Results 11 to 20 of 39
-
09-07-2008, 06:45 PM #11
Oprah's show has very little to do with news or politics.
I agree with your point, but when she had Obama on her show several times and filled a full stadium for Obama that all changed. Remember this?
There were moments when it was unclear who was campaigning for whom, but the crowd of nearly 10,000 gathered here on a sleet-filled Saturday night seemed equally happy to applaud Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama.
Twenty-six days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation, earlier-than-ever caucus, the Obama-Winfrey rallies in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids became the state's largest political gatherings of the year. More than 18,000 people crammed into a convention hall in Des Moines Saturday afternoon.
She is likely the force behind Obama winning early in the Democratic primaries and raising millions of dollars.
Why do you think Obama went on O'Reilly last week and next week? He is using the popularity of the show to get his message out. The same reason he went on Oprah. While their shows have different themes their is no question that Oprah gets many more viewers and likely changed the outcome of several key primaries. Obama sees them both as ways to get votes and his message out. At least O'Reilly allows equal debate.
She even spoke at his rallies.
-
-
09-07-2008, 10:33 PM #12
Obama doesn't need Oprah to "fill up a stadium" for him. He gets huge crowds whenever he speaks, as evident by his acceptance speech at the DNC.
No one is doubting that Oprah has a large following and Obama was benefitted by her endorsement. However, that still doesn't change the fact that her show has nothing to do with politics or news. She has no obligation to cover both sides of the story. Her endorsement is simply that, an endorsement. Just because she endorses him does not mean she has to go out and have McCain or Palin on her show.
You don't have to explain to me why Obama went on O'Reilly's show. If you really think I don't understand the concept of giving TV interviews to get your message out then I am offended by how ignorant you must think I am.
The original point I made and the point I am still trying to make has nothing to do with how much of an impact Oprah may or may not have on voters. It has everything to do with what she is responsible for covering in comparison to O'Reilly.
-
09-07-2008, 11:08 PM #13
Obama doesn't need Oprah to "fill up a stadium" for him. He gets huge crowds whenever he speaks, as evident by his acceptance speech at the DNC.
I never said Obama needed Oprah to fill a stadium. I said she went to speak in front of thousands and raised money. Also, this was during the primaries and Obama would not have filled a full stadium during the primaries. Even with Oprah he was getting 10,000.
No one is doubting that Oprah has a large following and Obama was benefitted by her endorsement. However, that still doesn't change the fact that her show has nothing to do with politics or news. She has no obligation to cover both sides of the story. Her endorsement is simply that, an endorsement. Just because she endorses him does not mean she has to go out and have McCain or Palin on her show.
She made it political when she decided the only time she was going to support a candidate was when the candidate was black. She never backed anyone before and now won't let anyone on her show. She is 100% free to do this. With an audience of 90% women she will likely suffer. What this does show is that Time Magazine put Obama on the cover 7 times, Obama gets on Oprah and dozens of other media outlets are in the tank for Obama and he is DOWN 4 points in the polls. Must say a lot!
You don't have to explain to me why Obama went on O'Reilly's show. If you really think I don't understand the concept of giving TV interviews to get your message out then I am offended by how ignorant you must think I am.
No need for self inflicted comments. I never said you are ignorant. I just find it funny that O'Reilly gets slammed for being a Republican tool and he has Obama on, Hillary Clinton on, invited Kerry and Gore to come on. He gives equal access to his show, while Time and Oprah make it a one sided coverage and Obama supporters have no problem. Now they cry, "We want the fairness doctrine to come back!" Having 90% of the media is not enough, huh? :)
-
-
09-07-2008, 11:44 PM #14
She raised money for him, surprise surprise. That sort of goes along with the whole endorsement thing. I think you overestimate the impact she had on the early primaries. Sure it didn't hurt that she raised money for him and brought additional attention to his campaign, but I highly doubt she was the driving force behind his early victories as you said earlier.
You act as if Oprah rants and raves about Obama on her show daily. Yes she had him on the show, yes she supports him. Her show doesn't revolve around news or politics. I don't watch her show so I can't speak for her but I highly doubt she uses her show as a platform to voice her political opinions all that often. Even if she did, if a potential voter is relying on Oprah for their political coverage then they have no business voting.
If anything it shows that simply getting more coverage in the media has very little impact on who the American people will vote for.
Others on this board may have voiced their dislike for O'Reilly but I don't ever recall doing so myself. I still don't see why you are comparing O'Reilly or Fox News to Oprah and Time Magazine. If you want to compare O'Reilly to something, compare him to people employed by other news networks like CNN, MSNBC, etc that serve the same function. Time and Oprah serve very different functions than O'Reilly or Fox News.
-
09-08-2008, 12:04 AM #15
what is funny is that everyone is OK with Oprah having whoever she wants (I am as well) but it is democrats that push for the "fairness doctrine" because they don't think it is fair that AM radio is pro-conservative republican.
-
-
09-08-2008, 12:39 AM #16
The Daily Show? Yeah, I didn't even watch it. That comes on the same station as the Blue Collar Comedy Tour...
When I say fair, I mean that they are openly conservative. You know what you're getting if you flip to that one and only station. It's not like every single other network that still parades as merely in the "reporting" business.
Kinda like the completely fabricated story about Bush that ended Dan Rather's career.
-
09-08-2008, 12:54 AM #17
I do like how everyone keeps talking about Oprah and Obama when the topic is about O'Reilly being a Republican. I can only assume everyone agrees with me and now Obama and Oprah are the topic. Glad my point was taken and agreed on.
-
-
09-08-2008, 11:58 PM #18
I've watched the O'Reilly show twice. Once he claimed he was independent, the other he wasn't even talking politics. Not a surprise that he's a Repub, though.
-
09-09-2008, 12:19 AM #19
Most of the Fox News hosts and anchors consider themselves conservative Independents because today's Republican party no longer cares about downsizing government.
Ever listen to Michael Savage?
-
09-09-2008, 12:22 AM #20
I see... thanks for the clarification!
-
Originally Posted by mikesilvia 
