Just another dad who is outraged by the family court system.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Rebutting Dr. Phil
I posted before about Dr. Phil on the family court, and now Glenn Sacks has posted a more substantive rebuttal. The whole story is long and complicated, but Sacks makes a strong case that Dr. Phil was promoting bogus accusations.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Over 96% of parents who are child murderers are WOMEN. Yet "Dr." Phil only showed men on his show.
a very good rebuttal by Sacks but unfortunately it's long, nuanced, and reasoned -as it should be to a problem this convoluted- which means the general public unaware of the problems in family law will either miss it or if they find it, dismiss it as it's not sensationalistic and pandering. The audience that watches "Dr. Phil" wants blood, bread, and circus, much like Oprah. I believe women are the largest audience for those two shows, so bashing men is what's needed for a large viewership. What's especially galling about Dr Phil is that the CA state board of psychs gave him a pass (he doesn't have a counseling licence in the state) since his show is in their eyes "for entertainment purposes". Amazing.
there's got to be a better way to get the information out there. The blogs help in that you get a sense of where people are at, but then it has to be focused and broadcast. There's so much noise out there, hard to cut through it. For example, could one really try and get "Dr Phil" to put on an opposing viewpoint, or an Oprah? Who or what are the alternatives that still have a large "megaphone" that would carry such a viewpoint?
4 comments:
Over 96% of parents who are child murderers are WOMEN. Yet "Dr." Phil only showed men on his show.
a very good rebuttal by Sacks but unfortunately it's long, nuanced, and reasoned -as it should be to a problem this convoluted- which means the general public unaware of the problems in family law will either miss it or if they find it, dismiss it as it's not sensationalistic and pandering. The audience that watches "Dr. Phil" wants blood, bread, and circus, much like Oprah. I believe women are the largest audience for those two shows, so bashing men is what's needed for a large viewership. What's especially galling about Dr Phil is that the CA state board of psychs gave him a pass (he doesn't have a counseling licence in the state) since his show is in their eyes "for entertainment purposes". Amazing.
Yes, a lot of people seem to take Dr. Phil seriously, and a debunking on a blog won't make much difference.
there's got to be a better way to get the information out there. The blogs help in that you get a sense of where people are at, but then it has to be focused and broadcast. There's so much noise out there, hard to cut through it. For example, could one really try and get "Dr Phil" to put on an opposing viewpoint, or an Oprah? Who or what are the alternatives that still have a large "megaphone" that would carry such a viewpoint?
Post a Comment