Irresponsible Journalism

[ca3799]

I read this weeks (May 14, 2004) commentary by Randi, which included the text of a letter written by Curtis Cameron to ABC regarding the show Primetime Thursday' s one hour special on the paranormal. http://www.randi.org/jr/051404the.html#12

Following the show,Curtis Cameron researched and debunked many of the supposed paranormal events the program showcased, stating that it took him about 10 minutes on the internet to do so, and questioned the abilities and/or motives of the show's reporters and researchers in not doing the same. His letter to the show is included in Randi's commentary, and is on the ABC on-line commentary section as well. http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?MESSAGE&room=abcnews_primetim&id=51110&move=next .

I didn't see the show, but I wish I did -soley to gripe about it.

The small amount of fact checking I did comfirms Curtis Cameron's views.

It is unconscionable that a show such as Primetime Thursday with such a wide audience and carrying a (apparantly unearned) reputation for truthfulness should air such a show. It does indeed require very little effort to sort the facts from the fiction in the cases Cameron reviewed for his (her?) letter. Primetime either did not bother to do the work or ignored the findings. Surely the people running that show are not so stupid as to simply have not done so.

A recent thread here asked if you have ever contacted the media.
We sceptics need to be more vocal in our demand for FACTS, especially from the media and organizations on whom people rely for truthful information. We should resolve to make our opinions more widely know to the popular media.

If you saw the show, and perhaps if you didn't and feel you have something to add, please drop Primetime a note letting them know the show was unsatisfactory. The email page is here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/2020/Primetime_email_form.html

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by ca3799

Following the show,Curtis Cameron researched and debunked many of the supposed paranormal events the program showcased, stating that it took him about 10 minutes on the internet to do so,

Yes, indeed, and the internet is such a trustworthy source of accurate information too.

[ca3799]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


Yes, indeed, and the internet is such a trustworthy source of accurate information too.

There is a lot of trustworthy and accurate information online, just as there is alot of untrustworthy inaccurate information available online. Discerning which is which is the problem.

For example, Cameron briefly investigated the "reincarnated boy" and the "drop tank" issue. Many of the flaws Cameron noted in his letter can be easily looked up on line- you can read the transcript of the show, review and compare the newspaper stories (and their discrepancies), and even visit the Cavanaugh Flight Museum and take a tour online.

The mother thinks because the boy knew what a "drop tank" was, it is some kind of proof that the boy was reincarnated?!
The mother stated 'even she didn't know what a drop tank was' (so therefore how could the boy know?)- as if this were some kind of remarkable event.

Well, the family had visited the Cavanaugh Flight Museum because the boy likes ariplanes. The mother may have forgotten seeing a drop tank at the museum, and it's possible that boy was in his father's physical company instead of the mother's when seeing a "drop tank", but clearly the boy didn't forget seeing it.

Anyway, those things were not hard to find out.

So why didn't Primetime ask those questions?


Edited to correct on glaring typo- please disregard all the others.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Primetime disgraced themselves, and I am looking forward to their response to Curtis's letter.

[JPK]

Well done. I often fume at the things primetime news calls fact. I admit, I rarely go after them. When CNN was saying the attacks in Madrid where exactly 911 days after the NYC attacks, I wrote to them that actually it was 912. They forgot about leap year. About an hour after my e-mail and no doubt many more, they stopped saying that. We all need to pounce on this crap. CNN did a thing on Larry King Live a few weeks ago about Psychic detectives. Every story was very bias in it's telling. There are threads on this forum disscusing the show. This lack of critical thinking is disturbing. I'm not saying believeing in aliens from other planets is silly. I'm not saying beliveing in ghosts is comical. I'm not saying talking to the dead is impossible. I'm saying, stop. Think about the claim. Is there a more reasonable explanation for the event? Amazing stories are told all the time. Few as amazing as those that have already been throught the harsh grinder that is the scientific method. I just read today about the info from the Chandra telescope that seems to add credibility to a ever faster expanding universe due to dark engergy. This to me is far more interseting then playing charades with dead people that tell you little more then to be a good person. OK I have rambled along enough. I think our world is pretty interesting. I think we are all pretty lucky to be here and should enjoy what we get to learn. Nature has no obligation to me and my beliefs. I'm just here to observe and hopefully learn.

JPK

[Clancie]

If it's any consolation, they did an equally...lousy...job profiling John Edward. As did NBC's Dateline. And Leon Jaroff in "TIME".

I think its not only the bias of the reporter involved (whether pro or con), but that, journalistically speaking, bias aside, my opinion is that TV newsmagazine reporters tend to be lazier and not adhere to the journalistic rigor and principles of top newspapers.

I've learned to expect lousy reporting, -whatever- the bias re: paranormal that the TV newmag seems to have at the moment.

[JPK]

Clanicie,
Truer words have rarely been spoken. Wouldn't it be nice for the "news" to promote news. This blurring of the line between news and entertainment is really wrong. Weather or not you believe in paranormal events , there should be a clear line between what is science and science fiction. I watch John Edwards from time to time for entertainment. To be honest, I watch him like I watch Martha Stewart. I find myself yelling at the TV pointing where they are wrong. (Listen I don't get to see much TV so this is where I get my fun. ) The point is, these are not news shows. I want my news without bias, or spin.( as much as possible.) I have come to the conclusion, that news show doesn't exist.

JPK