Dr. Phil Sues Deadspin For Reporting On Manti T'eo Hoax Even Though Deadspin Broke The Story

from the who's-leeching-off-whom? dept

Wed, May 8th 2013 2:03pm — Timothy Geigner

If you recall the insane concept of "hot news," you know all about the attempt to treat factual information as intellectual property as long as you were breaking that information as news. Courts have since seen through that kind of insanity, but that doesn't keep some of the more obnoxious organizations out there from attempting end-arounds that amount to the same thing. And since I used the word "obnoxious," you just had to know that the latest example of this is going to feature Dr. Phil, who is every bit an M.D. as I am a velociraptor.

Many months back when people still gave a damn about college football, Dr. Phil had a two-part series with Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, the man who says he perpetrated the hoax of a fake, dead girlfriend on Notre Dame linebacker and now NFL draft-dropper Manti T'eo. Deadspin covered the story, including the use of clips from the show, in which Tuiasosopo performed his falsetto girl-voice in one of the most awkward television moments this side of that one time when Tom finally caught Jerry and ripped his limbs off in victory (FYI, that never happened). Dr. Phil has apparently cried copyright foul. His reason for this is that some of history's worst math mixed with a touch of irony told him that Deadspin's coverage cost him massive amounts of viewers.

Peteski Productions is arguing that Deadspin spoiled a two-part cliffhanger on the Dr. Phil program by posting a clip of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo speaking in what he said was the voice of the fictitious girlfriend "hours before the Dr. Phil Show aired to over 98% of its viewers." In other words, the clip was posted after the episode of Dr. Phil had already been broadcast in some markets, breaking the show's own news blackout on the question of whether or not Tuiasosopo would perform the female voice.

According to Broadcasting & Cable, the first and second parts of the interview drew 4.8 million and 4.3 million viewers respectively, exceeding the show's average of 4.1 million. That performance helped make Dr. Phil the No. 1 rated syndicated talk show for that sweeps period.

Keep the math we're discussing here in mind, because the level of stupid is about to approach epic proportions. Dr. Phil's ratings during those two shows exceeded their averages. Meanwhile, the two Deadspin posts in question garnered a grand total of 164k views together. The lawsuit alledges that the second Deadspin post, which had 103k of those views, caused the drop in viewership between the first and second episodes of the Dr. Phil show. Read that again. A post with roughly 100k views cost Dr. Phil 400k viewers. Clearly, Dr. Phil's doctorate isn't in mathematics. Nor is it in intellectual property law, I'm afraid, as most people would have to conclude that using the short clips to report on the story, with additional commentary, would very likely fall under fair use.

So, there you have the bad math part. But I promised you irony, didn't I? For that, we'll return to the lawsuit, which references Deadspin's ex-editor, AJ Daulerio's joking claim about how people refer to the site as a "content remora" and then the lawsuit helpfully goes on to describe exactly what that is.

A remora is a fish, sometimes called a suckerfish, which attaches itself to other fish like sharks. The host fish gains nothing from the relationship but the remora is enriched by obtaining benefits (usually food and transportation) from the host.

Got it? The lawsuit is claiming that Deadspin is leeching off of Dr. Phil, providing nothing to them but benefiting from Dr. Phil's laborious undertakings. So why is this ironic? Well, because Deadspin broke the damned T'eo story to begin with. No Deadspin, no Dr. Phil shows with higher-than-average ratings. The remora reference would only be apt if remoras left their host sharks regularly to order those sharks Chinese takeout and deliver said takeout personally. And, of course, Daulerio's use of the term, in context, shows that he was actually mocking those -- like Dr. Phil -- who falsely imply that Gawker and its sites like Deadspin only leech off of someone else's content. The whole point of Daulerio's statement was to show that they're not, in fact, leeching, and yet Dr. Phil's lawsuit attempts to flip that around.

So take your own advice and get real, Dr. Phil. This was a case of fair use and your piss-poor math is as laughable as it gets. You should be thanking Deadspin for the story in the first place, not slinging mud and lawsuits in their direction.

