In my very early childhood, I paid witness to one of Oprah's programs, and thought, "She's one of those nice ladies they have on TV." In my mid-early childhood, I ran across her again, and concluded, "Oh, she's the devil." Not with any drama did I draw the latter conclusion, but rather, in the childhood manner of simply accepting what is seen. For years that explanation satisfied me; I can still see how, if the Prince of Darkness actually existed, and actually wished to have a negative impact on the mortal plane during the late 20th/early 21st centuries, he would adopt the form of a disadvantaged overweight black female, become a powerful and wealthy media figure, and lead people into various idiocies, all the while congratulating himself on how he was defeating God by proving the futility and/or wrongness of creation itself.
I still largely stand by that assessment of Oprah, except that greater/lesser powers of discernment have caused me to see the devil acting not specifically through Oprah, but through Oprah®. Oprah is probably just some poor dummy they trained for the job, who, by a reasonable twist of fate, could be avidly watching her alternately-realitied replacement, believing in everything that was said, and getting ruined by it without understanding why or how. In that, I see a similarity between the Oprah/Oprah® relationship, and the respective relationships between, say, Trump and Trump®, Rowling and Rowling®, or Stalin and Stalin®. It's certainly sad and shameful what the person is participating in, but are the peculiarities of the puppet either necessary or contributory toward the syncretic result? Does the person actually understand what it is the persona is doing?
Like I can see an Oprah in a different multiverse watching WomanShow® (or whatever you wanna call it) and completely, totally, purely trusting in and believing it, I can see Trump in Best Buy trying to get people to upgrade from DVD to Blu Ray, or Rowling fingering herself to 50 Shades of Grey (actually, that scene may occur in this multi also, but for purposes of example, assume the first encounter occurs in the multi in which someone else was tapped for Harry Potter, and Rowling remained poor and unknown), or Private Stalin vomiting on his ranking sergeant in Kursk 1943 and being beaten and stripped of future vodka privileges.
What makes my own social function, if any, ultimately different from this world's Oprah®? Oprah couldn't have planned Oprah® herself, anymore than Trump could write Art of the Deal or sell anything bigger than a car without someone else's assistance. And if I were offered the opportunity to become Oprah® or Trump® at their rate (even their starting rate), I'd take it. Would I have the power to, once I had a few years' apartment-managing (or talk show) money saved up, quietly leave the scene, thereby forfeiting my place to someone equally bad? Or would I have the resolve to use my position to speak out against my public persona? I'd like to think so--that, once I had some savings, I could expose the system that had used me--but I think that when people do that, they end up with an unforeseen or rapidly-concluding medical condition, suicide, or car crash.
I guess that gives me hope. Celebrity functionaries who die like that might be the proof of living redemption--people eliminated before they can admit what they know, because they really were good people, and they managed to resist the allure of power for power's sake, once they had enough to put Ferrari on the table, excuse me, food on the table. Or, maybe weird drug interactions and small plane crashes just happen to people like that, and once you've completed your first assignment and gotten paid, you're already so corrupted that there's no turning back.
Given that, what do we do? Do we hate Oprah because she became Oprah®, peddler of things too big and stupid and evil for her to understand? We can righteously hate, say, Clinton or Leibowitz or Dershowitz, or people who understand what it is they're doing...or do they? Does higher verbal ability mean that, unlike a Trump or an Oprah, they actually understand the cosmic significance of their role, or their intended prescriptions? If they actually did (or could have) written their own books, does that mean they're actually their persona®? And, that said, should we revile them for ongoing participation in the persona, or for, instead, the one choice that really mattered--that first, "sell your soul" choice, in which they agreed to, for one season, be that persona?
Viscerally, I tend to want to make an intelligence-based and sexed-base assessment. I'd like to find fault with Clinton (Hillary/Chelsea), because they crack a certain level of projective intelligence, while not finding fault with Oprah, who is simply too dim to be anything other than the luckiest one of her audience members. Trump, by contrast--while less intelligent and perhaps less willfully-evil than Hillary/Chelsea, I'd still fault, since that's what you sign up for when you choose male. But am I doing him an injustice? Should he--a trans-Oprah, sub-Chelsea phenomenon--be adjudged evil, even if he's merely the most-blessed would-be Walmart night manager in existence? Or poor Stalin, another historically powerful dunce, unable to craft or comprehend the works of a Mao or a Lenin, be charged with responsibility for what any moronic enlisted would do if suddenly handed the reins to a rampaging bear, merely because he was the reverse-piñata attached to latter-day Bolshevism?