The saga of the notorious Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth continues for another agonizing 15 minutes of infamy. America is hit with an epidemic of Omarosa Fever. Her nefarious indulgent need for public adulation in order to spread her influence, even if portrayed as the Evil Queen of Co-worker Antagonism, has infested the talk show circuit. The symptoms of those afflicted are nausea, migraines, auditory and visual discomfort, with moral and spiritual depletion upon exposure. The diagnosis is a collective acceptance of and indifference toward weakened social construct barriers against false accusations and excused character defects in general and specifically in the workplace. The suggested remedy of communal protection by collective abstinence has failed as aversion is impossible given that her hold on America is highly contagious. The antibiotic of reasonable disclosure does not take effect as her mutated strand of viral righteousness has become immune to common logic. The only recourse is irrefutable evidence of her self serving diabolical plan to ingrain herself in American consciousness by means of The Apprentice program. We must vaccinate ourselves in order to build up our intolerance levels to combat this disease.
Before we proceed, I must add a disclaimer for my own benefit that the title of this piece and the alluded medical crisis is a tongue in cheek effort to both poke fun at the possibility of Omarosa’s potential legal recourse regarding her allegations of the producers and the networks negligence toward her alleged injury and exposure to racial slurs, and also to provoke thought and discourse regarding said legal ramifications and allegations. In no way am I implying that there already exist nor should exist legal battles to resolve any possible differences. That said, in my fictionalized world Omarosa would be subject to a tribunal for fraudulent slander against a co-competitor. Her outrageous contention of the use of the n-word in a national forum in order to damage the image of another human being while advancing her own self centered media frenzy, if falsified is equivalent to deviant sociopatheic disorder reminiscent of the Twana Brawley hoax whereby a black teenager falsely accused six white law enforcement officers abducted and raped her in1987.
That said, Ms. Manigault-Stallworth would make a fascinating and captivating witness on the stand on her defense as she has some very valid points to make regarding the historic negative portrayal of African Americans in general on reality TV by producers and that the producers of The Apprentice may be liable for contributory negligence if they failed to provide required hardhats in a construction site. Considering the deniability and accusations flying from both camps, how can we come to a rationale conclusion? More so, has Omarosa in effect, destroyed her own credibility by playing the villain role on the show she saw as a “game” while the executive producer, Donald Trump saw as a 13 week interview process for the unique experience of managing one of his businesses? It seems the producers and Donald Trump have irrefutable evidence used in a recap special to contradict every one of her allegations with additional damaging footage to discredit her character. Is this a case of one side being entirely correct and vindicated by the evidence or is there more to the story that can not be quantified or proven by tangible evidence but must be factored in nonetheless?
The first consideration is whether the recap special last week, encompassing the first 10 installments of a 16 week series, served any other purpose other than to highlight the season as a filler week to prolong an NBC ratings hit until May sweeps. I contend that given Omarosa’s exposure on the media and talk show circuit dispensing her claims of racial slurs and negligent injury, the producers determined to show additional footage to refute her claims. We’ll start from the top and examine the racial slur allegation.
In the second installment, Omarosa had a number of confrontations with Ereka Ventrini which culminated into the climatic scene aboard Trump’s private jet to Boston to partake in a well earned reward for the then all female Protégé team. The confrontation goes as follows:
Ereka: “I am not talking to you; I am talking, if you don’t like it I don’t give a [bleep].”
Omarosa: “You are emotionally unstable.”
Ereka: “That is like calling the kettle black.”
Omarosa: “See there you go AGAIN with your racist terms. What is that you said about black people?”
Ereka: “Nothing!”
Omarosa: “Try to contain your racist prejudice.”
Ereka is silent, simply nodding her head, side to side as if in disbelief, not negating her.
This is an interesting exchange to examine under the microscope. Omarosa alleges that there is footage that has been edited out from this. Donald Trump and the producers adamantly state there wasn’t and that 28 cameras did not catch the alleged n-bomb expletive. We are never shown what started the argument, either during the initial airing or during this recap however, a very curious “there you go AGAIN” was uttered by Omarosa. What does she mean 'AGAIN'? Was something uttered earlier that we don’t see? Could it have been the alleged n-bomb? One more for you to think about. The full expression Ereka referred to is “Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?” Her rendition was incomplete and awkwardly phrased which may have been construed differently by the recipient, allowing her misunderstanding. Given the context of the argument, and the possibility of an earlier disparaging racial remark, the sentence could indeed be interpreted out of context by Omarosa. I will even go further to say the possibility exists that Omarosa may indeed have heard the n-bomb said earlier even if it was never uttered because Ereka’s awkward phrasing may her lead her to misunderstand another poorly expressed comment that sounded like the n-bomb.
