This feels both sacrilegious and scary, but I have a bone to pick with Oprah Winfrey
Of course, criticising someone for throwing in their lot with Bezos shouldn't be in the least controversial. The gross parade of wedding guests attending his marriage to Lauren Sánchez in Venice last weekend looked like a catwalk of shame. There was Leonardo DiCaprio, hiding his face with his hat (we still see you!), in the company of his positively geriatric 27-year-old girlfriend, Vittoria Ceretti. There were the Kardashians, not hiding their faces. There was Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. And there, accompanied by her lady-in-waiting, Gayle King, who walked several paces behind her as is proper, was Oprah Winfrey.
Why shouldn't Oprah go to the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez? It's a big splashy event that, given the chance, wouldn't any of us have gone to as well? (Honestly? Probably.) Still, we hold Oprah to higher standards. It's Oprah, for god sake, the woman we grew up adoring, who burst through so many ceilings, who Tina Fey correctly cast as a god-like figure in that episode of 30 Rock (where her character, Liz Lemon, took too many pills, got on a flight, and hallucinated that Oprah was sitting next to her in club class). In that scene, Fey did what we would all do if encountering Oprah while our inhibitions were lowered: she sniffed Oprah's hair, told her she loved her and went on a deranged monologue that included the phrases 'I eat emotionally' and 'I saw your show about following your fear and it inspired me to wear shorts to work'.
And it's not only love that staunches our criticism of Oprah. We also fear her. It has been the case for years now that the quickest and most effective way for a screen personality to curb press criticism is to launch a book group, guaranteeing that every hack touting a book – which is every hack in existence – nurtures a tiny flame of hope they will be chosen and whisked away from all this. Who among us has a bad word to say about Sarah Jessica Parker (hello!), or Reese Witherspoon (hi!), or the apex predator of celebrity book groups, the original and best, Oprah.
Likewise: who can forget the cautionary tale of what happened to Jonathan Franzen in 2001 when he expressed doubt that being selected for Oprah's Book Club was the best thing ever to have happened to him? Granted, Franzen's criticism was graceless. (He suggested Oprah's picks were a bit low-brow.) But his broader point about TV consuming literary culture was given no credence whatsoever. This was a few years before James Frey's makey-uppy memoir was exposed, and Oprah's book club brand briefly damaged. Instead, Franzen was burned alive for his remarks, not least by Joyce Carol Oates, whose novel, We Were the Mulvaneys, was chosen by Oprah that season and who told me at the time: 'Jonathan Franzen perceives the Oprah book readers as mainly women, and he would prefer a male readership.' Brutal.
Anyway, back to Rosie O'Donnell, an icon in her own right who is now living in Ireland after making good on her threat to leave the US if Trump was elected. 'Is Oprah friends with Jeff Bezos,' she asked rhetorically on Instagram in the wake of the wedding. 'Really? How is that possible? He treats his employees with disdain. By any metric he is not a nice man.'
That was it. Doesn't look like much, but it was seismic given the general timorousness around Oprah. And this despite years of evidence that a woman who was once a trailblazer for good has drifted into murkier waters, from her promotion of shonky showbiz medic, Dr Oz, to her enabling of cranks like Jenny McCarthy, and the power of positive thinking pseudoscience of Rhonda Byrne, to showing up at the wedding of one of the world's richest men, who begrudges his minimum wage workers their pee breaks.
Going back further, you can even take issue with the aspirational tone of Oprah's original brand, the only sustained critique of which I've read is by Janice Peck, an academic at the University of Colorado, who wrote a book called The Age of Oprah in which she questioned whether the media titan's dare-to-dream ethos was so apolitical as to skew heavily rightwing. Per Oprah's narrative, said Peck, 'she was poor and living in sackcloth someplace and then became Oprah Winfrey and everything in between and the whole historical context, all the conditions that made it possible for her to succeed, disappear. The American dream is based on that notion of: if you just put your mind to it.'
I understand this point, although I also think there's room for dare-to-dream cheerleading alongside rigorous, data-supported policy platforms. But whichever way you see these things, the bottom line is we should be able to criticise Oprah, right? This should not be hard. And yet as I type this, now, I have a small knot of dread in my stomach. Oh, god. I've done the wrong thing, haven't I. Oprah! I'm sorry! I didn't mean it! I still love you! Please pick my next book for your book club!
Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Todd Chrisley reveals jailhouse confrontation with star who 'talked smack' about daughter Savannah
Todd Chrisley has revealed he clashed with a very well-known prison inmate who dared to criticize his daughter Savannah's efforts to secure his release. The former jailbird, 56, who alongside wife Julie was granted a presidential pardon by Donald Trump last month, laid into 'Varsity Blues' college admissions scam mastermind Rick Singer in a candid interview on Savannah's Unlocked podcast. The Chrisley Knows Best stars served time for bank fraud and tax evasion - with Todd memorably crossing paths with Singer at Pensacola's Federal Prison Camp. Referring only to Singer as the 'college admissions guy' and a 'snitch', Chrisley fumed: 'He was talking s*** about Savannah, because that's when she had already started, you know, pulling the Barbara Walters and exposing everything in the [Bureau of Prisons]. 'He started talking smack. I said, "I will rip your head off and s*** down your neck if you talk about my child again." And I meant what I said.' In January 2023 Singer was sentenced to three and a half years in prison after pleading guilty in 2019 to racketeering, money laundering and obstruction charges. The court heard he accepted bribes totaling more than $25 million from desperate parents - including celebrities such as Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman - who wanted to get their kids into some of the country's best schools. In August 2024 he was released to a halfway house near Los Angeles to serve the rest of his sentence. This comes after Todd and Julie finally reunited and are now sharing the emotional details in a new interview with ABC News Studios, where they reflected on seeing each other for the first time in years. 'I was a little nervous,' Julie, 52, said about her reunion with Todd during the interview. 'Just because, you know, you think, "Oh my gosh, I've been away this long." But then, when I saw him, it was as if no time had passed.' Todd, 56, said that the idea of reuniting felt 'weird,' because he never really considered that he and Julie were 'apart.' 'And you know for me, it's just weird, because she was never away from me,' he explained. 'Even the whole time we were apart. She was with me every second, every breath that I took.' Todd continued: 'I mean, when I saw her, I was grateful to wrap my arms around her, but it was just more like, "I'm home."' Julie added that there was 'laughter and tears' at their reunion, which was filmed. Todd chimed in, 'A lot of that came after the cameras were not on.' And after so much time apart, the first thing Todd and Julie did together was have dinner with their family. Todd said, 'You know, we get to start over,' before saying that sleeping in his own bed again was 'heaven.' Both of them agreed that being able to shower at the leisure, without shower shoes, was thrilling. 'It was almost like your first sexual encounter. That good,' Todd joked. But the most emotional part of coming home was reuniting with their daughter Chloe, 12. 'You know, even though we had gotten to see each other [during visitations], it's not the same as when you're home,' Julie said. 'On our way home, she was literally watching on her phone — she was tracking where we were — to know how close I was. So I think it was just — it was a special moment,' she continued. Todd also recently shared the thoughts running through his mind when he and his wife were sentenced. 'I remember going in and that night, I was so angry with God and that night when the lights went out, I literally cried myself to sleep because it's the first time Julie and I have ever been away from each other since we had been married,' the Chrisley patriarch told Lara Trump. 'I'd never not been in that house when my kids woke up in the morning or when they went to bed at night,' Chrisley recalled. He was sentenced to 12 years - which was later knocked down to 10 - and served time at the Pensacola Federal Prison Camp in Florida, while wife Julie was imprisoned three states away at the Federal Medical Center Lexington in Kentucky. 'And I just said, God, why?' Chrisley continued. 'I've tried to be a loyal and faithful servant.' 'Why are you allowing this to happen? You know these things are not true,' he said. Prosecutors pushed that the Chrisleys had used false documents and exaggerated financial statements to secure more than $30 million in loans, which they used to fund their lavish lifestyle, which was on full display on their reality TV show that went on for 10 seasons. 'And in my dream, God came to me and he said that I have planted you where I need you and when you leave, they will rise,' Chrisley recounted. 'I look back on that dream now and I now understand when he said "when you leave they will rise" because they're rising through President Trump,' the former reality TV star said. 'So I am grateful for that.'
Times
38 minutes ago
- Times
Trump tariffs' explosive problem: 99% of fireworks made in China
The fireworks industry is fretting that President Trump's tariffs on China will dampen their big blowout next year when Americans celebrate 250 years of independence. Ninety-nine per cent of consumer fireworks and 90 per cent of professional display fireworks come from China. Even the most impressive July 4 displays — on the National Mall in Washington and Macy's show in New York — are reliant on Chinese imports. 'These large signature events — probably 75 to 80 per cent of the product for those shows is manufactured in China,' said Julie Heckman, director of the American Pyrotechnics Association. 'The rest is going to come from Spain, Italy, France and Japan.' Heckman said planned displays in Washington and New York may be 'shortened' in 2026 to cut costs if the 30 per cent tariff remains. She said shows in small American towns could be cancelled altogether, especially if tariffs are returned to the 145 per cent rate imposed by Trump earlier this year. 'If the tariffs increase again to triple digits, small towns aren't going to be able to afford a show,' Heckman said. Fireworks for this year's displays were mostly purchased before Trump's tariffs hit, meaning the shows are largely going ahead as planned. But Lauren Collar, 43, a second-generation firework seller from Missouri, said her family business had to absorb the costs of tariffs this year and predicts shortages in 2026. 'We prepare an order 12 to 18 months in advance,' she said. 'We're uncertain what to do. You could see smaller communities not even shooting fireworks, because they just can't afford it.' Collar said it would take US manufacturers 'a decade' to set up pyrotechnics factories like those in China and even then most of the raw material would be imported and subject to tariffs. 'We're hopeful that the administration will understand our special circumstances and maybe we can get a partial exemption,' she said. Firecrackers were invented in the city of Liuyang, central China, during the Tang dynasty. By stuffing a concoction of charcoal, sulphur and saltpetre into hollowed-out bamboo stalks, Chinese artisans discovered that they could create a satisfying bang. More than 1,200 years later, the province of Hunan still makes fireworks for the rest of the world. For defenders of Trump's protectionist agenda, the simple answer would be to scrap the 1970s health and safety laws that effectively ended small-scale manufacturing in the US, allowing America's firework industry to compete once again with China. But even if these protections were weakened, it is not clear whether Americans would be willing to work in factories adopting Chinese health and safety standards. 'Fireworks are all made by hand. Very little automation is involved,' said Heckman. 'You're dealing with explosive compositions that are highly sensitive to heat, high humidity and friction. It's a very dangerous job.' Fireworks manufacturing is a dangerous business, and accidents are common YANG HUAFENG/CHINA NEWS SERVICE/VCG VIA GETTY IMAGES Earlier this month, nine people were killed in Hunan province by an explosion at a fireworks factory and accidents in China are fairly common. America's pyrotechnicians are hoping Trump's trade war with China will end soon. 'The firework industry is the most patriotic industry in the United States and wants nothing more than to be a significant component of helping America celebrate our 250th anniversary in 2026,' Heckman said. 'But the firework industry needs some relief … in these tariffs to make it happen.'
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vatican leak undermines Pope Francis and inflames debate over Latin Mass
The debate surrounding the traditional Latin Mass within the Catholic Church has intensified significantly in the early days of Pope Leo XIV 's pontificate. It follows the alleged leak of Vatican documents that appear to contradict the rationale behind his predecessor Pope Francis 's restrictions on the ancient liturgy. These documents reportedly indicate that a majority of Catholic bishops who participated in a 2020 Vatican survey expressed general satisfaction with the Latin Mass. Crucially, they warned that imposing restrictions would "do more harm than good". The texts, originating from the Vatican's doctrine office, were posted online on Tuesday by Vatican reporter Diane Montagna, who has closely followed the Latin Mass dispute. Neither the Vatican spokesman nor the prefect of the doctrine office immediately responded to requests for comment or confirmation of the documents' authenticity on Wednesday. If verified, the leaked information could place considerable pressure on Pope Leo to address the liturgical divisions that became particularly pronounced during Pope Francis's 12-year papacy, especially within the United States. Leo has consistently stated that his primary aim is to foster unity and reconciliation within the Church, and many conservatives and traditionalists view the Latin Mass controversy as an urgent matter requiring resolution. In one of his most controversial acts, Francis in 2021 reversed Pope Benedict XVI 's signature liturgical legacy and restricted access for ordinary Catholics to the old Latin Mass. The ancient liturgy was celebrated around the world before the modernising reforms of the 1960s Second Vatican Council, which allowed Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular, with the priest facing the pews. Francis said he was cracking down on the spread of the old liturgy because Benedict's decision in 2007 to relax restrictions had become a source of division in the church. Francis said at the time that he was responding to 'the wishes expressed' by bishops around the world who had responded to the Vatican survey, as well as the Vatican doctrine office's own opinion. 'The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene,' Francis wrote at the time. Benedict's relaxation had been "exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division', he said. The documents posted online, however, paint a different picture. They suggest that the majority of bishops who responded to the Vatican survey had a generally favourable view of Benedict's reform and warned that suppressing or weakening it would lead traditionalist Catholics to leave the church and join schismatic groups. They warned any changes 'would seriously damage the life of the church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve'. The documents include a five-page 'overall assessment' of the survey findings, written by the Vatican's doctrine office, as well as a seven-page compilation of quotes from individual bishops or bishops' conferences. The documents contain some negative and neutral opinions, and say some bishops considered Benedict's reform 'inappropriate, disturbing', dangerous and worthy of suppression. But the Vatican's own assessment said the majority of bishops who responded expressed satisfaction. It cited the rise in religious vocations in traditionalist communities and said young Catholics in particular were drawn to the 'sacredness, seriousness and solemnity of the liturgy'. It is not clear what other evidence, anecdotes or documentation informed Francis's decision to reverse Benedict. But from the very start, Francis was frequently critical of traditionalist Catholics, whom he accused of being navel-gazing retrogrades out of touch with the evangelising mission of the church in the 21st century. The new documents have comforted traditionalists who felt attacked and abandoned by Francis. 'The new revelations confirms that Pope Francis restricted the Traditional Mass at the request of only a minority of bishops, and against the advice of the dicastery in charge of the subject,' Joseph Shaw, of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, said. 'The majority view of the bishops, that restricting the TLM would cause more harm than good, has sadly been proved correct.' In an email, he said Leo should address the issue 'urgently'.
