Panelist from 20/20 JE segment speaks out against the representation

[Marc]

Checking out the comentary on Seance website again after the show. A guy named Chris is posting there, who says he was one of the people set to be read for JE. He complains about the editing, saying they edited out all the hits JE got, and the interviewers were asking a lot of "negative" questions.

They were complaining about the bias of the segment before, now this is adding evidence to their complaints. Of course no mention on how pro-JE segments or his show are edited to show him in a good light, how Larry King gets his questions certified by Nerf, or anything like that.

Chris's disapointment (http://www.suzanenorthrop.com/forums/read.php?f=3&i=31251&t=31236)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Marc
... how Larry King gets his questions certified by Nurf, or anything like that.
...[/URL] Great joke -- just watch the spelling. nerf.com (http://www.nerf.com)

As I've said elsewhere. Larry King doesn't just throw softballs, he's actively and intentionally abetting sh!thead bastards in engaging in their scummy enterprise. His payoff is ratings. What on Earth is 20/20 thinking in bucking the heartfelt desires of the bigger, credulous audience? Or is it the sign of a belief trend away from ADC? The public is fickle. In the meantime, kudos to Disney/ABC over Time-Warner/CNN.

[Marc]

oops!

thanks for the correction.


I think with Sylvia last time Larry made a token effort with some questions early on, but didn't press or follow up on any of them. Even hardball questions don't do much if you are just gently roll them at the person.

[Hexxenhammer]

I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday and saw that Larry King had written the forward to Edwards newest book. Ugh! The guy is totally in bed with these loons. They're feeding off of one another.

[Darat]

Interesting link, in the first post

...snip...
The segment was, as I anticipated, an attempt to discredit John's psychic abilities. They pretty much set him up to fail -- they concocted a group of sitters, and they sat and counted all the times he was right vs. how many times he was wrong.
...snip...


Yep they set out to discredit John's abilities all right, imagine thinking you could just count the hits and misses to assess whether he can do what he says he can...

What a biased way to do it, obviously one should just hold ones breath until everyone agrees with you that JE is the “real thing”. ;)

[Suezoled]

Well, you know truth is relative and you have to make your own truth and JE is not a fraud and you just suffer psychic amnesia and even a miss is a hit such as "I see you having a chest scan" and the reply is "look I don't want to discuss my medical record" so for fans it's a hit but for disbelievers it's a miss but it's all relative because truth is relative except if you're a disbeliever and then you're wrong.

:p

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Well, you know truth is relative and you have to make your own truth and JE is not a fraud and you just suffer psychic amnesia and even a miss is a hit such as "I see you having a chest scan" and the reply is "look I don't want to discuss my medical record" so for fans it's a hit but for disbelievers it's a miss but it's all relative because truth is relative except if you're a disbeliever and then you're wrong.

:p I have a hard time believing that the sales of Preparation H would be so brisk in a world where we actually made our own truth.

[Undodog]

A quote by Dale from that link:
"John Edward "vague"? Telling some one he had a relative with a club foot, some one places the departed grandparents' false teeth on the Christmas tree, some one twice kept an acquaintance from committing suicide. Those and hundreds of precisestatements like them are not vague.
I am still a healthy skeptic..."

Hmm, clearly!

[Clancie]

[Note to all: Larry King hosts a talk show. He is not a reporter.]

Good link, Marc. Chris makes some interesting points.
Chris
My wife and I went to Good morning America and were choosen from that audience by Michael Mendelson(SP) a 20/20 producer. They asked us who would be intertested and my wife raised her hand.
Chris continues...
Chris
There were only 7 of us on the panel. JE read for 1 hour 39 minutes. The entire process lasted about 3 hours. When Bill Ritter came out he interviewed us for about 20-30 minutes. although on the 20/20 episode you only saw ONE question from him and ONE verbal sound bite from us.

The question: "Who came here WANTING to talk to someone who has passed?"

The sound bite: Nick: "I have cancer in my family, I have drunks in my family!"

Again, Nick did NOT get read, therefore he had nothing to go by.


Chris also said, Chris
"The group reacted pretty well to JE, He is a VERY nice guy who allowed us to get pictures with him and autographs from him."


"20/20 did not show ANY of the things he (JE) got correct."
Chris
He told my wife (next to me) that she had a sister type figure who had a cancer in the chest area (She had breast cancer) that was cured, but now there is another cancer that is back (which is true). He also told my wife that she pretends to be stronger about the cancer than she really is. This is also true.
"From the MOMENT Bill Ritter began interviewing us I knew what direction this segment would take. " Chris
He was continually asking us "Negative" type questions. When all was said and done I knew they could take this segment either way but WOULD take it in a "Lets show them how fake John Edward is" direction.
Chris
...the bulk of these shows are suppose to be impartial. I see now that I have been a part of the show that it is not.

Bottom line - Dont believe what you see on T.V.
And he adds this, which Ritter never felt like mentioning either....

"The funny thing is that the people who were negative along with Bill Ritter were the 4 people that did NOT get read that day."

[Clancie]

And, re: JE's reading of the producer (supposedly 40 misses out of 41 tries), he says this:
Chris
As far as Michael Pressmen (the producer JE did read for) WEEELLLL, let me tell you.... There was a part in his reading to Michael that went as follows, I am writing this from memory, SO do NOT quote me but this is ABOUT what was said... this was NOT on the segment

Chris, from memory:

JE - Are you going for a test of some kind for your chest?

MP - Ummmm, not really.

JE - Cause I see a problem in the chest area, your going to have some type of scan done?

MP - Ummmm, Not really.

JE - Hmmm, I cant let this one go... You sure?[/QUOTE]

After SEVERAL minutes of this......

JE - I still see a chest scan of some kind.

MP - Look, I dont want to open my medical record here in front of my co-workers.

