Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Dr. Phil Was Once My Guilty Pleasure, But He's Lost Me and His Moral Ground

By Elaine Corden, The Tyee. Posted May 15, 2007.


Dr. Phil's old-school, blame-the-individual approach to behavioral ails absolves viewers from looking at the ugly fissures in American society as a whole.
Advertisement

If there is any guilty pleasure more delightfully mundane than the double-dip of playing hooky from work and taking in an afternoon episode of Dr. Phil, I have yet to discover it. Truly, the man is all things too all people -- broad shouldered and overtly manly, charmingly southern yet somehow affably patrician, shockingly blunt yet delightfully helpful. Yes, the "tell-it-like-it-is," "get real" Doc is my favourite talking head, dropped in our living rooms by the golden talons of Oprah herself, his ring of receding hair a crown signifying both wisdom and omnipotence.

Though he first appeared on Oprah in 1998 (following his involvement in her legal battle with Texas cattlemen), the Good Doctor has, in fact, only had his own syndicated eponymous program since 2002. Think about that: ubiquity in less than five years. My kingdom for a talk show. Guiltily yet frequently, I've watched him since then, baffled by my interest but not alone. Along with middle America, I tune in to Dr. Phil with many others who should know better: friends who hate TV, educated, media-savvy colleagues -- hell even my own mother, who despite a psych degree, admits to watching with her hands over her eyes. But this week, I'm tuning out for good.

Like others, I blanched at his show originally. Dr. Phil McGraw's social-Darwinist, ostensibly behaviorist psychology, was premised on the fact (few of us remember this, now) that too many families get divorced. There seemed to be something stiflingly right wing about him and his show, preaching predominately old-fashioned family values to white, upper-middle-class housewives. And the show has, as R. Danielle Egan and

Stephen D. Papson, professors of sociology at New York's St. Lawrence University have noted in their study "You Either Get It Or You Don't," all the hallmarks of televangelism: confession, rebuking of evil and, at last, redemption and salvation via Philip Calvin McGraw. Whether the ails are physical (obesity, alcohol addiction) or emotional (cheating, spousal abuse), there is always the pop-psychological hand on the forehead of guests, with Phil healing them of their troubles before walking off into the glowing graces of domestic bliss with his wife Robin. To that end, it's no wonder Phil came along when he did -- in the irony-averse times following 9/11, Phil and his wisdom were a panacea to a troubled nation too disabused of religion to turn to the gods, yet searching enough to need a sermon on the Mount.

Big hunk of compassionate man-meat

But Dr. Phil won the audience over -- that big hunk of compassionate man-meat -- partly because he didn't appear to have patience for the trifling indulgences of the women he preached to. He seemed, if marketing ploys were to be believed, to be both high-brow and low trash, a welcome, caring voice with little time for spectacle or nonsense. Dr. Phil was the afternoon appointment with voyeurism you could feel good about. Even with the undertones of Republican family values and moral rigidity, Dr. Phil was and is the pop-cultural equivalent of Diet Coke: if you consumed enough and avoided his junkier counterparts, you could actually convince yourself it was good for you.

Lately, though, Phil has taken a turn. Last year, Phil dropped from the number two spot in syndicated afternoon show ratings, second only to Oprah to a regular placing of fifth or sixth. The show doesn't seem to be drawing the crowds it used to, and the desperation of a waning cult is evident. Since her passing earlier this year, Dr. Phil has had not one but three shows dedicated to the life trials of Anna Nicole Smith, including one that firmly encroached on the baby-daddy detecting turf of one Mr. Maury Povich.

Last fall, Dr. Phil created "The Dr. Phil House" in Wilshire Hills, L.A., and vowed to lock truly spectacular guests -- racists and counter-racists, fatists and fatties, homophobes and angry lesbians -- up together in a temple of confrontational mental health. Later, when the house had been relocated to a sound studio due to neighbours' complaints, Phil took meth-addicted prostitute twins, aged them with the help of computer software, confronted them with the image, and then remarked in his trademark twang: "that's a scary-ass crack ho right there!" (that Don Imus' head was placed on a pike for using the word "ho" just months later speaks to Phil's gospel of meritocracy-- hos deserve to be called hos, after all, and only deserve to be treated with respect once they've converted to the right-living ways Dr. Phil proselytizes). Yes, watch Dr. Phil these days and you will see a new show -- less spend-aholic suburban moms, more cross-dressing husbands and drunken sluts in need of a righteous debasement courtesy America's de facto moral authority. You half expect to tune in and see a witch-burning.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: dr. phil

Elaine Corden writes a monthly pop culture column and a regular music pix column on The Tyee. She regularly discusses Phil and other media villainousness on her blog, trifective.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Dr. Phil is a quack
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 15, 2007 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Phil is a symptom of our times. Who made him the authority on the complexities of the human pchyce? That anyone takes this guy seriously is amazing to me.
Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dr. Phil is a quack Posted by: Tom Degan
Dr. Phil: What´s in a name?
Posted by: ZPaul on May 15, 2007 1:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow, the combination of "Dr."(Official title, keep your distance) with "First-name"(homey familiarity, take your shoes off & get comfortable) has always struck me as a very contrived presentation for this TV character. Not that it hasn´t been used by others, of course. But he´s one of the most famous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sharpton a Bigot?
Posted by: bplunde on May 15, 2007 2:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sharpton made an offhand remark about how Mormons aren't true Christians, proving he's just as bigoted and hypocritical as the people he rails against.

Sharpton saying Mormons aren't true Xtians isn't too far off the mark.
Xtians begin with the Old Testament and end with the New. Adding a whole other book that is only adhered to by one church classifies it more as a cult than as another branch of the same religion.
Were the Branch Davidians xtians, a cult, or a xtian cult?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nappy-headed MEDIA ho! Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Sharpton a Bigot? Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» RE: Sharpton a Bigot? Posted by: elfrijole
If you were African-American, would YOU think Mormons were true christians?
Posted by: Erik1968 on May 15, 2007 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was only 1978 that blacks were allowed to join the church, after all.

Beisdes, Sharpton actually said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." He was in a debate with an atheist. Nothing there about "true christians." I don't think anyone would doubt that Mormons "believe in God."

I have a bit of trouble accepting the judgement of the author given that a Romney sound bite threw him all akilter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 15, 2007 3:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Interesting comparison with a TV preacher. Sin does seem to be an underlying theme in his approach.

2. I don't particlularly like him, but his cut-through-the-crap approach to all of these lying, cheating, dysfunctional losers was almost refreshing for a few minutes. Of course, now that his Jesus complex is out of control, it's no fun anymore.

4. Funny...I don't remember Phil or Oprah having a show that deals with people who are addicted to daytime talk shows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Teapots. And, of course... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Dr. Laura is banished to right wing hell, Dr. Phil's in danger of losing his 15 minute license
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on May 15, 2007 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice to see Dr. Phil called down and out.

He started out being a fairly decent representative of a certain kind of effective psychotherapeutic counseling turned into TV soundbitery, but has become Jerry Springer with a pretense of psychobabble. And the fact that he's oversold, like J-Lo was for awhile, is just nauseating.

Enough already with Dr. Phil, and good points in the article about some of the cultural/political underlying attitudes. After all, Phil is from Texas, where big gets too big fast.

