DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at abcnews.go.com —

ABC News Calls Oprah Biased On Their Frontpage

abcnews.go.com — They have nothing else to do right now? No articles about Sarah Palin's massive pork barrel spending, the debt she drove Wasilla into, the sales tax she created... nope, just a hit piece on Oprah not giving her a softball interview. This is our MSM.

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Alien Landscape? Nope, Aurora Borealis in Greenland. thumb

  • 943 diggs
  • Made popular 2 days ago
  • 46
  • www.flickr.com

Drunk Judge Hits Police Car, Gets Slap On Wrist

  • 1523 diggs
  • Made popular 23 hr 55 min ago
  • 226
  • www.chicagotribune.com

Young voters, solidly behind Obama, registering in droves

  • 3112 diggs
  • Made popular 103 days ago
  • 646
  • www.azcentral.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • spicoli77, on 09/05/2008, -11/+32why would Palin go on after she takes office anyway?
    • Tarree, on 09/06/2008, -4/+7Maybe because politicians want to maintain contact with the electorate? Many people watch Oprah and it is an easy way to communicate with a large number of voters.
      • spicoli77, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Oprah has a huge audience of woman, but there are plenty of other ways to reach them. The first woman VP would have those opportunities at her feet. For me, just a matter of principle - Why help Oprah with possibly one of her biggest interviews ever after she refused to let you on? I'm sure the Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer's of the world are beating down her door as we speak - regardless of their political opinions.
  • Cadicus, on 09/05/2008, -15/+21Oprah is Pro-Obama.. and she's free to do whatever she wants. She is not required to give equal exposure to both political parties. I don't see why this is news.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 09/05/2008, -10/+31Interestingly, the Democrats want to institute the Fairness Doctrine which would FORCE Oprah to have Palin on her show if it was in effect.

      Just sayin'.
      • Cadicus, on 09/05/2008, -8/+12Ya but I only like being a DEM when it benefits me.. so dont tell anyone about the Fairness Doctrine :)
      • Smaulz, on 09/05/2008, -4/+17Whoa... that's some rather unusual blatant honestly you've got showing there... not sure how to take that.
      • meirav, on 09/06/2008, -2/+7Why do people keep repeating this? The fairness doctrine applies to stations, not to individual broadcasts.
      • JekJob, on 09/06/2008, -2/+7Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine.

        http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406 ...

        Don't listen to vexing, he's a ***** liar. Everything he says is misleading, or factually incorrect. The Fairness Doctrine is pretty much dead, and for good reason. I don't support it either.
      • DonnyBahama, on 09/06/2008, -1/+2Palin wouldn't have the guts to do it, tho. Oprah would rip her a new one! Frankly, I'd love to see it.
    • NewsGuy2005, on 09/05/2008, -10/+19Oprah _IS_ pro-Obama, but she's saying that she does not want her show to be used as a campaign vehicle - after she's had Obama on several times. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
      • TheInformer, on 09/06/2008, -3/+2I second that - Oprah can do what she wants, but her actions vs words = HYPOCRITE.
      • NegativeDigg, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3She had him on BEFORE he wanted to run for president. You must be republican leaving simple facts out there to make it sound like the had him on the show last month.
      • cattletracks, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Indeed, Obama was on her show prior to him announcing his run for the presidency.

        Why are folks being so hateful about this?
    • DealCracker, on 09/06/2008, -1/+2It's not really Oprah's show. It belongs to her sponsors. Let them know what you think.
    • spicoli77, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Actually it is very much her show. She has executed a historical run as both a TV show host and producer. She is a success story - an extremely bright and fortunate individual. Just boil it down to what it is: politics. It's her show and she can do what she wants. If she has Sarah Palin on the show, Oprah knows Palin could swing enough votes to practically give McCain the presidency. It says either one of two things: Oprah can't debate Palin and win - and/or - Oprah's audience has a large, evangelical, conservative demographic that could not be swayed no matter how strong the Oprah blew. If she cares about the policies that Obama endorses and supports - this is safest move know to man, I mean woman. .
  • cubedw00t, on 09/05/2008, -18/+16It's her show last time I checked. She is not a news organization. Since when did our media become state-controlled.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 09/05/2008, -10/+21Thankfully it isn't... yet.

      It's the democrats that want to put the Fairness Doctrine in place. Be careful who you're voting for.
    • JenniferInMO, on 09/06/2008, -0/+7She said she would have Palin on her show, just after the election. Doesn't matter anyway, Palin "doesn't do interviews." The McCain campaign specifically said they would not make Palin available for interviews. Seems she is studying for the debates.
  • BkMotto, on 09/05/2008, -14/+36It's news because Oprah's audience, primarily composed of white middle class women WANT to see Palin on the show. Oprah's blatant refusal appears to be unfair and biased. She has long purported to be a champion of women, and this should be a celebration of momentous proportions for women all over this country from BOTH sides of the aisle. Even if you aren't voting for McCain/Palin, it should NOT be ignored that Palin is making history as the first female VP candidate on a republican ticket. Oprah is letting her politics show, and they aren't pretty.
    • DonnyBahama, on 09/06/2008, -1/+3Ugly politics? Take a look at Palin's acceptance speech - then take a look at the FACTS and her record as governor of AK, as candidate for governor of AK, as 527 activist for Ted Stevens and as mayor of Wasilla. Now, THAT'S ugly. Any woman with enough intelligence to seek out the (clearly documented) TRUTH about Sarah Palin would be ashamed - not celebrating.
    • druid43, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1She's downright scary, isn't she?
    • cattletracks, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Hmmm, I'm white, I'm female, I'm middle class -- well I was before Bush got into power, anyway -- and I DO NOT WANT TO SEE PALIN ON THE OPRAH SHOW. Palin is no friend of women, unless you're tight with the Christian Right. My brain just isn't wired like Palin's, and I'm not the only one out there that thinks this way. Biology does not make her equal to every other woman candidate or politician out there. Too many generalizations, BKMotto.

      So why is it Oprah's responsibility to have her on? Obviously Palin's handlers expect Oprah would be an easy interview for Palin, but it seems more plausible to have her interviewed on a show where people can get to the meat and bones of her politics.

      Do you want Oprah telling YOU how to do YOUR job?
  • spankaccount, on 09/05/2008, -12/+32Oprah and Obama should be happy we don't have the fairness doctrine.
    • bluto36, on 09/05/2008, -5/+16yet
    • meirav, on 09/06/2008, -2/+8The Fairness Doctrine referred to broadcast license holders (stations), not to individual programs. In other words, if Oprah had issued attacks on Gov. Palin, she would have had the right to have a program on the same channel issuing opposing views. It doesn't mean that Oprah would have been compelled to have her on the show.

      The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 when radio and TV when those media were broadcast over the air only. The limited broadcast spectrum meant limited area to air information. The FCC implemented the doctrine to allow for a diversity of views. However, with the advent of cable and now satellite, that is no longer the case.

      It's interesting to note that conservatives crying out for Palin to be on Oprah have no problems with Limbaugh not having liberals on his program.
    • spicoli77, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2isn't that like affirmative action for the news?
  • diggFunction, on 09/05/2008, -15/+20It simply a bad business decision. I don't care if she goes on the show or not but after the way the press tried to destroy Palin and now Oprah seems to not be giving her a fair chance it will look as if Oprah is being bias so she will loose money.
    • TheInformer, on 09/06/2008, -3/+1Oprah's all for women, unless they're in the other political party. Sad.
  • demicritter, on 09/05/2008, -16/+26Of course she's biased! She put her billion dollar commercial empire on the line to support B Hussein. Of course, once she felt the commercial repercussions for her act of political hubris she backed down. I think now by denying Sarah Palin she's merely hedging her investment in Barry Obama her media-enabled phenomena.
    • cattletracks, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1If the amount of hate being spewed here against Oprah is any reflection of your candidate's attitude towards her, Palin probably better just forget the proposition and settle for Meet the Press like all the other candidates. Why special treatment for Palin? Is Joe Biden appearing on Oprah?
  • cheeseysynapse, on 09/05/2008, -15/+24Oprah is Racist. Maybe sexist too.
    • Tarree, on 09/06/2008, -5/+3If that is true then she is truly conflicted!
    • cattletracks, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1PLEASE STOP THE HATE. I think you'd better look in the mirror.
    • spicoli77, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1i wouldn't go as far as to call her a racist as much as I would call biased. i'm sure she's been a democrat since she could remember. throw in the first black presidential nominee for the democratic party and that's all it takes. though i'm sure if the dems has an old white man and a VPILF as the nominees and the rebulicans had Obama she would be suckin' on the big, red elephant trunk. Suck away Oprah, suck away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • iLemon, on 09/05/2008, -15/+10The only bias ABC can only spot is that of this one woman and NOWHERE else? Why does it even matter if she is bias? Its the Oprah show. She can do whatever she wants. That is the advantage of being a self made billionaire.
    • PolishLogic, on 09/05/2008, -9/+7Another advantage is being able to run a brothel disguised as a school.
    • tasine, on 09/06/2008, -4/+5Of course Oprah can say whatever she wants and can have anyone she wants on her show, but your question implies that those of us who do not have her very public forum should just shut up and not voice our opinions. Year ago I was an Oprah fan because I thought she was a good person. Now I know she's just in it for the money and power. None of us is required to shut up about her biases. The First Amendment works for us just like it does for Oprah.
    • cattletracks, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1tasine: This election is truly bringing out the worst in people.