139940799 Drphil (PDF)139940799 Drphil (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: aj daulerio, copyright, deadspin, dr. phil, fair use, gawker, manti t'eo, ronaiah tuiasosopo
Companies: gawker, peteski productions

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Robert (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 2:09pm

He's not a doctor
He admits this in the beginning minutes of Scary Movie 4. Apparently he's an electrician.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 2:56pm

"I am a velociraptor"
So thats why you wear the Dark Helmet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 2:56pm

Prior art...Case closed!!!

Shortest litigation ever...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 2:58pm

If you recall the insane concept of "hot news," you know all about the attempt to treat factual information as intellectual property as long as you were breaking that information as news. Courts have since seen through that kind of insanity, but that doesn't keep some of the more obnoxious organizations out there from attempting end-arounds that amount to the same thing.

The Supreme Court's adoption of the hot news doctrine in INS is very much good law today. What's insane about it? It's a legitimate claim. It hasn't been preempted by federal copyright law. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 132 (1976) (��Misappropriation� is not necessarily synonymous with copyright infringement, and thus a cause of action labeled as �misappropriation� is not preempted if it is in fact based neither on a right within the general scope of copyright . . . nor on a right equivalent thereto. For example, state law should have the flexibility to afford a remedy . . . against a consistent pattern of unauthorized appropriation by a competitor of the facts . . . constituting �hot� news, whether in the tr aditional mold of International News Service v. Associated Press or in the newer form of data updates from scientific, business, or financial data bases.�) (internal citation omitted); NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that hot news misappropriation claim was not preempted by Copyright Act). Some claims may be presented as hot news that are in fact copyright claims in disguise and thus preempted, but hot news is very much alive and well.

And since I used the word "obnoxious," you just had to know that the latest example of this is going to feature Dr. Phil, who is every bit an M.D. as I am a velociraptor.

You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not.

That said, what does hot news misappropriation have to do with this case which has only one claim which is copyright? Are you sure you're qualified to discuss legal matters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RoyalPITA (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 3:03pm

Everybody who has a PhD has earned the title "Doctor".

Not everybody who has a PhD will be a "Medical Doctor".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 3:30pm

Remoras cost the host little, and may be beneficial (keeping the host clean). So anybody trying to suggest a parasitic relationship should be wary of that particular analogy.

A remora is NOT a leech.

Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 3:39pm

So I'm thinking Dr. Phil has his PhD in Hollywood Accounting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 3:40pm

Re:
"Are you sure you're qualified to discuss legal matters?"

Are you? Wait, I don't even know who you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 3:47pm

Simple enough file a counter claim for fruad, Dr. Phil is not a doctor of anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 8 May 2013 @ 3:52pm

ROFL The only good think that has came from Dr. Phil is the videos of people using "Dr. Phil" soundboards to make prank calls.

I'm sure you all know the one where the guy actually makes a woman cry.
Harsh? Too bad I'm OOTB and I find it very funny.

Also, I hate velociraptors they're always crawling up your asshole and biting it from the inside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 3:54pm

Re:
By the way that is not a typo, it's your optical sensors malfunctioning. OOTB Has spoken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 3:57pm

Re:
What's insane about it? How about the idea that such an law makes it legal to lock up or prohibit the dissemination of public facts simply to gain commercial advantage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 3:58pm

Re:
The Supreme Court's adoption of the hot news doctrine in INS is very much good law today.

Is it?

http://www.medialawmonitor.com/2011/09/the-future-of-the-hot-news-misappropriation-tort-after-ba rclays-capital-inc-v-theflyonthewall-com/ makes a good case for why it is not and the courts recognize that.

Recently, however, on June 20, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision which, while ostensibly limited to the facts of that case, nonetheless strongly indicates that hot news misappropriation claims are generally preempted by the Copyright Act....

International News Service v. Associated Press is no longer precedential law because it relied on the concept of federal common law, which the Supreme Court determined in 1938 federal courts had no power to create. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

Separately, can you name a successful hot news case in the last decade?

You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not.

You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right? Apparently not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 4:01pm

Re:
"You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not."

You do realize that your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, right? You do realize that the author probably knows this but he sometimes gets a bit facetious. You should realize this by his previous posts by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 4:04pm

Re: Re:
"You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right?"

