Oprah’s Record of Promoting Charlatans Is Problematic At Best

[ThatRobGuy]

Oprah Winfrey gave a well-received speech about racism and sexism at the Golden Globes on Sunday night, and now there’s rumor of a presidential run – but we should hold off on the excitement and think about what that would actually mean for science. To take the question seriously, future president Winfrey’s track record in this area is not actually reassuring. Look at the list of dubious characters whose careers she’s used her television show and media empire to promote:

Read more at: Oprah’s Record of Promoting Charlatans Is Problematic At Best.



I thought this was an interesting article that could make for an interesting discussion and perhaps create some strange bedfellows in this forum.

We know Oprah’s political affiliations...we know which people oppose her for that. However, we know those same people are the ones who are often in the camp of embracing alternative medicine, as Oprah’s been known to do on the examples listed.

On the flip side, we also know that the people who support Oprah for her political and social stances are also the same ones who are staunch advocates for adhering to science, and make some pretty major criticisms against the GOP for no doing so.

Thoughts?

 

[DZoolander]

Yet so many people who likely are pre-emptively attacking Oprah "just in case" voted for an actual Charlatan

 

[DZoolander]

Don't get me wrong...I'm not a big fan of Oprah running for president. I think we're marching straight into idiocracy territory once we start running talk show hosts against reality show hosts.

But...to go after her on that seems pretty disingenuous all things considered. lol

 

[cow451]

Oprah Winfrey gave a well-received speech about racism and sexism at the Golden Globes on Sunday night, and now there’s rumor of a presidential run – but we should hold off on the excitement and think about what that would actually mean for science. To take the question seriously, future president Winfrey’s track record in this area is not actually reassuring. Look at the list of dubious characters whose careers she’s used her television show and media empire to promote:

Read more at: Oprah’s Record of Promoting Charlatans Is Problematic At Best.



I thought this was an interesting article that could make for an interesting discussion and perhaps create some strange bedfellows in this forum.

We know Oprah’s political affiliations...we know which people oppose her for that. However, we know those same people are the ones who are often in the camp of embracing alternative medicine, as Oprah’s been known to do on the examples listed.

On the flip side, we also know that the people who support Oprah for her political and social stances are also the same ones who are staunch advocates for adhering to science, and make some pretty major criticisms against the GOP for no doing so.

Thoughts?

No more celebrity Presidents. I’ll commit to that.

 

[durangodawood]

No more celebrity Presidents. I’ll commit to that.

How does one commit to that?

 

[cow451]

How does one commit to that?

One says: I will not support nor will I vote for a Presidential candidate whose main qualification is his/her celebrity status.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Don't get me wrong...I'm not a big fan of Oprah running for president. I think we're marching straight into idiocracy territory once we start running talk show hosts against reality show hosts.

But...to go after her on that seems pretty disingenuous all things considered. lol

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that...

I think, in an era where making sure we're adhering to science is extremely important, it's fair game to to call her out on her anti-scientific things she's promoted.

 

[PloverWing]

On the flip side, we also know that the people who support Oprah for her political and social stances are also the same ones who are staunch advocates for adhering to science, and make some pretty major criticisms against the GOP for no doing so.

I think that in this country of 300 million people, surely we could find someone with social stances similar to Ms. Winfrey's, but who also has a solid science background, and who has significant political experience (senator, governor, mayor of a large city, etc.). That's the person I want to vote for.

 

[durangodawood]

One says: I will not support nor will I vote for a Presidential candidate whose main qualification is his/her celebrity status.

Who knows. That person could end up being the best choice.

 

[JGG]

Oprah Winfrey gave a well-received speech about racism and sexism at the Golden Globes on Sunday night, and now there’s rumor of a presidential run – but we should hold off on the excitement and think about what that would actually mean for science. To take the question seriously, future president Winfrey’s track record in this area is not actually reassuring. Look at the list of dubious characters whose careers she’s used her television show and media empire to promote:

Read more at: Oprah’s Record of Promoting Charlatans Is Problematic At Best.



I thought this was an interesting article that could make for an interesting discussion and perhaps create some strange bedfellows in this forum.