      Why not push for your candidate to appear on some of the political talk shows? After all, she is running for Vice President, and it would seem that would be a much more logical forum for her views to be heard.
  • PolishLogic, on 09/05/2008, -10/+18Nice to see somebody calling her out on it.

    It's fine that she doesn't want her on, but she should be willing to take all the heat that comes with her decision.
  • thecerwin, on 09/05/2008, -11/+21I take it that Oprah does not support the Fairness Doctrine, which Obama does support. If the fairness doctrine were still being enforced wouldn't that force Oprah to invite Sarah Palin on her show since she gave Obama airtime?

    That or she is a ***** hypocrite.
  • LoneRanger85, on 09/06/2008, -11/+18That's ridiculous. Oprah isn't biased -- she's racist. Obviously, skin color means more to her than an historic shot at the advancement of women.
    • zelig, on 09/06/2008, -2/+11Nope, she wouldn't have Clarence Thomas on either. She's not racist. She's anti-conservative.
      • LoneRanger85, on 09/06/2008, -5/+9She's had conservatives on before. She's even had Bill O'Reilly on. She is a practicing liberal racist who believes that if blacks walk off the liberal plantation and don't think, talk and most importantly, vote like liberals, they are fair game for exclusion and derision. (for you digger kids, DERISION: ridicule; mockery)
    • USArugula, on 09/06/2008, -1/+5The LoonRanger strikes again.
  • LeadOffMan, on 09/06/2008, -4/+12dugg for the good article, but would like to wipe away the bs description by kingussup
  • Zacktopia, on 09/06/2008, -11/+12Oprah's decision to keep Palin off her show is a perfect match for the bogus description of the ABC article by kingusup. Both reveal a lack of integrity, a shared characteristic of Obama supporters.
  • TheGroje, on 09/06/2008, -11/+5This will probably be the end of Oprah's multi-million dollar empire. Oh, how will she ever withstand the controversy.
  • sexydarin, on 09/06/2008, -11/+3Is the pope catholic?
  • druid43, on 09/06/2008, -3/+14Good for Oprah!!! Why should she have to invite anyone she doesn't want on her show? You go, Girl!!
  • druid43, on 09/06/2008, -3/+11I happen to have a great deal of integrity! Which is more than I can say for McCain and Palin! they LIE!!!!!
  • MediaWeasel, on 09/06/2008, -1/+12So this is the interview the Repubs are willing for her to have? Never mind that the Repubs actually don't want her facing the press until they (the McCain campaign) are ready for her to do so. The people of America should have seen Palin on Larry King the day after she accepted the nomination but the McCain campaign weren't going to let her go on and dig even more holes for them than she already has.

    Oprah can interview whomever she pleases and it's nothing to do with race or gender. Maybe she just can't bear to be in the same room as this woman. Maybe she doesn't give in to being dictated to by the right wing media and the McCain campaign.

    Just because Palin is a woman that doesn't mean she represents women of America. Unless they're rabid right wing psychos who think that God approves of the war in Iraq, torture, cruelty, hypocrisy and duplicity.
  • JenniferInMO, on 09/06/2008, -0/+14You idiots glom onto one article. The facts are that Oprah is a talk show host and does not claim to be a news outlet. The only active candidate for any office she ever had on HER show was Obama, because she said she thought he was exceptional and that was when he first hit the scene, NOT during the heat of the campaign. That is HER opinion for HER show. STILL, she said she would be happy to have Palin on the show after the election, but she doesn't want to turn her show political by bringing in a candidate during the heat of the election. If you ask me that is a responsible move.

    All of you claiming she is racist are simply projecting your own thoughts.

    Finally, Obama is the Democratic Presidential candidate, not the VP candidate. Why aren't you all pushing to have McCain on the show? Because maybe you are too afraid that he will look like the old gaffer he is?
    • invasi0n, on 09/06/2008, -5/+1Calm down slave. You'll get your share if BHO gets elected.

      However, keep this in your ***** up mind:
      1) BOTH, Obama and McCain suck. They are tools.
      2) Oprah IS RACIST.
    • TheInformer, on 09/06/2008, -4/+1"Obama is the Democratic Presidential candidate, not the VP candidate."