Really? Doctor Phil annoys me for some reason but he doesn't come across as dishonest. Maybe he just spoke in a haste and wasn't really thinking. People make mistakes. Then again I don't really watch his show though I've seen a few snippets as others were watching it. I don't know how anyone can sit through it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarah Black (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 4:48pm

Re: Trainers
"Doctor of Medicine" and "Doctor of Education" are less similar than a "personal trainer" and an "elephant trainer" are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 5:00pm

Re:
agreed. All of this 'oh your not a real doctor' has always annoyed me. how is that different than 'oh online journalism? so your not a real reporter than...'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Brown (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 5:48pm

Re:
For the record, his PhD is in Philosophy, so he is in fact a doctor.

This is no defense of his actions though. I giant douche bag is a giant douche bag, with or without a title.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pseudonym, 8 May 2013 @ 6:32pm

Re: He's not a doctor
I know you jest, but I don't know what makes someone look more faux ignorant: not knowing that he has a PhD from the University of North Texas (which is arguably better than a MD), or admitting to having watched Scary Movie 4 (even if it was only the beginning minutes).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pseudonym, 8 May 2013 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re:
You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but some evidence would be useful.

If he used the title to imply that he is a qualified clinical psychologist, to the point of having a master's and doctorate in that field, then... well... that would pretty much be the opposite of misleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 6:37pm

Re: Re:
Is it?

I was actually coming back just now to correct my mistake in saying that INS is still good law. It's not after Erie, as you point out. Nice catch. I appreciate the correction. While INS itself is not good law in that there is no federal common law claim for hot news, the point remains that state law INS-like claims survive preemption. The "June 20, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals" you cited to is the opinion in Barclay's. The court there was applying New York state misappropriation law, which, as the panel in NBA held, is not preempted by the Copyright Act. In other words, hot news is a viable tort in New York to this day--as it is in other states. There is no FEDERAL common law action for misappropriation post-Erie, but the state law torts still exist.

Separately, can you name a successful hot news case in the last decade?

Not off the top of my head. I think you fail to understand that hot news is just a subspecies of the tort of misappropriation generally, and that misappropriation itself is a subset of unfair competition law (trademark law is another subset of unfair competition, for example). These notions are centuries old (which is why the Supreme Court in INS was comfortable identifying a federal common law misappropriation claim). You might consider reading up on this stuff since it's quite interesting and it would give you some broader perspective on things. You might be surprised to find out that not all competition is fair.

You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right? Apparently not.

Really? Seems to me he's accurately reflecting his PhD. What causes you to think he's intentionally misleading people by accurately using the title? Sounds like FUD to me, unless you have evidence to back it up. I'd love to see your evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 6:44pm

Re: Re:
His bio: "Dr. McGraw earned a B.A. from Midwestern State University and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of North Texas, which was followed by a year of postdoctoral training in Forensic Psychology at The Wilmington Institute. Dr. McGraw was a licensed psychologist in the State of Texas and practiced clinical psychology, where he developed a multimodal treatment protocol for chronic pain patients."

Source: http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/

Sounds like a real doctor to me. Licensed and practice clinical psychologist. I'd love to see where he pretended to be an M.D. Doesn't sound at all plausible, Mike. I know you're an evidence-based buy, so I can't wait to see your evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 7:13pm

I kind of have to laugh at Dr. Phil suing someone over a simple analysis that any person, psychologist or not, can make...Teo had no disabilities known or diagnosed and some people are just that naive. I'll say one thing about Dr. Phil though...he's a fraud in the Freudian community. You just have to look at his episode on Asperger's Syndrome and then hang out with one and befriend someone with it to realize his demonization of the disability. I mean really we would not have had these machines called PC's or software such as Windows if it weren't for the shrewd letter to the law business practices that Bill Gates initiated (common Aspy trate is that we follow laws literally rather than interpretively...ever notice any certain business practices in the computer world that only said to be against the law AFTER Microsoft had lost a few cases in court?) ;-)

But yes, Dr. Phil is a fraud...not one thing he tells people about actual disorders is true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 7:20pm

Re: Re:
Yes but he claims to be a PSYCHOLOGIST....Psychology is based on observation of a being and its interactions with its surroundings...and it's based scientifically...a Philosopher is a thinker but lacks the observation to come to his conclusions...this makes "Dr" Phil a bit if a fraud really. He's simply doing what any person can do and that is peer mediation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 7:21pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'd have to agree here. I don't see where Dr. Phil is being misleading about his credentials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 7:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
and I'm not claiming that Dr. Phil claimed to be an M.D., just that if he did he may have accidentally misspoke in haste.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 7:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
Ugh. You do realize that when you say, "You might consider reading up on this stuff..." that you come across as a) arrogant b) condescending, and c) foolish.