In order to discredit Omarosa, Donald Trump and the alleged perpetrator Ereka Ventrini, along with others, have gone out to say that the comment was never uttered and if it would have, 28 cameras and dozens of film crew would have caught it. To further discredit Omarosa, the recap added footage of Omarosa’s deplorable reaction toward her Project Manager, Amy Henry who tried to mediate the problem back at the suite and come to a solution. That exchange went as follows:
Amy: “I think your approach rather than being constructive is confrontational. It is not productive to our team.”
Omarosa: “It is so funny…all of you all sit around and talk about each other, make catty comments and not me. [Laughs] I’m the only one who you all call out. I mean people are bad mouthing you like hell because of your lack of organization and management…did you realize that?
Omarosa was obviously defensive and attacked Amy rather than see this as sage and friendly advice. Omarosa is far too righteous to acknowledge constructive criticism because to do so she must first admit she is wrong. That thought process doesn’t register in her mind. Yet she has no problem blurting out her admonishment toward Jessie after her fiasco negotiating for the charity auction with Isaac Mizrahi. Omarosa goes on to say in an incriminating private confessional:
Omarosa: “Amy tried to put me down because she was truly threatened by me and I just had a little fun mind game with Amy in return. [Cackles] It’s all fair believe me in this game.”
The above admission serves to discredit her honesty. “Playing a mind game” in other words is telling a deliberate and calculating lie. She did so without any ounce of regret for the malevolent reason to simply upset Amy. It did not defend her position nor rebut Ereka’s stance, only diabolically dishearten her Project Manager instead of supporting her desire for a non-confrontational, productive united team. Omarosa had contended that the other women ostracized her by not including her in their exclusive sorority. I see her as isolating herself by her insecure offensive persona. Why then shouldn’t we believe that Omarosa lied about the alleged n-bomb and is “playing a mind game” with America?
Omarosa will continue her difficult to prove postulate that the producers edited or interjected their influence in order to make her appear villainous. In an interview with a media source, she informs us that a producer instructed her to burst into the board room in the now scandalous scene in order to achieve a “classic reality TV moment”. If this is true, I think it should be brought up as a question in the reunion show following the finale, should they have one. The question should be presented to the good natured honest Kwame Jackson or the firestorm straight shooter Heidi Bressier who were witnesses to the event.
Omarosa has also contended that the reason she is portrayed so negatively is because television has a history of portraying “powerful black women” as mean and lazy. Really is this true? I seem to recall every powerful black woman in sitcoms as the loving solid stable foundation of the household or workplace. Phylicia Rashad, a fellow (magna cum laude) alum graduate of the prestigious Howard University, played Mrs. Clair Huxtable, on “The Cosby Show”, a well regarded cultured attorney who is also the mother of five. She is portrayed as a loving wife and doting mother who dispels conservative family values while also an open mind to the diversified social climate of the time. Isabel Sanford as Louise Jefferson on “The Jeffersons” played the level headed wife of George of over 30 years. The character first appeared on the sitcom, “All in the Family”, perhaps one of the few strong women who could always out smart and challenge the intolerability of the antagonistic bigot Archie Bunker. “Good Times” the 1970’s classic TV show starred Emmy award winner Esther Rolle who played the part of Florida Evans, the matriarch of the Evans household. The character was portrayed as a powerful and charismatic black woman, the first on TV who had to raise a family as a single parent, after the character Florida Evans is widowed when her husband, James Evans, dies in a car accident while job hunting in Mississippi. Diahann Carroll played the quintessential powerful black super rich woman on the classic “Dynasty”, Dominique Deveraux Lloyd (1984-1987). The character was portrayed as a beautiful singing sensation that was considered one of the most powerful women in the entertainment industry. She owned hotels and record studios. Throughout all the difficulties the character faced, she always came out on top, dignified and a true champion.
If the counter argument is that those women are fictional, well then consider the true life sensation of Oprah Winfrey. As a 19 year old broadcasting in genuine, she was catapulted into local then national success as a talk show host. An Emmy winner and Academy Award nominee, her dominion flourished in every facet of media including, television production and distribution, film, magazine publishing, and books. She is now a beloved national treasure who happens to also be a self made mega mogul whose empire is estimated to be worth an astronomical billion dollars. Is she portrayed as mean and lazy? What about Star Jones, the attorney and broadcaster whose contribution to the quartet on the View is highly respected by producers and fans alike? She is also a former prosecutor and author. She is highly regarded in the industry. Ms. Jones debuted on television in1991 when she started moonlighting as a studio commentator for Court TV during the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. Ms. Jones was quickly lined up as a guest on the Today and Nightly News. Her success led to her own syndicated show, “Jones & Jury”. In 1995, Ms. Jones was named a senior correspondent and chief legal analyst for “Inside Edition”. Did her name and contributions slip your mind as she addressed the now infamous question during your interview? Have any of those characters on TV I spoke of been portrayed negatively? I think not and so I ask Omarosa to back up her contentions with some hard facts.
Omarosa has since modified her scope to say that “Historically, African-American women have been portrayed in a negative light in reality television programming. As was the case with my portrayal on The Apprentice. I see the editing as humorous; it makes for a very dramatic presentation of the facts.” Again, this is a contention that specifically targets producers of reality TV. Is there any basis to what she alleges here? I have watched a very revealing documentary which has forever altered my perception of reality TV called “The Reality of Reality TV”, I believe appeared on E! Entertainment channel or VH1. In any case, the show provided a behind the scenes look at what occurred off camera from a contestant’s point of view. I highly recommend this show for anyone of follows the genre. The story that particularly caught my attention was that of Taheed and Ytossie, the couple who was disqualified and abruptly removed from the third episode of Temptation Island, in the first season. The couple claims that they where honest and forthright with the producers, that the producers knew they had a child and confirmed it would be fine. However, by mid-season, for ratings sake, the producers suddenly acted as if they just discovered the couple had a child and disqualified them from the show. It was a public humiliation for the couple based on a fabrication for a ratings bonanza.
One media source supports the couples contention on “Reality of Reality TV” stating, “The producers contend that the couple ‘misrepresented information about their background’, specifically that they had a child together,” Fox Network said in a statement. “That’s forbidden for Temptation Island, the sex-splashed show that sends four unmarried couples in long-term relationships to an islands resort where, over six episodes, they go on dates with a series of hot young singles looking to score.” According to Fox, “the production company, Rocket Science Laboratories, failed to discover the pair has a child during background checks. Taheed and Ytossie where eliminated during the third episode when they disclosed they had a child, despite denying it before they signed on.” The Fox Network said that since the beginning, Temptation Island specifically barred couples with children from the show seeing that premise is tempting pairs who are at a turning point in relationships. But Network execs and producers initially kept quiet about the incident with reporters. If this scenario is true, then it gives credence toward Omarosa’s contention that the producers may have deliberately made her appear the egregious villain. However, one must factor in the source of the problem. The Fox Network has had a history of problems due to shady production values and unethical programming. None of the other networks have suffered the same level of problems and so it may be argued that it is an isolated incident that does not affect the production value of NBC. In other words, NBC produces a higher quality program and with Trump Organization’s name on the bill, it is held to the highest standard.
Omarosa’s conduct is unbecoming a credible witness who asks us to believe her without any basis to back it up. When contacted by The Post for additional comment, an egotistical Omarosa appeared to become increasingly agitated and nonsensical and continued to strike out at Ereka, who she clearly blames for much of her negative characterization on the show. 'I never mentioned on The View what contestant I was referring to, so if it wasn't, why was she offered to go on that show and talk about something where her name was never mentioned?' she told the paper. Yet she did mention Ereka by name later to a reporter for Inside Edition. 'I'm just going to move on,' Omarosa said. Turning more insulting, she added 'Ereka has no press, and I see this as a way she's trying to get back out in the press and exploit it. Ereka doesn't have a job or any job prospects on the horizon - she lives in her mother's basement, for crying out loud.' 'She's at home clipping articles about me. Her obsession with me is going to continue, and I don't want to feed into it.' On what facts is Omarosa basing that statement on? Yet another blatant untruth aimed to discredit another. Omarosa’s demeanor is unacceptacle. In her own words, she is unprofessional and lacks class and finesse.
Another factor revealed in the recap special that is suspect toward Omarosa’s deviance concerns the missing $200 funds during the Flea Market challenge. Omarosa had previously claimed in episode 5 that she was not in charge of the funds as Financial Manager during this challenge. She said she only helped after Kristi asked for assistance when it was time to group all the funds and receipts together because as Omarosa put it, “Kristi [Frank] is bad with money.” Yet Kristi’s never seen before footage of her confessional contends that Omarosa was in charge but quit half way through, returning all receipts and funds claiming she couldn’t do it and it wasn’t her responsibility. This raises a red flag issue in my opinion whether Omarosa lost the $200, feared the repercussions and dumped the problem on the submissive Project Manager, Kristi Frank, who was subsequently fired. I’m not saying she was let go for the responsibility of the lost money but rather that the guilt on her conscience caused her to spiritually surrender which may not have occurred if she didn’t carry that burden. If this is what happened (which we don’t know for sure) then this reprehensible act by Omarosa to wash her hands of the problem and avert blame away from herself at the expense of another person’s emotional well being is ethically intolerable.
The previous argument serves more as a provocation of discussion for it does not serve the primary purpose of the recap special, which is to set the record straight as to the facts so that there is no reasonable doubt that Omarosa was not seriously injured, either by slander or physical injury whereby she may seek damages in court. Omarosa claimed she sustained a concussion from a fallen piece of plaster and that her injury was severe enough to affect her contribution, participation, and relationships in the game which eventually lead to her dismissal. Donald Trump shows us footage of a doctor summoned to the suite and Omarosa’s visit to the Emergency Room, narrating the events as they unfolded. The discourse went as follows:
Donald Trump [narrating]: “But as the teams were getting ready to hit the road, Omarosa was ACCIDENTALLY hit on the head.”
There is a shot of her crouched down with Troy McClain attending to her. She looked much more hurt from this new angle then from what was previously shown in episode 7.
Bill Rancic states in a confessional: “Omarosa had a little piece of plaster fall hitting her on the head. It didn’t appear to be that threatening of an injury that occurred.”
Donald Trump [narrating]: “But Omarosa returned to the suite and called for a doctor.”
Doctor [noticing no blood]: “You have a bump there. Doesn’t appear to be any damage. Do you have to do anything strenuous today?”
Omarosa: “Yes, I do. I have to renovate an apartment.” Both women laugh.
Doctor replied: “There you go, take some Advil.”
Omarosa responds: “I did already.”
Donald Trump [narrating]: “Omarosa still wasn’t satisfied. She went to the hospital and doctors didn’t find anything wrong. I’d show you but our cameras weren’t allowed inside.”
The narrated language is of vital importance because it seems to be carefully scripted by a legal team to deflect culpability therefore liability from the producers, specifically Trump Organization. Omarosa does have one very compelling argument and that is that hard hats should have been used in a construction site but weren’t administered. Recall that Donald Trump explained the renovation project they would be assigned in Brooklyn from the newly reconstructed luxury building where Donald Trump used the program to once again get free publicity for one of his numerous projects. There was really no good reason for them to be there, in a construction site except that Donald Trump wanted to boast about his luxury project with a penthouse suite that would sell for $35 million dollars. He then placed these people at risk without hardhats for no apparent reason other than his vanity combined with his frugalness to publicize on his show. Interestingly enough if you search on the official www.nbc.com web site under the apprentice web site, you will notice that the recap doesn’t mention Omarosa was hit at the time they were at the construction site. Only later does it alludes to the fact that Omarosa was earlier hit on the head by a small piece of plaster she complained about but never mentions the location where it occurred! This raises a suspicious red flag of a cover up in my legal eyes that makes me think Omarosa may be entitled to a hefty settlement if she finds a legal team willing to go up against the Donald. Now is the time to act given he is caught in the glare of the public spotlight on him, he may be willing to negotiate a quiet settlement out of court and the public eye. On the other hand, If she was diagnosed with a concussion at the emergency room, as she clearly wasn't by the house call doctor, then she should have confirmation of the diagnosis. Someone of Donald Trump's importance and awareness of liability would have insisted on viewing that diagnosis before the board room. Yet in the board room he refutes Omarosa's contention of any significant injury which he would not have done if her contention was supported by the emergency room visit.
Omarosa claims that the editing made her look like a lazy hypocrite but in fact she was a contributory asset to her team. The fact remains however, that much of what she states never happened or she didn’t say is contradictory to what we clearly see on the show. She is in essence telling us not to believe our own eyes and ears. I have covered several of her contradictions in my previous articles for Elites TV entitled “The Affliction: Farewell Ms. Congeniality Omagona Manipulate-Forallitsworth” and “NASDAQ NASCAR Chariots of Fire.” Please refer to those articles for greater detail. In summary, supposedly against doctor’s orders not to strain herself, instead of helping renovate the apartment she played basketball with local children then lied about it on media interviews, stating it occurred four days later. On the next challenge she took time out for a make over during the Trump Ice water distribution wasting valuable time and only selling two cases while her team mates made up the slack by selling two pallets, at 72 cases per pallet. In her final challenge before being fired she claims to have been the only one on Protégé to have been against the selection of the artist, Meghan because of the controversial subject matter. But in reality, she blatantly lied when in fact, she took it upon herself and pitched the effort to seek that artist as a wise business choice because of the higher market value and the presumed fact that she came with a following. She based the reliability on Omarosa’s self proclaimed expertise as an artistic consultant.
Omarosa claims she did not see The Apprentice program as a job interview but rather as a game. This is a very revealing consideration because it tells us that she came in with the idea to assume a 'starring' role and she selected the villain because of the attention it attracts. From the start, she had the ulterior motive to market herself as a product in the event that she did not receive the apprenticeship offer. Her justification to America is to see her antics on the program as nothing more than a character she played based on how she and the producers wanted the viewers to see. The problem is, her behavior has not changed at all once she began her media frenzy of talk show interviews and entertainment junkets. She is still the self serving narcissistic delusional mad woman living in denial of her shortcomings. Worse, she has crossed the boundaries into deviant sociopatheic behavior by exploiting situations merely for the presumed notion that the publicity will help launch her next business venture. She is manipulating the media for her additional 15 minutes of fame for herself and it will only cause further frustration for us, the hapless entranced viewers who cannot escape the glitz and human drama that comes with public spectacle.
Can you really see yourself working alongside Omarosa in the workplace? Or work alongside some of the other controversial candidates for that matter? I have heard many viewers and readers express their opinion that their favorite candidates have been unfairly targeted and removed from contention. Some say the show would be boring now without the dramatic antics of some notables Sam Solovey, Heidi Bressler or Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth. Often outside criteria have been cited as the reason they were dismissed such as race, gender, or envy. First of all, the candidates do not determine who stays or goes, Donald Trump does. So the fundamental question based on each advancing level as to who gets fired should be “Who does Donald Trump least want to work for him?” For us, the nonpartisan viewers, when selecting who we think should advance toward final apprenticeship winner should ask ourselves, who would we want to work along aside with at the office? Likewise, the person to go each week should be the one who reminds us of the person at the office who makes our professional lives a living hell, and vote that person out. My conjecture as to why Omarosa is so universally disliked in America is because she reminds most people of someone in their professional lives they either work with or for that makes their employment hell on earth.
Am I right America, or should I be fired? Please let me know. As always, I extend the invitation to you, the readers to express your opinion, remarks or comments regarding this article in the designated following link. If you have any opinions, comments or remarks regarding the program itself, especially this installment, I invite you to post the in the Elites TV Reality Competition Message Board found by entering the Forum link and following the simple instructions to the Apprentice board where you may interact with others who may provide supportive or alternative viewpoints. As I stated in previous articles I am a rookie commentator, not a professional journalist as I am not reporting news or fact, who only wishes to offer my perception hopefully in an entertaining manner to generate discussion or thought on the subject. The previous reader participation has been insightful, observant and above all appreciated, to the point that I incorporate some in future commentary.
Email webmaster
Write An Article!
![ETV Store](<IMG SRC="images/store.gif" WIDTH="129" HEIGHT="17" BORDER="0" ALT="ETV Store">){kind=link}