Tuesday November 24, 2009
She hasn't even left the building yet...and she won't until September 9, 2011. But the announcement that Oprah is ending her syndicated TV show has every A-list talk show host (not to mention every wannabe and has-been) crawling out of the woodwork to say, "I can do that."
The most recent pitch to hit my inbox is from Paula Abdul, who tells the celebrity gossip TV show Extra, "I feel I would be really good at it. I have the ability to connect with people on a level....I've proven to pierce the heartstrings, but also to be celebratory and bring out the best in people."
I'm sorry Paula, but I'm cringing at the thought.
The thing is, Oprah never made it seem like it was all about her. Her success rests on her ability to convince us that it's all about the guests, the audience, and the viewers.
Before Oprah, TV talk show hosts were predominantly white, predominantly male, and if they were women, predominantly blonde and slender. Many of the shows were confrontational and the farthest thing from 'feel good' TV. At various times Oprah was up against Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, Phil Donahue, Sally Jesse Raphael, and the infamous Jenny Jones, whose show on secret crushes led one male guest to murder another after he claimed he was humiliated on national TV.
Oprah ran a slow and steady race with her eyes firmly fixed on the prize. She promoted her book club despite naysayers who said viewers watched -- they didn't want to read. She went positive at a time when the prevailing trend was to go negative. Guests wanted to come on her show, knowing that an Oprah appearance could change their lives. Just getting in to see the taping of her show became a hot ticket because of Oprah's largesse. The unexpected and often spectacular giveaways she became famous for culminated in her most memorable show -- one in which every audience member received a car.
By encouraging viewers to live their best lives, she made change an adventure in self-improvement. And at the same time, she always let us know that she herself didn't have the magic bullet to make everything better; her fluctuating weight showed us that even Oprah had issues with eating, exercise, and self-esteem.
Most important, Oprah showed us -- without ever saying it out loud -- that a woman can be successful, loved, and respected without having a man in her life, or without having children. Her single, child-free existence flies in the face of conventional behavior, but none of us ever seemed to be bothered by that. In fact, it has allowed her to become what Forbes says is the world's most powerful celebrity.
She didn't have it easy as a child. Shuttled from grandparent to parent to parent, raped by a cousin at age 9 and then sexually abused later on by a family friend and an uncle, she was never able to talk about the abuse. When she found out she was pregnant at age 14, she hid it from her family but gave birth prematurely and lost the infant son two weeks later.
How did she move beyond so much early trauma to become a media pioneer and the first female African American billionaire? She believed in herself with a quiet confidence that we're seeing in all the Oprah retrospectives that have been on television in the past week since her announcement last Friday. Without bragging -- but with sincere conviction -- Oprah stated that she believed good things would come to her, even as early as those first few weeks when her Chicago-based talk show went national.
She still has over a year ahead of her before she goes off the air. Once she does, we'll have OWN -- the Oprah Winfrey Network, which will begin broadcasting in January 2011 -- to keep track of what Oprah is doing. But her size 10 shoes will be big ones to fill, and many pundits are already saying that after Oprah leaves, no one will ever come close to that kind of talk show success ever again.
Monday November 23, 2009
In tackling health care reform and abortion, the Senate has wisely embraced the old adage, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
They've opened debate on a health care bill that contains none of the controversial language of the Stupak Amendment -- an anti-choice compromise measure that would have severely restricted abortion coverage for anyone purchasing a government insurance plan or using government subsidies to obtain private insurance. Instead, the Senate is sticking with the existing restrictions on abortion imposed by the Hyde Amendment -- restrictions that have been in place in one form or another since 1977.
Why isn't the Senate with Stupak?
My colleague Tom Head, About.com Civil Liberties Guide and a staunch women's rights advocate, credits the efforts of activists: "[T]his was a pro-choice victory bolstered by one of the largest grassroots lobbying efforts in the history of the movement. We flooded our senators with calls, emails, and letters--and so far, it appears to be working."
Some are celebrating the Senate version. Others are fuming, saying the bill is no better than the House's Capps Amendment and "nothing but an accounting mechanism."
Even if the Senate passes a version that remains free of Stupak's restrictive abortion language, the final version to be hammered out by the House and Senate is still vulnerable to further erosion of women's reproductive rights. For both pro-life and pro-choice activists, the ongoing health care reform battle remains a waiting game.
More on the Hyde and Capps Amendments including an explanation of each:
More About.com perspectives on the Senate version sans Stupak:
Friday November 20, 2009
Asking a cancer survivor if you should listen to the new mammogram recommendations is like asking a mega-million dollar Powerball winner if you should buy a lottery ticket. You're going to get a very biased answer.
I should know. I'm a cancer survivor -- an ovarian cancer survivor -- diagnosed at age 33 when I was a stay-at-home mom with two little girls 9 months old and 3 years old.