JE - I understand, no problem.

Chris continues....To me that was an admission that there was something there. There were several things that JE got correct when reading for Michael Pressmen. Of course, Michael was not going to give him an INCH!

[Suezoled]

what's your point Clancie, quoting these things?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suezoled
what's your point Clancie, quoting these things?

Isn't that obvious? Clancie relies on the memory of a poster who claims to be the one in the show.

[Suezoled]

Clancie is also pointing out quotes that show misses, not genuine hits. That is what confused me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Clancie is also pointing out quotes that show misses, not genuine hits. That is what confused me.

Ah, but that's the beauty of it. You see, believers claim that if a medium is not accurate, that means he/she is real!

If a psychic hits, it's evidence that he/she is real.

If a psychic misses, that's not evidence that he/she is not real, it's also evidence that he/she is real!

The psychic can't lose. Such is the logic of believers...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Clancie is also pointing out quotes that show misses, not genuine hits. That is what confused me.

Want to bet ;)

(Sorry Clancie - just a joke.)

[Marc]

I posted the link to be fair and open on the discussions. Also I know believers would use Chris's statements as their evidence and it would be good for us to see them and deal with the source of the claims right off.

First, as was pointed out these are from his memory. We have seen plenty of times how memories change and distort events, and will make a reading much more impressive than it actually was.

The sound bite: Nick: "I have cancer in my family, I have drunks in my family!"

Again, Nick did NOT get read, therefore he had nothing to go by
wasn't this person's statement on how the 'hits' Edward got for other people could equally apply to him? (I'm working from memory here, you know how unreliable that is! :p )

The group reacted pretty well to JE, He is a VERY nice guy who allowed us to get pictures with him and autographs from him."
so what?

Bottom line - Dont believe what you see on T.V.
we don't, that is why we don't believe in Crossing Over :p The complaints about the 20/20 segment not being impartial or ballanced are pretty lame when we see how one sided most paranormal oriented programs and stories are.


Chris continues....To me that was an admission that there was something there. There were several things that JE got correct when reading for Michael Pressmen. Of course, Michael was not going to give him an INCH!
Are you psychic? How do you know JE got these things correct? All the responses were in the negative. Not to mention that his statements are still pretty vague. You got primary organs in the chest, how unusual is it for someone to have their heart or lungs checked out regularly?

[Suezoled]

Heh. I won't even count the "Lori...Laura?" JE was asking the producer, who turned out to be his wife. First of all, he got the name at a guess, and secondly, from what I can recall, she wasn't dead!

[Marc]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Heh. I won't even count the "Lori...Laura?" JE was asking the producer, who turned out to be his wife. First of all, he got the name at a guess, and secondly, from what I can recall, she wasn't dead!

Oh, but you don't understand. If the medium comes up with a name and that person is dead, the name is of the spirit he is seeing. (though 'seeing' does not always mean 'seeing') If the person is still alive then the spirit is mentioning your 4th cousin that you haven't seen in a year as some kind of validation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc


Oh, but you don't understand. If the medium comes up with a name and that person is dead, the name is of the spirit he is seeing. (though 'seeing' does not always mean 'seeing') If the person is still alive then the spirit is mentioning your 4th cousin that you haven't seen in a year as some kind of validation.

It's worse.

This is a classic example of John Edward switching mid-stream:

John: But she's making me feel like she sees the changes that have happened. She's also saying to say hello to Thomas or Tommy. Okay, so she wants me to acknowledge that. You understand that?

Woman: (reacts emotionally) My husband just passed, too!

John: Okay, well then she's saying hello FOR him, 'cause she's telling me to acknowledge Tommy or Thomas, okay?
Source (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?&threadid=85295)


First, JE has the dead person saying hello to "Thomas or Tommy". Then, when it turns out that "Thomas or Tommy" is the dead husband, JE switches to having a dead person saying hello for another dead person.

This was completely ignored by the believers, when discussed. Never underestimate the power of self-deception...

[dharlow]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Ah, but that's the beauty of it. You see, believers claim that if a medium is not accurate, that means he/she is real!

If a psychic hits, it's evidence that he/she is real.

If a psychic misses, that's not evidence that he/she is not real, it's also evidence that he/she is real!

The psychic can't lose. Such is the logic of believers...

And don't think psychics don't use this technique to their advantage. In her booklet "Cashing in on the Psychic", the professional psychic Myrium Ruthchild states:

" When you do psychic demonstrations, one of the greatest additions to the credibility factor is to fail. People believe you more if you make mistakes. Always select one person who you do not answer.

PATTER: 'I am sorry, I just can't seem to tune into your vibrations at the moment. Perhaps there is something that your subconscious doesn't want you to reveal.' "(pg. 17)

Straight from the horses mouth....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dharlow
Straight from the horses mouth....

Yeah, but this doesn't apply to Psychic (insert name of flavor of the month here)!!

As believers will be more than happy to point out the flaws in the psychics they themselves do not believe in, so will they ignore that their own psychic exhibits the very same flaws....

Sylvia Browne and John Edward being two, who are absolutely doing the same shtick, yet the former is ridiculed and the latter adored...

[Marc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
First, JE has the dead person saying hello to "Thomas or Tommy". Then, when it turns out that "Thomas or Tommy" is the dead husband, JE switches to having a dead person saying hello for another dead person.

and what was Tommy doing that was so important that he couldn't come and speak to his wife in person? I bet he was watching that cute blond next door again!! she was probably taking a shower at that time.

[hgc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

...
Sylvia Browne and John Edward being two, who are absolutely doing the same shtick, yet the former is ridiculed and the latter adored... Demonstrates the importance of charm. Browne is prickly, short-tempered, with an unpleasant, insipid manner that rattles my molars. Butt-ugly too. Oh, Edward is the same, but to a much more muted degree, and a lot more palatable, I guess, to the believers. How did Syl start a religion? She's completely devoid of charisma.

