Oprah ‘quasi-science’ unmasked
p2pnet news view P2P:- Do we need for newsweeklies anymore? – asks Bob Lefsetz.
The staff at Newsweek didn’t think so, “so they decided to remake the magazine in the mold of the ‘Economist’,” he says, continuing »»»
They took a week off and then introduced a book full of analysis of deep issues by experts. And a little bit of fluff at the end… It’s almost impossible to completely deny your roots, just like a child carrying along his teddy bear on vacation, “Newsweek” still includes some pop culture pap at the end, kind of a good night kiss, or at least a glass of warm milk, for readers But the magazine flatly denied they would do any more celebrity journalism, they were no longer going to be part of the problem, but part of the solution!
So why the fuck was Oprah on the cover?
I pulled my issue from the mailbox and winced. This soon into the new paradigm and “Newsweek” has already blinked? Wimped out and caved, believing there are immutable laws of newsstand sales, of magazine viability?
“Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures & You”.
Oh, this’ll be interesting. Like I need more b.s. on bullshit cures. That’s how you feel powerful in today’s society. You question science, you defy the experts, who’ve gone to school for umpteen years to achieve enough background to run experiments and come to conclusions. Corporations are not to be trusted. There is no truth. Oh really?
Is the Earth round?
I’d say we can state that definitively, ever since satellites took pictures from up in space. So many questions have been answered by modern science/technology. But not enough for the downtrodden. Those afflicted with disease, those newly broke, suddenly they have the answers to the universe, we must pay attention to them!
If one more New Age asshole tells me how to beat the common cold with zinc or some other formulation sold at the health food store, I’m gonna explode. DOESN’T WORK! Studies have proven this again and again. Just like Glucosamine won’t return your knees to teenage health. But people keep drinking the stuff, they want to believe!
And belief is everything these days.
Believe you’re going to become rich.
Believe you can find Mr. Right by making yourself look good on a dating site, instead of remaking your personality that’s turned off men for decades.
Believe you can cure your own CANCER! The power of positive thinking, there’s nothing like it. HUH?
So I’m turning the pages of “Newsweek”, trying to navigate the tiny type now employed that works if you’re ten, even though the magazine appeals to older folk, and I eventually stumble upon this Oprah article. And find out I’m all wrong. They’re attacking the queen of all media!
Can you attack Oprah?
Conventional wisdom says no! Oprah is god, she can sell anything. Millions of women are devoted to her, will follow her anywhere. You must pledge fealty to Oprah, the same way you smile and shake hands with that reprehensible politician, or that guy you do business with. Truth happens behind closed doors, if at all. We live in a smiling, beatific nation, where everybody loves everybody. Oh, other than the snits between stars. Who snubbed who, who head-butt who. We want to know if Brad Pitt is really pissed at Angelina, but we never question the movie stars’ expertise on world issues. They’re famous, they know!
Like Suzanne Somers. She was on “Three’s Company”! And now she’s got the key to longevity, she’s found the fountain of youth! She’s on “Oprah” telling us how she did it. And Oprah’s endorsing her!
This article is stunning. It unmasks all the quasi-science that Oprah is purveying on her show, to the detriment of her viewers. Jenny McCarthy saying vaccines cause autism, even though studies have definitively proven otherwise. Do corporations truly want Jenny’s kid to be fucked up? Are they truly squashing him under their wheels in the name of profits? Is the government truly in bed with corporations to the point where all studies are flawed, and a former Playboy playmate has the answers?
No.
And all this is interesting. But what’s truly fascinating is “Newsweek” took a risk. They broke a taboo. They attacked Oprah. Because they were DESPERATE!
I won’t walk you through “Newsweek”‘s plan for survival, but the magazine’s long term health is truly in question. So why hold back now? Why play by the rules now? If GM can go bankrupt, anything can happen. Take a chance!
That’s what’s going on in today’s society. Corporations have stopped worrying about blowback and have started doing what’s right, for their survival. At least some have. Those that haven’t, like the aforementioned GM, end up losing their CEO and getting a right-minded replacement.
Put it this way. Is Doug Morris so busy trying to protect the old ways that he’s losing his complete business?
I’d say YES!
Sure, the RIAA, driven by Universal, took action, suing file traders. One can see that as a desperate move. It’s just that the goal was wrong. If you’re desperate, if you’re rewriting the playbook, you must contemplate a new reality, one in which your company is remade for the future!
The “New York Times” said that the rights holders are loosening up terms for online startups (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/technology/start-ups/28music.html). That’s a good beginning. But what about one step clearing! You want to start an online music company? Just follow these rules and you’re in business!
When are the promoters going to stand up to the acts? And tell them that they must make a profit. And that ticket fees must be included, without commission, in the overall price? Because the customer is pissed, to the detriment of both.
