Oprah & Dr. Hall

[Fnord]

First off, when I tried to log in to the Swift area to leave a comment, I received the following message:

Username and password do not match or you do not have an account yet.

As for the article, I've noticed similar events happening in churches. That is, a charismatic leader engages a large following, then enjoys a long period of popularity. During this period, saturation of the leader's message occurs, and people become so enamored of the leader's style that they react to any deviation with anxiety. Further, criticism of the leader is met with attacks against the critic, both overt and subtle. This drives away those who perceive that the leader has become the message, or who see that the leader is more entertaining than informative.

The leader's handlers react by bringing in new talent, hoping that the "fresh ideas" and "new insight" will boost the leader's marketability. Unfortunately, this often backfires when the new talent's ideas and insight clash with the leader's message, or when the new talent proves more popular than the leader, or both.

Sooner or later, the new talent is squeezed out. It is likely that those who brought the new talent in will also be encouraged to leave (i.e., transferred to a do-nothing department, ignored or rebuffed at board meetings, et cetera).

Note that I have not tried to differentiate between your "typical" televangelist or your "typical" media darling. There seem to be parallels between the empires of Oprah Winfrey and Jim Schuller. Both have charismatic leaders, both are trying to increase patronage, both have tried new talent and then quietly hustled the new talent out after a clash of styles and ideologies.

Both are feeling the effects of an aging leadership that has gone out of touch with its followers and changes in social interests.

 

[sadhatter]

First off, when I tried to log in to the Swift area to leave a comment, I received the following message:

As for the article, I've noticed similar events happening in churches. That is, a charismatic leader engages a large following, then enjoys a long period of popularity. During this period, saturation of the leader's message occurs, and people become so enamored of the leader's style that they react to any deviation with anxiety. Further, criticism of the leader is met with attacks against the critic, both overt and subtle. This drives away those who perceive that the leader has become the message, or who see that the leader is more entertaining than informative.

The leader's handlers react by bringing in new talent, hoping that the "fresh ideas" and "new insight" will boost the leader's marketability. Unfortunately, this often backfires when the new talent's ideas and insight clash with the leader's message, or when the new talent proves more popular than the leader, or both.

Sooner or later, the new talent is squeezed out. It is likely that those who brought the new talent in will also be encouraged to leave (i.e., transferred to a do-nothing department, ignored or rebuffed at board meetings, et cetera).

Note that I have not tried to differentiate between your "typical" televangelist or your "typical" media darling. There seem to be parallels between the empires of Oprah Winfrey and Jim Schuller. Both have charismatic leaders, both are trying to increase patronage, both have tried new talent and then quietly hustled the new talent out after a clash of styles and ideologies.

Both are feeling the effects of an aging leadership that has gone out of touch with its followers and changes in social interests.

I saw this coming a mile away. NOt an oprah fan myself, but i am exposed to a lot of it, and it seems like mel brooks trying to fit in at a Skrewdriver concert.

I had some hopes, but seeing as oprah is simply a profit making machine, this was the more logical outcome.

 

[Fnord]

... I had some hopes, but seeing as oprah is simply a profit making machine, this was the more logical outcome.

Sad, but true. Sorta like being the only GMC vice-president to suggest that they focus their brand on building fuel-efficient vehicles. While it may be ethically correct, it just doesn't fit in with the corporate plan.

 

[Starthinker]

Just FYI, forum logins don't work on Swift, you have to register on Swift seperately.

 

[sadhatter]

Sad, but true. Sorta like being the only GMC vice-president to suggest that they focus their brand on building fuel-efficient vehicles. While it may be ethically correct, it just doesn't fit in with the corporate plan.

Diversity is great, when people genuinely want diversity. But in a case where the bottom line is profit ( a fact that it is damn near impossible to convince oprah fans of.) diversity tends to give way to what brings in the coin.

What bothers me is the trend of people to think of big name celebrities as "friends" and give them the same considerations they would a real life person they know and trust. It astounds me that people cannot grasp that they put off an image like this on purpose, for this exact reason. And instead they like to believe that oprah ( or Dr. Phil, Or Sylvia browne, or montel williams) somehow has a connection with them, and is looking out for their best interest.

This is going to come off as very ignorant, but i experienced the same thing....doing children's theatre. Children have a tendancy to come up to you after the preformance, regardless of being in costume or not, and react to you as if you were the character. And while i think it is acceptable for children to act this way ( in fact, i made it a habit to not get out of costume untill i was home. ) , i find the trait in adults eye rollingly bizzare.

I mean i cannot see how a reasoning adult doesn't look at oprah and see " oh she is the adult version of the girl from ' Big Comfy Couch' she is meant to seem like my friend to promote products."

 

[Roadtoad]

First off, when I tried to log in to the Swift area to leave a comment, I received the following message:

As for the article, I've noticed similar events happening in churches. That is, a charismatic leader engages a large following, then enjoys a long period of popularity. During this period, saturation of the leader's message occurs, and people become so enamored of the leader's style that they react to any deviation with anxiety. Further, criticism of the leader is met with attacks against the critic, both overt and subtle. This drives away those who perceive that the leader has become the message, or who see that the leader is more entertaining than informative.

The leader's handlers react by bringing in new talent, hoping that the "fresh ideas" and "new insight" will boost the leader's marketability. Unfortunately, this often backfires when the new talent's ideas and insight clash with the leader's message, or when the new talent proves more popular than the leader, or both.

Sooner or later, the new talent is squeezed out. It is likely that those who brought the new talent in will also be encouraged to leave (i.e., transferred to a do-nothing department, ignored or rebuffed at board meetings, et cetera).

Note that I have not tried to differentiate between your "typical" televangelist or your "typical" media darling. There seem to be parallels between the empires of Oprah Winfrey and Jim Schuller. Both have charismatic leaders, both are trying to increase patronage, both have tried new talent and then quietly hustled the new talent out after a clash of styles and ideologies.

Both are feeling the effects of an aging leadership that has gone out of touch with its followers and changes in social interests.

A good analysis. May I add?

Oprah is heading to the last roundup. That's part of the reason for her own channel, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, the empire is headed for the sunset.

Good riddance. I'm getting sick of the obsession with "self."

 

[TubbaBlubba]

And here I thought this was going to be about Dr. Hell.

 

[Monza]

...Good riddance. I'm getting sick of the obsession with "self."

Why do you think Oprah is interested in herself? Is it because she puts herself on the cover of her magazine every month?!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Her face, anyway ...

 

[Fnord]

Just FYI, forum logins don't work on Swift, you have to register on Swift seperately.

Oh.



My bad.

 

[steve s]

Her face, anyway ...

It's probably her body, too. They just took 10,000 photos of her when she lost weight. When she's 70, she'll still be young on her magazine covers. And her followers will never notice the difference.

Steve S

 

[MrBooglemaumau]

Why do you think Oprah is interested in herself? Is it because she puts herself on the cover of her magazine every month?!

Not only that,but she's also bringing her own cheer squad when she visits Australia....a whole plane load of "friends"...waddamadder ?..don't trust the Aussies ???