Thanks, Oprah
Sorry, I just can't sneer at her 'Big Give.'
Extending her positive change brand.
With each passing season, the premises of reality television become more ludicrous and degrading to participants on both sides of the screen, eroding our notions of human dignity and blurring further the lines between natural curiosity and ghoulish morbidity.
Sound like an over-reaction? Witness some of the "plots" of recent reality shows? VH1's Celebrity Rehab With Dr.Drew invites the cameras along as famous and notorious personalities vomit, defecate and weep their way through a battle with their personal demons. The Moment of Truth, from the Fox Network, grills contestants on their worst sins under watch of a lie detector. The list goes on, from the Machiavellian Big Brother to the perverse Crowned (a trashy mother-daughter beauty contest). Each lowering of the bar hurts us all, as it further warps our ability to summon empathy, compassion and sympathy for what we see in our everyday lives.
Perhaps then, we should be glad for one Ms. Oprah Winfrey and her new reality show Oprah's Big Give, which premiered on Sunday on ABC. Say what you will about the Big O (and Lord knows, people will), but she's got it right with this one. Indeed, the philanthropically-premised Give may be Winfrey's most politically powerful move to date, never mind her ringing endorsement of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
The big idea
The set-up is simple for the Big Give. Ten contestants from various walks of life -- a 22-year-old dot.com millionaire, a West Point grad, an Amtrak rail attendant to name a few -- are given a small sum of money and a sorely needy cause, and each is asked to effect the biggest change in their case's lives. The premiere, which included more than a few lump-in-throat moments, saw contestants paired up and given $2,500 to help 5 groups in need of a good deed -- a mother of two made homeless when she escaped domestic violence, a Down Syndrome support group in need of a centre, an injured vet looking for financial respite, a student loan-shackled doctor and a gun-violence widow looking to keep her home in the wake of her husband's death.
Contestants are encouraged to turn that $2,500 into as much support and help as they can -- financial, emotional, and spiritual help to turn their cases' lives around. At the end of each episode, their results are measured and one contestant, judged by a panel of celebrity philanthropists (and Oprah pals) is sent home. The last contestant standing is the "biggest giver" and will be "surprised" with a million dollars.
Of course, the show's premise of do-goodery is at odds with the snaky, elimination-based format of reality TV. Indeed, it was a clunky end to the first show when, after single moms had been housed, debts had been paid, soldiers had been good fortuned, and centres (both physical and spiritual) had been found, the 10 contestants gathered to be critiqued on the efficacy of their kind-heartedness. In the end, the judges, Chef Jamie Oliver, football star Tony Gonzalez and former UNICEF worker Malaak Compton-Rock, sent AMTRAK worker Marlene Snipes home, as she failed to raise enough money for her student-loan shackled doctor.
Hijacking horror shows
It seemed an ugly-ish end to the show's cavalcade of warm 'n' fuzzy moments, but someone had to go. After all, the hook to this show is that it hijacks the addictive trappings of reality TV -- emotional pornography, drama and competition -- and subverts them to offer a different philosophy of entertainment. Whereas reality TV has traditionally preached that people act only out of self interest, Oprah's Big Give assumes contestants will take pleasure in the social nature of helping others.
Indeed, while some contestants originally reeked of self-promotion and congratulation, by the end of the show, you see their genuine joy at having helped others -- and one would hope the audience at home was reminded that nothing feels so good as making someone else happy.
Whether or not the show will draw the ratings of a juggernaut like American Idol remains to be seen. One hopes that the clearly intended message of the show, simple kindness, will spark even a minor ripple. That audiences were listening when one contestant spoke the words "Service is the rent you pay for living."
Ah, but you sneer
To the cynics out there, who throw stones at any of mega-rich Oprah's endeavors, who scoff at her extravagances and see self-interest in all of her motivations, I confess that I, too, used to doubt her. Sometimes Oprah, handing out cars to middle class white-ladies in a orgy of gleeful consumerism, is too much Oprah. But to cast aspersions on someone so clearly trying to affect positive change in the world, well, it's just so utterly useless.
