I wondered on Wednesday about Oprah's so-called "Pay it Forward" show, where she gave audience members $1000 debit cards, loaned them video cameras, and told them to go out and do good works in a much-ballyhoed replacement for her "favorite things" holiday show. So charitable, I thought.

And then the comments started coming.

Audience members were asked to come back for the wrap-up show at their own expense. And they did, expecting (it seems) that their difficult journeys of giving back would be featured. Everybody loves a little fame, or at least thanks, for their efforts. And, let's face it, if Oprah asked you to film something you'd done, and then come back to the show, wouldn't you come? Of course you would.

Except that, once back in the studio audience, only a very few of the audience members' stories were told. The audience was also informed they couldn't keep the video cameras -- the tax burden would be too much (despite, as some commenters mentioned, the fact that the expense to return to Chicago for the taping was many times greater than any tax burden). Those who wrote in weren't so upset that their exploits went unwatched (despite the fact that they'd worked very hard to execute and record the tale of their response to Oprah's challenge) -- they were more hurt that the producers asked them all back without mentioning which clips would be shown. As Connie Miller said, "When the producers called the audience to return they should have informed them that their particular stories were not going to be highlighted so they could choose to get a pat on the back from Oprah from home and not pay additional funds to come back."

The final injury? When the audience members were in the waiting room, the producers played reels of past "Favorite Things" shows, so the charitable and entirely gift-free viewers could see the delight as audience members of years past discovered free gift ... after free gift ... after free gift.

Sheesh. At least give them a pashmina shawl, Oprah!

Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. We've always relied on you as the doyenne of spendy gifts, the queen of conspicious consumption. It was you, every year, who announced your "favorites" with much fanfare and fabulous giveaways to your adoring audience (and who wouldn't adore you, with your sponsorship-fueled generosity?).

But this year, you've betrayed the capitalist in us all. You've really gone and done it this time. You've told us to give to charities, not buy things. Huh?

Oh, sure, I'm all for philathropy. But I don't expect this of Oprah. Consumers everywhere are relying on her for her wisdom in selecting the must-have gifts for the holiday. Small, artsy and luxe companies rely on her (or fear her, as the case may be) to send stacks and gigabytes of orders their way, with a "must-deliver" date of December 24th.

Not this year. This year, you're supposed to use your spare cash (and the $1000 debit card, if you were in her audience during the October taping of Oprah's "Pay it Forward" show) to do good works.

I'm all for charity, but I don't see it as a replacement for giving things. I may sometimes interpret the "things" in a different way than Oprah ever did, choosing to give hand-made gifts, books, photographs, scores from the thrift stores, and other slightly less conspicuous examples of consumption. But holiday shopping is inviolate ... I'll wait 'til December 30th or so and then get into the selflessly charitable spirit. Will you follow Oprah's lead, or stick with the pretty-and-tangible things this holiday season?