Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hutchison's Clever Attack on Sound… | George W. Bush Wants to Pump You Up… »

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Celeb / Books Topsy Turvy World

Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Oprah, whose ratings have been taking a hit (possibly because of her fervent Obama endorsement), is turning to debut author Sarah Palin to dig her out of a ratings hole:

Oprah Winfrey, on a campaign to climb back from last season's ratings slump, will attempt to kiss and make up with conservative viewers on Nov. 16 when she has Sarah Palin on her syndicated talk show.

Also, on the day that Palin's Going Rogue is released, a small, smart publisher will also release a paperback collection of critical essays about Palin titled Going Rouge.

Share via

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

One more reason I hate Oprah.

Posted by dwo on October 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM

She didn't even write the book, why bother interviewing her about it?

Posted by John M on October 21, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Ok everyone in the studio, look under your seats...... EVERYONES GOING HOME WITH NEW SNIPER RIIIIIIIIIFFFFLLLLLLLEEEEEEEES

Posted by Andy_Squirrel on October 21, 2009 at 12:05 PM

and you get a rifle... and you get a rifle...

Posted by Beetlecat on October 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Oprah, whose ratings have been taking a hit (possibly because of her fervent Obama endorsement),

So...her ratings would be higher if she had endorsed McCain? How do you figure that?

Posted by Olo on October 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

@5 "And her ratings took a tumble, though hers was not the only syndicated show to lose audience last season and she still managed to wind up at the top of the syndication heap at season's end."

What's amazing to me is how every other syndicated show endorsed Obama. It's like a frick'n conspiracy!

On the other hand, I think the piece is arguing that every syndicated show would have not shown a loss of rating is they had just remained neutral, as Oprah had in the past.

Posted by post hoc ergo propter hoc on October 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM