At the beginning of September, Dr. Harriet Hall – usually a paragon of calm, cool collectedness – was a little teed off. At Science-Based Medicine, she wrote:
From January through June of 2010 I wrote a column entitled “The Health Inspector” in O, The Oprah Magazine. Now, apparently, I have been fired; although they have not had the common courtesy to tell me so. The whole thing has been a bizarre, frustrating experience.
Of course, O's failure to tell Dr. Hall she was canned was nowhere near as strange as their decision, late last year, to hire her in the first place. Dr. Hall is not exactly Oprah's favorite kind of writer. She prefers Rhonda Byrne or Suzanne Somers. (Or, to be fair, William Faulkner.) Oprah likes writers who leave the impression that each reader exists at the center of her own, private universe, the laws and strictures of which have been carved from the ether for her sole benefit. Oprah does not like writers who acknowledge the impossibility of... well, anything. (And why would she? What has ever been impossible for Oprah?)
Dr. Harriet Hall does acknowledge the impossibility of some things – one of those things perhaps being the injection of skepticism into an explosively profitable magazine created for sole enjoyment of Oprah's lunching ladies. Dr. Hall was kind enough, last weekend, to answer a few questions about her experience. (You can read her full article on O debacle here.)
SWIFT: When you were first approached by the people at O Magazine, how did you assess the likelihood of actually breaking through and communicating something of your skepticism to O''s audience? Did you worry that you and your readership spoke two different languages?
Dr. Harriet Hall: I thought long and hard. I was very conflicted about having my name associated with Oprah in any way, but I finally decided to agree to the column for two reasons: I would be able to guarantee that at least my little corner of the magazine was scientifically impeccable, and I could get my name and that of the Science-Based Medicine blog before the public (they were willing to list it in the little blurb about the author). From what the first editor said, I realized they were not going to let me write about skeptical topics, but I hoped that with time I might be able to introduce some skepticism. And at least I could try to show how to approach questions from a scientific viewpoint.
SWIFT: In your communications with your editors, what sense did you get about their desires for the column? What was their focus? What did they want to see from you?
H.H.: They wanted to see topics that would catch their readers’ interest and have implications for their own lives, like “Do I need to avoid eating late at night? Does that make you gain more weight?” They wanted to give me a common health myth to debunk and have me provide evidence and arguments to support the debunking.
SWIFT: Did you ever have the opportunity to discuss your skepticism with an editor? Were they curious about why someone would spend so much time writing about the kinds of things you write about?
H.H.: I did discuss my skepticism with the editor who initially contacted me. He had contacted me because he had read my articles in Skeptic magazine, so he knew I was a skeptic; and I spoke very frankly with him about my opinion of Oprah and her promotion of pseudoscience. I indirectly broached the subject with the second editor by suggesting marginally skeptic-related column topics which were consistently shot down. They didn’t express any curiosity about my other writings. I got the strong impression that they were only concerned with finding content that would sell magazines, and that they didn’t want to get into anything controversial.
SWIFT: In your article at Science-Based Medicine, you say that, at some point, O began aggressively editing your column, changing its whole M.O. Do you have any idea why?
H.H.: I can only guess that the change was either due to the change of editor or to pressure from higher editors. They didn’t give me any hints.
SWIFT: What do you perceive are the obstacles keeping O from doing its journalistic duty of keeping the polity informed?
H.H.: Obstacles? A lack of understanding of science, a lack of critical thinking skills, a need to follow Oprah’s lead and conform to her philosophy, a wish to pander to a popular audience. They’re not trying to keep their audience informed, they’re trying to keep it entertained and happy. This isn’t journalism as I envision it; it’s media whoredom.