Letters to the Editor
-
"The Kingdom of Oprah" Banishes Frey
A substantial part of my academic research is about Oprah Winfrey, so I Tivo'ed yesterday's show with piqued interest, both personal and professional. I agree, Frey clearly lied and that is both morally reprehensible and just plain stupid; how he could have possibly thought that the discrepancies in his book would not have been easily uncovered, especially after reaching stratospheric popularity as an Oprah's Book Club selection, escapes me. But what also escapes me is the lack of checks and balances in this case, for which all parties involved--Frey, Nan Talese, Doubleday, the publishing industry in general, and Oprah herself--are guilty. Frey is guilty of lying, not merely of "altering details," in his memoir; he failed to check and balance his ethics when he wrote, published, and publicized his book, because at any time he could have acknowledged his deceptive actions and saved himself the resultant public shame of being caught in many lies. Nan Talese and Doubleday, as well as the publishing industry in general, are guilty of looking the other way when they say that they just "do not have time" to fact-check the books they publish; especially when a memoir proclaims to BE a true story (not just based on one), it is their inherent responsibility to do everything within their power to check facts. While Nan Talese is correct in her assertion that it is impossible to "get into the mind of an author" to verify artistic interpretation, it is possible to get the same documentation that The Smoking Gun obtained which disproved easily provable facts about Frey's work; Doubleday should have gotten there first, and if they had, this whole debacle would have been cleared up prior to publication. Oprah is guilty of failing to check and balance her own doubts about the veracity of the book's claims. While watching the show, I had the same thought that Hillary Frey subsequently expressed in her Salon article: namely, that Oprah should have listened to the inner doubts that caused her to have early red flags about some of the book's more salacious accounts before she chose the book for her book club. Oprah seems to have reversed herself right along with the rest of the population, as though she couldn't possibly have had a clue that there were, as she said yesterday, "fantastical" details about the book. However, as we learned from Oprah on yesterday's show, the books for her book club are chosen months prior to their announcement; why not use that time to do more than rely on her producers, who were clearly so enamored with Frey's book that they could no longer be objective about its content, for her research? If Oprah was "duped," it was not merely by Frey alone; Oprah also duped herself by allowing herself to be caught up in and blinded by the emotional whirlwind about the book. Oprah was as intoxicated by the book's fantastical content as the rest of her readership, but the difference is that she could have done more due diligence than the average reader to ensure that the book to which she was about to ascribe her cultural and financial seal of approval was what she truly meant to endorse. The lack of checks and balances involved in this case make everyone involved--Frey, Nan Talese, Doubleday, the publishing industry in general, and Oprah--partially responsible for the resultant controversy of Frey's book.
Yesterday's show was ostensibly about atonement for the many oversights along the way which led to the chaos surrounding "A Million Little Pieces." Oprah began with an unprecedented apology to her viewers to atone for what she called her "mistake." Frey only begrudgingly atoned for his "lies" only after Oprah forced him to agree with this characterization; if left to his own devices, Frey would have continued his pattern of clouding the truth with semantics in what was a largely pathetic attempt at self-defense. The pre-taped interviews with the journalists, including Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, however, were nails in Frey's coffin; he was already judged, juried, and executed before he even appeared on the show to state his case. Maureen Dowd commented (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Frey should be "kicked out of the kingdom of Oprah." When that clip aired, I knew that this man's career was over. Regardless of how "sorry" Frey tried to appear (and he still tried to evade more responses than he gave, much to his detriment), he was already dead in the water after Oprah and a whole slew of "experts" lectured him on the error of his ways. Granted, Frey is absolutely guilty, and there is now no doubt about that. But the punishment should fit the crime, and public stoning fell out of favor centuries ago.
A more constructive dialogue could have been had by first acknowledging that, while the fundamental message of Frey's book has obviously been powerful and helpful for many of its readers, the end does not justify the means; this approach could have turned a discussion of Frey's obvious mistakes into a teachable moment about the book publication process and how it needs to be changed to incorporate checks and balances and accountability from all parties involved. Instead, the show disintegrated into television farce because it was clearly more important for Oprah to save face at Frey's expense. One of the panelists on the show was incredulous at the fact that Frey was willing to reappear and take his lumps, because no public relations consultant would have advised it; I submit that Frey appeared on the show not because he wanted to, but because he had to in order to salvage whatever bits may remain of his career. In essence, Frey was saving face, too. In light of these motivations, whether yesterday's show was truly about atonement for and learning from one's mistakes--or, instead, about the self-preservation of all parties involved--remains an open question.