If you’re worrying about politics, if you’re worried about the after effects of your desperate move, your Hail Mary pass, your effort to save your enterprise, you’re missing the point. It’s open season. We’re experiencing a restructuring of media heretofore unseen. Who will rule in the future? Well, if Universal doesn’t get its act together, every new act might end up with Topspin!
Your only limit should be breaking the law.
Other than that, “go ahead,” Bib says, “Piss off Jimmy Iovine. Say what you want about Eminem. In an era where ‘Radio & Records’ goes out of business, are there truly any sacred cows left?”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025
Bob Lefsetz – The Lefsetz Letter
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“This article is stunning. It unmasks all the quasi-science that Oprah is purveying on her show, to the detriment of her viewers. Jenny McCarthy saying vaccines cause autism, even though studies have definitively proven otherwise. Do corporations truly want Jennyâs kid to be fucked up? Are they truly squashing him under their wheels in the name of profits? Is the government truly in bed with corporations to the point where all studies are flawed, and a former Playboy playmate has the answers?”
Ever heard of Thalidomide? It was in wide use from 1957 to 1961 and caused birth defects if given to pregnant women. Or what about Ephedrine, which can cause heart problems or even death?
I’m not saying that McCarthy’s right, but it’s not like this sort of thing has never happened before. Corporations put their bottom line first and people’s health second. No, they don’t intentionally market dangerous products, but often, they’re willing to put their own interests ahead of the people they’re supposed to be helping.
My friend had a heart attack a year or two ago. He had to have the operation where they thread a wire with a balloon on it into his artery and inflate it to open it up. He’s going broke paying the ridiculously high price of the heart medication his doctor says he needs to stay alive. Why isn’t he taking a generic version? There is none. The drug company that makes it gets the exclusive rights to it for a certain number of years before anyone else is allowed to make a cheaper, generic version of it. What if patients can’t afford it? I guess they die, after all, profits are more important that a few lives…
June 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“Just like Glucosamine wonât return your knees to teenage health. But people keep drinking the stuff, they want to believe!”
While I’m of the same feeling as Bob on this stuff, I think the statement on Glucosamine might have been a bit irresponsible.
Yes, there were mixed results to earlier independent studies done on the possible benefits of consuming Glucosamine. However, more recent reports are showing some very positive effects.
Glucosamine is not a “placebo” substance. It is an important building block needed by the body to manufacture specialized molecules called glycosaminoglycans, found in cartilage. It is not normally present in significant amounts in most normal diets, making it a logical candidate for a supplement.
I’m not saying there aren’t concerns with its usage, either.
There may be compatibility issues with Glucosamine in those being treated for Diabetes, as it has demonstrated it may cause Insulin resistance. And because Glucosamine is stabilized with certain salts, there may be some concerns for those who have high blood pressure, or who need to watch their sodium intake.
Yes, there’s a lot of crap being pushed our way in the health front.
Glucosamine appears to be something researchers are taking seriously.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Jenny McCarthy failed her first year of nursing school. She’s not smart enough to give anyone advice at anything except being a nude model, never mind health-related issues. Getting naked pictures of herself in a magazine (which then indirectly led to TV) is the only thing she actually knows how to do at all.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“Jenny McCarthy failed her first year of nursing school.”
In other words, she showed them, but couldn’t tell you how they’re used!
: )
Yeah, I can’t believe Jim Carrey dropped Lauren Holly for her.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Jim who?
Cheers!
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
She might as well take L.Ron Hubbard’s advice and start her own religion. She already has a millions-strong mindless cult of followers at her feet who treat her every word as if it were scripture.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Oprah and millions of oprahmoms are a serious threat to Net Neutrality, anonymity and privacy.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Oprah has already swindled the world out of enough money. It is now too late. From now on, the free world (i.e. everyone not in corporations) will not have enough resources to survive, and the future holds nothing but slavery to other people’s ideas and decisions.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Be careful what you say about “quack” medicine and pseudo-science — it could get you sued for libel.
Simon Singh of the UK learned that lesson the hard way.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/585-simon-singh-is-appealing.html
“In the UK, when someone is sued for libel, it’s up to the defendant to prove their innocence, rather than up to the claimant to prove harm was done. The effect of this is one of chilling any potential criticism; it can be dangerous for media to call to task an organization like the BCA (or any pseudoscientific claimants) because of the chance of getting sued. This has put quite a lot of pressure on Simon, as you can imagine.
Worse, a judge in a prelimary hearing ruled for the BCA, saying that Simon’s use of the word “bogus” indicated fraud (that is, intentional deception) on the part of the BCA, when it’s clear from the original article that is not what Simon meant”