If my cancer hadn't been caught early, I wouldn't be writing this today. Statistically speaking, I wouldn't have survived five years. This year, thanks to early treatment, I celebrated my 15th year of cancer survivorship.
That's why when the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) came up with new guidelines that contradicted everything women have been told up until now, I waited a long time to respond. Why?
The USPSTF consists of medical professionals who see this in clinical terms. I'm just another woman surviving cancer who sees this in personal terms.
'Clinical terms' means doctors and medical professionals can look at available data and figure out cost effectiveness, efficacy of early diagnosis and treatment, and measure the few it helps against the many it does little for. One prominent physician not on that task force -- noted breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love -- came out early to strongly support the new recommendations, while I -- a not-so-prominent survivor also not on that task force -- waited to share my thoughts. *
'Personal terms' aren't so easily assessed and are significantly less important to clinicians, task forces, health care panels, and policy makers. But that doesn't mean they don't matter.
As we've seen, those who see the issue through 'personal terms' have come out in full force. A massive groundswell of angry opposition to the recommendations has the Obama administration backing away from it and pushing Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius forward to say that the findings aren't part of government policy.
'Personal terms' differ with the person telling the story. My personal terms are simple and have a numeric value attached; they are the 15 years I've lived since my early cancer diagnosis.
They have been years deeply appreciated...well-lived with meaning and purpose.
I've seen both my daughters grow from sticky-faced toddlers to beautiful, funny, effervescent young women. I've cared for my mother in my home during her final weeks of life. I've picked up the pieces after my father's death, clearing out both his room in the nursing home and the house he shared with my mother for many years. I've brought significant women's issues to the table, first through radio and television shows I've produced and hosted, and now here on this site. And I've shared it all with a husband who has been with me through the good and the bad of 21 years of marriage.
I don't want to try and attach a monetary value to the productiveness of those 15 years of my life, but I'm sure I've contributed more to the U.S. economy than I've consumed in terms of medical care and treatment.
So, yes, I had a strong and instinctive reaction to the new recommendations announced Monday, and even after sitting on it for more than three days, my initial response hasn't changed, even after reading the opinions of phyicians, clinicians, pundits, politicans, and other survivors like me.
But I'm mindful that this an American perspective. In Europe, routine mammograms are not recommended for women under the age of 50. And other American journalists who report on health care and know this topic well say the new recommendations are extremely valid.
The irony that all this is happening during health care reform hasn't escaped me. I have enjoyed my 15 years because I had access to medical care and availed myself of the best diagnostic services and treatment options.
But during those same 15 years, millions of other women haven't been so lucky. They haven't had health insurance and haven't been able to pay for a doctor's visit, a mammogram, or other service that might have led to an early diagnosis. They lack the access I (and many others) take for granted -- access to essential medical care.
So even as Republicans warn of the perils of "rationed care" and point to the new breast cancer screening guidelines as proof, as a women's issues advocate I'm mindful that while gender inequity hurts, health care inequity kills.
Do I support the new breast cancer guidelines? No. But I also don't support not having universal health care in the United States. In the end, women who have health care coverage still can exercise their free will. They don't have to listen to government panels that say do this or don't do that as long as their health insurance covers their care. I'll echo what Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius advised women: "Go on doing what you've always done."
But as a country, we simply cannot afford to go on doing what we've always done. We need health care reform for all women, so that every woman can access the necessary treatment and care that will give her the same 15 years -- or more -- of life that I've enjoyed. Even with those crazy recommendations, we still have a choice. Millions of other women won't...unless we push panels, politicians, and policy to expand health care coverage to include anyone who wants it.
* Ironically, both Dr. Susan Love and I are listed in the National Cancer Survivor's Day Speakers Bureau Directory. In fact, her entry is directly above mine. She earns between $30,000 and $50,000 for each speaking engagement; I'd be happy to receive 1% of that and call it a day. She's been educated and trained in the field of oncology and has practiced and written books about cancer care. Me? I just lived through it.
Related articles:
Wednesday November 18, 2009
In August of this year, Runner's World magazine published an interview (conducted in June) with then-Alaska governor Sarah Palin. A warm-and-fuzzy feature somewhat light on politics, the exchange between interviewer and interviewee felt candid and real. It was a comfortable moment for the former GOP VP candidate who hasn't always fared so well with the media.
Flash forward to this week's Newsweek. There's Palin on the cover -- an image taken during the Runner's World photo shoot in June. She's wearing black shorts and a tomato-red running jacket that shows her curves. With hands on hips and one tanned leg bent at the knee, Palin's elbow rests on a chair draped with the American flag. The headline reads, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?"
Two articles within discuss her political influence and Republican concerns over her future plans, and her populist appeal and whether or not she can deliver.
But if you were to judge a book by its cover -- or a magazine, for that matter -- there's nothing 'substantive' in Palin's pose. It makes her look like the standard pin-up girl -- a piece of conservative political cheesecake. All fine and good for Newsweek since the cover accomplishes what the magazine intended; it makes Palin look like a bimbo.