[Clancie]

Posted by Suzeloid

What's your point Clancie, quoting these things?

Hi Suzeloid,

Well, I had a couple of purposes. First, from some of the comments after Marc's post, it didn't seem that everyone had actually -read- the man's comments. So I reposted them here, just in case someone was interested.

Second....
From Marc
....it would be good for us to see them and deal with the source of the claims right off.
I agree with this, although the "evidence", imo, is not that JE is great...real....whatever. It's that "20/20" had an incredibly unfair bias in their one-sided presentation.

Chris may be wrong about some details of his memory, but in terms of the slant of the editing....lack of balance....lack of showing JE readings other than in snippets for the purpose of illustrating Shermer's point....well, his account makes sense and jives well with what we saw on the show.
Posted by Marc

...wasn't this person's statement on how the 'hits' Edward got for other people could equally apply to him? (I'm working from memory here, you know how unreliable that is! )
Right, and that's a fair point. The problem is {I]that was the ONLY point they allowed anyone to make about the readings. They DIDN'T quote the comments of anyone who was read (and they didn't say that "Nick" hadn't been read, either....)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
and what was Tommy doing that was so important that he couldn't come and speak to his wife in person? I bet he was watching that cute blond next door again!! she was probably taking a shower at that time.

...well...it's an excuse! :)

Originally posted by hgc
Demonstrates the importance of charm. Browne is prickly, short-tempered, with an unpleasant, insipid manner that rattles my molars. Butt-ugly too. Oh, Edward is the same, but to a much more muted degree, and a lot more palatable, I guess, to the believers. How did Syl start a religion? She's completely devoid of charisma.

Oh, no, no, no...looks and charm has "nothing" to do with it. Haven't you heard that JE-believers "never" comments on JE's looks, on how the scenography on Crossing Over looks, or how his "style" has "nothing" to with what he is actually saying?

But Sylvia can be mocked for her looks and manners. She has even been criticized because she was too specific about the afterlife. John Edward can be as vague (and contradictory) as he wants, his drivel is gobbled up regardlessly.

Sylvia may have a church, but Edward has fan(atic)s who prefer the uncertainty. Sylvia may contradict herself and perhaps alienate some believers. No matter what Edward says, his fan(atic)s who will accept anything he says. By pointing to Edward admitting that he is often wrong, they can mould anything he says, so their beliefs are not shattered.

I say he's far better off than Sylvia.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Suzeloid,

(snipped)

Right, and that's a fair point. The problem is {I]that was the ONLY point they allowed anyone to make about the readings. They DIDN'T quote the comments of anyone who was read (and they didn't say that "Nick" hadn't been read, either....)

Clancie, it's spelled this way: S U E Z O L E D. Pronounciation is Soo-ee-zo-ledd.

I doubt the comments were quoted because, if Chris is a fair indication of the believers in the audience, it was highly subjective, selective memory crap that was a distorted interpretation of pretty vague statements in the first place. And 20/20 wasn't going to give camera time to people who credit hits to selective memory and, oh, what's the term.... psychic amnesia...

[Marc]

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree with this, although the "evidence", imo, is not that JE is great...real....whatever. It's that "20/20" had an incredibly unfair bias in their one-sided presentation.

I wonder if you make this kind of argument whenever a program presents mediums in a positive light, with little or no skeptical representation at all.

Then again claims of bias are depending on what kind of story is being presented. This was not a segment giving an open inquiry into mediumship, it was a segment on showing the common trickery used by JE. Personally would have prefered if it was longer, in depth segment.

Similarly a story on a fraudulent medical practice would not likely waste time with pro and con arguments. It would get to the heart of the matter as to how we know the practice is fraudulent. And the believers in the practice would raise the same shouts of 'bias'.

They should stop whining about bias and give real evidence for a change.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Clancie
[Note to all: Larry King hosts a talk show. He is not a reporter.]



...his show is on the Cable NEWS Network - or did you somehow miss that????

And don't even try to wriggle out of that fact. His pretensions are clear and there is no JE like disclaimer at the begining og Larry's show.

Hey, perhaps if he were a "reporter", he would do shows like Bill Ritter instead of fawning over pieces of human excrement like Sylvia or JE.

Barkhorn.

[Loki]

Marc,

wasn't this person's statement on how the 'hits' Edward got for other people could equally apply to him? (I'm working from memory here, you know how unreliable that is! )

Your unreliable memory seems to be matching mine on this - this screened here in Australia last night as a segment on a 6.30pm current affairs program. The comment about "drunks in the family" was made by an audience member to illustrate his point that he felt most of the readings also applied to him.

[CFLarsen]

Loki, Marc,

Yes, well, even though you have similar experiences, this does not in any way mean that JE uses very generic statements.

It doesn't! Really!

It just shows that he - sometimes - does something that is indistinguishable from cold reading.

But that doesn't mean that he is not a psychic medium. It only means that he is merely being psychic!

What the difference between a psychic and a cold reader is?

Don't ask Clancie. She doesn't know either.

[Loki]

Clancie,

It's that "20/20" had an incredibly unfair bias in their one-sided presentation.
I disagree - watching the segment, I felt they were emphasising precisely what needs to be said :

1. JE has a large number of followers
2. JE is not without critics
3. JE refuses to be tested (I believe they quoted JE as saying "I'm not interested in probabilities" - oh the irony!)

As far as I can see, JE needs to be pressured far more by the media to "put up or shut up". Really, the ball should be fairly placed into his court, and that's what this show attempted to do. Of course, we both know he won't bite - we only disagree on why he won't!

JE is touring Australia again next February (was here last January). Last time here he sold 36,000 tickets to (I think) 6 shows. This year, tickets are $86 each. That's just over 3 million dollars for a week's work. No wonder the Randi million has no great attraction for him!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
(I believe they quoted JE as saying "I'm not interested in probabilities" - oh the irony!)

Indeed. This, from a guy, who agreed to Schwartz' Arizona Abominations only because he did not have to perform better than "average" (meaning an unskilled cold reader), and later went on to brag about his hit rate from the same tests.

[Clancie]

Posted by Suezoled *

I doubt the comments were quoted because, if Chris is a fair indication of the believers in the audience, it was highly subjective, selective memory crap that was a distorted interpretation of pretty vague statements in the first place.

* sorry for mangling it so very badly before!

Well, if that's the case, then why invite them to participate at all? Seriously, what would be the point, if you only want to hear from naysayers (and are only going to use their comments anyway, whether they are read or not?) Then the "audience of anonymous sitters" was just for show, and they were just going to edit on behalf of their bias, no matter what. Like it or not, that's very unethical. :(
Posted by Loki

I disagree - watching the segment, I felt they were emphasising precisely what needs to be said
Hi Loki,

Hmmm...so we agree they had bias. The difference is that you feel bias is fair (i.e. supporting "the truth"). I feel it wasn't fair (i.e. lots of time wasted with demos, etc. just to get enough footage to make an argument for a preconceived point of view of Ritter/Shermer). Well, sorry to say it again, but that's just not good journalism.

[Suezoled]

Unreliable memory also tells me that JE's reply to those who say he is fake is "I wonder what sort of love these people never had to feel this way" or something like that. And also, he doesn't care about being right.

[Suezoled]

Clancie: why not bring them in? No one can really predict how the reading would turn out. 20/20 gave JE the benefit and the chance to show his stuff. What came of that chance was shown. Those "hits" according to the believers are not hits for skeptics.

[Clancie]

Suezoled,

I think I'm not making my point about "20/20" clear enough. My criticism is -not- about them arguing JE is a fake, his hits are just wishful thinking for believers, or...whatever.

My point is that they had to use such shoddy tactics to make their case. Why -not- show a bit more balance and -then- explain the flaws of his methods and the perception of them by believers?

To so inaccurately and unfairly load the dice is just annoying (and follows the same school of sloppy "journalism" of Dateline and Leon Jaroff).
Posted by Marc

I wonder if you make this kind of argument whenever a program presents mediums in a positive light, with little or no skeptical representation at all.
Which tv newsmagazine has done this, Marc? I must have missed it....

[Marc]

Unreliable memory also reminds me of the time JE was on Larry King, with skeptics as well, said that he doesn't need to prove himself. He also said in the same episode that Schwartz proved his abilities.

So which is it? does he not need to prove them or does he need to prove them?

[Marc]

Originally posted by Clancie
Which tv newsmagazine has done this, Marc? I must have missed it....

Larry King repeatedly, and virtually every other news segment that has featured him or any medium. As well as shows devoted to the paranormal.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Which tv newsmagazine has done this, Marc? I must have missed it....

Try this:

Watching the giant mediums
James Van Praagh and John Edward are the Spears and Aguilera of psychic readings. After seeing them, I'm not so skeptical. (http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2002/06/13/psychics/index.html)
By Laura Laughlin

If JE is presented here in a fair way, how about JVP? If this reporter is "not so skeptical" anymore, does this mean that JVP is just as convincing as JE? If JVP can dupe this reporter, then can we trust her when she is "not so skeptical" about JE?

If 20/20 isn't "balanced" and Larry King isn't a reporter, then could you please name one reporter that does write "balanced" about JE? What about just one TV show? Any media appearance?

(Perhaps someone could repost this, so Clancie can't claim she hasn't seen it?)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Which tv newsmagazine has done this, Marc? I must have missed it....

You frequently "miss" that which has been repeatedly presented to you. How many Larry King Live transcripts have we reviewed here with your participation?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Suezoled,

I think I'm not making my point about "20/20" clear enough. My criticism is -not- about them arguing JE is a fake, his hits are just wishful thinking for believers, or...whatever.

My point is that they had to use such shoddy tactics to make their case. Why -not- show a bit more balance and -then- explain the flaws of his methods and the perception of them by believers?

To so inaccurately and unfairly load the dice is just annoying (and follows the same school of sloppy "journalism" of Dateline and Leon Jaroff).

Which tv newsmagazine has done this, Marc? I must have missed it....

Really don't understand you complaint against this programme (from what you are posting - I've not seen it).

In the UK we have TV programmes that show how "builders from hell" builders who rip people off. These shows have no “balance”, because there isn’t a balance. They show the set-up, they show the work, they show the expose and then end. And from what you’ve posted this seems to be what this program does.

In the case of JE, someone who charges people money to see him do something that he can't do, what is the "balanced" approach?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

You frequently "miss" that which has been repeatedly presented to you. How many Larry King Live transcripts have we reviewed here with your participation?
(resisting the urge to put the following all in caps....).....

TLN,

How many times do I have to say that my comments are NOT about JE's ability? It is about journalism. LKL transcripts are totally irrelevant.

If reporters want to do an opinion piece/expose, then don't pretend it's something else. (Why have him do readings for an hour and a half ONLY to use a critical comment by someone who wasn't even read....NO feedback from the others....and not even to show the producer's reading that they said was so "bad"?)

"20/20" promo'ed this by saying JE was facing their "test". But, in reality, the 90 minutes of readings that he did for them was just an excuse to get snippets of readings to juxtapose negatively with Shermer's commentary about him (which, btw, offered absolutely nothing new. How much better to have shown a JE reading--intact--and had Shermer pick it apart piece by piece! Of course, that assumes he could have....and from 20/20, we just don't know that that's true ).

[TLN]

Clancie, your inability to follow a simple conversation is staggering. Let me summarize for you:

Originally posted by Marc
I wonder if you make this kind of argument whenever a program presents mediums in a positive light, with little or no skeptical representation at all.

Originally posted by Clancie
Which tv newsmagazine has done this, Marc? I must have missed it....

Originally posted by TLN
You frequently "miss" that which has been repeatedly presented to you. How many Larry King Live transcripts have we reviewed here with your participation?

At which point you launch into your tirade about Edward. Who the hell even mentioned Edward?

Marc said he wondered if you made the same kind of argument about shows that are soft on psychics. You said you have never seen one. I pointed out that you have. Then you started ranting on a completely unrelated subject.

I'm sorry it's come to this, but what the hell is wrong with you?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN
Clancie, your inability to follow a simple conversation is staggering......

....I'm sorry it's come to this, but what the hell is wrong with you?
Thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:

Actually, TLN, I think -you're- the one not following the conversation. (And you implied mentioning Edward when you mentioned "LKL transcripts". Or were you thinking of the Laura Bush interview?)

My point is about the principles of good journalism--principles which "20/20", (like Dateline and PrimeTime Thursday, and Leon Jaroff) seem to be willing to ignore in favor of promoting their own bias about a topic instead.

You mention Larry King Live transcripts which has nothing whatsoever to do with factual reporting (see the journalists mentioned above). LK is a talk show. He has many people he disagrees with and lets them promote themselves in a basically non-adversarial situation, regardless of their beliefs. No one expects otherwise.

"20/20" is supposed to be "investigative reporting". As such, it is expected to be factual, fair, and balanced. It was none of them.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, TLN, I think -you're- the one not following the conversation. My point is about the principles of good journalism--principles which "20/20", (like Dateline and PrimeTime Thursday, and Leon Jaroff) seem to be willing to ignore in favor of promoting their own bias about a topic instead.

A fact you care nothing about when journalists throw soft-balls to your heroes.

Can you really not see your own bias at work here? Where's your concern for journalistic integrity the other 99% of the time when journalists are giving these hucksters a free ride? You really can't see your own double-standard here, can you?

Originally posted by Marc
I wonder if you make this kind of argument whenever a program presents mediums in a positive light, with little or no skeptical representation at all.

You'll probably get around to addressing that at some point... I guess.

[Clancie]

Marc

I wonder if you make this kind of argument whenever a program presents mediums in a positive light, with little or no skeptical representation at all.....

TLN

You'll probably get around to addressing that at some point... I guess.
Well, if either of you will mention a particular news program (not a lightweight interview/talkshow) where JE was presented in a positive light by the reporter--and I've seen it--I will be happy to comment.

Offhand, I can't think of one.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
My point is about the principles of good journalism--principles which "20/20", (like Dateline and PrimeTime Thursday, and Leon Jaroff) seem to be willing to ignore in favor of promoting their own bias about a topic instead.

Poppycock. Investigative journalism holds a special place in journalism standards. It is not merely permitted, but often encouraged to lead the viewer / listener / reader to conclusions. They are expected to do so based on the facts. As an example, from the CBC (http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/htmen/policies/journalistic/investigative.htm)

"Programs may lead the audience to conclusions on the subject being examined. These must be logical conclusions derived from the facts and not from expressions of editorial opinion or unfair methods of presentation. It is essential, therefore, that to conform with the principles of accuracy, integrity, fairness and comprehensiveness, the programs must be based on the most scrupulous and painstaking research. They should take into account all the relevant evidence available and should include recognition of the range of opinion on the matter in question."

[renata]

Re- Television programs presenting mediums in a positive light. People already mentioned CNN/LKL. I also saw John Edward and the Pet Psychic interviewed on CNN proper, I saw John Edward interviewed on Fox News once or twice- by Rita Cosby, I think, as were other mediums. He was on a couple of morning shows, as were other mediums. There was a psychic detectives program on Court TV (which I did not see) featuring JE and Schwartz among others and there were several psychics on a MSNBC program that examined psychics and exorcism. Those are merely the programs I remember- unfortunately, I do not remember all dates of the programs. He also has plenty of articles written about him. One- in Salon actually said because of mistakes made by mediums, the author believed more.
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/06/13/psychics/index.html This article was previously discussed here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=292572&highlight=salon#post292572

Here is a link to one CNN transcript I found, with JE (it was interrupted) This interview is interesting because JE brings up work of Gary Schwartz in response to question about cold reading.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/10/ltm.13.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/10/ltm.16.html

As to this Chris- we have no idea whether his was on the program. People speculate all the time as to existance of Michael O'Neill and other skeptical sources. I don't know why someone posting on a board claiming to have been present at a show should be immediately trusted without any verification. If this Chris posted prior to show's airing and said- I saw JE, I was on the show, watch for it on this date, then it would make more sense to me. I did not see that in the thread.

I said immediately that the way this show was presented will make it a target. But if JE is a fraud, then any real investigation will indeed show it. I bet Popoff and Geller were also cranky about one sided investigative journalism :)

How badly was the show edited? I have no idea. However, what was curious is that those readings contained techniques exactly like what we saw on LKL- unedited shows. And, if people complain about editing of readings to present readings overly negatively- shouldn't there be concern about editing of the readings on CO to present them overly positively? The only raw data we have, not influenced by belief and wishful thinking were multiple LKL transcripts- in which we saw abysmal reading after abysmal reading. NoZed even used JE's LKL techniques when he was pretending to be a medium! :D The hit rate was very bad, although there were some hits. So we see that in a show which is made by people interested in promoting JE as a genuine medium he apparently has a higher hit rate, and in a show with a skeptical bent, he has a lower hit rate. Still same raw data as we saw on LKL, though- and makes one wonder why the editing criticism does not flow in both directions.

