Letter To SciFi Channel

[Mark A. Siefert]

The two new woo-woo shows on the SciFi Channel (i.e." Proof Positive and "Ghost Hunters") has prompted me to send the following Email:

Dear Sir:

As a long time viewer. I enjoy much of your programming that the SciFi Channel has to offer. On top of the classic series you run, I was a fan of "Farscape" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000." I don't miss a new episode of "Stargate SG-1," I enjoyed the two "Dune" miniseries, and I'm looking forward to the re-envisioned "Battlestar Galactica" coming this winter.

However, as a rational individual who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, I find myself increasingly disappointed in your attempts to pass pseudoscience off as reality. It started with "Crossing Over: With John Edwards" where you gave airtime and a lucrative career to a con man whose self-proclaimed "ability" to speak to the dead is nothing more than cold reading and sideshow foolery. Then you succumb to the schizophrenics and the conspiracy kooks by airing so-called "documentaries" supporting the Roswell Myth. Now you have two new series, "Proof Positive" and "Ghost Hunters," that also claim to lend credence to the claims of cranks and crazies.

SciFi seems to have forgotten that SCIENCE is a operative word in the phrase "science fiction" and there is no science involved whatsoever when it comes to UFOs, psychics, ghosts, and other supernatural nonsense. I realize that human being need flights of fancy to satiate their imaginations. However, it's one thing to tell stories about aliens and poltergeists, and it's quite another to go about claiming that they are true when no reliable, scientific evidence exists to prove they real exist.

With a wealth of excellent science fiction authors to draw from and inspire programming (e.g. Asimov, Heinlein, Niven, Pohl, Pournelle, etc.) why does your network feel compelled to scrape the bottom of the barrel and broadcast pseudoscientific stupidity? You owe science fiction fans better than that.

Cordially,
Mark A. Siefert,
Muskego, WI.

Well what do you guys think? I very much doubt it will sway the dolts who make the programming decisions, but it's the thought that counts.

[uruk]

Nice letter, but I doubt the execs will pay heed to it. They tend to think with their bank accounts rather than their brains.
They are more concerned about rating points than content. If the american public wants to watch a show about monkeys drinking their own urine, they'll put that up on tv. Wait a minute. I think that was a tv show CSI or ER umm..something like that.

[Grendel]

Man, monkeys just don't know how to party.

Nice letter, but -agreed -pointless.

Dog Bites Man = not news
Man Bites Dog = news

(titillation = interest = ratings = increased titillation).

OK, begin with the tit jokes.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Grendel
(titillation = interest = ratings = increased titillation).

OK, begin with the tit jokes.

I don't mind titillation, or tits for that matter. :) But at least I can prove that sex exists.

[Grendel]

Not at MY house you can't.

*sigh*

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Grendel
Not at MY house you can't.

*sigh*

I haven't had a date in 7 years, how do you think I feel?

[Mr. Skinny]

Mark,

A very well written letter.

Good job. Wish I could write as well.

[Azrael 5]

Anyone get any replies from the Witicha Eagle yesterday? Forgot which thread it was in now,so I thought whilst on the subject of letters...;)

[Ratman_tf]

I fired off a critical e-mail to Sci-Fi regarding some particularly bad astronomy on Sightings, and some e-mails to the sponsors too.

All were of the opinion that they didn't have any responsibility since they didn't endorse the show, they just put it on the air/sponsor it.

I found their reasoning a tad flawed.

[thaiboxerken]

You'll probably get the same response that I got from Court TV.

[Yeah_Right]

I agree nice letter, too bad it will fall on dumb, errr deaf ears. Perhaps what the network execs should do is have a cable show completely dedicated to ufos, John Edward and whatever woo woo crap there is out there and the Sci Fi channel will just stick to good science fiction. By the way, the new Battlestar Galactica was pretty dang good.

[Mark A. Siefert]

I got a response!

Thanks for your e-mail to the Sci Fi Programming Department. We greatly appreciate all viewer input on the shows and movies we air.

Regrettably, the high volume of correspondence we now receive prevents us from providing individual responses to each e-mail.


There! That will show 'em!

[Aussie Thinker]

Mark,

I am not sure if this is NOT the right spot to air these sort of programs…

It is the science “FICTION� channel after all.

I was a fan of "Farscape" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000." I don't miss a new episode of "Stargate SG-1," I enjoyed the two "Dune" miniseries, and I'm looking forward to the re-envisioned "Battlestar Galactica" coming this winter.

I believe all of the shows you mention have EXACTLY the same level of reality as the woo woo stuff.

Perhaps the channel is CLEARLY showing this stuff is FICTION ?

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Mark,

I am not sure if this is NOT the right spot to air these sort of programs…

It is the science “FICTION� channel after all.



I believe all of the shows you mention have EXACTLY the same level of reality as the woo woo stuff.

Perhaps the channel is CLEARLY showing this stuff is FICTION ?

Those shows are presented as fiction, the other shows are presented as documentaries demostrating paranormal events.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Mark,

I am not sure if this is NOT the right spot to air these sort of programs…

It is the science “FICTION� channel after all.



I believe all of the shows you mention have EXACTLY the same level of reality as the woo woo stuff.

Perhaps the channel is CLEARLY showing this stuff is FICTION ?

Read the letter again, please:

"SciFi seems to have forgotten that SCIENCE is a operative word in the phrase "science fiction" and there is no science involved whatsoever when it comes to UFOs, psychics, ghosts, and other supernatural nonsense. I realize that human being need flights of fancy to satiate their imaginations. However, it's one thing to tell stories about aliens and poltergeists, and it's quite another to go about claiming that they are true when no reliable, scientific evidence exists to prove they real exist."

It's one thing to present fiction, I obviously don't have any problem with that. It's when SciFi produces these "documentaries" featuring "experts" (i.e. cranks and crackpots) who claim that fictional events are actually occuring, that I have to take issue with them.

SciFi should stick to story telling and leave the science to the experts, or, if they do run documentaries that would interest sci-fi fans, then they should be about REAL science. I would prefer to see a special on the future of space flight and other technologies rather than watching some con-man claim he can bend spoons with his mind or a psychologically unstable housewife ramble on about her "abduction" by aliens who look like James Carville and have an odd interest in proctology.

[jman19999]

Good Work Mark,

Although we just saw the kind of thought-provoking response it got from programing :)

Jeff

PS...BTW, I haven't had a date in 10 years, so I am not so sure that even sex exists now!!! hahahaha!!!

[Diogenes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your e-mail to the Sci Fi Programming Department. We greatly appreciate all viewer input on the shows and movies we air.

Regrettably, the high volume of correspondence we now receive prevents us from providing individual responses to each e-mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation = Our ratings are high enough that we don't give a flying fart what you think..

[Upchurch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't scifi books that contain all magic and no science generally cagegorized as "fantasy"? Wouldn't that be the case here, as well?

[Open Mind]

I’m just wondering why all you guys desire to censor what other people choose to believe or watch?

The programs are not claiming ‘you must believe this is true’ the viewer still decides. What do you want? Do you want no programs on the paranormal at all? Or do you just want a CSICOP person there to state confident opinions on phenomena they never directly experienced?

Do you plan to write letters of complaint about all religious programs too, if not, why not? And what about history programs that mention ancient beliefs? What about banning political beliefs you think are untrue?

You guys all claim to be so logical, what is your goal? Can you provide evidence, belief in PSI is dangerous or makes people ill or unhappy? :)

[patnray]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I fired off a critical e-mail to Sci-Fi regarding some particularly bad astronomy on Sightings, and some e-mails to the sponsors too.
Glad you included the sponsors, too. But unless your message to them is "I'm not buying a product from a company that sponsors this nonsense", then their only response to your letter will be a smile because it means someone was watching their commercial...

[Johnny Pneumatic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Open Mind
[B]I’m just wondering why all you guys desire to censor what other people choose to believe or watch?

The programs are not claiming ‘you must believe this is true’ the viewer still decides. What do you want? Do you want no programs on the paranormal at all? Or do you just want a CSICOP person there to state confident opinions on phenomena they never directly experienced?

Do you plan to write letters of complaint about all religious programs too, if not, why not? And what about history programs that mention ancient beliefs? What about banning political beliefs you think are untrue?[QUOTE]

No, what we want is to not have shows that state ghosts etc. are real when the only "evidence" is faked or is just the say so of persons. Would you be happy with commercials that advertise their product will make you live forever when it does nothing at all? I'd gladly accept ghosts as real if there was real evidence for them that was tested many times under controled conditions. And not only that, think about the reasonableness of hauntings. Even if humans have souls why the hell would they haunt places? Don't they have anything else to do besides move stuff where you can't find it?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't scifi books that contain all magic and no science generally cagegorized as "fantasy"? Wouldn't that be the case here, as well?

Technically, the Sci-Fi channel shows Sci-Fi, Horror and Fantasy. "The Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy Channel" just doesn't roll off the tounge like Sci-Fi.

But the shows in question are portrayed like documentaries, so I think the argument is still valid.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by patnray
Glad you included the sponsors, too. But unless your message to them is "I'm not buying a product from a company that sponsors this nonsense", then their only response to your letter will be a smile because it means someone was watching their commercial...

I did mention something like that in my letters.

They don't care one way or the other. I'm rather sure advertisers are brains in jars hollering about Quatloos.

[Question]

--

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by uruk
Nice letter, but I doubt the execs will pay heed to it. They tend to think with their bank accounts rather than their brains.
They are more concerned about rating points than content. If the american public wants to watch a show about monkeys drinking their own urine, they'll put that up on tv. Wait a minute. I think that was a tv show CSI or ER umm..something like that.
Just to prove I'm a total TV nerd: It was the latest episode of CSI, "Crow's Feet", in which a quack had patients engage in urine therapy, amongst other dotty ideas. He ends up getting one of his patients killed...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I’m just wondering why all you guys desire to censor what other people choose to believe or watch? Ah yes, I was forgetting, criticising what people say is a form of censorship. Evil, evil Mark E. Siefert! Of course, you've just objected to what Mark has to say, which, of course, is itself a form of censorship. Are you some sort of fascist? And now I'm criticising what you've written. Next thing you know I'll be burning books and having people shot.

If you have any criticisms of what I've posted ---- keep them to yourself, you filthy Stalinist.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B]Ah yes, I was forgetting, criticising what people say is a form of censorship. Evil, evil Mark E. Siefert! Of course, you've just objected to what Mark has to say, which, of course, is itself a form of censorship.

Are you some sort of fascist?

Nonsense. :) There is a difference between a open forum debate here and an attempt to remove certain types programs off TV that other people want to see. There are countless programs on TV I don't like or agree with, I've never written to have those removed.

The amusing thing is if these programs were removed you guys would have nothing to discuss! :)

There are plenty of programs debunking the paranormal of Sci-fi. The majority of programs on other channels (UK terrestial channels in particular) give a sceptical conclusion (which is fine), so to have a few programs with the other scientists presenting the other side of the debate from a scientific viewpoint would be welcome (I've never seen that on TV, the 'scientist' having most say is usually a CSICOP psychologist or magician) . A program like 'ghosthunters' is harmless, the viewer still decides whether to believe it or not..... ... I don't see a problem.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Nonsense. :) There is a difference between a open forum debate here and an attempt to remove certain types programs off TV that other people want to see. They only want to see John Edward cold-reading because the Sci-Fi Channel doesn't tell them that he's just cold-reading, although they are presumably aware of it. Your bibble here reminds me of the homeopaths' defense "People want to buy it, so banning it would restrict freedom of choice." But people want to buy it only because homeopaths lie about its efficacity.They wouldn't buy it if the homeopath admitted that it was worthless magic water, and they wouldn't gawp at Edward if the Sci-Fi Channel, which profits by their gawping, was honest enough to preface it with an explanation of just how cold reading works. They are effectively swindling people, and to complain of this is not censorship.

Look up "censorship" before you are vulgar and stupid enough to accuse M.E.S. of it. To censor someone is to deprive them of their right to speech or publication, not to complain to them that telling lies is wrong, nor to ask them politely to stop.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
They only want to see John Edward cold-reading because the Sci-Fi Channel doesn't tell them that he's just cold-reading,


All I'll say is that if John Edwards is cold reading he isn't doing it as well as other psychics. I don't rate the guy either with his 'I've got a name that begins with a 'B... Brenda ... Barbara' stuff ... I don't think that convinces any viewer that would be otherwise convinced by such things as religion etc. Do not assume most viewers cannot reason. Are we supposed to put subtitles up to tell people how to interpret TV programs? :)

Your bibble here reminds me of the homeopaths' defense "People want to buy it, so banning it would restrict freedom of choice." But people want to buy it only because homeopaths lie about its efficacity.They wouldn't buy it if the homeopath admitted that it was worthless magic water

Even if the effect is purely placebo (and it still might turn out to be more than that) when someone has been to a medical doctor and been told they cannot do more or improve the condition further, people have the right to try alternatives and build up their hope (as long as it's not known harmful and is not unfairly expensive) in my opinion positive expectation will increase the odds of better health somewhat).


, and they wouldn't gawp at Edward if the Sci-Fi Channel, which profits by their gawping, was honest enough to preface it with an explanation of just how cold reading works. They are effectively swindling people, and to complain of this is not censorship.



That needs to be proven first. There should be a controlled trials to see if magicians can cold read better than the best psychics doing their thing. I've only ever seen that once on a casual trial on TV, the psychic won (according to the recipient) over the magician pretending to be a psychic. The claim it is all 'cold reading' requires proof.


Look up "censorship" before you are vulgar and stupid enough to accuse M.E.S. of it. To censor someone is to deprive them of their right to speech or publication, not to complain to them that telling lies is wrong, nor to ask them politely to stop.
When you prove it is lies, I'll accept your point.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Open Mind
When you prove it is lies, I'll accept your point.
James Randi already proved that homeopathy is bunk in this British TV show. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml)

[Ashles]

There should be a controlled trials to see if magicians can cold read better than the best psychics doing their thing.
What would that display? Magicians do not repeatedly practise cold reading for their acts, but they are able to recognise it.

Whereas cold-reading psychics do this all the time and the best practitioners of it are very good - almost certainly better than a magician would be.

(If I could do a card trick better than someone else, would that prove I used magic)

Derren Brown is probably the ony illusionist who could consistently perform at least as well as if not better than the psychics.

If Derren Brown claimed he was a psychic the believers would be referring to him every five minutes to illustrate psychic ability. He is really very good indeed.
However he freely admits it is all trickery.

I just can't understand why people look at psychics performing less impressively than Derren Brown and yet assume they are not using trickery or cold-reading.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Open Mind
All I'll say is that if John Edwards is cold reading he isn't doing it as well as other psychics. I don't rate the guy either with his 'I've got a name that begins with a 'B... Brenda ... Barbara' stuff ... I don't think that convinces any viewer that would be otherwise convinced by such things as religion etc. Do not assume most viewers cannot reason. Are we supposed to put subtitles up to tell people how to interpret TV programs? :)

...


Have you ever seen Three's Company? Full House? The Facts of LIfe? These high-rated shows were on for several years. And you think that the majority of viewers can reason...

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Ashles

Derren Brown is probably the ony illusionist who could consistently perform at least as well as if not better than the psychics.

If Derren Brown claimed he was a psychic the believers would be referring to him every five minutes to illustrate psychic ability. He is really very good indeed.
However he freely admits it is all trickery.

I just can't understand why people look at psychics performing less impressively than Derren Brown and yet assume they are not using trickery or cold-reading.

Yeah I love watching Darren Brown too I would be happy to see him compete against better psychics, in tightly controlled conditions, I suspect under controlled conditions Darren Brown isn't going to be quite as impressive as he is under his own conditions. ;)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Have you ever seen Three's Company? Full House? The Facts of LIfe? These high-rated shows were on for several years. And you think that the majority of viewers can reason...

:D I've never seen any these programs ... but point accepted :D

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
When you prove it is lies, I'll accept your point. Why not until then? That would have nothing to do with it. If M.E.S. asks them for more scepticism and less wooery, that's not censorship. If a woo asks for more wooery and less scepticism, that's not censorship. If I ask someone to give me something, without using force or compulsion, that's not mugging. If I ask someone to have sex with me, without using force or compulsion, that's not rape. If I ask a TV channel, without using force or compulsion, to broadcast more of the sort of show I like and less of the sort of show I don't, that's not censorship. What part of this don't you understand?

[Ashles]

I suspect under controlled conditions Darren Brown isn't going to be quite as impressive as he is under his own conditions.
I suspect he would be on a par with any psychic in controlled conditions.

However Derren is probably unlikely to do anything like this at the moment when his TV programmes and shows are so popular.

When someone becomes a hard-line debunker (as he has mentioned he would have liked to have done if it worked from a performance point of view - which it doesn't) they run the risk of coming across as an embittered person (which is a charge which has been levelled at Randi a few times I believe).
This, obviously doesn't mean much to someone like Randi who is no longer a performing magician, but it could hamper Derren Brown's career and public perception.

[LostAngeles]

Well, I got so into reading some old Buffy comics last night, that I forgot to watch "The Apprentice." So I went off to check if it was going to be reshown on Saturday.

Here's a link to NBC's programming schedule. (http://www.nbc.com/nbc/header/TV_Schedule/index.html)

On Saturday, they'll be showing two episodes of "Scare Tactitcs" and one of "Ghost Hunters", which, if I'm not mistaken, is about the ghostbusting plumbers. (Poor Boo...http://www.cube.smedia.co.uk/downloads/pictures/m64/BOO.GIF )

Also, I believe this is one of the shows in question on this thread. Looks like SciFi's crap is now spreading to it's parent company. How nice. Instead of broadcasting corporate B.S., they choose to broadcast woo.