does your memory include Queen for a Day? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Yes, and that was a creepy show, too

The woman who had the most heartrending sob story got her wish fulfilled, but also a lot of stuff that was obviously corporate surplus.

And one of the posters above was correct: No one ever mentions that recipients have to pay taxes on what they get.

And people, READ THE DAMN ARTICLE BEFORE REPLYING.

The point is not to slam Oprah, but to slam American society and to ask why there are people in such bad shape in this country in the first place.

[ColbertWatcher]

36. Yes, but that doesn't mean we can't also slam Oprah...

...after all, when will we have another chance?

I don't care for this show because it trivializes people's suffering.

By watching Oprah's Big Give, I get to see:
* people suffering
* money (not effort) solving a problem
* charitable work as a contest
* real problems fixed in less than an hour, with commercials

If Oprah really wants to encourage people to donate time and money to people who are less fortunate, does it really need to be on TV? Really? Does she really have to put everything on TV?

And does she really need to promote $cientology while she's doing it?

[TNOE]

38. My God

where to begin.

1. It DID NOT "TRIVILIAZE" people's suffering. It brought people's suffering to light. I KNOW how bad shit is - with the economy, job losses, food & gas prices, etc. - but even I had no idea that food banks were empty.

2. There was alot of "effort" and "thought" put into the "helping". I didn't see anyone just grab a phone book and say "here's some cash".

3. Charity as a "contest"? SO WHAT?? It was great entertainment - it was a win/win. I put the excitement level the same as The Amazing Race.

4. Real problems "weren't fixed" in a hour. People were helped in that hour.

She doesn't put "everthing" on TV. Her accoutant and financial advisers don't have a monthly show letting the American public know the state of Oprah's gifting and charitable endeavors for the month.

Really, pick on something else - and leave the good shit alone. Otherwise, you look and sound very foolish.

P.S. - SHE HAS NEVER PROMOTED SCIENTOLOGY. I THINK YOU ARE A BIT CONFUSED - ON MANY LEVELS.

[ColbertWatcher]

40. Hmmm...

1. It DID NOT "TRIVILIAZE" people's suffering. It brought people's suffering to light. I KNOW how bad shit is - with the economy, job losses, food & gas prices, etc. - but even I had no idea that food banks were empty.

2. There was alot of "effort" and "thought" put into the "helping". I didn't see anyone just grab a phone book and say "here's some cash".

3. Charity as a "contest"? SO WHAT?? It was great entertainment - it was a win/win. I put the excitement level the same as The Amazing Race.

4. Real problems "weren't fixed" in a hour. People were helped in that hour.

She doesn't put "everthing" on TV. Her accoutant and financial advisers don't have a monthly show letting the American public know the state of Oprah's gifting and charitable endeavors for the month.

1. I did not say you trivialized people's suffering. I am saying that by making charitable giving a TV show it trivializes charitable giving.

2. And I bet all that thought and effort was put into making the TV show better. After all this is a TV show.

3. And that's the problem. Charity as entertainment. Many charities are having to fight to get donations because they don't have exciting enough events, or don't have the biggest A-list celebrity shilling for them on TV.

4. The TV show is how long? The implication is that the problem is fixed in less than an hour with commercials.

pick on something else

Really? You don't think trivializing charitable giving by making it a TV show is a problem? Serious?

SHE HAS NEVER PROMOTED SCIENTOLOGY.

Never promoted $cientology? All in caps? I think the lady doth protest too much.

I THINK YOU ARE A BIT CONFUSED - ON MANY LEVELS.

And yet, you don't enumerate all these levels. Bad form on your part. Fail.

Look, if you're a $cientologist, or work for a $cientologist, or if you're Gail King (or work for Oprah, or whatever) Sorry if you're offended, but TV trivializes everything.

And $cientology is a cult.

[TNOE]

41. Waste of time

but

1. You say it "trivilizes" and I say it brings awareness.

2. No, had you watched, the contestants put alot of thought and effort into who they helped and in coming up with the most effective, efficient ways of doing so. And, the problem with making a TV show "better"? There's a downside to that?

3. Charity as entertainment. Why not? Again, I don't see the problem with that. Especially when compared to "mindless" do-nothing TV.

4. The implication "was NOT" that problems could be fixed in less than an hour. Again, if you had watched, you might have a better perspective. The idea was "inspiration" to do whatever you can - and to make "giving" fun. And there are a lot of people way better off today then they were before the Big Give came to town. Also, many people were inspired to do something on this scale in their own communities. Yea, I can see what you would think that would be a bad thing.

and No, I do not think "trivilizing" charity is a bad thing, although the idea of giving and feeling good about it was the theme - it wasn't "trivilized".

I am not a Scientologist, nor do I know any. I claim no religion. I know that John Travolta and Tom Cruise are -and Oprah likes both of them. But I don't think that makes her one. Now, if you can find me some documentation or evidence that she is in fact is a Scientologist - or if you can show me when and where Oprah has ever promoted scientology, than I will give your accusation some consideration, after looking at your proof. Otherwise, you are mistaken, or are incorrectly making a false assumption.

P.S. - ALL religions are cults.

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Trivializing Charity.

Sorry, but trivializing charity is a bad thing, even if some find it to be the best thing on TV, it's still on TV.

Maybe the worst part is that it turns charity into a contest. Or that charitable giving must be entertaining. It's like a slippery slope kind of thing; like: how far must it go? How far will it go? If you're going to give, give. No need to insist people subject themselves to the whim of advertising dollars.

Good to hear you're not a $cientologist.

I used to believe Will Smith wasn't a $cientologist; still hoping Oprah isn't. But, that remains to be seen.

[TNOE]

33. Yes, it does

she was given a "Queen for the Day" day from a former beauty queen who was born "broken" and spent months (years?) in the hospital as a child.

You have no idea how good something like that can make a young girl feel, obviously. She stated she had no idea how many people "cared" about her -

so, admit it, you've never been a young sick girl, so you can't really say what the 'worth' in that was, now can you?

Do you not have anything better (than really nice, good, helpful deeds) to trash?

[Javaman]

32. did you actually read the article? nt

[TNOE]

35. Yes, I did

and I posted part of it. Like I stated, I'm wondering if part of the whole article was sarcasam.

[sandnsea]

34. This is 'feel good' shit to benefit the GIVER

Fixing the problems requires facing our demons, racism, classism, pure greed -- and we don't want to do that. That's what's wrong with these kinds of shows. They let people pat themselves on the back about how generous we are - while letting the conditions that cause poverty fester all over the world.

[TNOE]

37. So - how would you go about making "change"

by "Doing Some thing" (any thing, one thing)

So, you think just bitching about Bush and the R policies on a message board is "doing" something? I've done that. But I doubt it ever significantly changed one person's life.

Have you pressured your reps to impeach Bush & Cheney? I've done that. But they won't and we are where we are. I haven't changed one person's life because of it.

Have you written a letter to the Editor? Yep, I've done that too. But did I change ANYTHING? One person's mind - maybe??

ACTION IS WHERE ITS AT.
AND BEING THE "ONE" PERSON WHO MAKES A DIFFERENCE - AND INSPIRES OTHERS ALONG THE WAY.

[sandnsea]

39. As long as your comfy n/t

[Elspeth]

43. Where is that quote from?

It's a good one.

[slampoet]

44. I first heard Bishop Desmond Tutu say it but he was quoting one of his fellow bishops or cardinals.

Oh edit.....



I found it.

"When I feed the poor they call me a Saint, when I ask why they are poor they call me a Communist."

Archbishop Oscar Romero


(Who i believe was murdered for his belief in helping the poor)

[Elspeth]

45. Amazing. Thank you for finding the author of it.

When I use it, I'll be able to give credit.

[TNOE]

47. FOR THE RECORD:

I watched Monday's Oprah last night recapping the Big Give show, which made me so happy I cried. So here is what Oprah's show inspired (not counting ANY THING any of the contestants did on the actual show, which was huge):

Steve Paletta, the $1,000,000 winner has partnered up with another co-contestant Eric to build schools and libraries in Africa and partnering them with schools in the United staes. They are also building and repairing houses in the Gulf Coast as well as helping their local hometowns.

A young man Steve was inspired by while working in the food kitchen in Atlanta - he had served in the military, came home and got invovled in drugs. Steve asked what he could do for him - and he said you've already done it - just by treating me like an equal and listening to me. This man decided to turn his life around and is taking classes on-line to become a History Teacher and is working at Waffle House. He was given a brand new Ford so he wouldn't have to take the bus, and he is the father of 2.

The two $100,000 winers have partnered up with Richard Branson's charity to assist Africa with the idea of turning their $100,000 into alot more money. Neither spent a dime of it on themselves.

Trey Gonzalez, the audience member picked for his Big Give was given $10,000 and turned it into $458.498.28 for charity.

One viewer, Ellie Drake raised $100,000 in 24 hours to help rebuild homes in New Orleans.

Another viewer, a teacher was inspired to raise $42,000 to help a child born with a gentic disorder.

Another viewer raised $70,000 to help a family after the death of their father.

The Biggest Give city was Ft. Wayne, Indiana which raised over $1.2 MILLION in 5 weeks.

$10,000 was give to 90 ABC Stations to inspire their local communities. $4,000,000 was raised.

$117,000 for a food drive in Dallas Texas for children who went hungry on the weekends.

$110,000 was raised with the Orlando Police Department for a mentoring program for at-risk kids.

$100,000 was raised in Fresno to install smoke alarms in thousands of homes after the death of 2 young girls killed in a fire.

A 5 year old boy - Drew decided he didn't need more toys for his 5th Birthday and wanted to give them to kids who didn't have any. His act of kindness caught on the he wound up raising $18,000 in cash and $10,000 in donations - for families who had nothing, no beds, no furniture. One family had lost everything in a fire. This five year old said:

You learn if you give something, you can get something better, like the good feeling in your heart.

Out of the mouths of babes.

Also, due to Oprah's series on Puppy Mills - she said viewers had donated in large numbers to No-Kill Shelters and have opted to adopt pets from the shelters, instead of buying new from petshops.


SO - I'D SAY, DESPITE ALL THE NEGATIVITY (WHICH I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND) - MANY GOOD THINGS HAPPENED & ALOT OF PEOPLES LIVES WERE CHANGED. THE IDEA OF THE SHOW WAS AND IS - TO DO WHAT YOU CAN.