We know Oprah’s political affiliations...we know which people oppose her for that. However, we know those same people are the ones who are often in the camp of embracing alternative medicine, as Oprah’s been known to do on the examples listed.

On the flip side, we also know that the people who support Oprah for her political and social stances are also the same ones who are staunch advocates for adhering to science, and make some pretty major criticisms against the GOP for no doing so.

Thoughts?

You mean the vaccinations-cause-autism, and smoked-kale-cures-cancer crowds? That science-loving bunch?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that in this country of 300 million people, surely we could find someone with social stances similar to Ms. Winfrey's, but who also has a solid science background, and who has significant political experience (senator, governor, mayor of a large city, etc.). That's the person I want to vote for.

I would agree...

...but my purpose in posting this was to entertain the idea that perhaps people are too quick to ignore other important traits and qualifications (even ones they would normally want strict adherence to) in order to support someone due to an overlap in ideals on social stances.

 

[cow451]

Who knows. That person could end up being the best choice.

On planet Bravo perhaps.

 

[Roseonathorn]

I think that in this country of 300 million people, surely we could find someone with social stances similar to Ms. Winfrey's, but who also has a solid science background, and who has significant political experience (senator, governor, mayor of a large city, etc.). That's the person I want to vote for.

Did You know that Sylvester Stallones movie Rocky actually was based on christian values, I heard Him speak about it, about going from the bottom to the top. Stallone says He is a christian and I would not be surprised if someone wanted Him to candidate but I guess He is happy with His life as it is. A president of America must have His reputation ruined almost immediatedly is it not so?

 

[DaisyDay]

She might be as bad as Dr. Oz or Gwyneth Paltrow when it comes to promoting woo.

Oprah Winfrey for President? Does anyone remember all the pseudoscience and quackery she's promoted? - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

 

[PloverWing]

I would agree...

...but my purpose in posting this was to entertain the idea that perhaps people are too quick to ignore other important traits and qualifications (even ones they would normally want strict adherence to) in order to support someone due to an overlap in ideals on social stances.

Well, yes. We have ample evidence in recent American political history to show that this happens.

 

[PloverWing]

Stallone says He is a christian and I would not be surprised if someone wanted Him to candidate but I guess He is happy with His life as it is. A president of America must have His reputation ruined almost immediatedly is it not so?

Candidates for president have their personal histories examined in exhausting detail, so any candidate must be prepared for that.

In our current political climate, sometimes sins are invented about candidates, and these inventions are distributed uncritically to many readers through social media. I've seen this happen to candidates of both parties. I hope this phase passes away quickly, as people become more careful and critical in their use of social media. I hope.

If Mr. Stallone wishes to run for office, I ask of him what I ask of all the candidates: Build up a political resume by holding lower-level public office, and construct a coherent political philosophy.

 

[bhsmte]

Oprah Winfrey gave a well-received speech about racism and sexism at the Golden Globes on Sunday night, and now there’s rumor of a presidential run – but we should hold off on the excitement and think about what that would actually mean for science. To take the question seriously, future president Winfrey’s track record in this area is not actually reassuring. Look at the list of dubious characters whose careers she’s used her television show and media empire to promote:

Read more at: Oprah’s Record of Promoting Charlatans Is Problematic At Best.



I thought this was an interesting article that could make for an interesting discussion and perhaps create some strange bedfellows in this forum.

We know Oprah’s political affiliations...we know which people oppose her for that. However, we know those same people are the ones who are often in the camp of embracing alternative medicine, as Oprah’s been known to do on the examples listed.

On the flip side, we also know that the people who support Oprah for her political and social stances are also the same ones who are staunch advocates for adhering to science, and make some pretty major criticisms against the GOP for no doing so.

Thoughts?

It would not behoove her, to have someone searching in her closet and even being critical of what she has done in the public, if she cares about her reputation, which has not been heavily scrutinized to date.

 

[Rion]

One says: I will not support nor will I vote for a Presidential candidate whose main qualification is his/her celebrity status.

*Or their kinship to a previous President.

 

[TerranceL]

Her handing off a young woman to Weinstein seems worse.

 

[cow451]

*Or their kinship to a previous President.

Or anyone whose father was connected to the Kennedy assassination.