      Then why are the lefties in such an uproar over her? Why are the lefties engaged in full scale character assassination towards Palin and her family? Why are the Obama people in such an uproar over "Palin has more experience than Obama"?
  • kingofinternet, on 09/06/2008, -1/+8get your republican splooge here folks, circle jerk time!
  • B3000, on 09/06/2008, -0/+10I don't like Oprah, but who the ***** cares if she is biased? It is her show - she can do whatever the hell she wants with it. She is not a news organization. She just is a person with a broad reaching forum. You can bet if I were in her shoes, I would be out there spreading my bias all over the ***** place.

    Hell, every digger I have run across is biased in one way or another and has no compunction about spreading their opinion.
  • JoJoMoMo, on 09/06/2008, -2/+5Neither Obama nor Biden have been on The Oprah Winfrey show since 2007 when they started their presidential campaigns. If the fairness doctrine was law and Palin was on the show, Oprah would also need to have Biden on the show.
  • rebotfc, on 09/06/2008, -1/+6lol @ the repub circle jerk above.
  • elisathon, on 09/06/2008, -0/+7And just one more time for those people who keep braying
    "Fairness Doctrine" "Fairness Doctrine" "Fairness Doctrine"
    without having the faintest idea what the Fairness Doctrine actually is.
    An emphasis-added restatement of meirav's excellent post.

    "The Fairness Doctrine refers ONLY to broadcast license holders (stations), NOT to individual programs.
    In other words, if Oprah had issued attacks on Gov. Palin, Palin would have had the right to have a program on the SAME CHANNEL issuing opposing views.
    It DOESN'T mean that Oprah would have been compelled to have her on the show.

    The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 when radio and TV when those media were broadcast over the air only. The limited broadcast spectrum meant limited area to air information. The FCC implemented the doctrine to allow for a diversity of views.
    However, with the advent of cable and now satellite, that is no longer the case.

    It's interesting to note that conservatives crying out for Palin to be on Oprah have no problems with Limbaugh not having liberals on his program."
  • brainboy77, on 09/06/2008, -2/+1i want obama to win and i say that oprah is full of *****. i don't know how an idiot like her can get famous, but it's america.
  • flannerus, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5I would be concerned...if Oprah was somehow connected to political/media "objectivity" (which actually DOESN'T EXIST because anything analyzing/reporting on anything human related is a PERSON). She's not though, she's a talk show host who can do what she wants! Yay freedom of bringing people on YOUR multi-million dollar show only if you want to!
  • radiofrequency, on 09/06/2008, -3/+2OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, #### I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. #### I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

    But Oprah had Obama on the show during the campaign?

    Politico actually had it right in April 08:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9427.htm ...
    "Much hay was made nearly a year ago when Oprah Winfrey announced that she would support — and campaign for — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. Her effect in boosting support for Obama in early primary and caucus states like Iowa (which he won), New Hampshire (which he lost) and even South Carolina (which he won) is debatable."

    Since her interview with Obama, her show's ratings have taken a big dive.

    Despite the liberal complaining about "redneck intelligence" after Kerry got his ass kicked in '04, Americans are not stupid people. They're not going to be bought with a $1000 tax rebate, fireworks shows, stage setups made by Britney Spears' designers or any of that *****. They're not going to be duped by a smile.

    What's going to win this election is policy. Is Barack Obama's better or does John McCain have the policy Americans want the most?
    • LoneRanger85, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Absolutely no discussion? Doesn't that mean she has no intention of having Palin on her show?
  • ronashco, on 09/07/2008, -3/+0We love you Sarah!!! A real American woman who can wear a dress not some marxist lesbo in a pantsuit. We can't wait until November when the marxist muslim and the loudmouth plagiarist with the oversized dentures get their heads handed to them. Who in their right mind could vote for the Al Sharpton of Chicago?
    SHUT THE BORDERS AND DRILL DRILL DRILL
    • cattletracks, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2No, we don't all love Sarah. Since when is the criteria for being a qualified and capable VP being about wearing a dress? I have much higher expectations of my politicians.

      Again, enough of the hate name-calling. For those here old enough to have children of your own, you'd probably call your kids out on calling others names. For those here that aren't old enough to have kids, you're obviously old enough to type so you're obviously old enough to know there are better ways of getting your point across than by calling people names.

      Thank God you're not a Christian or you'd REALLY be in trouble.
      • MediaWeasel, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2We can only hope that ronashco was being ironic.
    • skatoolaki, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Amen!
  • skatoolaki, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1Considering an endorsement from Oprah is like gold in the bank, having her actively shun you would be a definite career deathblow. No, Palin will not lose all of her fans, but there are some very loyal Oprah fans out there and I wouldn't be suprised if some don't change their minds (yes, even realizing that the majority of them have already chosen Obama because Oprah did so).
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.