RACHEL JOHNSON
Assistant Perspectives Editor
Oprah Winfrey is arguably one of today’s most influential women in the United States and even in the world. She hosts an Emmy Award-winning talk show that has made her worth an estimated $1.5 billion. She is an actress, a book critic, an entrepreneur, a philanthropist and a humanitarian. Now it seems that she’s attempting to add pundit to her resume as well.
Winfrey has publicly declared her support for potential Democratic candidate Barack Obama. The talk show host first proclaimed her alliance for Obama on Larry King’s show last year, making it the only time the billionaire has ever endorsed a presidential candidate, according to cnn.com writer Alexander Mooney.
Winfrey also told King that she will play a “visible role” in the campaign. Her first event to rally support for Obama was a star-studded fundraising event held in Montecito on Saturday, Sept. 8.
Though Winfrey has established herself as an intelligent, charismatic individual with the capability to make positive change in the world, her involvement in Obama’s campaign might send the wrong message to voters.
It’s possible that people, specifically viewers of Oprah’s talk show, will vote for Obama not because of his political platform but because of their devotion to the famed host.
There is a common perception that Americans don’t care enough about politics. This is reflected by the fact that only 60.7 percent of the country’s population voted in the 2004 election. Perceived apathy coupled with an ability to be swayed results in a voter who doesn’t necessarily care about governmental issues but who cares about what a talk show host wants him or her to care about.
According to Harpo Studios, 49 million viewers watch the show on a weekly basis. The talk show primarily caters to women, with many topics specifically targeted to those in the 25-55 age range, which is a demographic that Obama needs to reach. These 49 million voters might be persuaded to support Obama not because of his platforms or ideals but because of their love for Oprah.
Securing votes from middle-aged female population will give Obama an edge over competitor Hillary Clinton, making Winfrey’s role in his campaign essential, especially with Clinton’s bid.
But voters need to realize that the talk show host is promoting a presidential candidate and not a product, especially since Winfrey is basically the poster child for marketing.
For example, Winfrey featured non-profit organization Kiva on her show last week. The organization, which raises money for Third World entrepreneurs, secures funds by asking people to simply lend money to the cause. There is a 99 percent chance that a donor will be reimbursed.
After the show aired, kiva.org posted the following on their Web site: “Due to a recent surge in support ignited by viewers of the Oprah Winfrey Show and readers of President Clinton’s newly released book “Giving,” there is currently a shortage of businesses in need of loans.”
It’s clear that because Oprah promoted the organization on her show, coupled with Clinton’s advocacy in his book, viewers wanted to lend a hand—just because she said so. Will Obama’s campaign illustrate the same result? It’s definitely possible. But is it good for voters to determine their political views based on an affiliation with a television star?
According to Ben Shapiro, who wrote about Winfrey on Townhall.com in 2003, it’s not.
“Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman in America,” he wrote. “She decides what makes The New York Times best-seller lists. Her touchy-feely style sucks in audiences at the rate of 14 million viewers per day. But Oprah is far more than a cultural force. She’s a dangerous political force as well, a woman with unpredictable and mercurial attitudes toward the major issues of the day.”
Shapiro is right. Winfrey is a talented television host but she may have more influence than is good for the public. People may blindly follow her lead just because they enjoy her show. Winfrey has the freedom to support Obama, a worthy candidate, but people need to make sure they vote based on their own beliefs, not those of their favorite talk show host.
Ultimately the responsibility lies with the voter to make an educated choice about the presidential candidate he or she chooses to support. While candidates do need to be marketable, they aren’t products to be sold; they are people who have the potential to hugely change the course of the nation’s future. And that deserves a little more consideration than merely affiliation with a celebrity like Winfrey.
09-13-2007