Oprah & Dr. Phil - their effect on culture

[Loki]

I heard the term "emotional pornography" thrown around a few times toward these media figures, as if what they do is some kind of exploitation, an immoral kind of public service.

In my view, Oprah isn't as bad because she seems to focus on helping celebrities find closure and resolution in a troubled public life. Today there was a different strokes child star who was publicly dragged through the mud most of his adult life for drug addiction and crime. Such celebrities become demonized, dehumanized, caricatured and mocked, having little chance to leave their past behind, in fact, their celebrity makes it almost impossible to leave it behind, so a spot on Oprah might help to have a more human relationship with the public, rather than one of caricatures and malice. It might be better for all parties. So I can understand how an interview on Oprah could help cause the public to be a little more sympathetic and understanding to a celebrity, someone who is a human being just like you and me. Also, the psychological problems celebrities have are similar to ordinary people, so with a celeb on Oprah sharing his or her insights and tribulations relating to their pain and life struggle, perhaps it has a therapeutic value to the audience making the culture as a whole more compassionate?

But what about ordinary people sharing their pain and stories? It might cause unforeseen problems for the guest sharing her private information on TV, but overall, isn't there something positive happening as well? Isn't it therapeutic for the audience?

I suppose it depends on how deep the analysis goes. If the insights shared are entirely superficial, which I think most of them are, then everyone gets the cathartic feeling of release while having their superficiality fortified.

Also, perhaps your typical at-home audience is mostly (and merely) entertained by the problems of the guest, using the problems of others to distract from their own. Or perhaps the problems of the guests makes the viewers at home feel better about their own sense of failure or low self worth. So it becomes a case of focusing on the misery of others to feel better about your own complacency and failures.

[Kelly Jones]

I think Oprah's celebrity coverage is really an extension of the "Woman's Day" or other magazines. Celebrities choose to go public with their personal lives. It isn't as if they are forced to disclose private information in interviews. I find it ignoble, as well as harmful. They're encouraging people to be interested in mere gossip and babble. And, on the side of the consumers, who tune-in, the motivation is the leech-like vicariousness of achieving second-hand celebrity status. It satisfies the mediocre spectator to see human failures and foibles in the "success figure", which, condemning and criticising, can satisfy their wounded pride in not achieving the same status. I don't think there is anything helpful in these television magazines. It never conveys anything profound or challenging.

I agree strongly with Bukowski and Bob Dylan's wry remarks. Interviews mean nothing. They're attempts to excuse oneself from the task of being an individual. Spectators come out spouting second-hand opinions, or have lowered their own standards.


.

[cousinbasil]

I think Oprah's celebrity coverage is really an extension of the "Woman's Day" or other magazines. Celebrities choose to go public with their personal lives. It isn't as if they are forced to disclose private information in interviews. I find it ignoble, as well as harmful. They're encouraging people to be interested in mere gossip and babble. And, on the side of the consumers, who tune-in, the motivation is the leech-like vicariousness of achieving second-hand celebrity status. It satisfies the mediocre spectator to see human failures and foibles in the "success figure", which, condemning and criticising, can satisfy their wounded pride in not achieving the same status. I don't think there is anything helpful in these television magazines. It never conveys anything profound or challenging.

I agree strongly with Bukowski and Bob Dylan's wry remarks. Interviews mean nothing. They're attempts to excuse oneself from the task of being an individual. Spectators come out spouting second-hand opinions, or have lowered their own standards.


.

Refreshing to hear it stated so plainly. IMO, "Doctor" Phil is a big, fat fraud. Oprah is just big and fat. They keep lancing America's pustules, leaving blood and pus everywhere and exacerbating the condition in the process. Anything for a dollar. People believe in TV like they used to believe in religion. Notice that their "follow-up" episodes only cover a tiny fraction of the lives they have trampled over, and cast themselves in a glowing light with a few bad results sprinkled in to give that air of authenticity. Their guests line up like cattle at the slaughterhouse.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Oprah and Dr. Phil also conform to the standards set by the large TV networks. Large TV networks pressure hosts to continue to increase ratings indefinitely, which means each host finds themselves scrambling to find that next gripping story. Gripping stories maybe emotionally stimulating, but nothing is resolved in the end. Wisdom is not attained for most of the guests, and so without wisdom, then their plight merely becomes exploitation.

However, Dr. Phil and Oprah do accomplish some good, but it is not absolute good. They do very minor good Samaritan stuff such as Oprah's new campaign to raise awareness about not driving while talking on the cell phone, or Dr. Phil's campaign to put drug addicts into long detox programs in some of the best centers in the US.

not totally meaningless, but their kind acts are not rooted in absolute wisdom, but in a sort of altruism that gains them popularity, prestige and respect.

[Blair]

Is Dr. Phil actually a Doctor does he hold a doctorate in something what does he do what is he who is he

WTF!

(dnr)

[Ryan Rudolph]

From what I've read, Dr. Phil holds a doctorate degree in psychology, and he used to appear on Oprah as a guest psychologist to give his opinion on the mental issues that the show guests were experiencing.

He tends to only examine the very extreme behavior that is obvious and not to threatening to people's mainstream values and egos. For instance: Drug addicts, hoarders, thieves, extreme personality disorders, and other odd habits.

Dr. Phil falls into the trap of most conventional psychologists. They do not question the nature of the self, mainstream capitalist values, the nature of knowledge/mind and so on.

Basically, Dr. Phil has been educated merely as a conventional psychologist, and doesn't show much of an interest for deep philosophy/truth.

Here are some odd/funny and even unintentionally profound quotes that dr phil used on his show:

1. "If someone out there doesn't agree with me, then somewhere a village is missing their idiot."
2. "No dog ever peed on a moving car."
3. "You're only lonely if you're not there for you."
4. "Opinions are like asses, everybody's got one!"
5. "You need to marry yo' baby mama." (Said to David Letterman when he announced he was having a baby, lol)
6. "Your feelings? To hell with your feelings!"
7. "That dog don't hunt."
8. "Don't make me put your head in my blender!"
9. "A man can't 'just be friends' with another woman. Period."
10. "This ain't my first rodeo son!"

[Carmel]

Is Dr. Phil actually a Doctor does he hold a doctorate in something what does he do what is he who is he

WTF!

(dnr)

He's the Mr. fix-it of pop psychology...he approaches problems in an overly simplified, mechanical way using the same formula for every set of problems. He's a good example of masculinity gone awry.

[cousinbasil]

He's the Mr. fix-it of pop psychology...he approaches problems in an overly simplified, mechanical way using the same formula for every set of problems. He's a good example of masculinity gone awry.

He has a PhD in psychology from a second-rate university. He's an even better example of a snake-oil salesman who remorselessly exploits dysfunctional families to fuel his TV empire. There is not one shred of evidence that any of his guests are better off for having their dirty laundry televised nationally - as opposed to opting for a genuine private counseling program. People watch the show for the same reason kids will watch the school-yard bully set a cat on fire.

[Kelly Jones]

He's a good example of very weak masculinity, not of masculinity gone awry. I don't think one could call Sylvester Stallone, or a male rabbit, masculine, unless one's standards are very low. It's all a matter of where one sets the benchmark, and I set it at the level of medium to high levels of infinite-mindedness. I think that's fair, because of what masculinity can achieve if it's given its head.

Jack Nicholson, Bob Dylan, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Ludwig van Beethoven, Samuel Butler, Thomas Merton, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Celia Green, and Camille Paglia, are examples of masculinity gone awry.


.

[cousinbasil]

Interesting that not one but two Ludwigs made your list.

[Loki]

don't think one could call Sylvester Stallone, or a male rabbit, masculine, unless one's standards are very low.

Jack Nicholson, Bob Dylan, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Ludwig van Beethoven, Samuel Butler, Thomas Merton, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Celia Green, and Camille Paglia, are examples of masculinity gone awry.

I can't for the life of me wrap my head around why some of you are redefining masculinity like this. Sylvester Stallone not masculine? Why not? Because he is not intellectual? Why is intellectualism equated with masculinity? Intellectuals are almost universally regarded as effeminate. Especially artists like Bob Dylan, Nicholson, or Beethoven. These are sensitive and emotional men, certainly such traits are not masculine?

[Tomas]

.

-Loki-
I heard the term "emotional pornography" thrown around a few times toward these media figures, as if what they do is some kind of exploitation, an immoral kind of public service.

-tomas-
Oprah's past is coming back to haunt her.

1. Her marriage - Nothing but a sham to cover her lesbian lovers.

2. Was an early-to-mid teen prostitute. Known in "need to know" circles that she specialized in three-ways. Men, women, fellow children, was no problem for her.

3. A known cocaine user and dealer to support her habit. Still smokes weed. Obviously prescription "meds" (mood stabilizers etc).

4. Molested regularly as a little girl by both men and women.


-Loki-
In my view, Oprah isn't as bad because she seems to focus on helping celebrities find closure and resolution in a troubled public life. Also, perhaps your typical at-home audience is mostly (and merely) entertained by the problems of the guest, using the problems of others to distract from their own. Or perhaps the problems of the guests makes the viewers at home feel better about their own sense of failure or low self worth. So it becomes a case of focusing on the misery of others to feel better about your own complacency and failures.

-tomas-
Her life is a mess. Your second sentence is right on. The third sentence depends on whether the at-home viewer has a life of their own. The fourth sentence is pretty much the way it is - barring those select few who go it alone.

[Kelly Jones]

I don't think one could call Sylvester Stallone, or a male rabbit, masculine, unless one's standards are very low.

Jack Nicholson, Bob Dylan, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Ludwig van Beethoven, Samuel Butler, Thomas Merton, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Celia Green, and Camille Paglia, are examples of masculinity gone awry.

I can't for the life of me wrap my head around why some of you are redefining masculinity like this. Sylvester Stallone not masculine? Why not? Because he is not intellectual? Why is intellectualism equated with masculinity? Intellectuals are almost universally regarded as effeminate.

Masculinity is best expressed by purposeful action, and understanding how to overpower or control factors. The typical animal expression of masculinity is brute force, effected towards a specific outcome. So, it should be quite obvious that intellectuality is a stronger form of masculinity than Rambo.

The intellect is extremely powerful. But don't let the contemporary situation in postmodernism fool you into thinking that intellectuality is weak. It has most people falling for the idea that intellectuals are dreamy, impractical, wafty, escapist make-believers who play around with fantastical nonsense and "what-if" mind experiments merely for fun. They promote the idea that the intellect is just something interesting, an irrelevant addendum to sexual reproduction, and only helpful so far as it makes life more fun.They're paid to be magicians. Like an old person going to senior citizens' outings, the academic intellectual spends his or her life going on questioning outings to escape the boredom of their inflexibly inverted categories. They haven't dreamt of the power of the intellect, and they don't want to know. Certainly, such use of the intellect is feminine.

Especially artists like Bob Dylan, Nicholson, or Beethoven. These are sensitive and emotional men, certainly such traits are not masculine?

Bob Dylan's sensitivity wasn't dreamy, go-with-the-flow emotionalism - but more so before his accident. He wasn't a verbally diarrhoeic poet dreamily creating escapist fantasies like so many young gits with guitars these days. Dylan was a sharp-sighted individual, who was aware of God to some degree, and consequently incredulous about the blandness, stupidity, stuffiness and pretentiousness of conventional attitudes. He had a taste for truth, and passion for being authentic and down-to-earth. He wanted to do something great, to see profound truths, and free himself and others of the ritualistic attitude --- basically, he hated herd-mindedness. He hated the idea of people living through others.

In other words, his deep feeling and sensitivity was for ideas and understanding, albeit not tremendously deep or wise ideas. But, to that extent, it wasn't the emotionalism that wallows in, and is addicted to, feelings. He regarded that kind of behaviour as ridiculous.

Nicholson is not as rich a character, or as masculine as Dylan. Beethoven was similar to Dylan, perhaps.

But even the musician with the most genius is shallow, because they've limited themselves to sounds, and there is insufficient conceptual depth in sounds as opposed to words. So music can never take one far. Thoughts have a kind of sound, but the sound has meaning. For a musician to be a genius, they would have to be making purely intellectual music, using a vocabulary of sound that they have invented. I think that is really making things far too difficult - it's two or three times more work than simply thinking.


.