There is this lovely young adult fiction book by Marcus Zusack called I am the Messenger.  Its premise is simple--you can help others, you can change the world.

There is also a wretched show by Oprah Winfrey called The Big Give.  Its premise, though trying to be as simple as that of Messenger, is actually appalling--if you give enough, you will win.  Don’t give enough and you are eliminated.

Oh, the problems with this ridiculous show.  There have been positive reviews for this mess, something I can’t fathom.  Perhaps the reviewers looked into Oprah’s eyes and were hypnotized, brain-washed into thinking this was a good idea.

I am all in favor of people getting out of debt, rising out of homelessness, doing good for people with disabilities, etc.  However, first, the people picked as contestants all have stories of woe/over-abundance that make them reality-show caricatures of real people.  In this narrative format, they are not sharing their stories (I’m all in favor of sharing stories), they are instead waving them as banners to show that they have the goods to win a contest of who is the-best-humanity-has-to-offer.  Secondly, the plights of the people being helped are likewise exploited and stretched.  The “good” the contestants do seems to be based on the cash value of their efforts.  One woman needed a home and they got her an apartment rent free for six months (because all she wanted was some time to get herself back on her feet.) Another guy needed 206,000 dollars to pay off medical school debt so that he could volunteer his time for children in need.  (Because plastic surgeons have a hard time making money now in the days of managed care, I guess?  I’d have felt worse for him if he’d just come out of social work school.) So, even though both teams helped their assigned person get what he or she needed, it really comes down to who raised the most money (even though one person “needed” more money than the other).  Well, no, sorry.  Who raised the most money and who made their fund-raising/reveal look the best. 

Ah, vanity.

I hope they come upon someone who needs a kidney transplant and they a contestant gives that person his or her own.  And then they lose because kidneys are really only worth a few thou on the black market these days.  That would be great television.

Also, pitting one person against another in a show about giving?  What?  Really, Oprah, do you honestly think that that is teaching this world to try and pay it forward?  No.  If you designed a show where people with very different, very specific skills come together and do something really cool and help a lot of people, that would be good.  Making altruism a competition just tears us all down, a little bit at a time.

Finally, the overall winner of this nonsense gets a million dollars.  This would seem to mean, then, that the person doing the most good will get more money then every person combined who was “helped” by the show.  Uh.  Why don’t you just take the million, Oprah, and give it to the people in need?  Or no, heck, give it to the contestants to give to people in need.  Kind of like a miniature Publishers Clearing house sweepstakes without the magazine subscriptions. 

Somewhere there’s a widow putting the last of her cash into a collection plate.  And she’s got a whole lot more going for her than this show.  *sigh* Oprah.  You really could do a lot of good.  But I’m disappointed in you.  It is you who could do better.