0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oprah  backwards = harpo (productions)

Own (Oprah news network) backwards = NWO

Any thoughts?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
[size=150]L.O.V.E.  Aintnosunshine[/size]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: ???
May 24, 2011, 07:02:42 PM
I heard of this a while ago. What a 'coincidence'. :roll:
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


أملي هو فيكم.

*

diggyon

Re: ???
May 28, 2011, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: "MJFAN7"
I heard of this a while ago. What a 'coincidence'. :roll:
I guess there are no coincidences in life, as we learned here. But the question is: on which side is she? Is she making fun if the E V I L   G U Y S  or is she just promoting them? No idea.... Any help guys?????????????
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Together we are strong

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln

Thank you Michael for letting me discover the truth!

I lost the bet, Sarahli won it! ! ! loool


*

Its her

Re: ???
May 29, 2011, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: "diggyon"
Quote from: "MJFAN7"
I heard of this a while ago. What a 'coincidence'. :roll:
I guess there are no coincidences in life, as we learned here. But the question is: on which side is she? Is she making fun if the E V I L   G U Y S  or is she just promoting them? No idea.... Any help guys?????????????

Actually there ARE co-incidences. I used to think there weren't. I have discovered otherwise. With nearly seven billion people on the planet, and only twenty-six letters in the English alphabet, some combinations of letters WILL repeat and will appear to be coincidental, and mostly completely ARE. Look at all the people on earth named "Michael", for example. Most of them were named after another significant "Michael" in their parents' lives, and THAT "Michael" was (until the 80s!!  ;) ha ha), usually, NOT Michael Jackson. Just a co-incidence.

I think Oprah's people came up with something that expresses her philosophy of life, "OWN" your life; take your God given dominion as a human being: make it your own, be free and be yourself, don't let others put you in a box, etc. And also gave it a serious--not sugary, fluffy, but actual "news you can use", kind of "call" to potential viewers, as Oprah has always been known for. Hence, Own, Oprah News Network.

I think if there WAS any connection to the N.W.O., the word "Own" would have been laid out as an acronym, and the Oprah News Network, would have been called Oprah World (or Winners) Network, or something which fits the "W" in the reversible acronym. The way it is written, it doesn't even suggest that it could be an acronym, which could be a trick of subterfuge, but, I really doubt it.

I don't think Oprah is doing either, making fun of or promoting evil guys. Nope. Just a complete coincidence. ( suspicious// Now, if on her network, they begin promoting alien fear propaganda, and population elimination, I will rethink this.)

If she had called it the "KoP" network,  :o (NO reason on earth, OTHER than the ONLY one in seven billion people EVER called THAT), there WOULD be reason to suspect a non co-incidental connection to a certain KoP! Especially, as she is inside on this hoaxed death business...  :geek: There MUST be solid connection, reasoning with facts, before ruling out coincidence. Supposition without facts = witchhunt. See?  :)
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
ONLY Believe...

*

diggyon

Re: ???
May 30, 2011, 12:12:32 PM
Quote from: "Its her"
Quote from: "diggyon"
Quote from: "MJFAN7"
I heard of this a while ago. What a 'coincidence'. :roll:
I guess there are no coincidences in life, as we learned here. But the question is: on which side is she? Is she making fun if the E V I L   G U Y S  or is she just promoting them? No idea.... Any help guys?????????????

Actually there ARE co-incidences. I used to think there weren't. I have discovered otherwise. With nearly seven billion people on the planet, and only twenty-six letters in the English alphabet, some combinations of letters WILL repeat and will appear to be coincidental, and mostly completely ARE. Look at all the people on earth named "Michael", for example. Most of them were named after another significant "Michael" in their parents' lives, and THAT "Michael" was (until the 80s!!  ;) ha ha), usually, NOT Michael Jackson. Just a co-incidence.

I think Oprah's people came up with something that expresses her philosophy of life, "OWN" your life; take your God given dominion as a human being: make it your own, be free and be yourself, don't let others put you in a box, etc. And also gave it a serious--not sugary, fluffy, but actual "news you can use", kind of "call" to potential viewers, as Oprah has always been known for. Hence, Own, Oprah News Network.

I think if there WAS any connection to the N.W.O., the word "Own" would have been laid out as an acronym, and the Oprah News Network, would have been called Oprah World (or Winners) Network, or something which fits the "W" in the reversible acronym. The way it is written, it doesn't even suggest that it could be an acronym, which could be a trick of subterfuge, but, I really doubt it.