You should be bothered by c) the most because nothing you've offered actually refutes anything Mike said. All you've offered is your profound and hollow belief that you are more knowledgeable and therefore right. Blech--people like you really piss me off.

I've been reading this blog for years and perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading so that you'd realize that Mike has not only a deep understanding of this material, but he demonstrates it over and over again with both references and facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 7:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
Dr. Phil is nothing but FUD....I became a psychologist so I could prove his dumb ass wrong. The worst of it comes out when he talks about Asperger's Syndrome and Autism....I mean really, Autism Speaks threatened to file a degradation lawsuit against him....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 7:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
*Defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 8:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Dr. Phil is nothing but FUD"

It's television, it's supposed to get viewers. In order to do that it's common to take something mundane and boring and present it in a captivative manner. To me it's still mundane and boring and I don't see how anyone can see it as entertaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 10:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
Real doctor in one sense. He may be able to 'treat' patients, but he cannot prescribe medicine. You need the MD for that, at least in California, and most likely elswhere.

That being said, I have had more value from treatment from non medical Masters and PHd's than from the folks that can prescribe. One med that I was told absolutely not to quit 'cold turkey' I did quit 'cold turkey', and nothing happened. In an encounter with the prescriber a short while later, he said after I reported that nothing happened, and I quote "It was only preventative". How should that make one feel about the medical profession?

I would not feel comfortable talking to a guy like Dr. Phil, and certainly not on TV. If one really wants to deal with their issues, stuff, more personal than might be revealed in even an hour of 'TV Therapy' is necessary. THAT stuff takes time to get to.

There is a difference between treating symptom vs treating cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 11:06pm

Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like a real doctor to me. Licensed and practice clinical psychologist. I'd love to see where he pretended to be an M.D. Doesn't sound at all plausible, Mike. I know you're an evidence-based buy, so I can't wait to see your evidence.

http://everydaypsychology.com/2008/01/is-dr-phil-actually-psychologist.html#.UYs7YrWR-S A

Not licensed. Not allowed to imply he's a psychologist. Not allowed to make use of it except for entertainment purposes. And yet... he's done all of that.

Fwiw, there are two people in my immediate family with PhDs. One in psychology. Neither regularly uses the term "Dr." except in exceptionally formal settings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 11:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's television, it's supposed to get viewers. In order to do that it's common to take something mundane and boring and present it in a captivative manner. To me it's still mundane and boring and I don't see how anyone can see it as entertaining."

Good point....thing is about Dr. Phil...until that episode about Asperger's Syndrome he had a really high ratings score.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 11:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
See how he views people with Autism...then make that judgement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2013 @ 11:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That depends...Psychology and Psychaitry are two very different things because in psychiatry...you prescribe medications as a treatment rather than finding ways to cope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Griffiths (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 3:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
My father has an MD my mother a PHD in psychology. She uses Dr because she's damn well earned it (worth nothing MD are in fact only honorary doctorates, at least in the UK) but she also doesn't present a show in which she gives out psychiatric advice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Known coward, 9 May 2013 @ 5:20am

Dr Phil being spectacularly wrong?
In other news, the pope is catholic, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 6:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forget that he's not liscensed to practice and in general, most of these issues that Psycologists have with him stem from the fact that he's actually evaluating people and sending referrals to see psychiatrists...that's an issue because be can only do that under liscense. The public's first hint of his erroneous ways was his comments on Britney Spears...but anyone who has Autistic children or children with Asperger's Syndrome kind of dropped him when he started demonizing people with those developmental disorders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 6:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
His bio, that I quoted above, says: "Dr. McGraw was a licensed psychologist in the State of Texas and practiced clinical psychology . . . ." That's true. And that article you're citing says that he is a doctor and he can properly call himself a doctor. I'm not seeing evidence that he misrepresents himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 6:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, I often find Mike's understanding to be superficial and incomplete. I recommended that he learn about unfair competition law since he often demonstrates that he knows nothing about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 7:05am

Re: Re: He's not a doctor
I know he has a PhD in Philolophy (It's in his name) in psychology (he's a psychologist).

