Oprah, James Earl Jones to receive Oscars

August 4, 2011 – US talk show queen Oprah Winfrey is to be honored with an Oscars statuette later this year for her outstanding humanitarian work, Academy Awards officials said Wednesday.

The 57-year-old television megastar — nominated for a best supporting actress Oscar 25 years ago for her work in “The Color Purple” — is to receive the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award at a dinner in November, officials said.

The award has been given out intermittently by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences since 1956. Previous recipients include Bob Hope, Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman and Jerry Lewis.

The Academy said that since her Oscar nomination in 1986, Winfrey had become “one of the most influential figures in entertainment and philanthropy.”

“She has been especially dedicated to supporting educational initiatives and raising awareness of issues that affect women and children, both in the United States and around the globe,” it said in a statement.

Winfrey is one of the richest women in the United States, with Forbes magazine estimating her net worth at $2.4 billion in 2010.

In May, she pulled the curtain down on her wildly popular talk show — seen by an estimated 40 million Americans each week — after 25 years on the air.

Winfrey will be honored at the Governors Awards dinner on November 12, along with veteran actor James Earl Jones and make-up artist Dick Smith, who will each receive Honorary Awards for their contributions to the industry.

(Visited 46 times, 1 visits today)



  1. Qwani November 14th, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    Can one really expect the ICC to reform?? Lets wait and see, but don’t hold your breath!

    1. MuthiigiWaithekanyi9 November 18th, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      It will reform as it has little choice than to do so. The only question is whether it can reform to the extent that an ordinary citizen of Libya can take NATO to the Hague for the thousands of civillians who died in Tripoli during the Gadhafi regime change. Or a Syrian to take Assad or the Al Nusr Front to the Hague for the use of chemical weapons without inviting a veto from Russia or France.

  2. Anduuru Aggrey November 16th, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    While in agreement with your postulation-we may need to also relook at Africa, more specifically Kenyan motivations for pushing for reforms at the International Criminal Court. The signatories to the Rome Statute were not blind to the powers of the instruments, organs, and agents of the International Criminal Court; and that is why before the election of President Kenyatta and with it the implicit endorsement of the deputy president Ruto as a consequence thereof of that election; both Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto lobbied hard for their cases to be heard on the more equitable platform of the ICC.
    Surely it cannot be that following their election and the fastracking of their cases before the ICC by the Office of the Prosecutor, that now the ICC is applying selective justice to them. They wanted their cases heard at the Hague.
    All Western powers pushing for the cases to be heard before the Hague had their own misgivings about the jurisdiction of the ICC and sought instead to empower their local courts to hear cases brought against their citizens engaged in the international theater of geo politics. This is the reason why the US, Britain, and France are not signatory to the Rome Statute- they have put their own judicial mechanisms in order to try crimes against humanity. Whether these mechanisms are fair or not is not the crux of the matter today.
    The crux is…wasn’t Kenya granted this opportunity to form an local mechanism to try these cases and the offer flatly rejected by the Legislature, under the onus of Don’t be vague it is the Hague. Africans have to learn to stop s@%ting on their plates today then complaining about the smell tomorrow.

    1. MuthiigiWaithekanyi9 November 18th, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      Factually inaccurate: Britain and France ARE signatories to the Rome Statute. It is the US, Russia and China that are not.
      Regarding the local mechanism, the MP’s who supported the Hague option did so for the same reason that ODM refused to challenge the 2007 elections in court: namely, that they did not trust the existing judiciary.

      1. Anduuru Aggrey December 3rd, 2013 at 8:45 pm

        As regards the issue of accuracy of information I stand corrected on the membership of the ICC. However as to the issue of duplicity by the Pro Hague Dont be Vague campaigners who have now turned and gotten cold feet…the issue remains the same.

        The local judiciary still has not changed…even with the provisions of a new constitution.

        What is being questioned here is the integrity of the Pro Hague Dont be Vague campaigners. The insult to the justice system when they voted for the Hague process was real and not apparent, and rebuttal for a local tribunal was not the product of the ideological struggle between ODM and PNU as you may be trying to allude.

        The Pro Hague Dont be Vague campaigners just did what every body in a legal battle seeks to do and that is find a system that is sympathetic to their case and that is still the game plan.

  3. Kwessi Pratt November 21st, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Currently there is no basis to reform ICC. Demands for reform are singularly being made to protect Kenyan suspects. More importantly, African despots have found voice against ICC simply because they are future ICC candidates, or fear all the same, they would be brought to account. Changes cant be effected purely on the whims of suspects or prospective suspects. And ICC didnt invite reforms simply because Kenyan individuals abused their own constitution to run for very offices they now want to enjoy international seal of approval! That chapter 6 of Kenya’s constitution barred them from running for these same same offices they want to be protected speaks volumes. Certainly push to have impunity reign supreme is underway.
    No wonder Africa is pointing crimes in other parts of the world to up its case! In other words, we are saying despots in Africa should not be punished untill cases else where are dealt with! Thats illogical and unworthy listening to. Genuine cases demand clear morals not just pointing fingers! African dictators are telling the world they should be left alone to continue killing Africans. Thats not acceptable at all …. at all!
    In countries like Iraq, these dictators are not telling us a whole leadership was brought to account. Most of the guys were hanged and others are serving long long prison terms! The remaining violence in that country is essentially guerrilla warfare. And untill leaders involved are identified, there is little the world can do. In Sri lanka, bitter civil war was won by government. It later emerged crimes against humanity might have been committed. Investigations are already underway. And once its established indeed unusual happened, swift indictments would certainly follow. Therefore, no African cases are anywhere close to these other places mentioned.
    Dictators in Africa need to stop killing their people before they shout race hunt. Is it a coincidence ruthless blood thirsty dictators are mostly found in Africa? This is the question that needs to be addressed without pointing fingers! Why compare your crimes with others if you deserve to be listened to? We should be pointing out our innocence to demand reforms. That way, no one would accuse us of double standards. In any case, once president and his deputy are removed from ICC search light, the court would lose its very purpose! Killings are supposed to be stopped before or when they start. However, if dictators are granted immunity in course of their atrocities, they might as well kill all their respective citizens! They might elect to leave only their tribesmen to run the show and then, commit suicide before they face justice!!!!


Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published.