Dr. Phil apparently has made it into into Canada, to the appropriate horror of some. This author has one take that has to be quoted in full:
You know what’s wrong with Dr. Phil? He’s on Canadian television every weekday. Student-friendly rabbit ears pick up a mere three channels around here and this guy bombards one of them for an entire hour before dinner each day.
Who is watching this show?
Those interested in watching an inarticulate psychologist who prefers being referred to by his first name, watch Maury — or so you’d think. Unfortunately the truth is that they may be watching both Maury and Dr. Phil. Worse, there may be a new strain of viewers out there: the upper-middle class in hiding.
It all starts with the name.
Apparently nobody let Phil know that doctors go by their title and last name. Dr. Quinn, medicine woman, lived in the 1860s and still knew this. And yet there is a chance that Phil knows more about marketability than Michaela Quinn.
By establishing himself as "Dr. Phil," Phil McGraw has become a multifaceted marketing icon. Symbolically, the title "Dr." demands respect and announces intellect. Contrastingly, the title "Phil" says, "Hey Amurica, I’m just like y’all." These two elements fused together conjure the illusion of an educated hillbilly.
That sounds familiar. Haven’t we recently observed a lengthy puppet show embodying a similar icon? Oh yes, the presidency of George W. Bush. But the makers of Dr. Phil wouldn’t be chasing that ol’ southern drawl demographic would they? Do all those:yeehaw, buy-me -a-truck, country-music-is-actually- music, Iraq-had-something-to-do with-9/11, denim-tuxedo-wearin’, shot-gun-ownin individuals" make up that large of a demographic? They wish.
The phenomenon that named Dr. Phil the "second highest-rated daytime talk show in the [U.S.]" — according to his website — and has him appearing every evening on your Canadian television set, has something to do with the people in suits — namely, the upper-middle class.
Consider Dr. Phil the rich man’s Jerry Springer Show.
For instance, on the Dr. Phil show for the week of November 19, 2007, audiences will see: a wife dealing with her husband, "who, she just found out, is a sex addict and compulsive liar;" a vicious battle between a physically abusive daughter-in-law and an intrusive, victim-playing mother-in-law; and a "new debate over whether women should go mild or wild," regarding dress.
The difference between these episodes of Dr. Phil and the upcoming Jerry Springer Show — a show which claims to mend relationships with a Thanksgiving food-fight — is the obvious physical crudeness.
The Springer audience will certainly observe a censored breast and an overweight fist-fight, whereas Dr. Phil’s will avoid any such physical indecency. However, that doesn’t mean the underlying sensationalized subjects of each show are not suggestive enough to feed the insatiable appetite of the Springer audience. Because that is precisely what the professional appearance of Dr. Phil hides: a disturbing, Springer-craving personality. The result is a pseudo-normal audience to meet this inarticulate psychology.
In turn, John Doe of the upper-middle class can — and will — sit down in his fancy suit, watch an episode of Dr. Phil, feed this insatiable appetite and still manage to look classy — because frankly, Phil’s a doctor.
The glaring problem is that this type of media now confronts the face of mainstream, day-time television watchers.
While it may be far-fetched to say that this "Dark Side" is pulling in unsuspecting viewers, it is fair to say that Darth-Phil is dumbing us down.
If Canada is a multi-cultural society that differs from the melting pot of the U.S. why are we watching this sensationalist bullshit? There is a tinge of excitement in discovering "whose kid it actually is’"— an attention grabber that both Jerry and Phil use — but do the right thing as educated students: resist the temptation and avoid Darth-Phil with the force of your remote control.
No comments:
Post a Comment