And he was hilarious in that film. He saved Shaq.

My fav is still Scary Movie 2, James Woods as Father McFeely was down right awesome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 7:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The article says he's no longer licensed.

In my field, once you fail to pay your annual dues to the professional engineering association, you lose the right (privilege?) to call yourself an engineer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 7:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, psychiatry is practiced by an MD who specializes (post graduation) in mental illness. That's how psychiatrists can prescribe medication where as psychologists cannot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfy, 9 May 2013 @ 8:18am

Dr. Phil has always given me the impression that he was a eunuch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue here is that you have to be licensed to even make referrals and he does that regularly on his show. He is not practicing psychology one bit and has been called out on it for some time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that he makes referrals tp professionals during the show is a big red flag as he is not allowed to do that without a practicing license. His advice always backfires.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I often find"

and who are you again? At least I know who Mike is so his findings can at least be traced to someone to hold accountable for them when wrong, why should I care about the findings of some random AC? I have a much longer history of Mike than I do of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 9:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(who's only history, as far as I'm concerned, only spans a comment or a few comments on a single thread whereas Mike's history spans many Techdirt posts and comments. So why should your findings even matter to me at all, please explain).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 9:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"you have to be licensed to even make referrals"

That's stupid and I think against free speech rights. If I wanted to recommend a doctor, even as a non-doctor, why can't I? and if it is my free speech to recommend someone why can't someone with a Ph.D. do the same?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(then again, I guess it may depend on if you're being paid. Technically Dr. Phil is getting paid for the show).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"he is not allowed to do that without a practicing license."

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a citation for this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 10:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that I mean to yell or anything...but... IM A FUCKING PSYCHOLOGIST PARCTICING UNDER LISCENSE IN OHIO....THAT'S MY CITATION.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 10:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's really sad about those two statements is this:

When I make a referral to a patient to a psychiatrist....it's usually because I sit down with them and actually analyze what is going on with them and get to know their quirks...but all in an onjective mannor. Before I make the referral, my analysis usually checks in with reference materials I have on hand just in case I feel that medication is needed...after which, if it is so deemed, I refer them to a psychiatrist so that they can get treatment. You have to be liscensed to do that so you don't endanger people's lives.

Lets see what Dr. Phil does that violates typical practices of actual psychologists.

1. Client confidentiality...you loose your lisence for doing that. His show is public...no confidebtiality what so ever for his "clients".

2. Part of renewing your lisence requires you to be up to code with current DSM standards and diagnoses. He has not renewed his since his show started.

Oh and I do charge about $150 for a half hour session....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ahh, Ohio. Maybe the laws differ there than here, I dunno. Is it a federal law or a state law that you are referencing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"1. Client confidentiality"

Well, yeah, but if the patients themselves make information public there is little you can do to stop them (short of locking them up?). If the people on Dr. Phil are willing to go public with their information then how much confidentiality can they reasonably expect? I understand if patients were seeing the psychologist privately then there would be a reasonable presumption of confidentiality that the Dr. would generally be bound to (with few exceptions).

Then again you can argue that some of this might involve the patient's family or guardians publicizing some of this information on T.V. even if the patient would rather not. But they can do that without Dr. Phil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 10 May 2013 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seemed stressed. I hope you have more patience with your patients.

Why let someone who does not understand get you so worked up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2013 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Client confidentiality...you loose your lisence for doing that. His show is public...no confidebtiality what so ever for his "clients".

That's not a problem in his case. Approximately 100% of the "advice" that he gives on his show is common sense and general.

If anyone came in with a problem that required specific treatment, that probably wouldn't end up on his show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 1:27am

Re:
While the medical community would like this to be a highly classified secret whose publication carried the death penalty, M.D. is actually a lesser degree then PhD.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't both M.D. and PhD holders who are mouth breathing idiots, and Doofus Dr. Phil, assuming he really has any sort of legitimate credentials, is a prime example of a pompous dumb-ass whose ego constantly writes checks his abilities can't make good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]