I don't think Oprah is doing either, making fun of or promoting evil guys. Nope. Just a complete coincidence. ( suspicious// Now, if on her network, they begin promoting alien fear propaganda, and population elimination, I will rethink this.)

If she had called it the "KoP" network,  :o (NO reason on earth, OTHER than the ONLY one in seven billion people EVER called THAT), there WOULD be reason to suspect a non co-incidental connection to a certain KoP! Especially, as she is inside on this hoaxed death business...  :geek: There MUST be solid connection, reasoning with facts, before ruling out coincidence. Supposition without facts = witchhunt. See?  :)
Oh boy, its her... you really convinced me... I really like the way you interpret things. How come you are so wise?!?!?!?! :ugeek:
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Together we are strong

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln

Thank you Michael for letting me discover the truth!

I lost the bet, Sarahli won it! ! ! loool


*

Its her

Re: ???
May 30, 2011, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: "diggyon"
Quote from: "Its her"
Quote from: "diggyon"
Quote from: "MJFAN7"
I heard of this a while ago. What a 'coincidence'. :roll:
I guess there are no coincidences in life, as we learned here. But the question is: on which side is she? Is she making fun if the E V I L   G U Y S  or is she just promoting them? No idea.... Any help guys?????????????

Actually there ARE co-incidences. I used to think there weren't. I have discovered otherwise. With nearly seven billion people on the planet, and only twenty-six letters in the English alphabet, some combinations of letters WILL repeat and will appear to be coincidental, and mostly completely ARE. Look at all the people on earth named "Michael", for example. Most of them were named after another significant "Michael" in their parents' lives, and THAT "Michael" was (until the 80s!!  ;) ha ha), usually, NOT Michael Jackson. Just a co-incidence.

I think Oprah's people came up with something that expresses her philosophy of life, "OWN" your life; take your God given dominion as a human being: make it your own, be free and be yourself, don't let others put you in a box, etc. And also gave it a serious--not sugary, fluffy, but actual "news you can use", kind of "call" to potential viewers, as Oprah has always been known for. Hence, Own, Oprah News Network.

I think if there WAS any connection to the N.W.O., the word "Own" would have been laid out as an acronym, and the Oprah News Network, would have been called Oprah World (or Winners) Network, or something which fits the "W" in the reversible acronym. The way it is written, it doesn't even suggest that it could be an acronym, which could be a trick of subterfuge, but, I really doubt it.

I don't think Oprah is doing either, making fun of or promoting evil guys. Nope. Just a complete coincidence. ( suspicious// Now, if on her network, they begin promoting alien fear propaganda, and population elimination, I will rethink this.)

If she had called it the "KoP" network,  :o (NO reason on earth, OTHER than the ONLY one in seven billion people EVER called THAT), there WOULD be reason to suspect a non co-incidental connection to a certain KoP! Especially, as she is inside on this hoaxed death business...  :geek: There MUST be solid connection, reasoning with facts, before ruling out coincidence. Supposition without facts = witchhunt. See?  :)
Oh boy, its her... you really convinced me... I really like the way you interpret things. How come you are so wise?!?!?!?! :ugeek:

You just made my day, :D  Diggyon! I want to be wise more than anything, and hope that I am making progress every day, by God's grace and help! Very sweet of you to give that  particular compliment. I'll take it right to heart, for the times I get something wrong. :oops:  ;)

Bless you so much! bounce/  :D
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
ONLY Believe...

*

MJonmind

Whenever I say anything about things happening with the hoax and not being a coincidence, my mathematics major son always points out how humans are so very good at recognizing patterns like faces or numbers etc. because we like to make associations and problem solve. Things that don't match we ignore. Statistics in randomness can be shocking. Perhaps because of this, he also doesn't believe there's a God and any conspiracy or evil plan of TPTB.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

Its her

Quote from: MJonmind
Whenever I say anything about things happening with the hoax and not being a coincidence, my mathematics major son always points out how humans are so very good at recognizing patterns like faces or numbers etc. because we like to make associations and problem solve. Things that don't match we ignore. Statistics in randomness can be shocking. Perhaps because of this, he also doesn't believe there's a God and any conspiracy or evil plan of TPTB.

Oh, don't you hate that? :roll: :lol:  I bet there are lively conversations at your house!  mj_dance/

Tell your son that just because there are patterns that are random, it doesn't mean every one is. A daisy doesn't always have the same pattern of petals, at random, repeating the seasons crop a year before. It has the same pattern because Someone designed that they should, and barring chemical or catastrophic interference with the dna code, the designed pattern will repeat ad infinitum.

I know, if he doesn't believe in God, he must not believe in intelligent design...but does he believe his thoughts are all random and coincidental, or is he able to order his own thoughts at will? If he is able to be the cause of something, such as deliberate thought and intelligent (planned) argument, then he must admit EVERY pattern isn't random, and there are patterns which exist ON PURPOSE.

And, incidentally, if HE has the magic power of deliberate thought...so, PER CHANCE, may others... afraid/ . (biting nails, now errrr ) Indeed, he has spoken with YOU, as you said. ;)

If HE is able to organize a group of humans to play ball with, or any such other kind of co-operation for work or sport, or politics, OTHERS may have this power as well.

If OTHERs have this power to organize, is it by chance that they do this for evil or good, or can it also be DELIBERATELY, by will?

In fact, the words "accident" and "organized" are as polarized as words can get.  crash/

I know, I know, age old argument :lol: . Just wanted to do my part, to chip away at the block. Eventually light will break through.  mj_dance/  :)
Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 07:24:48 PM by PureLove
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
ONLY Believe...

*

MJonmind

:lol:  Yes, like hitting your head against a brick wall I always say.

Quote (selected)
Its Her
I think Oprah's people came up with something that expresses her philosophy of life, "OWN" your life; take your God given dominion as a human being: make it your own, be free and be yourself, don't let others put you in a box, etc. And also gave it a serious--not sugary, fluffy, but actual "news you can use", kind of "call" to potential viewers, as Oprah has always been known for. Hence, Own, Oprah News Network.

I think if there WAS any connection to the N.W.O., the word "Own" would have been laid out as an acronym, and the Oprah News Network, would have been called Oprah World (or Winners) Network, or something which fits the "W" in the reversible acronym. The way it is written, it doesn't even suggest that it could be an acronym, which could be a trick of subterfuge, but, I really doubt it.

I don't think Oprah is doing either, making fun of or promoting evil guys. Nope. Just a complete coincidence. (  Now, if on her network, they begin promoting alien fear propaganda, and population elimination, I will rethink this.)

If she had called it the "KoP" network,  (NO reason on earth, OTHER than the ONLY one in seven billion people EVER called THAT), there WOULD be reason to suspect a non co-incidental connection to a certain KoP! Especially, as she is inside on this hoaxed death business...  There MUST be solid connection, reasoning with facts, before ruling out coincidence. Supposition without facts = witchhunt. See?

Would her people not think and discuss long and hard about finalizing those 3 letters OWN as representing Oprah, and don't you think backwards would have been thrown around? If someone joked that NWO sounds a little ominous, then O might have said, "Hey that gives it a little conspiracy edge and keeps them guessing. I like that! Let's go with it!"

Also it's the Oprah Winfrey Network, not Oprah News Network. OWN thus NWO.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

Its her

Quote from: MJonmind
:lol:  Yes, like hitting your head against a brick wall I always say.

Quote (selected)
Its Her
I think Oprah's people came up with something that expresses her philosophy of life, "OWN" your life; take your God given dominion as a human being: make it your own, be free and be yourself, don't let others put you in a box, etc. And also gave it a serious--not sugary, fluffy, but actual "news you can use", kind of "call" to potential viewers, as Oprah has always been known for. Hence, Own, Oprah News Network.

I think if there WAS any connection to the N.W.O., the word "Own" would have been laid out as an acronym, and the Oprah News Network, would have been called Oprah World (or Winners) Network, or something which fits the "W" in the reversible acronym. The way it is written, it doesn't even suggest that it could be an acronym, which could be a trick of subterfuge, but, I really doubt it.

I don't think Oprah is doing either, making fun of or promoting evil guys. Nope. Just a complete coincidence. (  Now, if on her network, they begin promoting alien fear propaganda, and population elimination, I will rethink this.)

If she had called it the "KoP" network,  (NO reason on earth, OTHER than the ONLY one in seven billion people EVER called THAT), there WOULD be reason to suspect a non co-incidental connection to a certain KoP! Especially, as she is inside on this hoaxed death business...  There MUST be solid connection, reasoning with facts, before ruling out coincidence. Supposition without facts = witchhunt. See?


Would her people not think and discuss long and hard about finalizing those 3 letters OWN as representing Oprah, and don't you think backwards would have been thrown around? If someone joked that NWO sounds a little ominous, then O might have said, "Hey that gives it a little conspiracy edge and keeps them guessing. I like that! Let's go with it!"

Also it's the Oprah Winfrey Network, not Oprah News Network. OWN thus NWO.
Oops. I don't have cable and don't watch, so I didn't know that. Thank you for telling me!

I thought about whether this would change anything which I posted earlier...and, NOW, I think even LESS thought went into this, as it is simply Oprah's real initials, and describes what her new project IS: a Network. Duh. Ha ha ha 

Sometimes I over think things, when it really IS just a darn coincidence! (But it doesn't hurt to KEEP WATCHIN, in case, they someday, decide to FLIP the letters, when it is TIME... afraid/  A woman alone is very vulnerable. The NWO PTB could have made Oprah an  :shock: offer she couldn't refuse, to get people accustomed to a more "friendly" NWO. errrr )  ;)  :lol: :lol:  :lol:  :P

Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 07:27:54 PM by PureLove
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
ONLY Believe...

*

all4loveandbelieve

Today, I was speaking with one of my patient, and she told me she read  that the OWN IS not doing well in the United States, she is losing ratings. Apperently they do not like the shows they are showing the viewers. They do not want to see dr Phil, Dr. OZ etc.. more of a variety like movies or reality shows.. etc.. I hope everything will ge fine since she dished out millions and millions for OWN..
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am.
Michael Jackson

*

loma

It really scares me how some people have lost all their common sense.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Michael, we\'ll never stop loving you.
We\'re all wishing you well, and wishing you home.

*

loma

Quote from: "MJonmind"
..
Also it's the Oprah Winfrey Network, not Oprah News Network. OWN thus NWO.
I.. can't comprehend how most people overlooked that.
I was sitting there like confused/ Oprah... news? haha
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Michael, we\'ll never stop loving you.
We\'re all wishing you well, and wishing you home.

*

MJonmind

Quote from: "all4loveandbelieve"
Today, I was speaking with one of my patient, and she told me she read  that the OWN IS not doing well in the United States, she is losing ratings. Apperently they do not like the shows they are showing the viewers. They do not want to see dr Phil, Dr. OZ etc.. more of a variety like movies or reality shows.. etc.. I hope everything will ge fine since she dished out millions and millions for OWN..
That reminded me of I saw in my Macleans,


Quote (selected)
Women’s afternoon TV: RIP
The game shows went, then the soaps, and now even Oprah has left the building

by Jaime Weinman on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:05am - 9 Comments

REUTERS/Keith Bedford

“When you think of daytime TV,” says Wesley Hyatt, author of The Encyclopedia of Daytime Television, “do you think of anything else besides talk shows, soaps and game shows?” Well, you might have to. The big hit shows that defined afternoon viewing will soon be gone forever. Most game shows bit the dust years ago, and now the other pillars are falling: The Oprah Winfrey Show is airing its final episode on May 25, and soon after, ABC will cancel two of the last soap operas, All My Children and One Life To Live. Hyatt told Maclean’s that shows like these “were dirt cheap to produce and generated enormous profits” in their heyday, but that heyday “ended around 20 years ago.” The afternoon show—providing emotional conversations or soap antics, aimed largely at stay-at-home women—has been huge since the beginning of TV, and on radio before that. Now it may be going the way of variety shows, VCRs and the Liberal party.

Of all the things threatening to tear the daytime world apart, the end of The Oprah Winfrey Show is arguably the most damaging. It means not only the end of a successful show but the end of what Hyatt calls “a pop culture phenomenon, one of the biggest events not just of TV but mass media.” Advertisers on her finale are being charged $1 million per 30-second commercial, the highest rate for a series finale since Everybody Loves Raymond in 2005. And Oprah has the kind of worshipful fan base that’s usually more associated with pop stars than TV celebrities. Tanya Lee, a Toronto woman, got into the news last December by starting an unsuccessful Facebook campaign to bring Oprah to Canada, even trying to get in touch with President Barack Obama: “Canadian Oprah fans,” she says, “I worked very hard on your behalf. Even though it did not work out, at least you know that I failed miserably.”

The only person left who has that kind of power is Judy Sheindlin of Judge Judy, who recently beat Oprah for the title of most-watched daytime personality, and who just signed a new contract to continue through 2015. But Judge Judy was launched in 1996, and no one else has come along who can step in once she leaves. As Hyatt points out, “there have been people proclaimed to be ‘the next Oprah’ going back to the 1990s, such as Ricki Lake. They never turned out that way. As much as I admire Katie Couric,” who is considering doing a daytime talk show after stepping down from CBS News, “she’s not going to be that person.”


Soap operas used to have the same pop culture power that Oprah did, often influencing prime-time shows by pushing the boundaries of the subject matter that TV could deal with. But in the last 20 years, the average viewership of soaps has fallen by 80 per cent. Christine Fix, editor of Soap Opera Fan, told Maclean’s that the cancellation of One Life and All My Children marks “an unfortunate beginning of the end of an era that has entertained viewers for generations. Hell, there hasn’t been a new soap opera created since 1999, which doesn’t bode well for the industry.” The few remaining soaps aren’t safe either: TMZ floated a rumour that ABC might cancel its last soap, General Hospital, to make room for a show for Couric.

Why have there been so few big daytime hits since the launch of The View in 1997? There are some obvious culprits. Cox says that the death of the soap “dates back to the 1970s when women began working outside the home in greater numbers.” Even the people who are staying at home may not be watching television now, because they’ve been captured by that evil scourge of television, the Internet. In an article published by Business Insider in 2010, Tod Sacerdoti wrote that the true soap opera killer was Zynga, a company that provides interactive Facebook games and thereby “turned casual online gaming into social gaming.” Why would people follow the adventures of strangers when they could spend the day having adventures with people they know online?

Still, the stereotype of the Internet destroying TV doesn’t completely fit the facts. According to Ad Age magazine, the number of people watching television in the daytime hasn’t actually fallen. In fact, when DVR playback is taken into account, there are a few more people watching TV in the daytime than two years ago—if only because more people are unemployed. But few of them are watching any one program in the numbers that used to flock to the big soap operas.

Instead, they go to ad-supported basic cable. Some of these viewers prefer reality shows, which Fix calls “real-life soap operas that seem to fill the need for escape that soap operas once cornered the market on.” Others gravitate to people who give them useful advice, like the personalities on networks devoted to food or fashion. Dori Molitor, head of the consulting firm WomanWise, told Maclean’s that today’s woman wants “entertainment with meaning and purpose, that can contribute to what she cares about,” meaning that a show is more likely to catch on if it has “a piece of entertainment in it, but there’s also a piece of practicality.” Apparently today’s viewers get this sort of practicality from people who criticize bad makeovers and messy houses.

The big networks seem to understand this, because part of their new strategy is to compete with cable by offering shows with practical advice that stay-at-home people can use. Brian Frons, head of daytime TV for ABC, told the Los Angeles Times that the network is dropping the escapism of soap operas in favour of “information” that will allow viewers to “take an active role in changing their lives.” So ABC soaps will give way to The Chew, a food program that tells health-conscious viewers how to find food that won’t kill them, and The Revolution, where Tim Gunn (Project Runway) dispenses fashion and makeup tips. These shows may take a few viewers away from specialty channels—and they’re much cheaper to produce than soaps, or talk shows with big-name hosts.

But cheap, quickly produced shows can’t have the kind of cultural reach that the big talk shows, game shows and soaps did. Hyatt points out that while many cable daytime shows are doing well enough, few of them are huge hits, and he thinks that’s because “too many of them look cheap and have a limited scope. Laugh if you will, but even a game show like The Price is Right lavishes attention to every detail of each show, and that’s reflected in the ratings for the final product. This is another reason why cable hasn’t taken on doing daytime soaps—it requires an investment of time, care, consideration and money that most outlets are reluctant to allow on a daily schedule.”

One person who’s already discovered the limitations of cable is none other than Oprah Winfrey. She was supposed to be transferring much of her energy to her cable channel OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network), which recently launched in both the U.S. and Canada. But OWN has not done well since it began, and Winfrey has found herself trying to calm down advertisers who aren’t getting their money’s worth from her channel: first by assuring them in a press conference that things will get better once “I get to devote my full attention to OWN,” and then by removing the CEO of the entire network after only a few months. “Cable can have some power but not really rival the reach of the big daytime shows,” Hyatt says, and Winfrey’s self-imposed exile to cable could turn her into a niche product, similar to what happened to Conan O’Brien when he went from late night on NBC to late night on cable.

That might be why soap actress Cady McClain, who will reprise her old role on All My Children in one of its last story arcs, told Maclean’s there’s still a place for the simple, inexpensive option of regular daytime TV: “Not everyone can afford Internet, the rising costs of cable, or even a computer. But somehow, most people manage to get a TV. That factors into why daytime reached a mass cultural consciousness: the simple accessibility, five days a week.” But even if Oprah decides that cable is too small a world for her, it may be too late for her to go back to her mass audience, which is starting to drift away. Even her biggest fan: “I work a lot,” Lee says. “I do not have time to watch as much daytime television as I used to.” You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  
So then what WILL captivate us all this next 10 years? Probably more of everybody and his dog wanting to become a star--rich and famous.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

all4loveandbelieve

Quote from: "MJonmind"
Quote from: "all4loveandbelieve"
Today, I was speaking with one of my patient, and she told me she read  that the OWN IS not doing well in the United States, she is losing ratings. Apperently they do not like the shows they are showing the viewers. They do not want to see dr Phil, Dr. OZ etc.. more of a variety like movies or reality shows.. etc.. I hope everything will ge fine since she dished out millions and millions for OWN..
That reminded me of I saw in my Macleans,


Quote (selected)
Women’s afternoon TV: RIP
The game shows went, then the soaps, and now even Oprah has left the building

by Jaime Weinman on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:05am - 9 Comments

REUTERS/Keith Bedford

“When you think of daytime TV,” says Wesley Hyatt, author of The Encyclopedia of Daytime Television, “do you think of anything else besides talk shows, soaps and game shows?” Well, you might have to. The big hit shows that defined afternoon viewing will soon be gone forever. Most game shows bit the dust years ago, and now the other pillars are falling: The Oprah Winfrey Show is airing its final episode on May 25, and soon after, ABC will cancel two of the last soap operas, All My Children and One Life To Live. Hyatt told Maclean’s that shows like these “were dirt cheap to produce and generated enormous profits” in their heyday, but that heyday “ended around 20 years ago.” The afternoon show—providing emotional conversations or soap antics, aimed largely at stay-at-home women—has been huge since the beginning of TV, and on radio before that. Now it may be going the way of variety shows, VCRs and the Liberal party.

Of all the things threatening to tear the daytime world apart, the end of The Oprah Winfrey Show is arguably the most damaging. It means not only the end of a successful show but the end of what Hyatt calls “a pop culture phenomenon, one of the biggest events not just of TV but mass media.” Advertisers on her finale are being charged $1 million per 30-second commercial, the highest rate for a series finale since Everybody Loves Raymond in 2005. And Oprah has the kind of worshipful fan base that’s usually more associated with pop stars than TV celebrities. Tanya Lee, a Toronto woman, got into the news last December by starting an unsuccessful Facebook campaign to bring Oprah to Canada, even trying to get in touch with President Barack Obama: “Canadian Oprah fans,” she says, “I worked very hard on your behalf. Even though it did not work out, at least you know that I failed miserably.”

The only person left who has that kind of power is Judy Sheindlin of Judge Judy, who recently beat Oprah for the title of most-watched daytime personality, and who just signed a new contract to continue through 2015. But Judge Judy was launched in 1996, and no one else has come along who can step in once she leaves. As Hyatt points out, “there have been people proclaimed to be ‘the next Oprah’ going back to the 1990s, such as Ricki Lake. They never turned out that way. As much as I admire Katie Couric,” who is considering doing a daytime talk show after stepping down from CBS News, “she’s not going to be that person.”


Soap operas used to have the same pop culture power that Oprah did, often influencing prime-time shows by pushing the boundaries of the subject matter that TV could deal with. But in the last 20 years, the average viewership of soaps has fallen by 80 per cent. Christine Fix, editor of Soap Opera Fan, told Maclean’s that the cancellation of One Life and All My Children marks “an unfortunate beginning of the end of an era that has entertained viewers for generations. Hell, there hasn’t been a new soap opera created since 1999, which doesn’t bode well for the industry.” The few remaining soaps aren’t safe either: TMZ floated a rumour that ABC might cancel its last soap, General Hospital, to make room for a show for Couric.

