Oprah, or Harpo?

Oprah looked a lot like Harpo the other day, pulling things out of her pocket that have no bearing to relevancy. After interviewing the loveable Michael J. Fox (who I admittedly enjoyed as an actor, and admire for his efforts in pursuing a cure for Parkinson's), Oprah stood in the Holocaust Museum and declared how unfortunate it is that Fox is getting headline coverage, instead of the number of soldiers dying in Iraq.

Grabbing her own spotlight, Cutsie Couric pops up on CBS News to introduce Fox as the unfortunate victim of a political controversy, simply because he wanted to promote a Democrat candidate whom he has probably never met in a state he has probably never seen. Poor guy. (Interesting that he was able to sit relatively still for Cutsie's interview.)

But back to Oprah's comment. Fox is getting headline news because he insterted himself into a political campaign of national importance. He is getting headline news because media folks like Oprah and Cutsie wanted to exploit what some talk-show guy they don't even listen to had to say about a Parkinson's sufferer who put himself smack-dab in the center of a political debate (with very few facts, I might add). And then, after shamelessly exploiting this American icon, they decry the very fact that they even had to bring this issue to our attention, when there is other, far more important matters of propaganda which should be our focus.

Oprah, look at your freakin' newspaper. Tell me, without opening the paper, how many soldiers died in Iraq today. Exactly. It's right there. Don't whine about the body count not being in the spotlight. It will not go away. Trust me. So long as it scores political points, it will not go away. And Cutsie will smile in her sad little way every time she gets to report a larger number.