I can't see the APA and other professional associations being too happy about the delusional things he's doing now. Are the review boards looking into this, have the lawsuits started? Downhill isn't going to be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr.Phil in a long line of "psychologists" and strange theories,
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on May 15, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
beginning with the whole 'tell me about your mother' phenomena of the cocaine addict Freud whose incestous theories and subconcious motivational theories have infected western culture for decades. Excepting the serious medical psychiatrists and people with REAL mental problems (primarily caused by bio-chemical imbalances, retardation, poisoning, drugs, alcohol, etc) the pop-psychology of gesalt, freud, jung, etc is just plain crap. No one is 'normal' but 'normal' is a range of behaviours and at some point one needs to stop believing/blaming parents, archetypes, or spirits for their behaviour. Freud set up society for believing even more strongly in 'subconcious' forces which, for all practical purposes, is tantamount to believing in God's will, fate, or Roman Gods intervening in human affairs. Sure behaviour can be taught and, especially, under harsh conditions (torture, abuse, harsh treatment as a child) can result in bad mental health but people are amazingly resiliant and theories that propose delving into the past ad infinitum and blaming others for your problems are snakeoil. If it is an organic problem then drugs, diet, health is the way to change. If its a 'bad history' then behaviour modification, strong will, new choices, new environment, and education is the answer. Whether its Joyce Brothers, Dr.Phil, or any of the other hucksters. They are all ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hold on now . . . Posted by: jacquesclouseau
» RE: Hold on now . . . Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Hold on now . . . Posted by: hellofriends
» Nah... Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Hold on now . . . Posted by: wisegalah
» RE: Hold on now . . . Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Society's 'car crash victims' do need a talking to
Posted by: Bobsays on May 15, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like these shows because they show you people as they are, not as marketing people would like them to be. And they also show you how badly damaged people are these days from the twin evils of shallow capitalism and lazy liberal tolerance. People have so lost their moral centre ground, and disappeared into a self-absorbed world of short-term pleasure seeking because you 'are worth it'.

In the UK, you can watch similar programmes where you see the ravages of alcohol abuse (which is most Brits) over a period of five to ten years. Man, they look so rough after the age of 30 in that country. Add to it the crappy food they eat and the lack of exercise, and you probably have the ugliest people in Europe on your hands. But it wasn't always like that: go back 25 years and people looked better. It is a lesson for all of us that what we call progress is actually the opposite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one in MSM "gets" mental illness
Posted by: lb on May 15, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one time I watched Phil (I refuse to call him Doctor), it made me ill. His approach, typical of many "self help" or "quick help" experts, invalidates the suffering of the mentally ill. Does anyone really believe that these people wouldn't have already fixed themselves if it were this easy? Only 5 minutes with Phil and you will be delivered from years of suffering? Please. It also promotes a completely unrealistic picture of psychiatric illness and its treatment. This prevents people from getting quality care early in the course of their illness, or leads them to feel more like failures because they can't be cured by Phil's advice. The professional organizations should sanction him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DR. PHIL SAYS ALOT ABOUT US
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 15, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that he has an audience at all speaks volumes about this country. It doesn't say anything good. People seeking out strangers on television to direct their lives is frightening to me. And they should all stop hollering at people. These self appointed moral advisors are part of our problem. They bring out the worst in people and my guess is they piss off everyone. Violence is a major problem in this country. Dr. Phil is a disgrace. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Phil is a fascist
Posted by: tedrowe on May 15, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Phil is a fascist. He puts ideology before humanity. He believes that the key to solving mental and emotional problems is to change the way a person thinks, so no empathy is required. He continually shuts down his guests' emotions, quickly pulling them back from the frightening world of self-discovery into his autocratic domain where all solutions are already known. He, like so many cognitive psychologists, mistakes the symptoms of mental disturbance for its cause. It seems so obvious. If you are behaving irrationally, then thinking rationally must be a cure. But closer examination reveals this argument to be a fallacy. It is the same superficial reasoning that leads some to believe that the solution to crime is to build more prisons, or the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to preach abstinence.

According to findings in neuroscience by people such as Antonio Damasio and Joseph LeDoux, the "cognitive brain" is not a pure, data-processing computer. It is powerfully influenced by our "emotional brain." This latter brain, including the midbrain, the hippocampus, and the amygdala, is not rational, but is emotionally conditioned by our life experiences, especially trauma. As a result, this emotional brain has the ability to create "as-if" mental states which literally change the way we think without our being aware of it. We respond to "reality" without knowing that we are emotionally reliving some past traumatic experience. It is relatively easy to tell when the emotional brain is influencing someone thinking because their behavior is characterized by a certain one-size-fits-all rigidity and ineffectiveness---just like Dr. Phil's methods. A more effective approach to mental and emotional issues, although the most difficult, is to try to understand just exactly what emotions are at work in the mind at any moment and why. It is a much messier approach, and can be very, very frightening because it can mean confronting nightmarish fears. I believe facing such fears is the single most courageous act anyone can do because it requires the mind to stand firm when every fiber of our being is screaming, "run for your life!" No wonder people want simple solutions.

Dr. Phil is just one of the latest in a long line of snake oil salesmen. You can be cured if you only swallow what he's pitching. And there's just enough self-righteous alcohol in the solution to give you a buzz of satisfaction. Dr. Phil is an intelligent charlatan selling magic cures, and, the self-help authors and P. T. Barnum agree, you can always find a sucker willing to buy magic cures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waste of space
Posted by: Ellen Remore on May 15, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I'm somewhat shocked that AlterNet would lower its journalistic standards by dealing with a trivial fool like Dr. Phil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Phil lost me for good
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 15, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when he had a crazy family with a pregnant 15 year old. His bias in favor of this child keeping this child was obvious. He said ONCE that she should make up her own mind, but it was obvious by his other remarks that he was not impartial. So they kept the baby-a child raising a child-and the girl's parents went into destruction mode. Last I heard they were divorcing. So much for Dr. Phil and his good ideas-he dropped them after that. Right up Christian butt, huh Phil?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insightful Article
Posted by: Gravitas on May 15, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always thought Phil was a quack. I think he appeals to 3 basic types:
1) Effete self righteous hypocrites- The kind of people who are icky sweet to your face and never say c*ap if they had their mouth full of it. But they are constantly thinking the worst of others. So they enjoy seeing others get told off, as long as it is never their own faults that have to be dealt with
2) Guilty sheeple- People who have some type of hidden guilt in their life (or really over permissive parents.) Either way, they unconsciously feel the need for a spanking, mental or otherwise. So they endure his abuse. I guess the same need some men have for a dominatrix, except the later is a better investment.
3) The easily duped - Phil is a conman. Even notices that when anyone starts to challenge him, he gets verbally abusive. The harder he is challenged, the harder he yells. He tries to manipulate people with their own flaws. Oprah is so guilty over her weight (a normal sized woman) she couldn't see thru him when she unleased this two bit trickster on the world. He is also a liar. I read an article where he invited guest from NAAFA (The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance) to debate weight prejudice. But he refused to let them make their point on his show, instead berating them the whole time for their size. So he lied to get them on the show. He also wanted to show how people would make comments about their size in everyday situations. When the comments failed to occur, he staged a scene with actors. I believe he has also been under investigation in Texas. But, when a population allows a Bush presidency twice, what do you expect????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, I did mean "porky". Posted by: Beck
» RE: Insightful Article Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Insightful Article Posted by: fork
» RE: Insightful Article Posted by: MAD
» RE: Insightful Article Posted by: fork
Dr. Phil?? WTF!!!???
Posted by: MAD on May 15, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Alternet even dedicated a paragraph to this parasitic quack is beyond any and all comprehension. Discussions regarding racial, religious and socio-economic fissures in American society? - ok. Considering Dr. Phil in the discussion and as any part of the progressive movement? - NO!

Why is his stupid mug even gracing this site?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dr. Phil?? WTF!!!??? Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: Dr. Phil?? WTF!!!??? Posted by: babs
Separated at Birth
Posted by: COinms on May 15, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Dr. Phil and Jeff Foxworthy are either the same person or were separated at birth. You never see them together, but they sound exactly the same if you close your eyes... except Dr. Phil is funnier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» funny Posted by: Beck
Whoa... would you want to be on TV?
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on May 15, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the horrific Virginia Tech Massacre, Larry King piped in Dr. Phil via satellite while interviewing the father and brother of slain student Reema Samaha, as if pithy tell-it-like-it-is advice from a celebrity shrink was what a grieving family needed at that moment.

Well, come on. If they wanted to be on TV in that situation, they probably have a screw loose, don't you think? They deserved Dr. Phil!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Phil's Just Another Schoolyard Bully...
Posted by: gs15 on May 15, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...at least, that's basically what I've always believed him to be (I didn't even need some guilty pleasure to realize THAT), and there are way too many of those in charge and well-promoted these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strange racial affiliation
Posted by: rad6 on May 15, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scarier than Phil is the writer's strange racial affiliation with the good dr. The turn in the article (and the writer's viewing experience) is the recognition that Phil does not represent this person racially and economically. Sharpton no more represents blacks than Phil represents white, middle-class middle america. (Middle seems to be a theme here.) So was part of the guilty pleasure thinking that Phil represented and spoke for a certain strand of white people? Of course, once you subject guilty pleasures to critical analysis you substitute one pleasure for another -- the pleasure of watching TV for the pleasure of writing an article. Unfortunately, you cannot turn on the article weekday afternoons. So for those still watching the Phil TV show, whatever your pleasure, enjoy!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

h2oman
Posted by: h2oman on May 15, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You omitted the good doctor's put down as "silly" the peace activist he had on his show during the runup to the war. "Aren't you just wasting your time? Don't you have better things to do?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: h2oman Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: h2oman Posted by: jackyD
Who cares?
Posted by: nopuppy on May 15, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Turn off the damn teevee and get a life. These idiots will all disappear if people would just stop paying attention to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Changed Channels Awhile Ago
Posted by: Greko3eb on May 15, 2007 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is always a mix. I watched Dr. Phil at the beginning. My teenage daughters and I watched the episodes dealing with teenage pregnancy. These episodes showed the major and minor difficulties associated with a teenager having a baby much better than I could put into words. My daughters could see and hear this girl expressing her dilemmas. I am grateful for that opportunity. But I left Dr. Phil when he was interviewed on the Larry King Live show regarding the Abu Ghraib tortures. I can't remember it all. ( I already said I have two teenage daughters, plus a teenage son, plus cholesterol, plus ...I can't remember.) What I remember was when Dr. Phil said something like this: I don't know if the US should be in Iraq or not. I am not an authority ...hmmmmmmm. I thought the US was a democracy. The citizens are to have a say on what the government does and does not do. Citizens vote for officials, but they do not hand over the country to the "authorities". Aren't the citizens the authorities? I guess I need a refresher course Politics 101. But there was also something less dramatic that kept nagging me. I have read some books on psychology, but I am no "authority". The authors of these books would mention other psychologists. They would state their sources or foundations upon which they built their particular point of view. There was a respect for their predecessors. I don't ever recall Dr. Phil acknowledging or citing anyone in his field, mentioning the "authorities" in psychology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Always hated this quack
Posted by: mejsmith on May 15, 2007 8:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see how any intelligent person could take this guy seriously. To me, he seemed to lay blame clearly on the individual and acted like an arrogant and self righteous ass (and this was a couple of years ago). As far as I am concerned, it is shows like this that represent the inability to properly square blame between the various causes. After all, most problems are a combination of blames from society and the individual. Simply blaming one or the other is simplistic, IMO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was inevitable the Naked Emporer would gSpringerise
Posted by: Gwynneth on May 15, 2007 9:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the suits who arrange the tapes that go in between the all important Advertising, demand Conflict...and more conflict and something even worse, after the break... Ratings panic brings on all kinds of bad behaviours and human sacrifice.

*And I do not understand how he has avoided censure from his professional associations; but then again I didn't ever hear of any such associations criticising MJackson's surgeon.

*Please keep critiquing this ego maniac when and where ever you can... He is dangerous. I was disappointed to note, last week, when the mood doctor was interviewed on Letterman...and he (David Letterman) appears to have backed off making 'the doctor into a joke'..so to speak.
They're from the same network...was he ordered to ?

