After seeing an "interview" with the fearless leader of FFRW in which she decried Oprah and demanded that people boycott her show and magazine I wrote her and the other officers a little letter:
On 15 Sep 2008 at 9:45, Beth Medina wrote:
Good morning ladies,
I am writing today,not as a member of your organization or your party, but as a concerned WOMAN.
I was very disturbed to hear a report that you are calling for boycott of Oprah Winfrey and her magazine because she SUPPOSEDLY snubbed a request to interview Sarah Palin. Ms. Winfrey has offered to have Gov. Palin on the show after the election season has concluded. She seems to be offering a very fair alternative since she had already decided long ago not to use her show as a platform for the election, on either side. It is extremely disingenuous and irresponsible of you as a group to be spreading half-truths and promoting a very negative movement toward a person who has done a decidedly fair thing by not using her worldwide audience to promote the candidate of her choice. She has shown great wisdom and fairness. Your group is showing neither and I find it very sad that you are so blinded by party politics that you can't see with any clarity whatsoever that Ms. Winfrey has made a sound decision. It is your group that is doing a disservice to women, make no mistake about that.
Sincerely,
Beth Medina
to which they responded:
On Mon, 9/15/08, AGM656@bellsouth.net
From: AGM656@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Oprah
To: LindaIvellGOP@aol.com, CindyFGraves@aol.com, carolynbooth@earthlink.net, agm656@bellsouth.net, Mstra68337@aol.com, bethmedina@sbcglobal.net
Date: Monday, September 15, 2008, 10:16 AM
Dear Ms. Medina:
Thank you so much for your letter.
The fact is, Oprah has built a media empire based on the concept of "empowering women". Declining to host what may be the first woman Vice President of the United States flies in the face of that concept.
Additionally, Oprah already has made her show a political showcase - for Barack Obama. She had him on twice. The last time was in October, 2006, before he announced for President, true enough. The trouble in, that when she had him on on that occasion, they did discuss his run for the Presidency. Further, she specifically asked him to make the formal announcement on her show.
Once a show goes "political", is it not fair to give both sides equal time?
Regards,
Ana Gomez-Mallada, esq. Secretary FFRW
and then I emailed:
As I stated in my letter, you are making a political issue where there is none. Ms. Winfrey decided long ago that she would not be using her show as a political forum. Your organization is making an issue where there is none. Ms. Winfrey has said that she is happy to have Gov. Palin on her show after the election. If your true concern is in empowering women, why is that a problem? What you really want is to advocate a certain political agenda and since you have a female running for office you are using the argument of "empowering women" to try and push your own political agenda. I find that to be irresponsible. You are trying to force Ms. Winfrey, who has made an otherwise fair decision, to bend to your will for political purposes, not to empower women. Your organization is doing a disservice to all women by pursuing your own agenda using a false argument. It is like saying that women and men are equal and should be treated thus and then complaining that you don't get special treatment. You can't have it both ways. But, in the end, you got your CNN coverage and an otherwise little known organization got its 15 minutes of fame. You don't care that overall you have taken a swipe at the integrity of the womens' movement, because it was never really about that for you. What a shame.
They responded by sending me a number of youtube videos about how Sarah Palin is fiscally conservative (a Fox News report) and another video about which was a montage of Obama statements taken out of context. Yeah, they are worried about empowering women. No politics here.
3 comments:
I think the basic mistake that you have made is the same one that I have made in regards to all things military. You have tried to use logic and common sense. And while I'm sure the individual members of the ffrw are fine women, their collective intelligence obviously diminishes in number.
I really admire your attempt to point out the error of their ways, but the word quixotic jumped to mind as I was reading it. Tilting at windmills. Ya got my vote though!
And I'm pretty sure that Oprah will be just fine without them! Sarah Palin single-handedly raised $10 million for Obama and only $1 million for McCain. Let them whine like pigs (with lipstick) stuck in a fence - I'm guessing more women tuned in to Oprah than decided to boycot.
That last post was by Emma - I just can't figure out how to change my name...
Let me start by saying that I am not an Oprah viewer. However, if Palin was on Oprah, I'd watch, because I'd like to hear what she has to say. She could very well be the next VPOTUS and I'd like to know something about her other than the fact that she apparently comes from very fertile stock and has passed that gene down (yes, I'm being facetious). I can watch the debates but I'd like to know a little more about her as a person. Therefore, I am slightly disappointed that Oprah isn't having her on.
However.
It's Oprah's show. It's her prerogative to have on who she wants whenever she wants. No one tells me who to invite to dinner at my house; why should anyone get to tell Oprah who's on her show? Frankly, her show isn't a public forum; it's a private one that happens to be broadcast on network TV. It's really up to her and, in reality, her sponsors; if they don't mind, everyone else is just going to have to live with that.
Post a Comment