Why have there been so few big daytime hits since the launch of The View in 1997? There are some obvious culprits. Cox says that the death of the soap “dates back to the 1970s when women began working outside the home in greater numbers.” Even the people who are staying at home may not be watching television now, because they’ve been captured by that evil scourge of television, the Internet. In an article published by Business Insider in 2010, Tod Sacerdoti wrote that the true soap opera killer was Zynga, a company that provides interactive Facebook games and thereby “turned casual online gaming into social gaming.” Why would people follow the adventures of strangers when they could spend the day having adventures with people they know online?

Still, the stereotype of the Internet destroying TV doesn’t completely fit the facts. According to Ad Age magazine, the number of people watching television in the daytime hasn’t actually fallen. In fact, when DVR playback is taken into account, there are a few more people watching TV in the daytime than two years ago—if only because more people are unemployed. But few of them are watching any one program in the numbers that used to flock to the big soap operas.

Instead, they go to ad-supported basic cable. Some of these viewers prefer reality shows, which Fix calls “real-life soap operas that seem to fill the need for escape that soap operas once cornered the market on.” Others gravitate to people who give them useful advice, like the personalities on networks devoted to food or fashion. Dori Molitor, head of the consulting firm WomanWise, told Maclean’s that today’s woman wants “entertainment with meaning and purpose, that can contribute to what she cares about,” meaning that a show is more likely to catch on if it has “a piece of entertainment in it, but there’s also a piece of practicality.” Apparently today’s viewers get this sort of practicality from people who criticize bad makeovers and messy houses.

The big networks seem to understand this, because part of their new strategy is to compete with cable by offering shows with practical advice that stay-at-home people can use. Brian Frons, head of daytime TV for ABC, told the Los Angeles Times that the network is dropping the escapism of soap operas in favour of “information” that will allow viewers to “take an active role in changing their lives.” So ABC soaps will give way to The Chew, a food program that tells health-conscious viewers how to find food that won’t kill them, and The Revolution, where Tim Gunn (Project Runway) dispenses fashion and makeup tips. These shows may take a few viewers away from specialty channels—and they’re much cheaper to produce than soaps, or talk shows with big-name hosts.

But cheap, quickly produced shows can’t have the kind of cultural reach that the big talk shows, game shows and soaps did. Hyatt points out that while many cable daytime shows are doing well enough, few of them are huge hits, and he thinks that’s because “too many of them look cheap and have a limited scope. Laugh if you will, but even a game show like The Price is Right lavishes attention to every detail of each show, and that’s reflected in the ratings for the final product. This is another reason why cable hasn’t taken on doing daytime soaps—it requires an investment of time, care, consideration and money that most outlets are reluctant to allow on a daily schedule.”

One person who’s already discovered the limitations of cable is none other than Oprah Winfrey. She was supposed to be transferring much of her energy to her cable channel OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network), which recently launched in both the U.S. and Canada. But OWN has not done well since it began, and Winfrey has found herself trying to calm down advertisers who aren’t getting their money’s worth from her channel: first by assuring them in a press conference that things will get better once “I get to devote my full attention to OWN,” and then by removing the CEO of the entire network after only a few months. “Cable can have some power but not really rival the reach of the big daytime shows,” Hyatt says, and Winfrey’s self-imposed exile to cable could turn her into a niche product, similar to what happened to Conan O’Brien when he went from late night on NBC to late night on cable.

That might be why soap actress Cady McClain, who will reprise her old role on All My Children in one of its last story arcs, told Maclean’s there’s still a place for the simple, inexpensive option of regular daytime TV: “Not everyone can afford Internet, the rising costs of cable, or even a computer. But somehow, most people manage to get a TV. That factors into why daytime reached a mass cultural consciousness: the simple accessibility, five days a week.” But even if Oprah decides that cable is too small a world for her, it may be too late for her to go back to her mass audience, which is starting to drift away. Even her biggest fan: “I work a lot,” Lee says. “I do not have time to watch as much daytime television as I used to.” You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  
So then what WILL captivate us all this next 10 years? Probably more of everybody and his dog wanting to become a star--rich and famous.


Thank you for the information, I did not have time to find it, I just took the word of my patient and he was right. Oh well, before you launch yourself in a  multi million dollar business you got to do your homework, she could have continued doing her show and make more money and less headaches. Look at all the headaches she is getting. Poor Oprah.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am.
Michael Jackson

 

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal