Dr Oz's incentives are different. He's a day-time television talk show pundit. Fad diets that inspire false hope and supporting big time health/vitamin company brands directly translate into him making tons of money. I don't think most doctors are compensated for this type of behavior.

True, this is similar to the classic question as to why does a top-of-their-game baseball players make millions of dollars while top-of-their-field-<doctors/engineers/etc> don't make a similar amount.

The reason is because their skill set reaches hundreds of thousands of people while a doctor/engineer can only reach maybe a thousand. The rationalization is they can reach a massive amount of people and their effect on the world is much broader (regardless of having a higher impact).

I honest have never seen a Dr Oz show but I know he has a broad audience therefore he should have a much much higher level of scrutiny than any other doctor.

Regardless the OP's question is still valid, if only the goal is to improve upon the output of the science.

No, their motivations are far more varied and far less clear.

While I certainly don't subscribe to anything so foolish as wholesale dismissal of the entire establishment, it's not as if every medical professional came out of a factory with no bias, flaws, or even fully developed critical thinking skills.

A lot less. Dr. Oz is at best a quack. Most MDs - even if they don't have time to keep up with their field should know their stuff.

The domain of Dr Oz's advice is also going to be different from a lot of general practitioners. While most doctors will spend most of their time giving out standard advice for routine conditions, Dr Oz will jump on a new fad each week, because he is producing entertainment and routine is not entertaining. Dr Oz will launch a campaign about how apple juice is poison, while most doctors will be giving out advice like "Your blood pressure is too high. You should try X, Y, Z to lower it."

I wouldn't say he's a quack -- that implies incompetency. Dr. Oz is actually one of the best heart surgeons in the country, it's rather just that he sold himself for money.

When the majority of your professional advice turns out to be either unsupported or contradicted by evidence, then the term "quack" is warranted.

Or if you overprescribe mercury to treat syphilis infection.

A lot. Source: I'm a doctor.

What kind of unsupported/false advice have you heard other doctors give patients?

"This knee arthroscopy will help your osteoarthritis of the knee"

"I don't have to count my tools before and after surgery"

"Try these antibiotics for your mild ear infection"

"Stomach ulcer cannot possibly be caused by bacteria"

There are plenty of doctors who were against the MMR jab - some of them wanted to give single immunisations while others were okay with no immunisation.

There are homeopathic hospitals.

Doctors are just human and are subject to the same biases as everyone else. That's why organisations like CDC or NOCE exist - to make sure people follow evidence based guidance. It's why we need well run trials - or preferably meta analysis of several well run trials.

Or that many doctors aren't up to date on the latest research and also have a tendency to give in to the same misconceived notions about health as some of their patients do. Especially in non academic settings.

I remember some research talking about 50% of doctor's recommendations aren't "best care".Not sure where.

Are you sure you remember it?