[SteveGrenard]

Renata: People speculate all the time as to existance of Michael O'Neill ..........

Somebody named Michael O'Neill definitely exists and was at a taping where he was read. Crossing Over has never disputed this. Two minutes after Jaroff read back the story to them the day before it was to go to press in his obligatory "do you have any comments call"(*) you can rest assured the production was digging out O'Neill's information, the program his reading was on as well as the raw footage involved with that. After having reviewed O'Neill's assertions. Comparing them with what they have,they stated that Mr. O'Neill was mistaken on all counts regarding his impressions. The only problem with O'Neill is not that he doesn't exist because he does, it is the absurdities of his assertions, none of which made any sense; his solitary head nod was his only content related complaint and CO denies his footage was edited to make him look like he was agreeing when he wasn't. We have all seen plenty of people disagree as well rgar obviously wasnt edited out.

(*)Their comment was that they didn't answer critics but they did invite Jaroff to visit the set right then and there to
examine the facility to see if there was any truth to O'Neill's assertions about hidden mics, eavesdropping and so forth. Needless to say he refused to attend a taping; he deliberately waited until the 11th hour to pull his stunt so he'd have a good excuse for turning them down.

This is the kind of dishonesty Jaroff and his ilk used to impeach JE when they should have been doing it on the basis of accurate, verified or corrborated reporting, not third hand hearsay from an e-mail contact It discredits them and their goals.

I think what Clancie is saying and, having seen the show, I agree 20/20 was very dishonest in how they set-up JE by chopping up his readings and putting Shermer in their peanut gallery to comment. Knowing the history of the news dept at ABC, JE would be stupid to agree to come on, although I am sure the publicist for his book and his contract reqired him to do this. Shermer was a coward not to face JE and debate him face to face as well.

Yes, I consider whoever this Chris is to be on a similar level with O'Neill. But we dont need him to figure out how 20/20 biased their story. We can see it for ourselves.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard (Bold by me)
...snip...

(*)Their comment was that they didn't answer critics but they did invite Jaroff to visit the set right then and there to
examine the facility to see if there was any truth to O'Neill's assertions about hidden mics, eavesdropping and so forth. Needless to say he refused to attend a taping; he deliberately waited until the 11th hour to pull his stunt so he'd have a good excuse for turning them down.

...snip...


And just when did he tell you this or is it yet another allegation you can’t substantiate?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

This is the kind of dishonesty Jaroff and his ilk used to impeach JE when they should have been doing it on the basis of accurate, verified or corrborated reporting, not third hand hearsay from an e-mail contact It discredits them and their goals.


"dishonesty", "ilk", "impeach" - hmm.... glad to see you keeping a check on your emotional biases..

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

I think what Clancie is saying and, having seen the show, I agree 20/20 was very dishonest in how they set-up JE by chopping up his readings and putting Shermer in their peanut gallery to comment. Knowing the history of the news dept at ABC, JE would be stupid to agree to come on, although I am sure the publicist for his book and his contract reqired him to do this. Shermer was a coward not to face JE and debate him face to face as well.


"dishonest", "peanut gallery", "history of the news dept at ABC", "coward" ... good to know you can view this so objectively...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Yes, I consider whoever this Chris is to be on a similar level with O'Neill. But we dont need him to figure out how 20/20 biased their story. We can see it for ourselves.


You said "Somebody named Michael O'Neill definitely exists and was at a taping where he was read." and you also know this about "Chris". Can you tell us how you know Chris is a "real" person and that he actually attended the taping...?

And how can you see the bias – have you seen the raw footage, for all we know they could have improved JE’s readings with their editing to try and give the programme some added “spice”. (Not very likely I agree but we don’t know.)

Also I am curious - given the popularity of the JE and psychics generally why should ABC (ratings led) be biased against JE?

[Undodog]

Here in the UK on LivingTV (or BoredHousewifeTV) which airs JE and JVP's entertainment shows, there is a new program called ‘Jane Goldman Investigates’.
I think the term ‘Investigate’ is used in its loosest possible target-audience-pleasing sense.
There was a psychic-medium (or medium psychic) behind a screen stating ‘facts’ about a young woman’s dead mother and grandmother. The subject found enough specifics in statements such as ‘she was very independent’ and the classic ‘illness in the chest area’ that she was getting all emotional. She forgot later that for every alternate statement we saw her frowning and searching for some kind of link.
Journalist Jane then took this data, which was about 70% hits, and applied the same statements to six of her friends. She found that her friends fitted these statements just as accurately (some more accurately) as the subjects lost relatives.
Professional conclusion? Something about our lives being similar and “I’m a bit confused”
Then she was invited to stand in front of a congregation of believers and be a medium JE and JVP style. She was literally told to ‘make something up’. After standing there, making stuff up and having some guy fill in the gaps and claim vague statements as “spot on” she still came to the conclusion of being a bit confused and its all very interesting and mysterious.
Yeah, thanks Jane.
She’s probably one of those people that phones in to vote ‘don’t know’.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, if either of you will mention a particular news program (not a lightweight interview/talkshow) where JE was presented in a positive light by the reporter--and I've seen it--I will be happy to comment.

Note the "out": "--and I've seen it--".

Whatever we come up with, Clancie will say "Oh, I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it".....

Originally posted by Clancie
Offhand, I can't think of one.

I can:

CNN
John Edward: Listening to the dead
By Paula Zahn
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/10/john.edward.cnna/)

Zahn has interviewed

"former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, Cuban President Fidel Castro, former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, H.M. Queen Noor of Jordan, former President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze, former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, first lady Betty Ford, former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, civil rights leader Stokely Carmichael and human rights activist Winnie Mandela. Zahn has also interviewed athletes and artists, including tennis players Venus and Serena Williams, actress Faye Dunaway, baseball player Ted Williams, actress Katherine Hepburn, actor Warren Beatty, baseball player Joe DiMaggio and actress Sophia Loren."

"Zahn has received numerous honors and awards, including a 1994 Emmy for Outstanding Coverage of a Continuing News Story for her reporting on mainstreaming the mentally disabled into education, the National Commission of Working Women Broadcasting Award and an AWRT Award for reporting on gender bias in education. Zahn also received an Albert Einstein College of Medicine Spirit Achievement Award, the Second Annual Cancer Awareness Award by the Congressional Families Action for Cancer Awareness and a citation from New York's Beth Israel Medical Center for her contributions to the battle against breast cancer."

And dang, Clancie: She's a real journalist:

"Zahn earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from Stephens College in Columbia, Mo., attending on a cello scholarship."


New York Times
Oprah Of the Other Side
By Chris Ballard
Source (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50813FE3A5E0C7A8EDDAE0894D94044 82)

Salon
Watching the giant mediums
By Laura Laughlin
Source (http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/06/13/psychics/)

Washington Post
Hot Medium: Prime-Time Spirit Guide John Edward
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2024-2001Jun29)

More Thoughts on John Edward
By Michael Prescott, New York Times bestselling author
Source (http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/morethoughts.htm)

(Edited: additional material)

[fsol]

"20/20" promo'ed this by saying JE was facing their "test". But, in reality, the 90 minutes of readings that he did for them was just an excuse to get snippets of readings to juxtapose negatively with Shermer's commentary about him (which, btw, offered absolutely nothing new. How much better to have shown a JE reading--intact--and had Shermer pick it apart piece by piece! Of course, that assumes he could have....and from 20/20, we just don't know that that's true ).

OK, choose one reading and pick it apart.

The reading gets picked apart.

But why choose that reading? What if that was the weakest one?

I tell you what, we had better show all the readings and pick them all apart. How long is our time slot again?

What if he had an off day?

Oh well we had better get him in again then.

etc. etc. etc.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
"20/20" promo'ed this by saying JE was facing their "test". But, in reality, the 90 minutes of readings that he did for them was just an excuse to get snippets of readings to juxtapose negatively with Shermer's commentary about him (which, btw, offered absolutely nothing new. How much better to have shown a JE reading--intact--and had Shermer pick it apart piece by piece! Of course, that assumes he could have....and from 20/20, we just don't know that that's true ).

But we have analyzed quite many intact transcripts before. We have picked them apart.

You're arguing in circles, Clancie.

[Ersby]

Why oh why didn't I read this thread earlier? I have a quick note re Chris' recollections.

He told my wife (next to me) that she had a sister type figure who had a cancer in the chest area (She had breast cancer) that was cured, but now there is another cancer that is back (which is true). He also told my wife that she pretends to be stronger about the cancer than she really is. This is also true.

First, are we to believe that JE said all these together? Lumping things together like this make it look like JE said everything at once. Of course JE would say "Who had cancer" because it has better odds of a hit than "Who died of cancer". And the cancer being cure and now there's another cancer: excuse me, but the catch-all guess of "Did the cancer go away and come back?" covers this admirably. The thing about being strong is the kind of touchy-feely stuff that we all berated when NoZed Avengwer used it in his reading.

I'd love to see a transcript of the whole thing. For a start 40 misses out of 41 seems improbable. Even the psychic dice averaged 50%. But hit rate aside, from what Chris says, I don't see anything that isn't cold reading.

[Suezoled]

The fact Clancie and others (like this "Chris" person) are complaining the show wasn't balanced when there is nothing to balance is bemusing.

[Clancie]

re: good journalism vs. bad

Renata,

Thank you for posting the link to Zahn's interview (which I saw). Although it is an -interview- and unlike 20/20 she had very little time and no new material to go with, I think she remained quite skeptical, and did quite a good job overall.

I do not think Zahn did a "puff piece" at all. Here's why...

1. Zahn's first sentence (emphasis mine): "John Edward Claims He Can Communicate With Dead, But is He For Real?"

2.She brings up the critics right away.
Edward is not without his critics, who say that his claims of "Crossing Over" crosses the line

3. She gives him a chance to talk about his "process" then hits him with another critical question:
Let's talk about an article "Time" magazine wrote,,,that suggested that you actually might put microphones in the audience to get advance information, and that you edit your tape to manipulate the responses. Is that true?
4. JE gives his response and she comes right back with another criticism.
ZAHN: I want to come back to the charges that have been made about cold reading, too.
5.She shows a clip and elaborates on what cold reading means:
People watching that exchange -- you know, the critics are out there -- analyze the ratio of questions asked to the information you are given by the viewer, and they say you are getting more information from them than they are getting from you.
6. JE gives his explanation, cites GS's work, etc. and how he gets what he gets. Zahn doesn't just let it go. She asks -another- critical question.
What if it comes through and it comes through wrong? You don't know that?
7. JE basically says, no he doesn't know if it's wrong. And she follows up with a question basically saying...so it's true you're a cold reader? She says
JE: I have no idea.

ZAHN: Until the person answer your questions?
8. JE describes his process again, but Zahn doesn't just give in. She says "based on the study (a bit edgy comment, imo) you see yourself as a legitimate medium" (i.e. she makes the whole thing sound quite doubtful). Then she immediately goes to problems with mediums in general...
ZAHN: ...How many quacks...
9. JE corrects her that the study isn't why he thinks he's a real medium. She acknowledges his statement then repeats

ZAHN: How many quacks are out there, though?
10. He says his piece and she asks another critical question ZAHN: Are you telling them what they want to hear?
Her questions were critical, but she gave him a chance to address them. She followed up. She didn't gush or even indicate she gave it credence. Even in this brief little interview she gave some food for thought pro and con and left it to the audience to think about and decide.

Given the limitations of time and format, I think she did quite a good job.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
re: good journalism vs. bad



...snip...

Even in this brief little interview she gave some food for thought pro and con and left it to the audience to think about and decide.

Given the limitations of time and format, I think she did quite a good job.

Consider this - a journalist interviews a convicted murderer regarding their case and trail. Is there a "journalistic" necessity to be "pro and con" to give a "balanced" view of the case. Of course not.

The facts are quite simple, there is no proof JE can do what he claims he can do, therefore there is not a “pro and con” case to be put forward.

It would be journalistically unethical to therefore manufacture a "balance" and give equal weight to "pro and con".

[Clancie]

Hi Darat,

The absence of "proof" that you are looking for (i.e. controlled laboratory testing) is not the same as being guilty of fraud.

Given your "hypothetical", if the person was only -accused- of murder then, yes, I think the journalist has a responsibility to bring out the pros and cons....both.

Much as some skeptics may wish otherwise :), disbelief is not the same level of "proof" as a legal conviction....

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Darat,

The absence of "proof" that you are looking for (i.e. controlled laboratory testing) is not the same as being guilty of fraud.

Given your "hypothetical", if the person was only -accused- of murder then, yes, I think the journalist has a responsibility to bring out the pros and cons....both.

Much as some skeptics may wish otherwise :), disbelief is not the same level of "proof" as a legal conviction....

And did the 20/20 show say he was frauding people? Or did it just perhaps show that there is no evidence that JE can do what he says he can do? Again there is no "pro and con".

Didn't they show JE doing what he says he can do? Or are you suggesting they got an actor to play JE or some other way faked the segments? (As JE's production team can do with the footage from Crossing Over?)

I am suprised JE wouldn't be considering legal action if they faked what they showed or blatently misrepresented him...

(PS - Don't forget to PM me about the videos.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Zahn's first sentence (emphasis mine):

That's what they are there to find out: Is he for real or not? Let's see how "critical" Zahn is.

Originally posted by Clancie
She brings up the critics right away.

No, not "right away". After she has this to say:

"He is a medium with a message. John Edward claims he can communicate with the dead, but is he for real? The world-renowned psychic and host of the TV show "Crossing Over" has millions of true believers."

And, after a completely uncritical clip from CO (the Feather at Niagara, which has been debunked here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jeniagara.htm)), she has this to say (emphasis mine):

"Still, in spite of what you just witnessed, Edward is not without his critics, who say that his claims of "Crossing Over" crosses the line,"

You completely left out the part where Zahn clearly says that JE is a real medium.

Originally posted by Clancie
She gives him a chance to talk about his "process" then hits him with another crtical question:

We know that he manipulates the tapes, OK? Did Zahn check how the shows are done? No.

Originally posted by Clancie
JE gives his response and she comes right back with another criticism.

JE responds but ignores that the story came from an audience member. Zahn never points this out, but accepts JE's explanation with no follow-up question about this.

Zahn has never gone to the tapings herself either. Shouldn't she have done that, if she were critical? As I recall, you criticized Jaroff for exactly this, but with Zahn, it's OK that she doesn't. She merely takes JE's word for what goes on in the studio.

Yeah, she's really critical!


Originally posted by Clancie
She shows a clip and elaborates on what cold reading means:

But not before mentioning that his show has 3 million viewers. Appeal to popularity.

Originally posted by Clancie
JE gives his explanation, cites GS's work, etc. and how he gets what he gets. Zahn doesn't just let it go. She asks -another- critical question.

"What if it comes through and it comes through wrong? You don't know that?" is a "critical question"???? She accepts the premise that he does get something. That's not critical at all.

Originally posted by Clancie
JE basically says, no he doesn't know if it's wrong. And she follows up with a question basically saying...so it's true you're a cold reader? She says

No, you are putting words in her mouth. If JE has to ask for confirmation from the sitter, then she is merely following up on that. Remember, it's part of the "process", right?

Originally posted by Clancie
JE describes his process again, but Zahn doesn't just give in. She says "based on the study (a bit edgy comment, imo) you see yourself as a legitimate medium" (i.e. she makes the whole thing sound quite doubtful). Then she immediately goes to problems with mediums in general...

She does? Quite contrary, she validates JE by pointing to what sounds very much like a scientific study. We know it is not, of course, and Zahn did nothing to check if it were.

Originally posted by Clancie
He says his piece and she asks another critical question

It's not a critical question, because she lets him ramble on. If she really were critical, she should e.g. have stopped him right after the son/inlaw, and asked why he is so "flexible" in describing who he can get. The whole "above, to the side, below", which is classic cold reading. Inflating the hits.

Originally posted by Clancie
Her questions were critical, but she gave him a chance to address them. She followed up. She didn't gush or even indicate she gave it credence. Even in this brief little interview she gave some food for thought pro and con and left it to the audience to think about and decide.

By starting with a very clear indication that he is real?

Originally posted by Clancie
Given the limitations of time and format, I think she did quite a good job.

Ah, I was wondering where the "out" would be. "Given the limitations of time and format"... Clancie, where, in the media, are there not limitations of time and format?

You leave out the parts where Zahn says flat-out that JE is a real medium. You ignore the parts where she appeals to popularity. You put words in Zahn's mouth. You ignore that she lets JE ramble on, unquestioned. You don't criticize Zahn for not going to the show herself, while you criticize Jaroff for the very same. You have no problems with Zahn not investigating enough to learn that the tapes are edited, both for content and time. You have no problems with Zahn doing any footwork herself. Nothing that comes from her is new.

Nice going, Clancie. Biased as usual.