We doubt Oprah's altruism in part because reality TV and the media tells us we are all self-serving cretins, incapable of performing acts of kindness without a payoff for ourselves. Reality and tabloid culture, and it's mean-spirited, gawking nature, have trained us to pay attention to staged, petty dramas, to hate upon straw man after straw man, and to fiddle the most self-involved tune while Rome burns. Who cares about Iraq and Afghanistan and New Orleans and the Congo when Paris Hilton is such a weapons-grade bitch?
If Oprah's Big Give works, perhaps viewers will be inspired to shake off the inhumane muck and connect to the people around them. Wouldn't that be a nice gift.
Related Tyee stories:
- Truly, TV's Tawdriest Hour
Fox's 'Moment of Truth' takes the game show to new abysses. - Life Without TV
To reconnect with my boys, I pulled the plug. Now what? - Modelling Bad Behaviour
Mocking 'Top Model' was my group sport, but the joke's on me.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Glen Murtz
03-03-2008
Oprah Sucks
This is a television show. Its purpose is to sell advertising.
Oprah might be stinking and filthy and rich, but to many eyes, including mine, she'll never be more than a two cent publicity whore if she can't "perform good deeds" without advertising the fact.
reprah
03-03-2008
How do you know that Oprah
How do you know that Oprah does not "perform good deeds" that are not advertised? This show generates money but you can not deny that it also promotes good will. $2500 is not that much money that many people could not do the same if motivated.
lunenburg
03-03-2008
Grammar police
"But to cast dispersions on someone so clearly trying to affect positive change in the world"
the expression is 'cast aspersions'
Overall the argument is the same one that supports the lottery, because some of the money goes to a good cause in the end with the winner, it must be good. Yet we overlook all the people paying 'for a chance'. This isn't Robin Hood, this is philanthropy. I would rather see a reality version of Robin Hood.
David Beers
03-03-2008
ye who casts the first dispersion...
Thanks Lunenburg for that catch. Elaine was writing too late at night, and I was editing too fast. Should have nabbed that one!
Booker
03-03-2008
Doubt
We do tend to doubt the altruism of people who shout at the top of their lungs LOOK AT ME GIVING MY MONEY AWAY. Oprah may do good deeds quietly, behind the scenes, with the cameras off, but I have my doubts.
elaine
03-03-2008
dis-persons
Oooh, blushy face emoticon for sure. It was late and I had eyes full of Oprah, but there's no excuse. Thanks for the catch, lunnenburg
Also, is the point of doing good deeds in public not to act as a role model and catalyst, or am I just getting idealistic in my old age?
southdeltawalker
03-03-2008
No Thanks Oprah
This is just another reality show given the Oprah "spin".
Forget about people getting inspired to get out there and help others, if the're not doing it now-when are they going to start?
After the next reality show is over??
As for Oprah I can't help but notice that she is very quiet when it comes to the environment.
Her focus is on self improvement with a bit philanthrophy thrown in.
Maybe if she focused on the environment she might have to deal with her own conspicuous over consumption-jets, estates, condos, farms, cars, products, magazines.....
Some role model.
Kelly Crane
03-03-2008
Positive re-focus
The value of Oprah's new show is that it re-focusses the TV watching masses to a healthier, community oriented, set of values. Whether or not Oprah donates privately (I don't think anyone should assume she does or does not - if you want to know, I am sure there are ways to find out), is really not relevant to the story about her show. I think it is a positive step, and of course, it is not perfect, but it most certainly highlights values which of giving, which we can all agree are certainly not the focus of most other TV programs.
Artevist
03-03-2008
Just so American
I tried to watch this, but gave up after about 15 minutes. To me it just felt sooo American, and so like all the other reality competiton shows cluttering the airwaves.
And I couldn't help but feel that many of the hard-luck stories were a result of American social policy. It's sad that a multimillion dollar reality show is the only way social justice is doled out in a declining American Empire.
lhannant
03-03-2008
Positive change or positive reinforcement
Reading this piece, the work of Canadian Jean Vanier came to mind...
"Sometimes those of us who have more power, more money, more time or more knowledge bend down to those who have less power, less knowledge, or less wealth; there is a movement from the 'superior' to the 'inferior'. When people are generous they are in control."
Our real challenge is to be vulnerable and open with one another to heal the wounds that divide us, not simply to apply the bandages of ostensible generosity.
rikia
03-03-2008
Let no good deed go unpunished
In the 90's, Ted Turner had the balls to stand up and say that he would give more money to charity if Forbes would count it in their annual rankings. Back then, he and a few of the other big boys were jockeying for position on the Forbes 100 list and since they subtracted any giving from total net worth it was a handicap. If they would change the rules, he would gladly give more.
They changed the rules.
In this forum, it is so easy to criticize his greed. But no one had ever thought of this before, and he created a simple social change that led to Billions in Philanthropy. Gates, Buffet and others were all set free to give without fear that they'd look like "losers" among their peers. (who am I to judge whatever competitive streak inspires people to build great fortunes? I am content when I see it shared with those in need.)
I too could only bear to watch a few minutes of The Big Give since I find Reality TV in any form painful. But in one single flawed program, Oprah has created a culture shift whereby the kind of people who really like reality tv have suddenly been made aware that
1. There are others in need.
2. It in the realm of possibility– nay, even desirable– to help others in need.
3. It feels good.
If you don't think that counts for something...
ubiquitous
04-03-2008
You just can't win with some folk
What a deplorable attitude displayed by some of our posters. So what if her show is wrapped up in a capitalist cloth, remember, if not for the advertising dollars and neilson (sp?) ratings and the SNL parodies (OK, maybe not this last one), there’d be no dollars to give away. For southdeltawalker, she doesn’t do anything for the environment. So what? We’ve got other celebrities who speak to that (e.g. Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, et al.) who don’t always speak to the issues that Oprah does. Does that make their crusades any less valid? I got to agree with Rikia. If it becomes popular or trendy to get more involved in philanthropy, then so be it. The Oprah’s and Bill Gate’s and Bono’s and Angelina’s can keep their mansions for all I care, all longs as they keep in front of the cameras and continue to flaunt their philanthropy, then maybe some of that will rub off on other celebrities.
James Burns
04-03-2008
Perception
I suppose the difficulty most people (or at the very least me) have with celebrity advertising of "causes" has to do with the fact that most of them seem to be more focused on feeding their great big steaming pile of ego, than actually trying to change anything. They call attention to a cause, while usually being pampered during the whole course of their "charity" work, and spend most of their time simply lending their names and doing photo ops while letting everyone else do all the heavy lifting. Yet they garner all the credit. It's kind of disgusting, because it seems that it's really all about them. It's like criminals finding god. I'm sure many celebrities are legitimately concerned, but I guess given the nature of our capitalist society it just seems their career profile takes precedence.
Wordspinner
04-03-2008
Missed an Opportunity to Elevate Reality Shows
The Big Give is a great way to emphasize local support and action for neighbours and to energize a community to help each other. But the good feelings that are generated are soiled by the judging of the contestants with an aim towards tossing out one person.
Instead the producers should have set up a system where the contestants receive points on a scale for their efforts. No one gets eliminated. The points stay with each contestant and are cumulative. At the end of the weeks of giving the person with the most points gets the big give from Oprah. Should there be a tie, Oprah makes a big give to those in the tie. This way the participants still get feedback about what they could have done better AND they have an opportunity to put their learning into practice.
The judging at the end spoils the intention and spirit of the show. Oprah, with her interest in spirit, should have known better than to include this lower level practice in her higher level reality show.
Brimac
04-03-2008
The real purpose
If her real purpose were to aid the unfortunate and not promote herself, would it not be better served by giving the million dollars to the persons in need and not the paltry $2,500? This is typical of celebrities so full of themselves that they begin to believe they are making a difference in the world when they are merely sporting the trappings and promoting themselves as philanthropists.
Truly generous people do not have the need to let everyone know how generous they are. Paul Newman and Jimmy Carter come to mind.