Philling them not-so-softly with his b.s.?

Now here’s a take on Love Smart, new this morning, that even your host would have to say is inappropriate for a book review, and no doubt will be removed by Amazon—as it probably should be—within hours. Still, it’s kind of fun and, in a way, is a fitting counterpoint to all the fawning “he’s my god! he’s my hero!”-type blather that Amazon does allow to go up (and stay up) daily. It comes to us from “The Mad Zapper,” who resides in “parts unknown,” and is titled “Fills house wives [sic] heads with b.s. on a daily basis”:

This guy is everything that is wrong with America and Day Time TV. He makes life hard on men who work their asses off to support their family while their wives sit home and listen to his propaganda. Nagging is at an all time high now, and I can't get any peace because of this jerk.

And no, I did not write this one, either.

There’s a serious point here that’s worth considering, however, and that is SHAM’s femme-centric view—if not its outright feminization of—American culture, which I address in the conclusion of my book. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “nagging is at an all time high,” I think most of us would agree that male-bashing remains a culturally entrenched sport—how are guys portrayed in sitcoms and commercials?—that it may have had its most insidious impact on the psyches of young men, and that folks like Oprah and her chief protégé, McGraw (who, yes, is a guy, some would even say a tough guy, but who knows that his bread is buttered by his female fan base, so he panders to them) have been major contributors to today’s anti-male spirit. Beyond that, even in a McLuhanistic, medium-is-the-message sense, SHAM, as we’ve seen, puts out the vibe that feelings count more than thoughts, which—some would argue—is an inherently female posture (albeit one that many top-achieving females would recoil from, of course. I doubt you’d get much buy-in on the point from Carly Fiorina or Condi Rice).

So what do you folks believe? Do women feel more than they think? If so, are they innately, biologically programmed to be that way? Something to ponder.

Again, have a Happy New Year (though at the rate I've been going, I'll probably post a half-dozen more times before then...)

Also, floss regularly, and stay away from large, angry-looking dogs that are foaming at the mouth.

In a phenomenal display of willpower, I’d hoped to refrain from further posting till after New Year’s--but this morning I stumbled across something on The Today Show that forced a change in plans. It was priceless wisdom courtesy of Libby Gill, author of Traveling Hopefully: How to Lose Your Family Baggage and Jumpstart Your Life, a 2004 book now getting a second round of pub due to its recent reissue in paperback. During the course of an almost preposterously long segment with one of the show’s interchangeable female co-anchors, the lovely-if-somewhat-manufactured-looking Ms. Gill (not to sound catty, but she appeared to have arrived on the Today set fresh from a facelift) shared her five-point program for never-ending personal fulfillment. I was struck in particular by Point 5, which I think should be required reading for each and every one of us.

Ready? Here it is: “Keep going after what you want in life.”
Wow. No doubt Ms. Gill evolved to such enlightened, revolutionary perspectives during her long and distinguished career as an executive coach. Just to round out her resume, she has also served as a senior vice president at Universal Studios and--here's a shocker--a media consultant to our good friend Dr. Phil McGraw (who could use a good media consultant these days). Six degrees of self-help separation, indeed.

And to think: I can’t get booked on these shows….

Want to hear something even more terrifying? Gill’s Amazon numbers, in the aftermath of the show, are startling: from No. 216,000 yesterday to No. 105 as I write this. Which means that people, yes, functioning human beings who hold regular jobs and make responsible decisions, are actually ordering the book based on the above advice and the rest of what Gill said on Today…. Are we really that desperate to “travel hopefully”? My God.

Ah well. Have a happy New Year’s Eve, folks. Travel safely, if not hopefully. And remember: Keep going after what you want in life.

-----------------------

P.S. As long as we're here, why not have a Love Smart update: Amazon once again has chosen, this morning, to put the "Marilyn R. Barry" review back at the top of the heap, exactly as if it were brand-new...

