Advertisments

Feature

Oprah Leaps Uninformed Head First into New Controversy

Why Did Oprah Ignore Her Journalistic Duty to Read the New O.J. Book?

by Nina L. Diamond

Oprah, I am disappointed in you. And it pains me to have to say that.

I am disappointed in you not because you had the Goldmans and others on your show to discuss the new Goldman edition of If I Did It, the O.J. Simpson confession book. I am disappointed in you because you refused to read the book and then proceeded to interview the Goldmans and the rest of your guests about the book.

That is the height of journalistic irresponsibility.

You have a journalistic obligation – and let’s get this straight here, you are trained to be a journalist, have been one professionally, and when you interview people you are acting as one – to be informed.

Anything less than that is prejudice, plain and simple.

And, Oprah, you have devoted your professional and personal life with great passion and dignity to ridding the world of, among other despicable things, the very act of prejudice you are now engaging in.

Let’s look at my Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “prejudge” so we can be very clear about this: “to judge before full hearing or examination.”

You have an obligation to examine what you judge. Not only did you not give the book “full … examination,” you gave it no examination, and you are proud of that fact.

When you examine something, the O.J. book, in this case, you can then make informed comments. You are free to say whatever you please about it.

Do you believe that by reading the book you are implying that you endorse if? If you believe that, you are mistaken. Reading the book, becoming informed rather than pre-judging, is not the same as an endorsement.

When a jury examines evidence, that is all they are doing. Making a decision based on that evidence comes later. Would you like to be on trial and have a jury say that they refuse to hear the evidence because that would be the same as endorsing you?

Do you believe that by reading the book you are implying a recommendation that others read the book? If you believe that, you are also mistaken. As someone interviewing the parties associated with this controversial book, you had a moral obligation to read the book first so that you could conduct an informed interview. That is not the same as recommending the book to others. That would be a completely separate act.

Do you believe that by refusing to read the book you are protecting yourself from criticism? If you believe that, you are mistaken. You are inviting criticism because of the journalistically unprofessional nature inherent in the act of prejudging.

Do you believe that by refusing to read the book you can remain neutral? If you believe that, you are mistaken. You aren’t neutral, you are uninformed and prejudging.

Do you believe that by refusing to read the book you can distance yourself from the controversy? If you believe that, you are mistaken. You have just leaped uninformed head first into a new controversy having nothing to do with whether the O.J. book should have been published, and everything to do with your integrity when you play the role of journalist.

According to the Associated Press report issued online at 11:57 a.m. ET on September 13, 2007 (today, as I write this), “Winfrey says she won’t buy or read the book.”

Well, that’s interesting. The implication is that you don’t want to go anywhere near that book. But, Oprah, you don’t have to buy the book to have it around you. I know that the publisher sent you an advance reading copy prior to publication. I know that because the publisher, Eric Kampmann, told me that when I interviewed him for my Independent Publisher article for the current issue of the magazine, which went online Thursday, September 6th. For awhile there, you and I were the only two journalists in the country in possession of an advance reading copy. Kampmann sent you the first one, and then he sent me one. A few days later, he sent the other copies out to journalists around the country so they would have the book for only a few days before it arrived on bookshelves.

I don’t know where your copy of the book is. I only know that Beaufort Books publisher Eric Kampmann sent you one because you and your staff were preparing to have the Goldmans and other Simpson-case guests on your show. The book would have been in the hands of one of your producers or some other staff member, unless you opened the envelope yourself.

Democracy cannot exist without a free and responsible media that adheres to journalistic standards.

Even when a journalist’s job is to go beyond mere reporting and to do commentary, this commentary is mere prejudice unless it is informed commentary.

Citizens of the world, not just this country, have come to count on Oprah Winfrey to be one of the strongest voices against prejudice that the world has had since the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

You cannot fight prejudice in some areas and participate or condone it in others.

* * * * *

Nina L. Diamond is a journalist, essayist, and the author of Voices of Truth: Conversations with Scientists, Thinkers & Healers. Her work has appeared in numerous publications, including Omni, The Los Angeles Times Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, and The Miami Herald.

Ms. Diamond was a writer and performer on Pandemonium, the National Public Radio (NPR) satirical humor program, for its entire run in Miami and select markets nationwide from 1984-1998. As an editor, she works frequently with other authors and journalists on both fiction and non-fiction.

---