Commentary: But can she outgrow Tina Fey's punchlines?
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Dec 9, 2009
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The hottest parlor game in the television industry in 2010 will center on this question: Who will succeed Oprah Winfrey when she exits her show in 2011?
It will have to be someone who has enough fame of her own -- and yes, I think Oprah's successor should be a woman for the sake of continuity. Could there possibly be any bigger shoes to fill on the tube? It will also have to be a person who won't be overwhelmed by the long shadow that the Big O will inevitably cast.
There hasn't been a more daunting challenge on TV since Jay Leno succeeded Johnny Carson or Dan Rather took the place of Walter Cronkite.
When you pause to think about it, Oprah is a combination of Carson and Cronkite. She is entertaining and reliable, just like Carson, and TV's Most Trusted individual, as was Cronkite.
Plenty of established TV stars are probably under consideration as well, such as Tyra Banks, Ellen DeGeneres, Rachael Ray and Kelly Ripa
Still, I nominate Sarah Palin to follow Oprah.
Sarah-cuda unfiltered
Palin would be shrewd to accept the challenge.
The former vice presidential candidate and governor of Alaska no doubt still has hopes of running for the presidency in 2012, and her unexpectedly disarming performance at the Gridiron Dinner in Washington can only encourage her many supporters.
At the annual dinner, a big deal in the Beltway, Palin cracked self-deprecating jokes, took a light touch with the audience, and generally tried to show that she can be one of the boys in that political jungle.
Taking over Oprah's show would give Palin what every politician craves: constant TV exposure and an opportunity to connect with voters by talking directly to them.
Palin would be unfiltered. She burst on to the American scene in late August 2008, when John McCain chose her to be his running mate. Palin has since griped that she had to operate under the thumb of the Republican machine.
Forget momentarily about all of the money she's bound to make on her best-selling memoir, "Going Rogue." It can be interpreted as an expression of independence as anything else.
With the book, she didn't have to look worriedly over her shoulder. Palin's supporters have contended that she had to labor in fear that one of her trademark off-the-cuff comments was going to be twisted out of context to make her look like the nation's No. 1 buffoon.
I don't support Palin's politics but I concede that she received a raw deal by much of the media. The latest example of this is Newsweek's WPO recent cover, which makes her look more like a high school cheerleader than a serious politician.
Still, Palin hasn't helped herself by repeatedly shooting from the hip and blaming journalists for her public image. She'd be smart to focus on the issues and leave the media-bashing alone.
The next Oprah
Would Palin succeed as the next Oprah?
It seems like a slam-dunk she would attract a sizable viewing audience on a regular basis. At first, of course, she will appear as a curiosity and everyone will watch to see what she says. But the thrill of a novelty wears off -- just ask the likes of CBS' Katie Couric CBS, primetime Jay Leno GE or 11:35 p.m. Conan O'Brien.
Remember, all three of those TV stars started out fast in their current positions before losing momentum dramatically.
I think Palin would be a ratings dynamo. The sales success of "Going Rogue" proves that her audience is willing to shell out money to learn more about her, even though she is a constant presence on network news shows which are available at no charge.
I'm convinced that Palin has a commercial appeal that advertisers will appreciate -- and the viewers will acknowledge. But it may be a different kind of show -- with the content leaning more toward political issues than social concerns.
Palin can never replace Oprah as a trusted voice for women. Oprah has had an uncanny ability to take on uncomfortable subjects. On other shows these issues might be disturbing. But on Oprah, she has a way of soothing the viewers.
This has not been lost on Hollywood. Oprah has been a magnet for the biggest names in the entertainment industry. Celebrities often flocked to Oprah's couch -- hello, Tom Cruise -- for the exposure she offered to female moviegoers. Is there much doubt that Tiger Woods will eventually emerge on Oprah's show to try to rehabilitate his image?
Outgrowing Tina Fey
It would be the height of irony if television provides Palin with a boost.
Palin has been a punch line, if not a punching bag, of people like me -- the so-called Eastern Media Elite. She has made it easy for us, mind you, because America has seldom come across anyone who is so intriguing and compelling for any number of reasons -- her family, her Alaska roots, her outspokenness, her looks and, above all, her public image.
Writer/actress Tina Fey cemented Palin's image during the 2008 presidential campaign with her brilliant, unerring characterizations of Palin week after week on "Saturday Night Live" (with a shout-out, too, to Amy Poehler, who deftly lampooned Hillary Clinton).
In Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut's interesting new book "Notes from the Cracked Ceiling," former White House press secretary Dana Perino said: "If a major television network bumps their prime-time programming to run a special 'Saturday Night Live' whose sole purpose is to make fun of you, you have a serious problem."
If Palin hoped to run for president in, say, 2016, she'd have to erase -- no, bury -- Fey's image of her.
The best way that Palin could re-invent herself, one day at a time, would be for her to host the show in Oprah's time slot -- and show America that there is a new Sarah Palin for everyone to ponder now.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Would you tune in to watch Sarah Palin if she succeeded Oprah Winfrey on TV?
Link: http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId={2EC6E659-06D0-4117-B8AB-470E4B0E1815}&src=NLEN.
An Open Letter to Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan
9 years ago
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid '07' however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won't. Not by a longshot. Jobs don't necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The 'free market' just doesn't cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of '08' the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of '08', every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job production. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation's wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job production, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don't. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
ReplyDelete