*Dr.Phil..you should have stuck to your fifteen minutes...the human of being is not your m'etier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Susan D.
Posted by: shd1230 on May 16, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like you, Phil was my "guilty pleasure" early on, and like you I am distressed by the "Springerizing" of his show. A similar metamorphosis took place with the Oprah Winfrey show--at first she was rather Springerish, then she started addressing some serious issues with her "talk" show--then the whole thing became an "Oprah worship" orgy, and I for one cannot stand her any more at all. I'm betting that Dr. Phil is getting comments like these from a lot of his erstwhile viewers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Phil's advice is perfect ...
Posted by: Don Garb on May 16, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you happen to be a balding, white, macho, conservative, southern baptist guy with a moustache. In other words, a clone of Dr. Phil! For everyone else his advice could be anywhere from on target to completely off. I remember him once grilling some poor housewife addicted to perkosets: "Well don't you think you're messin up with life by takin these things?" he demanded of her. "Don't you think you oughtta just stop takin em?" Earth to Phil: if people could just stop their addictions then they would have done so long ago, and avoided all the ensuing problems. Once he had on some inarticulate people who confessed that they were swingers. He made them seem evil and they couldn't find the words to defend themselves. Then he walked away grinning and wearing that whitey wife of his, it was gross. Like they never had a pubic hair in their mouths. The kind of society that would tune into a dick like that really does need help, and not from him!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Baldy-headed media ho?
Posted by: wisewebwoman on May 16, 2007 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pulled the plug on the TV about 15 years ago and do not regret it. I buy DVD's of superb series and watch at my one leisure. And can rewatch - like some commenters here, the wondrous world of Basil Fawlty.
But the worlds of Oprah and Phil are like alien planets to me, I've caught them on occasion at friends' houses and marvel at the presumably captivated viewers who buy the advertised products which fund them.
And no I don't feel superior for not watching TV, but I do feel blessed that my life opened up and I'm living it and not caught helplessly day after day in the toxic flickering blue light.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IM Belteshazzar
Posted by: lc on May 16, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He lost me when he went off on marijuana like it was some big deal and you are really screwed up if you use pot. Then he likes to talk about relaxing with a glass of wine and his wife after the show. His new riches showed his new first class wine cellar in his new rich man home. He is no longer middle class but then he never was one of US. Spell Dr. Phill WASP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"His license should be revoked"
Posted by: jackyD on May 17, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is what my sister, a psychologist, told my mother. Mom watches phil on occassion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quack journalism
Posted by: Marcy on May 20, 2007 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Phil may be a quack shrink, but this article sounds like quack journalism. I expect incisive political analysis from AlterNet, but this story is just a sophomoric smart-ass showing off. Where are the concrete examples of Dr. Phil's specific sins? As an ex-viewer myself, I regularly fired off emails telling him exactly where he went wrong in his counseling--so I know it can be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Complaints about Dr. Phil and all things pop culture
Posted by: Mahogany1 on May 21, 2007 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really get tired of people constantly complaining about Alternet's focus on anything that hints at pop culture. Focusing on politics (e.g. war, gender, race) is important but pop culture is just as important too. Many of the journalists here are not giving rundowns on the latest happenings with Paris or Britney but people act as if they do. What they are doing is commenting on something that is just as useful as politics itself. Pop culture can serve as a bellwether too for politics.

That Dr. Phil's style of programming exists and how different/similar it is than former talk show hosts lets you know what people are consuming and how attitudes have or haven't shifted. The author sort of hit on it. For example, popular thought swung from curing the inner child by blaming your surroundings to the opposite end of the spectrum. That is, if you have a problem or you have some mental illness, it's your fault. This attitude is evident in the way we view the poor (If you're poor, it's your fault. You're not smart enough or quick enough to seize financial opportunities.), women (If you're single, it's your fault. Maybe if you were pretty enough or witty enough, you'd be married to prince charming by now. Here's a self help book. Try to discover what's wrong with you), and even other countries (We're the best. End of story.).

The fact that talk show hosts have become more self righteous and that the public accepts it tells you plenty. If they can accept this behavior in their talk show hosts then we shouldn’t be too surprised if people seem complacent about seeing this attitude in politicians too. I know this rationale seems simplistic (which came first, really) but the point is that we can’t look at things from one angle only. It all counts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Upper Middle class versions of the Springer show
Posted by: kewpie on May 25, 2007 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't stand watching Dr Phil or Oprah. They prove what happens when fame goes to your head. Oprah is so full of herself that her judgement is waning on things she promotes, such as, "The Secret" a very misleading dvd and book that promises all your wishes to come true if only you believe. Sounds like something from "Peter Pan".

Dr Phil is like Oprah in that he exploits other peoples' misery for profit and ratings. Oprah offers objects for distractions from our daily woes. If we shop we will feel better! George W Bush would be so proud of them supporting our Capitalist society!Both Oprah and Phil are cut from the same cloth. Buyer beware!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]