I couldn't wait to see the episode where Oprah comes to Tulsa, I was hoping for some good positive press for our state.. of course, it was too much to hope for.

Oprah's quickly walking through Dilliards to get a wedding present and someone in the crowd yells out ' she's being a bitch' and the whole episode came to a halt and focused on Oprah being called a bitch in Tulsa Oklahoma.

Thanks Tulsa.. very classy.

I couldn't wait to see the episode where Oprah comes to Tulsa, I was hoping for some good positive press for our state.. of course, it was too much to hope for.

Oprah's quickly walking through Dilliards to get a wedding present and someone in the crowd yells out ' she's being a bitch' and the whole episode came to a halt and focused on Oprah being called a bitch in Tulsa Oklahoma.

Thanks Tulsa.. very classy.

:omg:

Well, I guess Tulsa called it the way they saw it. She is way overrated as a talk show hostess, and not everybody likes her or watches her, including me.

You're missing the point.

This was an opportunity to showcase our state on national tv ( because even though you might not watch her, millions do) ... she was in a hurry to get a gift, did a little wave to the fans and walked quickly by... she wasn't being bitchy, just rushed.

It was tacky and trashy to shout out the insult so that everyone could hear the comment and it reflects badly on our state.

exactly. whether you like oprah or not, that cast oklahoma in a pretty bad light. -M

I'm sure glad she didn't visit Crossroads Mall. She may have gotten stuck in the middle of a gang war.LOL. Ok, bad joke.

In all seriousness, Tulsa should have shown a little more respect to her. Now, she will have a bad taste in her mouth when it comes to Tulsa.

I don't care much for her show, but I would still show her respect.

Well, what do you expect from Tulsa?

I guess she got her revenge. Was there anything on the epidode about their bad drivers?

The show likely never going to be positive, Oprah got heavy criticism here, correctly placed IMO, for crashing the weddings. I know that in one of the weddings the bride and family were really pissed that she did this. I think I heard there was talk of a lawsuit at one time. But I'm guessing none of that made the show.

Oprah crashing weddings without permission and unannounced, taking focus away from the wedding and bride and putting on herself instead and putting it all on camera? Without even asking? Now that’s classy.

She must have just thought we are all rubes that would just bask in glow and be honored to be in the presence of The Oprah, come on. She IS a bitch and this stunt proves it.

And get over it, not everything in life is going to have a positive spin. Get a thicker skin. The fact that she then spins the show to be negative of Tulsa just shows that she’s just a little whiny little girl with a thick checkbook.

Oprah isn't an embarrasment, or something to worry about;

This IS

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/opinion/12thu2.html?th&emc=th

Doubting Inhofe


Published: October 12, 2006

In a recent speech in the Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma called himself “the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming.” Too bad he is not the senator who has spent more time educating himself.

His speech, one in a series on global warming, was a brisk survey of the way the news media have covered climatic predictions over the past century. Cooling, warming — we never get it right. Naturally, Mr. Inhofe dismisses what he calls media “hysteria,” which is also a way of dismissing not just Al Gore but the consensus among mainstream scientists and the governments of nearly every industrialized nation concerning manmade climate change.

Mr. Inhofe is particularly hard on James Hansen, whom he calls a “NASA scientist and alarmist.” Mr. Hansen is a timely target, since he is co-author of a new climatological report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The report concludes that because of rapid warming in the past 30 years, the earth is approaching and will soon surpass the warmest temperatures in the past 12,000 years — since the end of the last ice age, in other words. And, as the study notes, recent warming “has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius of the maximum temperature of the past million years.” The shift in temperature isn’t uniform. Higher latitudes are warming faster, as are the Indian and western Pacific Oceans.

We do not expect Mr. Inhofe to see the light — or feel the heat — any time soon. He and his staff are serious collectors of opposition research. But the essence of his strategy is to seize upon a mistaken or overblown story to try to undermine the broad consensus. If that fails, he can always question his opponents’ politics and motives, as with his insinuations that environmentalists dreamed the whole thing up to scare people and raise money.

Mr. Inhofe has buttressed himself with a small jury of scientists who argue that climate change is only natural. But he has really buttressed himself with the will to disbelieve. He accuses scientists and the media of hysteria. But if there is such a thing as a hysteria of doubt, then Mr. Inhofe is its master.

Back to topic .... Oprah did come to Perry and were very complimentary about the hospitality of some of the cowboys they met.. they were very charming.

The families of the couples attended the Oprah show the day of the Tulsa showing ( something I doubt they would have done if they were thinking of suing Oprah) and they said that the rumor of them being upset was overblown and not true. The media attention after the fact bothered them more so that Oprah coming to the wedding. She dropped in for 10 minutes, gave them a gift and everyone was very pleased she came by..

Oprah isn't an embarrasment, or something to worry about;

This IS

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/opinion/12thu2.html?th&emc=th

Doubting Inhofe


Published: October 12, 2006

In a recent speech in the Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma called himself “the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming.” Too bad he is not the senator who has spent more time educating himself.

His speech, one in a series on global warming, was a brisk survey of the way the news media have covered climatic predictions over the past century. Cooling, warming — we never get it right. Naturally, Mr. Inhofe dismisses what he calls media “hysteria,” which is also a way of dismissing not just Al Gore but the consensus among mainstream scientists and the governments of nearly every industrialized nation concerning manmade climate change.

Mr. Inhofe is particularly hard on James Hansen, whom he calls a “NASA scientist and alarmist.” Mr. Hansen is a timely target, since he is co-author of a new climatological report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The report concludes that because of rapid warming in the past 30 years, the earth is approaching and will soon surpass the warmest temperatures in the past 12,000 years — since the end of the last ice age, in other words. And, as the study notes, recent warming “has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius of the maximum temperature of the past million years.” The shift in temperature isn’t uniform. Higher latitudes are warming faster, as are the Indian and western Pacific Oceans.

We do not expect Mr. Inhofe to see the light — or feel the heat — any time soon. He and his staff are serious collectors of opposition research. But the essence of his strategy is to seize upon a mistaken or overblown story to try to undermine the broad consensus. If that fails, he can always question his opponents’ politics and motives, as with his insinuations that environmentalists dreamed the whole thing up to scare people and raise money.

Mr. Inhofe has buttressed himself with a small jury of scientists who argue that climate change is only natural. But he has really buttressed himself with the will to disbelieve. He accuses scientists and the media of hysteria. But if there is such a thing as a hysteria of doubt, then Mr. Inhofe is its master.


That's not embarrassing at all. He's right. Nobody has ANY idea what the global temps were a million years ago. These same scientists were warning us all of the pending ice age in the 70's.

But, by speculating and creating fear they certainly substantiate the billions of dollars spent worldwide on "man-made" global warming.... THAT'S embarrassing......

I can not stand Oprah. :fighting2

The problem was that she was on the south side of town. Tulsans aren't used to seeing blacks on the south side of town! LOL!

Please, don't confuse Oklahoma City's racial problems with Tulsa's, we largely (had to) got over ours in 1928 in very bloody fashion, but that was a long, long time ago.

swake...Patrick was just joking, but when I lived on S. Memorial a few years back it was the same as many cities out there...Tulsa is still highly segregated with the blacks in the north and whites in the south

Actually, Tulsa is much more segregated than Oklahoma City, IMO. OKC has changed those trends with many blacks living in the NW parts of town now.

And then there's NE Oklahoma City.

Every major city is more or less segregated. I'm not even sure why this is a debatable point.

As to which is more segregated or less segregated, who cares? Are we really going to go back and discuss something that happened in the 1920s to establish Tulsa is more segregated (or use it as justification as to why it's not)? I don't really see how something that happened around 70 years ago is even relevant.

America as a whole is generally segregated. That's the way it is.

Numerically, the difference is not significant. As of 2000 (the last Census), Tulsa had a White/Black Dissimilarity Index of 60.3, meaning that 60.3 percent of white people would need to move to another neighborhood to make whites and blacks evenly distributed across all neighborhoods.

Source: CensusScope -- Segregation: Dissimilarity Indices (http://www.censusscope.org/us/s40/p75000/chart_dissimilarity.html)

Oklahoma City checks in with a 59.0. Tulsa may be slightly more segregated, but hardly "much more".