Author: jackmiller2212875

  • Dr Phil: daytime television talkshow to end after 21 seasons

    Dr Phil: daytime television talkshow to end after 21 seasons

    Dr. Phil, the US talkshow that saw Dr Phil McGraw divvy out life advice to individuals and which became a regular on daytime television around the world, is set to end later this year after 21 seasons.

    Hosted by McGraw since 2002, the show saw him advise guests who were troubled by problems, often to do with their finances, weight, families, addictions and marriages.

    “I have been blessed with over 25 wonderful years in daytime television,” McGraw said in a statement. “With this show, we have helped thousands of guests and millions of viewers through everything from addiction and marriage to mental wellness and raising children. This has been an incredible chapter of my life and career, but while I’m moving on from daytime, there is so much more I wish to do.”

    CBS sources told Variety that McGraw made the call to end production on the show, which airs five days a week in the US.

    McGraw, 72, first became known after appearing as a guest speaker on Oprah Winfrey’s talkshow in the 1990s and was soon famous for his folksy, straight-shooting advice. Dr Phil was initially produced by Winfrey’s Harpo Productions.

    While McGraw holds a doctorate in clinical psychology, he stopped renewing his licence to practise in 2006.

    The show’s use of psychology as entertainment was often controversial, with some criticising its treatment of mentally ill and vulnerable guests. In 2004, when McGraw likened a nine-year-old boy to a serial killer, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill wrote to CBS saying “Dr. Phil’s conduct is serious enough to warrant investigation by a relevant board of licensure.” A spokesperson for McGraw said the letter was “based on lack of information and inaccurate, inappropriate assumptions”.

  • How US Marines are being reshaped for China threat

    How US Marines are being reshaped for China threat

    The US military commitment to the Pacific was underlined in a White House meeting between the leaders of the US and Japan. But behind the scenes, this renewed focus on Asia has sparked a fierce debate within one of its most fabled military forces, writes defense analyst Jonathan Marcus.

    A bitter family row has erupted in one of the US military’s most hallowed institutions, the US Marine Corps.

    A host of its former senior commanders are lining up to attack the current leadership over plans for its reinvention.

    At issue is a plan to adapt the service for a potential conflict against China – a plan dubbed Force Design 2030. Almost from its inception, this plan has been under attack with a cohort of retired generals taking the unusual approach of going to the press to air their frustrations.

    Retired senior officers have been meeting regularly; speaking at seminars and think tanks; and devising their own alternatives to a plan which they see as a disaster for the Marine Corps future. 

    One prominent critic is the former US Navy Secretary and former Senator for Virginia, Jim Webb, who served as a Marine officer in the Vietnam War and ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2015.

    Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he described Force Design 2030 as “insufficiently tested” and “intrinsically flawed”. He warned that the plan “raised serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapons systems, and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios”.

    So what has got them all so upset? 

    Launched in 2020 by Marine Corps Commandant General David H Berger, the plan is intended to equip the Marines for a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific region rather than counter-insurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The new plan sees the Marines as fighting dispersed operations across chains of islands. Units will be smaller, and more spread out but packing a much bigger punch through a variety of new weapons systems. Huge amphibious landings like in World War Two or massive deployments on land – like in Iraq – will probably be things of the past.

  • How US Marines are being reshaped for China threat

    How US Marines are being reshaped for China threat

    The US military commitment to the Pacific was underlined in a White House meeting between the leaders of the US and Japan. But behind the scenes, this renewed focus on Asia has sparked a fierce debate within one of its most fabled military forces, writes defense analyst Jonathan Marcus.

    A bitter family row has erupted in one of the US military’s most hallowed institutions, the US Marine Corps.

    A host of its former senior commanders are lining up to attack the current leadership over plans for its reinvention.

    At issue is a plan to adapt the service for a potential conflict against China – a plan dubbed Force Design 2030. Almost from its inception, this plan has been under attack with a cohort of retired generals taking the unusual approach of going to the press to air their frustrations.

    Retired senior officers have been meeting regularly; speaking at seminars and think tanks; and devising their own alternatives to a plan which they see as a disaster for the Marine Corps future. 

    One prominent critic is the former US Navy Secretary and former Senator for Virginia, Jim Webb, who served as a Marine officer in the Vietnam War and ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2015.

    Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he described Force Design 2030 as “insufficiently tested” and “intrinsically flawed”. He warned that the plan “raised serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapons systems, and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios”.

    So what has got them all so upset? 

    Launched in 2020 by Marine Corps Commandant General David H Berger, the plan is intended to equip the Marines for a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific region rather than counter-insurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The new plan sees the Marines as fighting dispersed operations across chains of islands. Units will be smaller, and more spread out but packing a much bigger punch through a variety of new weapons systems. Huge amphibious landings like in World War Two or massive deployments on land – like in Iraq – will probably be things of the past.

  • How worker surveillance is backfiring on employers

    How worker surveillance is backfiring on employers

    Before the pandemic, Mark had a lot of autonomy in his job in the IT department of a US industrial firm. He and his teammates were able to get their work done, he says, “without our manager doing much, you know, managing”

    That changed abruptly when the company transitioned to working from home. “The monitoring started on day one,” says Mark, whose surname is being withheld for career concerns. The company began using software that enabled remote control of employees’ systems, and Mark says his team had to give their manager the password “so he could connect without us having to accept. If the password changed, he requested it by email first thing in the morning”.

    The surveillance, explained Mark’s manager, was aimed at making sure everyone stayed productive and had the same kind of open communication they’d had in the office. In reality, it made Mark anxious, and contributed to him quickly feeling overworked and burnt out. “It was just stressful, feeling that I had to be actively using the computer at all times for fear of him thinking something like a phone call or bathroom break was me slacking off,” he says.

    With the rise in remote work has come a surge in workplace monitoring – some 2022 estimates posit the number of large firms monitoring workers has doubled since the beginning of the pandemic. Some monitoring programs record keystrokes or track computer activity by taking periodic screenshots. Other software records calls or meetings, even accessing employees’ webcams. Or, like in Mark’s case, some programmes enable full remote access to workers’ systems. 

    Regardless of how they choose to monitor workers, many firms are embracing monitoring because they believe it ensures the productivity of remote employees, says Karen Levy, associate professor in the Department of Information Science at Cornell University, US, and author of the book Data Driven: Truckers, Technology, and the New Workplace Surveillance.

    But amid the uptick in monitoring, there’s mounting evidence that electronic surveillance can, in some cases, do more harm than good. Workers chafe against it, and surveillance can lead to stress, cause employees to quit and even make workers do their job worse – on purpose.

    More workers being watched 

    A 2021 study from internet-security tool ExpressVPN of 2,000 employers and 2,000 employees working remotely or on a hybrid schedule showed that close to 80% of bosses use monitoring software.

    “Managers are increasingly interested in using software to monitor employees’ keystrokes, activities and attention in new ways,” says Levy. She adds some are even doing “more fine-grained data collection about workers’ communications – since so much more of that happens on digital channels rather than face-to-face – and bodies, through wearable technologies and biometrics”. Some companies, for instance, have installed time-clocks that scan an employee’s fingerprint to clock them in and out. Some use webcams to collect data on eye movement, which is used to track an employee’s attention.

    Still, says Levy, other companies aren’t just watching what employees are doing in a given moment, but also using that information to anticipate what they might do, through “predictive analytics about whether a worker is likely to, for example, ask for a raise or leave for another job”. Software that monitors employee search history – and even social media – can reveal they’re on the job hunt, and trackers that capture things like tone of voice can indicate a worker’s level of engagement.

    Not every firm keeping tabs on employees is implementing surveillance software due to suspicion; some are required to, says Levy, “for security reasons, or in order to comply with laws or regulations in some industries”.

4224140