....And SHAMblog goes on brief hiatus, in a probably vain attempt to balance the checkbook after six solid weeks of unnecessary spending.... Seriously, I wish the very best to you and yours, and hope that 2006 will be a year of genuine achievement/fulfillment in your life (i.e. rather than the faux type peddled incessantly by all the folks we've been talking about in this blog since July). To those of you who've become regulars, I offer my profound thanks, and encourage you to continue to spread the good word. To those who just drop in from time to time, you're always welcome, and by all means, feel free to pitch in your two cents.

Finally, I don't know if you'll hear from me again before January 1, so I'd like to mention an essay of mine that's scheduled to run in the Current section of the Los Angeles Times that day. I see it as sort of a counterpoint to all the empty New Year's resolutions (and hollow self-improvement agendas) people tend to embrace at the beginning of each year. Heck, the fact that you have to make those same resolutions year after year is a telling comment in itself...but let's not get back into that at this festive time. (wink)

Have a happy holiday, try to stay out of each other's hair, and take a few moments to remember how lucky you are merely to live in a nation where you don't have to have your finger painted purple after voting, you can attend the church of your choice (or not) on the holiday of your choice, and you're more likely than not to return from the mall, after exchanging all your gifts, without being fired upon. At least most days...

All the best,
Steve

Barnes & (ig)noble?

Somebody who's been tracking SHAMblog for the past few weeks emailed me today to say she thinks I may need a 12-step program to cure me of my addiction to Dr. Phil's review page on Amazon. I thought that was pretty funny. And truthfully, she may have a point. So I decided, tonight, to switch over for a moment to Love Smart's Barnes & Noble listing. Follow the link, scroll down to the third review, and you'll notice it was written by one "Sarah Burnett." The review is identical to those currently running on Amazon by "Jane" and "real name" reviewer "Sara [i.e. without the h] Burnett." I guess "Sara/Sarah" isn't always sure how to spell her own real name. Maybe she'd have better use for a book titled Spell Smart...

By the way--shameless confession!--the very first Barnes & Noble review is mine. I wrote it and submitted it four days ago, and it debuted today. Now I'm waiting to see if the long arm of Dr. Phil McGraw and his vast publicity machine can manipulate things over on B&N as well.

By the way--what's the over-under on how long it takes before a review by "Dr. Marilyn R. Barry" shows up on Barnes & Noble?

Love is better...the third time around?

I had planned to declare a moratorium on Love Smart postings--at least through Christmas--but this is too good. As of tonight, there are three identical reviews on the site, two of them, now, from "Jane," who just posted the same review "she" posted on December 10. Both of those, of course, are verbatim repeats of the review from "real name" reviewer "Sara Burnett," who posted hers on December 7. Granted, the titles are different--but doesn't that only make things more suspicious? Tonight's review is titled (ironically enough) "something new." The December 10 review is called "helpful." The December 7 "Burnett" review is titled "a new approach from Dr. Phil."

As I write this, all three are up on the site. Together. Big as life. Word for word. (And if you're new to SHAMblog, you may want to review The Strange Case of the Love Smart Reviews, which began with my post of December 7, the day the book was published.)

As these reviews keep going up--and the critical ones keep coming down--can there be much lingering doubt that Dr. Phil has a friend at Amazon?

** POSTSCRIPT, Thursday, December 22 ** The infamous "Dr. Marilyn R. Barry" review is back to the top of the heap again this morning, as if it had just been written and posted. I guess they must really, really like that one...

Testing, testing...and a word or two on hope, heaven, and Dr. Phil.

This morning I attempted to place the following review of Love Smart on Amazon:

I have now read this book from cover to cover, and there is nothing in there that I (or you) don't already know. It's just plain common sense dressed up in new packaging, and none of it is actionable or likely to be of any functional help in the way you go about living life or finding love. In that respect, it is much like the rest of self-help. And I say that on the basis of a three-year investigation of the genre... Steve Salerno, author, SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless.

I also included the URL for this blog. So far they haven't posted it. Once again, I'm not holding my breath.

Now, what's interesting about this--at least to me; the rest of you are probably getting sick of this whole Amazon intrigue--is that yesterday Amazon posted a four-star review of Love Smart from "real name" reviewer Robin G. Newman of New York, who identifies herself, right in the review, as the author of How to Marry a Mensch (as you know, we do not link to self-help books at SHAMblog), and who also makes reference to her own web site, LoveCoach.com (I link to the site because you just have to see how fundamentally silly it is). So, if Amazon allows an author from the self-help community to write a pro-Dr. Phil review in which she touts her own wares--but denies a negative reviewer from outside the community the same privilege--what does that tell you?

I know what it tells me. Apropos of which, I have now contacted Amazon's press office, seeking a formal interview with regard to this situation. I'll keep you, well, posted.

Incidentally, I'm wondering how many of you caught last night's Barbara Walters special, Heaven: Where is It? How Do We Get There? I hestitate to open up this can of worms, especially at this time of year, but during the course of a segment, Walters interviewed atheist Ellen Johnson, who offered her perspective on why so many people cling to their belief in heaven despite a near-total lack of scientific evidence for the phenomenon: "People need to believe. They need to have that hope. It's comforting to have that hope. People feel lost without it." I'm not quoting verbatim, but that was the gist. It occurs to me that the same "thinking" underlies the steadfast belief in the promise of self-help, despite all evidence to the contrary. It explains why people will flock to buy Love Smart, even though it entailed almost no research and presents few verifiable facts, and pass up a book like, say, SHAM, which entailed voluminous research and presents a wealth of verifiable facts. Put simply, people need to believe that what Dr. Phil says is true, and don't even want to consider that what SHAM says may be true...because SHAM takes away the false (but sustaining) hope, the easy (but specious) answers. We need to think that a positive attitude will carry the day. We need to think there's light at the end of the tunnel (as is literally the case with those who believe in heaven; and this may surprise you, but I'm still on the fence). The tragedy, though, is that so many of us spend so much time with our eyes focused far down the road, searching for that elusive light, that we miss the simpler (if dimmer) joys right beside us, here and now.

And it's still a lonely hunter.

A guest item today, folks, while "your regular host" is out getting The Finger from cheerful holiday revelers who felt entitled to the mall parking space he arrived at first. This one is courtesy of "Callie" of Arlington, VA. And though, yes, she's writing yet another Amazon review with specific reference to Dr. Phil McGraw's (not so) new book, Love Smart, her perspective on SHAM's relationships wing--and, really, the self-help phenomenon as a whole--is as canny, and succinctly put, as any I've read. To wit:

"My problem with these happily-ever-after blueprints is that they seem to operate under the tacit assumption that dealing with difficult emotional issues is an intellectual process. This stuff is all common sense; everyone knows they should stay away from jerks, maintain healthy emotional boundaries, and (ugh) not expect Prince Charming. Intellectual appreciation for these very obvious facts is not the same as having emotionally internalized them. There are individuals with all kinds of problems out there--people who are so needy and desperate they'll put up with any treatment to have a mate; people who are so out of touch with who they are they need someone to provide an identity for them; and people who just generally can't find any meaning in life other than that ostensibly provided by their relationships. The issues these people face extend far beyond the realm that pat advice such as that prescribed by Dr. Phil can treat. If these books actually accomplished a fraction of what they advertise, there would be alot of sane, happy people out there just filled to the brim with love, humanity and good mental health, and frankly, I just don't see it."

Nor do I, Callie. And that's because it's not there to be seen. Let me say also that Callie's line about how "intellectual appreciation for these very obvious facts is not the same as having emotionally internalized them" deserves some sort of award in its own right. Every day, increasing evidence from such realms as medicine, psychology, and genetics points to a major disconnect between the heart and the mind--a gulf that cannot necessarily be bridged through the application of reason or will... Or as someone once put it, "The heart has to learn..." (Extra credit, by the way, if you get the allusion in the title of this post.)

** UPDATE, 11:40 a.m. ** And naturally, as per its custom, Amazon has just taken down Callie's review. I guess it was just too savvy and commonsensical.

More fun and game with Phil.

For anyone who wants more proof that this whole Love Smart business is a calculated strategy: This morning the dubious review by "Dr. Marilyn R. Barry" of Minneapolis, MN, is back atop the reader reviews, thus supplanting the extremely critical Douglas Barton review (see the update at the bottom of my post of December 14) from that high-visibility slot. You will recall that the Barry review was originally posted--under Barry's name, that is--on December 13. In reality, it was really originally posted, under the byline of "Dr. Joyce OHolleran" of Miami, FL, on December 10. (Whew. This is like trying to keep track of all the guys who pitched for the Yankees last year...) What this suggests, of course, is that "Barry," or "OHolleran," or whoever ultimately is running this show took that review down, then put it back up again (knowing that "new" reviews are moved to the top of the heap), for the express purpose of shoving the irksome Barton review out of the way.

Also, this morning at around 8:30 a.m. I attempted to place, on the Love Smart page, a reader review, under my "real name," summarizing the bizarre goings-on. As I write this, Amazon hasn't yet posted it...and I'm not holding my breath. But we'll see. If nothing else it gives me added ammunition for the talk I plan to have with the folks at Amazon very soon.

** UPDATE, 9:20 a.m. ** Get this: Instead of running my review at the top of the pile, where a brand-new review belongs, Amazon simply took down the Barry review, then buried my review at the very end of the list, dated (unaccountably) December 7! Naturally I took it down. Unreal.

Dr. Phil McGraw is stranger than fiction.

First of all, let me reassure any of you who may be wondering--no, this blog is not destined to become "all Love Smart, all the time." It's just that...well, you be the judge.

You will recall that in my most recent post, I lamented, among other things, the sudden disappearance from Amazon of a review of Dr. Phil's Love Smart by "John Smith" of New York, New York. The single-star review, titled "A nice layout but little else," went up on Dec. 7, the day after the book's official publication, and was taken down six days later. I reproduce its salient points here (using ellipses to indicate where I've cut material that, in my estimation, added nothing to the overall force of the review):

The book has a nice cover and font layout but nothing else that you would not find in any other book written by real experts on the subject. Dr. Phil again writes a book that he is not fully qualified to write about. First he writes a book about weight loss although by his own admission he is clearly overweight, then one on raising a family, though he has been divorced...and now a book on the dating game.

The book gives you the same rehashed philosophies about feeling good about yourself... In fact if you read "Life Strategies," and I recommend that you do since it is a fine book, you will get the sum and substance of Dr. Phil. The rest are just derivatives of [that] book.

One famous movie director once said that it is possible to have a great opening box office week for a mediocre film if you relentlessly promote it. That said, with the relentless marketing this book is sure to make a lot of people rich not the least Dr. Phil...

...Maybe John Gray should write a book about losing weight or Dr. Stephen Covey should write a book about the dating game. If Dr. Phil can do it, why can't they?

You get the gist of it. Our pal John Smith is not particularly high on Love Smart. And he can't just be dismissed as an inveterate McGraw-hater, either, since he confesses his admiration for Life Strategies.

Tonight at around 9 p.m., the following five-star, two-sentence review appeared on the Love Smart page, under the heading "Excellent Book! Period!":

This book is a keeper and will definitely improve your dating game routine as well as your relationships. Highly recommended!

The review's author? "John Smith" of New York, New York.

Now, I suppose this could all be coincidence. "John Smith" might as well be John Doe, and New York is a big, big place. However, I'd think that to any reasonable person, at this point two questions would suggest themselves.

1. What the hell is going on here? And,
2. Whatever it is...is Amazon in on it?

Tell you what, folks. We're gonna find out....

**UPDATE, December 15!** This morning, now, we have a searing review from Douglas Barton of Bluffton, SC. Mr. Barton is not just a "real name" reviewer, but a "top 1000" reviewer--actually No. 700--having logged some 179 reviews that generated 2,088 helpful reader votes. Some highlights from his review, which he titles "Lovesick": "Say what you will about Dr. Phil, his survival instinct is as finely tuned as ever..." "...if there wasn't such a huge audience for this shameless type of 'warm and fuzzy' psycho-analyzing then charlatains [!] like Dr. Phil wouldn't exist..." "...sheer pandering that amounts to little more than a virtual hugfest..." And, perhaps my favorite line, "Obviously Dr. Phil thinks very little of women and by releasing pablum [sic] such as this finds them an easy mark..." Wow. Tell us how you really feel... I applaud Mr. Barton for his chutzpah, but I give it one day, folks. If that long. We'll see....

The strange, ongoing saga of Dr. Phil's "Love Smart"...

In our last episode, we saw how “real name” Amazon reviewer “Sara Burnett” had somehow morphed into “Jane,” offering up an identical review of Dr. Phil McGraw's Love Smart, complete with misspellings. Well, it gets better: Today, “real name” reviewer “Dr. Joyce OHolleran” of Miami, FL, has magically become “real name” reviewer “Dr. Marilyn A. Barry” of Minneapolis, MN. Yes, once again, their reviews are verbatim-identical. (And interestingly, OHolleran and Barry appear to be the only two doctors in America without listed phone numbers; I checked. If they’re MDs, I guess they have all the patients they can handle already, so why leave the door open for new business, right?) Call me cynical, but I have to believe that whoever orchestrated this switch did so to bring the glowing text of the OHolleran review back to the top of the pile, thereby helping overcome the negative weight of the two less positive reviews that had popped up in recent days. At this point I have no idea what role, if any, Amazon played in this sleight-of-hand, but the fact that OHolleran disappeared the same day Barry got posted sure doesn't make the whole affair seem any less conspiratorial. What makes the OHolleran/Barry scenario all the more sordid, in my view, is the “author's” personal revelation about the role self-help books have played in her own marriage, by “turning our average sexual life into outstanding.” Unless OHolleran happens to be married to Barry, the inclusion of this testimonial—in an obviously bogus review—is a particularly odious touch.

I've also noticed a few other things by closely observing the Love Smart page in recent days. Individually, they represent little more than circumstantial evidence, but they do carry a certain cumulative weight. At the very least, they’re worth pondering:

1. A number of the reviews seem to use boilerplate language. For example, reviews by “Catherine Higgins” of OH (Dec. 12) and “Sara Miller” of Bloomington, IN (Dec. 7) refer to the “prescriptive element” of McGraw’s book. I could be wrong, but I doubt that both women (if indeed they are two different women, or even real people at all) would’ve independently arrived at that esoteric phrasing.

2. Anytime anyone posts a negative review (which, to the Dr. Phil camp, probably, is less than five stars), a brand-new five-star review appears within hours, reclaiming the top of the heap. As noted, at least two of these instant reviews—by “Jane” and “Marilyn A. Barry”—have been letter-for-letter restatements of prior reviews.

3. Negative reviews get condensed or spiked. Already this week, a pair of highly critical reviews, one from an “Aaron Regnery” and one from a “John Smith” (I grant you, that last name is pretty suspect), were purged altogether. What’s interesting about Smith’s highly literate review, which appeared Dec. 7 and was taken down today, is that it had already received 37 feedback votes, 15 of which were positive. It is highly unusual for Amazon to remove a review with that level of reader feedback. In addition, a review from “BentinSoho” was severely edited after its second day on the site. Here is how it appeared originally, on Dec. 10:

I'm imagining Dr. Phil lounging around backstage while his pancake makeup is being applied wondering just what the heck he can slap his name on next to make money. That whole diet plan didn't work, so how about a relationship advice book? Like the diet plan, this book is full of filler and no substance. Date with this book and you'll end up dropping some money that would have been better spent on an online service or a haircut. The advice is way too general and Dr. Phil isn't offering anything new--except his name on the cover.

And here, folks, is how it appears now:

[...] Like the diet plan, this book is full of filler and no substance. Date with this book and you'll end up dropping some money that would have been better spent on an online service or a haircut. [...]

Though one could argue that Amazon was reacting to the review’s ad hominem tone, Amazon’s pages brim with reviews that take this kind of tack, and worse. One of the latest reader reviews for SHAM says I am “clearly a cynical and narrow-minded man.” Clearly.

What’s striking, and ironic, about all this is it’s a microcosm of the tactic that drives self-help as a whole: repurposing. The gurus shamelessly recycle content from one book to another, or from one medium to another (books to seminars, seminars to DVDs, etc.)...so why should it be any different with their reviews?

To those of you hooked on Dr. Phil and self-help generally, I would say this: They’re laughing at you, folks. Do you not see that by now? They’re taking your money and they’re laughing at you, all the way to the bank…

Love Smart: Get the Review You Want?

Look, it's no secret that authors have been known to mess around with the reader rankings on Amazon, trying to orchestrate (if not flat-out write) favorable reviews of their own books (as well as, sometimes, unfavorable reviews of competing works). But our friend "Dr. Phil" McGraw--or, let's be fair here, one of his more lunatic admirers--seems to have elevated the practice to new depths with McGraw's new book, Love Smart: Find the One You Want--Fix the One You Got. We may revisit this topic at greater length in days to come, and possibly in a more structured forum than this blog; suffice it to say certain "irregularities" have suggested themselves. For now, let's perform the following exercise.

Take a look at the five-star reader review from "Jane." As I write this, it is the very first review, dated December 10:

The goal of Love Smart is to help you get the relationship you want. It's driven by Dr. Phil's viewers who want a meaningful relationship, but find that it's a crazy dating world out there.

This book is different than anything Dr. Phil has written before. It has a hipper, irreverent approach, while still being based in psychology, but still reflects the talk-show host's direct approach to life. It coaches the dater through the process of finding out what the other person really cares about, what their priorities in life are, and what they do for fun.

It's biggest value is it takes you through the signs of what's a real deal-breaker, how to spot it early, and how to walk away so you don't waste time and get a broken heart. He stresses the importance of self-analysis, and says if you've got an attitude about you that you wouldn't find attractive in others, you have to consider someone else might not date you for that very same reason.

My favorite quote from the book, "You've got to fall in love with yourself. Not in a prideful way. But you have got to decide, 'These are good qualities about me.' Don't try to be all things to all people. Decide who you are and that is the horse we are going to ride all the way home."

Another book I enjoyed recently that helped me a great deal with self-awareness is "The Emotional Intelligence Quickbook." I saw it in Newsweek, and bought it because it let me test my emotional intelligence, or EQ, online. It was a fun read and helped me to learn A LOT about myself, so I think it's a great pairing with Dr. Phil's "Love Smart."

OK. Now, here's another five-star review from December 7, the day after the book's official pub date, posted by "true name" reviewer Sara Burnett. (It's still up, too, as I write this):

The goal of Love Smart is to help you get the relationship you want. It's driven by Dr. Phil's viewers who want a meaningful relationship, but find that it's a crazy dating world out there.

This book is different than anything Dr. Phil has written before. It has a hipper, irreverent approach, while still being based in psychology, but still reflects the talk-show host's direct approach to life. It coaches the dater through the process of finding out what the other person really cares about, what their priorities in life are, and what they do for fun.

It's biggest value is it takes you through the signs of what's a real deal-breaker, how to spot it early, and how to walk away so you don't waste time and get a broken heart. He stresses the importance of self-analysis, and says if you've got an attitude about you that you wouldn't find attractive in others, you have to consider someone else might not date you for that very same reason.

My favorite quote from the book, "You've got to fall in love with yourself. Not in a prideful way. But you have got to decide, 'These are good qualities about me.' Don't try to be all things to all people. Decide who you are and that is the horse we are going to ride all the way home."

Another book I enjoyed recently that helped me a great deal with self-awareness is "The Emotional Intelligence Quickbook." I saw it in Newsweek, and bought it because it let me test my emotional intelligence, or EQ, online. It was a fun read and helped me to learn A LOT about myself, so I think it's a great pairing with Dr. Phil's "Love Smart."

Notice any similarites? Like, right down to the use of the wrong "it's," in the third graph...?

Geez Louise! If you're gonna pull this kind of stuff, at least be a bit more creative!

Stay tuned...

Love smart...diet stupid?

So, last night our hero does Larry King for the umpteenth time to talk a little bit about poor Natalee Holloway and a little bit about the tragedy of missing kids in general and a little bit about whether or not we should call Christmas "the holidays"--but mostly he wanted to talk about his brand-new book, Love Smart: Find the One You Want--Fix the One You Got. (Yes, in the great blogosphere, a book title normally would be linked. But I can't quite bring myself to help promote yet another glossy, self-derivative product from The Clan McGraw. If you think you need this book, I'm afraid you'll have to find it on your own. You won't have too much trouble, since it's already No. 25 on Amazon as I write this.) McGraw says that Love Smart is intended to give his vast audience some realistic guidance in matters of the heart. It's a curious platform for someone who--as noted in SHAM and elsewhere--had burned out of psychotherapy (until Oprah found him) because, among other reasons, he considered himself "the worst marital therapist in the history of the world."

Of course, for Phil McGraw to go boldly where he has no special acumen is nothing new--and the evidence is more convenient than ever. Just a few days ago the point came to light with stunning clarity in the form of a series of emails, by McGraw's own hand, that became the latest focal point of that Los Angeles trial over his endorsement of the ill-fated Shape Up! line of (so-called) nutrition bars and nutraceuticals. In his emails to CSA Nutraceuticals, distributors of the bars, McGraw conceded that he has "no expertise" in the field of nutrition. (Hmmmm. Is that the impression one would've gotten from his 2004 best-seller, The Ultimate Weight Solution?) While it's true that in those same emails McGraw urged CSA to use "the STRONGEST of disclaimers," he still went ahead and put his face on the bars--disclaimer or no disclaimer--and touted them in public without so much as a grace note of caution. Indeed, McGraw's attorney, Bill Dawson, said in a written statement that his client insists the products were "properly described," as marketed. Dawson also dismissed the claim as "pretty silly."

Among other things, the lawsuit contends that there are serious problems with the nutritional breakdown of the nutrition bars; that popping up to 22 pills a day (at a cost of over $100 a month) does not constitute "changing your behavior to take control of your weight" (which was the overarching promise of the Shape Up! plan); and that two different Shape Up! products, which supposedly were customized to the dietary requirements of two different body types, contained almost identical ingredients. Overall, the lawsuit labels the products, and the marketing campaign for same, "deceptive and fraudulent." CSA reportedly agreed to withdraw the embattled product from shelves after the Federal Trade Commission began making noises about an investigation.

To his credit, King did ask his guest about that nasty lawsuit business, and McGraw replied, at his folksy best, "You know, I did this as a charitable endorsement.... A couple of lawyers put together a lawsuit." People, I'm no great fan of lawyers. But putting together lawsuits is what lawyers do when celebrities like McGraw trade on their immense (literally) credibility by putting their mugs on dubious products. As for the "charitable" thing, while it's true that McGraw's arrangement with CSA channeled his end of the deal to a foundation that targets childhood obesity, the larger point may be the cozy relationship between McGraw and CSA president Gary Dobbs. The two men, after all, were partners for years in Courtroom Sciences Inc.; that's where Oprah first hooked up with McGraw. So even if one concedes that the good doctor himself may not have stood to reap a windfall from Shape Up!... Is it so far-fetched that he would've tried to help an old pal cash in on his celebrity?

Click here, by the way, for another interesting take on the whole Dr. Phil/Shape Up! mess. And now I'm going to go have a Milky Way, which, at least, is an honest candy bar...