Problem is, the pose is taken out of context. Shot for a running magazine, it was in keeping with the original article's content -- a puff piece on Palin as a runner. And Newsweek's decision to use it is flat out sexist -- a behavior they refuse to acknowledge.
Palin noted the sexism on her Facebook page and complained about it in an interview with Barbara Walters, but Jon Meacham, Newsweek's editor, is denying gender bias. He says it was selected because it was the most "interesting" photo they could find to "illustrate" the theme.
From Meacham's official statement: "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
Meacham obviously doesn't care for Palin or her politics, but his magazine's actions don't occur in a vaccuum. As Jehmu Green, President of the Women's Media Center, points out:
What Mr. Meacham and his colleagues fail to realize is that, by portraying Sarah Palin in this light, they have added an additional barrier for all women and girls who aspire to political leadership. It is no coincidence that women make up only 17 percent of Congress while comprising 51 percent of the nation's population.
Green is infinitely kinder to Meacham than I would be were I to get his attention with a written statement...or meet him face to face. Because here's what I'd say: "Be honest, Jon. You did it to sell magazines. You did it because Palin's book, Going Rogue: An American Life, came out this week and you wanted to catch a little of that mighty wind in your own sails. We've all seen Palin's attractive face grace the covers of so many magazines that the standard portrait wouldn't do. You wanted to kick it up a notch, and that's why you did what you did. I can understand it. I don't condone it, but I can understand your impulse."
I'm sad that I understand his impulse, and sadder still that these types of impulses aren't being controlled -- they're being indulged. (Take a look at CNBC's Donnie Deutsch's initial comments on Sarah Palin last year and you'll see what I mean.)
What we didn't learn from the 2008 campaign we are doomed to repeat in 2012, and we're getting an early preview of it right now with the Going Rogue book tour. What's happening to Sarah Palin as she rears her head and re-enters the airspace of the lower 48 is becoming downright ugly.
The attitude of some media outlets comes dangerously close to a specific response that's triggered when a rape occurs and the victim is very attractive, sexually appealing, dressed to impress, extroverted and flirtatious. There is recognition of a crime having been perpetrated and some sympathy, but there's also an underlying buzz that blames the victim for what happened.
We've all heard those words.
"She asked for it."
Sarah Palin did not ask to be turned into a pin-up girl on the cover of Newsweek. It's a classic case of bait and switch. She wouldn't have agreed to pose that way for Runner's World if she knew it would be taken out of context and used in this way.
And even if you believe she did "ask for it," it's not a valid excuse to go after her solely on the basis of gender. When have we ever seen a beefcake shot of a male political figure in a comparable pose on the cover of a national newsmagazine? Never, because men's bodies don't sell in the same way that women's bodies sell.
Sarah Palin was pulled from relative obscurity and thrust into a position that she may or may not have been qualified for. She approached it with energy and crafted a recognizable brand with her "pitbull with lipstick" comment. She didn't possess the standard resume that most VP candidates bring to the job. But as she's fond of saying, she didn't blink.
Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. We all know who she is by now, and what she represents. Her book may be at the top of the bestseller lists, but we're reading it because we either absolutely adore and admire her, or we think she's a train wreck and we have to see the blood, the mangled metal, and get a body count. (A lot of those bodies appear to have been members of Team McCain.)
She did a non-confrontational 'first interview' with Oprah and looked great but said little. She followed up with Barbara Walters in an interview that had more substance but still showed us Palin's strength is not in foreign policy.
Nobody is going to change their minds in this latest Palin-go-round of public appearances and media madness. It's back to middle America and rock-star treatment on her book tour. Her fans in Grand Rapids, Michigan, slept out overnight for a chance to meet her at a Barnes & Noble bookstore. An 18-year-old spent much of her birthday standing in line to see Palin and have her copy of Going Rogue signed.
Over the past week we've heard the oft-repeated factoid that 60% of the country doesn't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. That number will only be relevant if she runs in 2012. And as I've written before, Sarah Palin's fortunes seem to turn on a dime.
But let her run or not run on her own merits. Don't play the gender card in covering her, not now or in the future. If she's unqualified, let her hang herself with her own rope. If she tells untruths or misrepresents herself, fact-check her statements and call her on that. If she is mobbed by gushing, starry-eyed crowds, accept that there will alway be those who like her because she is unlike any other candidate before her.
Don't say or do anything that feeds into her scorn for the "liberal media elite" by going after her just because she's a woman. McCain picked her in part to appeal to those disenfranchised, dissatisfied former Hillary Clinton supporters. Don't add more fuel to that fire by making independent, moderate Republican or liberal women angry enough at the media gender bias to start feeling sorry for her and seeing her in a different light. Because if you continue this sort of sexist coverage, Sarah Palin won't be the only one "going rogue" in America.
Related articles:
