• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

  • This is a legitimate human interest story and good journalism.

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • The poor lady needs the money and people are interested in her story

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Oprah is opportunistic, but is also sensitive and truly concerned

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Not much different than an old-time circus freak show if you ask me

    Votes: 5 35.7%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Total voters
    14
MyOwnDrum

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I figure this poor lady must have been financially compensated for her appearance, and the posting of photos of her the Oprah's website (see link)

Charla Nash on Her Looks - Oprah.com

Is this type of journalism exploitative, or is it a legitimate human interest story?
 
Didn't you know, though, that Oprah is an important political leader - she's now going to be in our children's history books.

So Oprah, I mean Opress, is just fulfilling her role.

sarcasm aside - I don't care about anything that Oprah does. In the end she is just a celebrity with a talkshow and she has all sorts of people on *shrug*
 
You don't care for Oprah I presume, Aunt Spiker?
 
I do not find Oprah's behaviors to be exploitative. I find her to be a very genuinely sincere person. I think it's important for people to understand that chimpanzees do not make good pets. Yes, I understand that the number of people who would possibly think they make good pets is small, but if this episode saves one person from having the experience this lady had, then I say, "Great job" to Oprah for addressing it. She has a very large audience, so I think she served a legitimate interest.
 
Isn't chimp ownership a rarity? And wouldn't anyone who owns a chimp already know about this already well publicized tragic story? Therefore, I beg to differ that Oprah is performing a much needed public service here.
 
I think the fact that this woman was no doubt paid to unveil her face for the first time points to exploitation, even though I do feel that Oprah is sympathetic and concerned for her as a human being.

I personally don't care for Oprah's show and read about this story on the Fox News site, which provided the link to the story on the Oprah website.
 
That's what talkshow hosts DO - they pay their guests to be on the show.

The woman, obviously, CAN think for herself and if she's being exploited then she's doing it out of free will.

And, yes, MyOwnDrum, you guess correctly - I despise Oprah, always have :) LOL
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Isn't chimp ownership a rarity? And wouldn't anyone who owns a chimp already know about this already well publicized tragic story? Therefore, I beg to differ that Oprah is performing a much needed public service here.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Several years ago, there was another chimpanzee attack on a man that almost killed him. He and his wife had had this chimpanzee as a pet. They gave him to a zoo and went to visit him for his birthday. He almost killed this man. Maybe the woman who owned the chimpanzee in this case would have re-considered whether she wanted this pet. The more attacks that occur, the more people will realize that you cannot have a chimpanzee as a pet.

USATODAY.com - Birthday party turns bloody when chimps attack

I just realized that it was another chimpanzee in the zoo that mauled the man.

As an aside, I can't remember the last time I watched Oprah's show. It may have been more than 5 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Charla wanted to do the show, she wanted to reveal her face in that manner. I see absolutely no exploitation.

And if she got paid? ****ing fantastic! She desperately needs the money, so I hope they paid her a lot. If anyone else is interested in helping this woman out financially, you can do so at her trust site:

Charla Nash Trust
 
I have no issue with this woman appearing on a television show, if that is her desire. She is a grown woman, after all, so how is it possible to exploit her without her participation and consent?
 
I dont get Oprah.It seems to me she will peddle any crap thats out pseudoscience "the secret" vaccination conspiracies.She combines this with fake humility.
 
rivrrat said:
Charla wanted to do the show, she wanted to reveal her face in that manner. I see absolutely no exploitation.

And if she got paid? ****ing fantastic! She desperately needs the money, so I hope they paid her a lot. If anyone else is interested in helping this woman out financially, you can do so at her trust site:

Charla Nash Trust
Click to expand...
i have no problem with her being paid. and i didn't use the word exploitation, i used sensationalist, which oprah is.

there's a difference.
 
Of course it's exploitative. Compare what Oprah paid this woman to have her on her show to the money Oprah will make because of her.
 
Oprah isn't en par with Maury Povich's level of depravity, but all talk shows use the same tricks to lure in viewers for ratings. I find the cult following surrounding Oprah incessant and annoying. I know she brings interesting issues to the table and that sets her apart from the other talk shows, but the way her followers preen over her and take her word like scripture is irritating. She is just a celebrity like all the rest.

The idea of her being put in the history books for school material is also unacceptable. She's a billionaire with wide reaching powers though so who knows what she's capable of.
 
rivrrat said:
Charla wanted to do the show, she wanted to reveal her face in that manner. I see absolutely no exploitation.

And if she got paid? ****ing fantastic! She desperately needs the money, so I hope they paid her a lot. If anyone else is interested in helping this woman out financially, you can do so at her trust site:

Charla Nash Trust
Click to expand...

Didn't Charla wanted to go see the Chimp her friend had as a pet? Why is she suing her ex-friend for 50mil when Charla went willingly?
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
Didn't Charla wanted to go see the Chimp her friend had as a pet? Why is she suing her ex-friend for 50mil when Charla went willingly?
Click to expand...

I was wondering that myself. She claims she was aware the chimp had erratic behavior and had warned her friend, yet she continued the relationship and went to the house to assist when the friend called her for help.

It's so horrible what happened to her, but it sounds like Charla, herself, made a poor decision.
 
rivrrat said:
No idea, and not sure how it's relevant.
Click to expand...

It's relevant because the chimp-mauled woman discussed the subject with Oprah, and it's relevant to her case against her former friend who owned the chimp.

Now, if I had a friend with an animal that I thought was dangerous, I would personally find a new friend and stay away from the animal that I considered dangerous. That would be more sensible than going to try to help get the animal under control when it's behaving erratically.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
It's relevant because the chimp-mauled woman discussed the subject with Oprah, and it's relevant to her case against her former friend who owned the chimp.

Now, if I had a friend with an animal that I thought was dangerous, I would personally find a new friend and stay away from the animal that I considered dangerous. That would be more sensible than going to try to help get the animal under control when it's behaving erratically.
Click to expand...

How is it relevant to the OP and whether or not she was being "exploited" by Oprah?
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
Didn't Charla wanted to go see the Chimp her friend had as a pet? Why is she suing her ex-friend for 50mil when Charla went willingly?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. I have a friend who owns a chimp. I have seen the chimp behave erratically here and there, but the chimp has never attacked the owner or me. I go to my friend's house because she has asked for my help. I don't have any fear because I haven't witnessed any behavior on the part of the chimp that would make me fear for my face and body. The chimp attacks me and mauls me and I suffer severe injuries as a result of my friend's pet (a pet I don't own), and yet because I willingly went to her house, I'm at fault. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
It's relevant because the chimp-mauled woman discussed the subject with Oprah, and it's relevant to her case against her former friend who owned the chimp.

Now, if I had a friend with an animal that I thought was dangerous, I would personally find a new friend and stay away from the animal that I considered dangerous. That would be more sensible than going to try to help get the animal under control when it's behaving erratically.
Click to expand...

Was there an indication that the woman thought the chimpanzee was dangerous?
 
Holy crap! My mouth was agape simply looking at her face and reading that horrific story. What kind of a negligent piece of crap has a rabid chimp running around their house!? Honestly, I would just kill myself if I were that lady. Good Lord...
 
aps said:
Was there an indication that the woman thought the chimpanzee was dangerous?
Click to expand...

She said to Oprah that she had repeatedly warned her friend.

As far as the lawsuit, I'm not sure about liability laws. If I was on a jury I would think the jury would receive instructions.

But let's use, as a comparison, if a friend has a car that you felt had bad brakes. You warned your friend that he/she needed to get them fixed because they posed a danger to others. Then you decided to help your friend by driving your friend to the doctor's in his/her car. The brake went out and you were paralyzed in the accident. Do you bear some culpability in the accident?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom