Watchdog Woo! BBC Endorses Psychics!

[baron]

Not only is this the first time I've started a thread here, last night was the first time I've ever written (emailed) to complain about a programme on TV. That's how p-ed off I am.

Everyone in the UK has heard of "Watchdog", bascially a consumer affairs show where the rights of the public are championed. Admirable stuff.

Last night I was really pleased to see them do an expose on a "psychic" who charged £1000s to repair "cracked auras"; after all, you so rarely see anybody stand up and accuse these frauds. All was going well until the discussion in the studio after the report.

One of the presenters (Julia Bradbury) twice referred to "fraudulent" psychics, as if there is any other kind. I was quite surprised at this but chalked it up to sloppy presentation, as clearly she couldn't possibly be suggesting such a thing.

And then, when she was interviewing the guy from Trading Standards, she came out with the killer line. "Of course," she said (verbatim), "there are genuine psychics out there..."

She went on to make a point of distinguishing between fraudulent psychics and "genuine" ones!

Genuine psychics! What the heck is she talking about? And what's more, the Trading Standards guy didn't even contradict her!

This was on prime-time TV, from a usually fair and balanced factual show! Sorry for all the exclamation marks but to my mind this is outrageous. I mean, this isn't some piddly little show on an unknown channel, it's one of the most popular shows on UK TV and it wields a lot of power. How dare it put out such a message, and what can be done to combat this madness?

[Beerina]

I thought "pissed" meant "drunk" in the provincial versions of English used in England. :duck:

It's also used as "angry"?

[Lothian]

I thought "pissed" meant "drunk" in the provincial versions of English used in England. :duck:

It's also used as "angry"?
'Pissed' means drunk.

'Pissed off' means angry.

[Furi]

*sucks air in over teeth*
"Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear, which cowboy last fixed your aura, eh? you should have come to a professional love, like myself."
*tuts repeatedly*
"If you had come to me when it was fractured it would have cost you very little but it's gone and cracked now, you see. it's going to be expensive darlin'"
"Going to have to replace the Donkey Flanges, then there are all the mental grommets, those loose screws are all going to need tightening, might take 4-5 visits."
"Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, when will people learn? well your lucky hon' now I'm here I'll be able to sort it out for you, tell you what I'll even through in a free chakra alignment, and flush out any random fluxs I find, cant say fairer than that now can we?"
*Smiles*
"errr White with 3 sugars and you got any Jaffa cakes... OOh Jammy dodgers, your an angel"
"where were we, Right let me show you are price list and easy remortgage facility..."


I would like to see a 'Which' report on Psychics that could be fun.

BBC research has been slipping so much, they probably didn't want to have to apologise for saying that it is all crap, and probably get taken to court over emotional damage or loss of earnings.

Personally they should have smacked them down and then asked one of the genuine psychics to proove it.

Watchdog for quite a while seemed to be a soapbox for the Daily Mail, Waitrose shopping, Kids to Private school, pissed off surbitonite, whinging nimbys. The sort of people who bought a printer and then phone their ISP Techsupport desk for assistance only to repeatedly referred to either the vendor or the manufacturer or to the general support forums (I got recorded for that one) but at least we came out smelling of roses as we had an 0800 number and we stated our scope of support quite clearly within our T&Cs.

[Ocelot]

Sent the following via their web contact form.


In was intrigued to learn from Julia Bradbury that genuine psychics do exist. This is tacitly confirmed by the Trading Standards officer on your show who allowed the comment to pass uncorrected.

If I can find a Genuine psychic then I should be hoping to negotiate a testing protocol with one of the many skeptics societies worldwide who have put up financial prizes should one be able to demonstrate supernatural abilities under test conditions. This should culminate in winning the Million Dollar prize available from James Randi. If successful I would be due a fifty thousand dollar finders fee.

As you can see there is a great deal of money hanging in the balance.

I had thought the fact that such challenges have been in existence for many years without anybody claiming the prizes was strong evidence that professional psychics were all frauds but, along with millions of viewers, I respect the judgements of your premier consumer affairs programme.

Surely you wouldn't be so sloppy as to mislead us on this?

As such I'd be grateful for your advice on how to locate a professional psychic capable of meeting the challenge of simply being able to genuinely do what they claim to be able to do.

[bridgy]

baron, I too saw that and was shocked by what she said. You posting this reminded me that I ought to complain so I did - via this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

[Darat]

I also saw it and have expressed my displeasure.

[baron]

Nice going - maybe they'll take notice if a bunch of people complain. I'd actually used the contact form on the Watchdog pages but I just followed bridgy's link and made an official complaint to the BBC for good measure. It says they'll contact me within 10 days - we'll see what they say.

[CrikeyBobs]

Just checked out the report using BBC iPlayer. Oh Julia, how could you? You impress me with all your walking and your rock climbing and then....this :eek: If there was Julia Bradbury Credibility Index (JBCI) then it would be falling as fast as the NYSE earlier this week, but there would be no dead cat bounce. :(

I might pray :boggled: that it was a slip of the tongue and she just blurted it out in a vain attept to add balance to the item, but I fear the worst. :covereyes

[Almo]

My (short) complaint has been submitted. I have lots of respect for the BBC, and this is really disappointing.

[tkingdoll]

The BBC has to be balanced in its reporting. I suspect that Julia said this in exactly the same way she would about any other trade. The show can't be seen to label or imply that all psychics are frauds...indeed as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there isn't anyone here who can say that all psychics are frauds, even though I suspect most of us believe that.

So, I have limited sympathy for her because she was probably either on autopilot or the little shouting voice in her ear told her to say it. Of course, it may be that her personal opinions biased her, and she's a troo bleever. In which case she's an idiot.

You have to bear in mind that as much as it's annoying, there is a legitimate industry in the UK and psychic services are in demand. The BBC can't be seen to be implying that all psychics are frauds. The flip side of that, of course, is that the BBC shouldn't be claiming any psychics are genuine, either. So in that regard they've screwed up here.

[baron]

The BBC can't be seen to be implying that all psychics are frauds.

I'm not sure about that. If I were to set up a business doing tribal dances in people's gardens in order to damp-proof their houses then I doubt the BBC would have any qualms about stating, "Remember, damp in the home cannot be cured by dancing in the garden and anyone who attempts to charge for this service is out to con you." It should be the same for people who take money for allegedly predicting your future, talking to your dead relatives or repairing your cracked aura by means of an £800 7-foot candle.

I agree the issue is complicated because many gullible people do pay for the service and are actually happy doing that. This shouldn't prevent the BBC from reporting the truth, however. In this instance, the correct thing for them to have said was, "Remember, there is no evidence whatsoever that psychics can do what they claim."

[AgeGap]

On the consumer show Watchdog your presenter stated that there are genuine psychics. I am unaware of any real proof that would support this view. If by genuine do you mean that they only intend to rip you off for a small amount of money? Is it the view of the BBC that some people have paranormal powers. If so you should stop making consumer programmes and concentrate your resources on the paranormal.
My complaint to the BBC.

[baron]

Excellent!

[Deetee]

There is also a thread about this in general skepticism and the Paranormal:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3378104#post3378104

I just submitted a complaint - good to see you guys are well on the case!

[bridgy]

I've just received a reply from the BBC in response to my complaint - is there any problem with posting it here in full?

In short they are saying that there are differing opinions on whether psychics are real, that Watchdog didn't set out to prove this either way, and that the BBC doesn't take a stance either way, but are impartial on the matter.

In my view what the presenter said was far from impartial on the matter - she specifically said some psychics are real, so I'll reply to this effect.

[Ocelot]

I've just received a reply from the BBC in response to my complaint - is there any problem with posting it here in full?

In short they are saying that there are differing opinions on whether psychics are real, that Watchdog didn't set out to prove this either way, and that the BBC doesn't take a stance either way, but are impartial on the matter.

In my view what the presenter said was far from impartial on the matter - she specifically said some psychics are real, so I'll reply to this effect.

At the risk of fullfilling Godwins law...

There are differing opinions on whether the holocaust happened, do they want to be impartial on that too?

[AgeGap]

...is there any problem with posting it here in full?
I would not object. I wish i had put something to the effect of Watchdog discouraging vulnerable people from going to see psychics in the first place. Then they could not get ripped off in these circumstances.

Oh hang on, withdraw my complaint, Sally Morgan is the real deal.:D;):)

[Beerina]

It's too bad someone didn't take the ball and run with it.

"Ok, so there's genuine psychics, eh? Let's set up a test and test the ones you believe are genuine."

[baron]

I've just received a reply from the BBC in response to my complaint - is there any problem with posting it here in full?

In short they are saying that there are differing opinions on whether psychics are real, that Watchdog didn't set out to prove this either way, and that the BBC doesn't take a stance either way, but are impartial on the matter.

In my view what the presenter said was far from impartial on the matter - she specifically said some psychics are real, so I'll reply to this effect.

Please post it. It sounds like you got the brush-off. Clearly Watchdog did endorse psychics and therefore the BBC isn't impartial, that's the whole point.

[Magic 9-Ball]

I can't see the BBC coming right out and saying "there are no psychics", as the Prince is such a fan of Woo. I'm certainly not surprised they're going to be impartial, which I take to being non-committal in their view. I would have been OK with Bradbury having said "some people say psychics are real, despite there being no proof."

Yes, I agree to post it. It's probably part form letter, anyway.

[bridgy]

Here's my reply from the BBC in full:

Thank you for your email regarding 'Watchdog'.

I understand you feel the statement made by the presenter that the activities of Loretta Williams could damage the reputation of 'real' psychics should have be supported by proof that psychics are capable of what they claim to be able to do.

'Watchdog' did not set out to prove whether people have or have not psychic abilities, and this was not the objective of the programme broadcast on the 23rd January. It is the programmes responsibility however to investigate fraudulent and unjust activities which became apparent in the case of Loretta Williams.

There are a number of people who claim to have psychic abilities and we appreciate there are a variety of opinions regarding the issue however we are an impartial broadcasting company and the BBC cannot take a stance or hold an opinion on any public issue; indeed it is specifically prohibited from expressing a view of its own on any issue with the exception of those specifically related to broadcasting.

I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

As has been pointed out before it is nonsense to suggest that the BBC could or should be impartial on EVERYTHING! And even if they were, the whole point of the complaint was that they weren't being impartial - the presenter was acknowledging that there were real psychics. If she wanted to be impartial, she could have said there are differing views, but she didn't.

I haven't replied to them yet but this will be the gist of what I'll say - unless anyone has anything else to add.

[Big Les]

This doesn't actually surprise me, because the same woman from Watchdog was on Radio 2 the other day before Sally Morgan came on, and the vain hope appeared in my mind that Watchdog might one day tackle a psychic. But the presenter gave the distinct impression that she thought Morgan, at least, was genuine.

Most people just don't know or care as much as we do about psychics and their claims or activities, and I think those in the media are at least as susceptible to believing there might be something to it.

I really think that psychics are able to take advantage of the same protection from criticism on TV and in "polite society" that religion has traditionally been afforded. So I can see why the Beeb wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. That one comment will have saved them quite a few complaints and possible Ofcom action, I would think.

[Rolfe]

I think the problem is that the job of the people who write these replies is to give the complainant the brush-off. It's a bit like politicians' replies. It doesn't have to answer the question, it doesn't even have to be logically correct. It just has to sound nice and reasonable and bland and dismissive.

90% of people getting such a reply won't bother taking it any further.

Rolfe.

[baron]

I haven't replied to them yet but this will be the gist of what I'll say - unless anyone has anything else to add.

They did not address the point at all, that being that Julia Bradbury stated that genuine psychics DO exist. Mind you, at least you got a reply. As yet nobody has bothered to contact me about my complaint.

On top of that, the whole issue that the BBC "must remain impartial" is complete nonsense. Maybe naively I thought they should perhaps try to report the truth.

[Alan G]

There are a number of people who claim to have psychic abilities and we appreciate there are a variety of opinions regarding the issue however we are an impartial broadcasting company and the BBC cannot take a stance or hold an opinion on any public issue;That in itself is a false statement.

If Watchdog investigate a complaint about a company they don't investigate, and say that the consumer and the company have a variety of opinions about who is responsible for whatever problems so they can't take a stance.

There is a page about the report http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdog/reports/services/services_20080123.shtml

My letter:


After an excellent investigation exposing the "claptrap" of a claimed psychic and her "bogus psychic scam" I was extremely disappointed at the claim by your presenter that there are "genuine psychics out there as well".

Given that Watchdog is a Consumer Affairs show which regularly exposes scams and dodgy businesses a viewer would be likely to take any statement of fact from the show at face value.

Claiming there are real psychics seriously undermines the credibility and reliability of the show. Unless of course the show would wish to contrast the bogus scam artist from this show with "genuine psychics". Given that there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of psychic powers I doubt this will be within your powers.

[tkingdoll]

I'm not sure about that. If I were to set up a business doing tribal dances in people's gardens in order to damp-proof their houses then I doubt the BBC would have any qualms about stating, "Remember, damp in the home cannot be cured by dancing in the garden and anyone who attempts to charge for this service is out to con you."



They absolutely would not say that. Not in a million years would they stick their neck out and say 'damp in the home cannot be cured by dancing', let alone say that anyone charging for it is out to con. At best, they would get an expert in damp-proofing, or some bloke from the council, and get him to (as impartially as possible) give his opinion about whether or not it's possible. The greater his authority, the more certain he can be, but the BBC itself (especially via its presenters) wouldn't make any claims about what is or isn't possible. They defer that responsibility to their 'experts'. Which is often some random person. Hell, I get called to be a TV 'expert' on paranormal stuff! Their standards are low. :D

[Nick227]

Please post it. It sounds like you got the brush-off. Clearly Watchdog did endorse psychics and therefore the BBC isn't impartial, that's the whole point.

In my experience, media orgs in the UK won't take a real stand on anything. They are paranoid of upsetting minority groups and will simply lecture you about "balance" - the editorial term for fence-sitting.

A lot of people go to psychics in Britain. It doesn't usually cost so much and many people I know consider they benefit considerably. Likewise alternative health practitioners. Just because you can't prove something does not mean it doesn't benefit people.

Nick

[baron]

They absolutely would not say that. Not in a million years would they stick their neck out and say 'damp in the home cannot be cured by dancing', let alone say that anyone charging for it is out to con. At best, they would get an expert in damp-proofing...

I think you're splitting hairs. Yes, they often wheel in an "expert", but on the basis of that expert's views they will accuse said person of fraud, on-camera and to their face. It's essentially the same thing.

A good example of this is "Rogue Traders" (UK TV) where the expert gives his view based on hidden camera evidence and the presenter then confronts the scammer.

Anyhow, in this instance the whole point is that the presenter DID make a definitive comment, and that comment was "Of course, genuine psychics do exist." That's certainly not impartial.

A lot of people go to psychics in Britain. It doesn't usually cost so much and many people I know consider they benefit considerably. Likewise alternative health practitioners. Just because you can't prove something does not mean it doesn't benefit people.

That may be true but it isn't the issue here. Plenty of people gain comfort from their belief in their god, but I suspect a fair few people would complain if the BBC presenter said, "Of course, <insert god's name here> does exist."

[Nick227]

That may be true but it isn't the issue here. Plenty of people gain comfort from their belief in their god, but I suspect a fair few people would complain if the BBC presenter said, "Of course, <insert god's name here> does exist."

Is there an accepted definition of the word "psychic?" A genuine psychic would not have to demonstrate that psychicism was valid, merely that they conformed to the definition.

Nick

[tkingdoll]

I think you're splitting hairs. Yes, they often wheel in an "expert", but on the basis of that expert's views they will accuse said person of fraud, on-camera and to their face. It's essentially the same thing.

A good example of this is "Rogue Traders" (UK TV) where the expert gives his view based on hidden camera evidence and the presenter then confronts the scammer.



Er...yes, they will accuse a specific person of fraud. But they won't accuse the entire industry of fraud. You can't assume that ALL sellers of X are frauds, just because Y seller of X is a fraud. You can subtly imply it though.

I'm not defending the psychic comment, it was dumb, but if anyone thinks the BBC should be outright saying that all psychics are frauds, then it's not going to happen. The best you'll get is an 'expert' saying that so far there hasn't been any evidence. And the item in question wasn't dealing with the question of whether psychic powers exist in general, it was dealing with a specific fraudster.

[bridgy]

I'm not defending the psychic comment, it was dumb, but if anyone thinks the BBC should be outright saying that all psychics are frauds, then it's not going to happen.

Well I for one wasn't expecting the BBC to say ALL psychics are frauds - and that wasn't what I was complaining about.

The best you'll get is an 'expert' saying that so far there hasn't been any evidence. And the item in question wasn't dealing with the question of whether psychic powers exist in general, it was dealing with a specific fraudster

Exactly. The complaint to the BBC was that they didn't do this. And I agree they were dealing with a specific psychic and not "psychics" in general, so there was no need for the presenter's comment at all - they could have stuck to the person they were investigating and left it at that - but they didn't.

[Nick227]

Well I for one wasn't expecting the BBC to say ALL psychics are frauds - and that wasn't what I was complaining about.



Exactly. The complaint to the BBC was that they didn't do this. And I agree they were dealing with a specific psychic and not "psychics" in general, so there was no need for the presenter's comment at all - they could have stuck to the person they were investigating and left it at that - but they didn't.

I don't personally see this case as being any different from "cowboy" roofers charging old ladies £2k to fix a couple of tiles. It's not about the quality of the work, but about the pricing. Of course, the BBC could have been more clear about it, as the term "genuine" does imply something else. I don't suppose the programme bothered to check out if people's auras were fixed, by kirlian photography or whatever.

Nick

[bridgy]

I don't personally see this case as being any different from "cowboy" roofers charging old ladies £2k to fix a couple of tiles. It's not about the quality of the work, but about the pricing. Of course, the BBC could have been more clear about it, as the term "genuine" does imply something else. I don't suppose the programme bothered to check out if people's auras were fixed, by kirlian photography or whatever.

Nick

I see your point - that's a very generous interpretation of what was said! (but you may well be right).

But the difference of course is that there is no disputing the fact that there are genuine roofers who can actually repair roofs!

[baron]

Our complaints evidently had an effect as they were mentioned on this week's programme, but as expected the presenters dodged the issue. Nicky Campbell effectively said they couldn't comment on the authenticity or otherwise of all psychics (which is fine, nobobdy asked them to) and said they had been drawing a line between "psychics" who defraud people out of large amounts as compared to "the lady who reads tea-leaves at the village fete."

Of course this doesn't address the point being made, that Julia Bradbury explicitly stated "Of course, genuine psychics do exist."

Even leaving this aside, their point is not valid. What's the difference between getting ripped off for £800 for some "spirit candle" (as per the "psychic" they busted) and paying £25 per week for a year to some equally fraudulent old woman.

I suppose the only good thing to come out of it is I'm sure they'll be more careful with their phraseology in future.

[tkingdoll]

Talk about weasel words. Campbell says they can't comment on authenticity, in response to complaints about Bradbury doing exactly that. Morons.

Is 'phraseology' a word? If not, it should be.

[Nick227]

Of course this doesn't address the point being made, that Julia Bradbury explicitly stated "Of course, genuine psychics do exist."

You can be a "genuine psychic" without having to demonstrate your personal effectiveness at psychicism or that of the profession in general. You could be a member of a professional body which governs psychics. Given the limitations of current science to prove or disprove the overall validity of psychicism, I would thought that this is pretty reasonable.

Nick

[volatile]

There's another thread on this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104957).

VG-DV4ottmE

[Darat]

You can be a "genuine psychic" without having to demonstrate your personal effectiveness at psychicism or that of the profession in general. You could be a member of a professional body which governs psychics. Given the limitations of current science to prove or disprove the overall validity of psychicism, I would thought that this is pretty reasonable.

Nick

Apart from the fact that there is no such "limitation" in regards to proving or disproving "genuine psychics". (Especially given that there is no evidence at all that psychics can do what the claim they do.)

[Ocelot]

You can be a "genuine psychic" without having to demonstrate your personal effectiveness at psychicism or that of the profession in general. You could be a member of a professional body which governs psychics. Given the limitations of current science to prove or disprove the overall validity of psychicism, I would thought that this is pretty reasonable.

Nick

Science is perfectly capable of proving psychic claims if real. Science's position on "genuine psychics" is identical to its position on green mammals. If one is found science is a method by which it may be recognised. The failure to unearth one after serious attempts to find one suggest a provissional conclusion that none exist.

A reasonable position might be "it may be that there are genuine psychics" or "it may be that there are green mammals" A positive affirmation of thier existance however is not upheld by the facts it is not reasonable.

[Nick227]

Science is perfectly capable of proving psychic claims if real. Science's position on "genuine psychics" is identical to its position on green mammals. If one is found science is a method by which it may be recognised. The failure to unearth one after serious attempts to find one suggest a provissional conclusion that none exist.

A reasonable position might be "it may be that there are genuine psychics" or "it may be that there are green mammals" A positive affirmation of thier existance however is not upheld by the facts it is not reasonable.

Just to be pedantic, this doesn't undermine the fact that you can still be a "genuine psychic" without demonstrating that psychicism works scientifically. It is a statement of profession.

Nick

[Ocelot]

Just to be pedantic, this doesn't undermine the fact that you can still be a "genuine psychic" without demonstrating that psychicism works scientifically. It is a statement of profession.

Nick

No it isn't, it's a statement of ability.

[Big Les]

I think by "genuine psychic" they meant somebody that offers to make vague pronouncements about your past, present, and future, in exchange for a small sum. To us, that's fraud akin ethically to what this woman was doing with her candles etc, but to your average punter (and it seems, the fraud guy interviewed) that's harmless fun. Like a fortune cookie, or (more so) an astrology column. Most people just don't see it the way we do, even if they're fairly sure there's nothing to it, they might still do it just for fun, and as a sort of Pascal's wager arrangement - "you never know, there might be something in it; doesn't hurt to try". I think many may see them as akin to performance artists, especially stage magicians - would you call a magician a fraud? We know the difference is being honest about one's dishonesty, but do the public appreciate the difference?

But, assuming I'm right, at what level of cost and impressiveness (i.e. cold reading proficiency) does taking money for psychic readings constitute fraud in the eyes of these people?

[baron]

Just to be pedantic, this doesn't undermine the fact that you can still be a "genuine psychic" without demonstrating that psychicism works scientifically. It is a statement of profession.

Well, it isn't, any more than someone could be a genuine ghost or a genuine Venusian or a genuine bigfoot. You can't be a "genuine psychic" if you exhibit none of the traits that define a psychic in the first place.

[baron]

But, assuming I'm right, at what level of cost and impressiveness (i.e. cold reading proficiency) does taking money for psychic readings constitute fraud in the eyes of these people?

This is the issue that the presenters skirted around. In my view a fraud is a fraud, whether they charge £5,000 or £5 or nothing at all. Clearly some frauds are more damaging than others, and money is a factor in this, but I don't see why any of these people should be tolerated.

[tkingdoll]

I think many may see them as akin to performance artists, especially stage magicians - would you call a magician a fraud? We know the difference is being honest about one's dishonesty, but do the public appreciate the difference?



The simple way to answer that is to think about a fraudulent magician. If someone can't do any tricks, they're not a magician. The closest you'd come is someone who takes money for doing tricks and then doesn't do any. You might then say 'he's not a genuine magician'.

But I agree it's a grey area. Plenty of stage magicians are not honest about their dishonesty.

[Nick227]

No it isn't, it's a statement of ability.

Well, it could be either. To be strictly a statement of ability there needs to be a category "non-genuine psychics." Same with being members of a professional body.

Seeing as the programme was unclear as to which definition it was referring to, and that the category "genuine or non-genuine professional psychic" is far clearer defined that "genuine or non-genuine capable psychic", I would say that the former is clearly the case.

Several people have here articulated their belief that all psychicry is fraud. Thus, logically, if they believe this, it should be clear to them that the piece was referring to professionalism.

Nick

[Big Les]

The simple way to answer that is to think about a fraudulent magician. If someone can't do any tricks, they're not a magician. The closest you'd come is someone who takes money for doing tricks and then doesn't do any. You might then say 'he's not a genuine magician'.

But I agree it's a grey area. Plenty of stage magicians are not honest about their dishonesty.

I'm absolutely playing devil's advocate there. I think this was a pathetic "please don't complain to us" cop-out. It's inconsistent - their only defining criteria for fraud seems be how expensive the services were. Fraud is indeed fraud, and it should be the case that anyone claiming to be able to provide information from the dead is taking part in fraud unless they can demonstrate otherwise.

The mentalist/psychic grey area is a whole other barrel of monkeys. It seems likely that many "psychics" are in fact mentalists with questionable ethics.

[Ocelot]

Well, it could be either. To be strictly a statement of ability there needs to be a category "non-genuine psychics." Same with being members of a professional body.

Seeing as the programme was unclear as to which definition it was referring to, and that the category "genuine or non-genuine professional psychic" is far clearer defined that "genuine or non-genuine capable psychic", I would say that the former is clearly the case.

Several people have here articulated their belief that all psychicry is fraud. Thus, logically, if they believe this, it should be clear to them that the piece was referring to professionalism.

Nick

No it was clearly a statement of ability.The fraud they exposed and compared to "genuine psychics" was a proffessional. Even entertaining your suggestion for a second, a statement of professionalism includes a statement of ability so you're on a hiding to nothing.

[ChrisH]

"I can't see the BBC coming right out and saying "there are no psychics", as the Prince is such a fan of Woo."

What does that have to do with anything? HRH doesn't run the BBC...

[Nick227]

No it was clearly a statement of ability.The fraud they exposed and compared to "genuine psychics" was a proffessional. Even entertaining your suggestion for a second, a statement of professionalism includes a statement of ability so you're on a hiding to nothing.

Hi Ocelot,

My usual desire to endlessly debate even the most minor of points seems to be a bit on the wane today. Maybe later.

Nick

[welshdean]

Watched the programme and seethed quiety to myself, I saw this thread and thought NO! They can't get away with. Sent this to the Beeb, like many others I'm waiting for a response.

During the 'Fraudulent Psychic' report, Julia Bradbury stated, "Of course, there are genuine psychics out there...". This is an outrageous comment to make as a certain sector of the audience will have believed her.
It is common knowledge amongst all thinking people that the whole psychic industry is fraudulent. How on earth can the BBC endorse such nonsense? Do you want to perpetuate the hurt and pain that they bring to the bereaved, Do you wish to add further anguish to parents of missing children. If so then you've done a sterling job. If not, then nothing short of an on-air retraction by Julia would suffice.
The mere fact that these charlatans have to add disclaimers stating '...for entertainment purposes only." on advertisements and broadcasts should dispel any foolish notions Ms Bradbury may hold.
Incidentally As Julia was so adamant that there are 'genuine psychics out there’ why doesn't she identify one and conduct an on air test. Advice on testing protocols would be willingly supplied by Mr. James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org). If by any chance the test proved positive for the pyschic Julia could share the $1m dollar prize with him/her. (see: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/ )
So after the public retraction, it would seem pertinent, for the sake of balance, for the BBC to commission a film of the test. After all, the Horizon/homoeopathy/Benveniste programme proved to be very interesting viewing.

For any of you that have seen the Horizon prog, if the beeb do something similar with this, we're in for a treat.

[welshdean]

Watched the programme and seethed quiety to myself, I saw this thread and thought NO! They can't get away with. Sent this to the Beeb, like many others I'm waiting for a response.

During the 'Fraudulent Psychic' report, Julia Bradbury stated, "Of course, there are genuine psychics out there...". This is an outrageous comment to make as a certain sector of the audience will have believed her.
It is common knowledge amongst all thinking people that the whole psychic industry is fraudulent. How on earth can the BBC endorse such nonsense? Do you want to perpetuate the hurt and pain that they bring to the bereaved, Do you wish to add further anguish to parents of missing children. If so then you've done a sterling job. If not, then nothing short of an on-air retraction by Julia would suffice.
The mere fact that these charlatans have to add disclaimers stating '...for entertainment purposes only." on advertisements and broadcasts should dispel any foolish notions Ms Bradbury may hold.
Incidentally As Julia was so adamant that there are 'genuine psychics out there’ why doesn't she identify one and conduct an on air test. Advice on testing protocols would be willingly supplied by Mr. James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org). If by any chance the test proved positive for the pyschic Julia could share the $1m dollar prize with him/her. (see: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/ )
So after the public retraction, it would seem pertinent, for the sake of balance, for the BBC to commission a film of the test. After all, the Horizon/homoeopathy/Benveniste programme proved to be very interesting viewing.

For any of you that have seen the Horizon prog, if the beeb do something similar with this, we're in for a treat.

[Nick227]

It is common knowledge amongst all thinking people that the whole psychic industry is fraudulent.

I am a thinking person and I don't think it's fraudulent. There must be a hundred thousand people that use psychics in the UK alone, are you saying they cannot think?

I submit that this is a far more nonsensical statement than even the most deluded psychic could ever come up with.

People go to psychics when the regular means they have for resolving personal issues don't work for them. That scientists don't understand it is their issue, not the psychics'.

Nick

[baron]

I am a thinking person and I don't think it's fraudulent. There must be a hundred thousand people that use psychics in the UK alone, are you saying they cannot think?

They can think, but not particularly logically. Nor are they particularly intelligent or willing / able to perform basic research.

The vast majority of psychics are fraudulent. The rest are deluded. That's about the sum of it.

[Nick227]

The vast majority of psychics are fraudulent. The rest are deluded. That's about the sum of it.

Hi Baron,

So you think there are genuine psychics too?

Nick

[Big Les]

If your definition of a "genuine psychic" is one that doesn't realise they're not actually psychic, then he might well think that. I do. But most people, by "genuine psychic" mean someone that has genuine psychic ability.

So even if Watchdog meant to say that some psychics are well-intentioned and unaware of their own earthly methods (i.e. cold reading), they are misleading the public, who will take the phrase as I say above.

[baron]

So you think there are genuine psychics too?


Clearly not. You appear to be making an error of grammatical interpretation.

Like any adjective, "genuine" describes the subsequent noun, which in this case is "psychic". Therefore a "genuine" psychic is one who exhibits the traits and attributes of a psychic, e.g. can talk to the dead and foresee the future.

You seem to be making the association that the psychic will be a person, which is clearly correct, but then applying the attribute "genuine" to the implied noun "person". In this instance the adjective shifts meaning in day-to-day usage and describes a person who has no willingness to deceive.

The Watchdog programme obviously used the former definition, as it would not matter one iota to the psychic's client whether the psychic was fraudulent or actually believed they had supernatural power.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

[Nick227]

Clearly not. You appear to be making an error of grammatical interpretation.

Like any adjective, "genuine" describes the subsequent noun, which in this case is "psychic". Therefore a "genuine" psychic is one who exhibits the traits and attributes of a psychic, e.g. can talk to the dead and foresee the future.

You seem to be making the association that the psychic will be a person, which is clearly correct, but then applying the attribute "genuine" to the implied noun "person". In this instance the adjective shifts meaning in day-to-day usage and describes a person who has no willingness to deceive.

The Watchdog programme obviously used the former definition, as it would not matter one iota to the psychic's client whether the psychic was fraudulent or actually believed they had supernatural power.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Yes, thank you. It's precisely what I wrote earlier in this thread.

Nick

[baron]

It's precisely what I wrote earlier in this thread.

:confused:

[Alan G]

Got a reply from the BBC


Dear Mr Alan G

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Watchdog' on BBC One broadcast on
23 January.

I understand you feel that presenter Julia Bradbury should not have
used the phrase "genuine psychics" during this programme.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.

'Watchdog' receives a lot of complaints from viewers about psychic
scams of this nature. This is why after our report on Mrs Adams, we
featured the interview with Mike Haley from the Office of Fair Trading, so we
could highlight the frequency with which such practices occur. However
we also felt it was important to distinguish between Mrs Adams and the
arguably more harmless neighbour who reads palms at the Christmas
fair.

It's obvious that, rightly or wrongly, a number of 'Watchdog' viewers
do believe in psychics, so we had no wish to offend or insult either
those viewers or their opinions.

It's unfortunate that in trying to be fair (during what was after all a
live, unscripted interview), we inadvertently said `genuine psychics'
rather than `genuinely intentioned'. Some might argue there's no
difference, but obviously not all merit the attentions of either the OFT or
Australian police. We had hoped that by including this item at all it
was clear that we were taking quite a pop at this kind of business, but
in any case we took on board the comments in this complaint, and
included a clarification on the following week's programme.

I would also like to assure you that we have registered your comments
on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback
which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning
executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that
your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and
considered across the BBC.

Thank you again for contacting the BBC.

Regards

[BBC complaints person]

[Big Les]

That's actually a good response IMO.

[rjh01]

The whole letter implies that they made a mistake and they know it. I doubt that they could go much further.