ABC TV Australia - Psychic Investigators

[Richard]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200612/programs/ZY8319A004D14122006T200000.htm

Psychic Investigators

Rachel Domas
Jason Williams
Margie Calciano

Our national TV, the ABC, are showing this BS in what is normally a science time slot. - Anyone know of this series?

[D2011]

Have heard of it, but never actualy watched it. I guess they saw the success of Medium & other shows like it & figured, "hey every other channel is choked with constant NCIS, law & order, crime scene investigators, bones etc etc... people just cant get enough of this detective/drama investigative crap, why not us too?".

D2011

[Richard]

Worse than we thought. This is a 15 show series. Has anyone seen it? We here in Australia are going to act to try and stop this poison going to air. Any help anyone can offer would be appreciated.

[davidsmith73]

Worse than we thought. This is a 15 show series. Has anyone seen it? We here in Australia are going to act to try and stop this poison going to air. Any help anyone can offer would be appreciated.

Shouldn't you at least watch it first before passing judgement?

[wombatwal]

Shouldn't you at least watch it first before passing judgement?

I agree, I will definitely watch this one.

[Richard]

Shouldn't you at least watch it first before passing judgement?

Very good point. Our contact at the ABC, a scientist and skeptic, has seen it and reports that is it as bad as we thought. I have also found clips of it on the web and more, http://www.biography.com/psychic_investigators/


Real-life detective thrillers take on a supernatural turn in this documentary series about actual dramatic crimes that are solved through the unlikely combination of hi-tech detective work and the paranormal powers of a psychic. In each episode, one amazing story is told from two very different points of view - the detective and the psychic. This series juxtaposes the psychic's story - colored with emotion, empathy and mystery, with the cop's tale - dominated by logic, evidence and reason. Playing like supernatural thrillers, these shows are sure to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. For skeptics, Psychic Investigators presents the challenge of explaining the inexplicable; for believers, it offers the confirmation of a mysterious world beyond observable fact.

[goak69]

I usually like shows like this when its fiction but when they pass it of as facts in a documentary (at least thats my impretion when checking the URL) my woometer goes trough the roof.

They showed a couple of these "documentary" shows in Sweden where I'm from as well and it just p****s me of...

Fun fiction= Yes
Documented facts= H**l No

[davidsmith73]

Very good point. Our contact at the ABC, a scientist and skeptic, has seen it and reports that is it as bad as we thought. I have also found clips of it on the web and more, http://www.biography.com/psychic_investigators/


Real-life detective thrillers take on a supernatural turn in this documentary series about actual dramatic crimes that are solved through the unlikely combination of hi-tech detective work and the paranormal powers of a psychic. In each episode, one amazing story is told from two very different points of view - the detective and the psychic. This series juxtaposes the psychic's story - colored with emotion, empathy and mystery, with the cop's tale - dominated by logic, evidence and reason. Playing like supernatural thrillers, these shows are sure to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. For skeptics, Psychic Investigators presents the challenge of explaining the inexplicable; for believers, it offers the confirmation of a mysterious world beyond observable fact.


My hopes weren't up!

[jenspen]

OK, so I sent ABC TV a message about it. What else can I do?

[Richard]

OK, so I sent ABC TV a message about it. What else can I do?

Thanks! Now you and anyone else can help us by finding out whatever we can on the show and its reported crime solving. How much of this show is unverifiable? How much is fiction? Does anyone know of any of the cases it purports to cover?

We want to show the ABC that they have spent tax payers' money on a fiction dressed up as fact. We are also appalled that the ABC will be giving credibility to 'psychic detectives', in a time slot reserved for science!

[wombatwal]

Looks like the ABC will be in for a "Bent Spoon" nomination. maybe many.
After viewing the show and if it is as bad as it seems, probably a lot of noise should be made and hopefully embarrass the ABC. I am sure all of the skeptics in Australia could do that.

[jenspen]

Richard asked: How much of this show is unverifiable? How much is fiction? Does anyone know of any of the cases it purports to cover?

I googled 4 of the murder victims:
Lynsey Quy
Penny Serra
Alexis Burke
Amie Hoffman

BBC report on the Lynsey Quy Case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1120057.stm

2 (Sceptical, unfortunately) sites which examine the pychic's role in solving the Lynsey case
- http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=05-06
http://www.theskepticexpress.com/Joe_Power_the_Lynsey_Quy_case.php

Notice that the Det. Superintendent on the case absolutely denies using a psychic.


The other three cases I googled were actual US murder cases.

The Penny Serra case is reported as a triumph for scientific investigation - http://wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=799360

Alexis Burke - the episode summary makes much of the fact that the investigating detective married the psychic!

Amie Burke - Google found hardly a thing.

I would guess that all the murders actually happened though none of them seems to be a famous case. I would be astounded if any of the cases shows a psychic getting it absolutely wrong or a case remaining unsolved despite psychic input.

[jenspen]

See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=9518

Also Tony Youens investigation of the psychic's claims:
http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm

The BBC credits DNA research with the arrest of the man who was always the chief suspect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1459056.stm

[wombatwal]

The first episode starts this Thursday at 8pm taking the spot of Catalyst. So the ABC thinks this is science.

[Richard]

In light of the ABC showing the 'Documentary' about 'Psychic Detectives', I thought that this item by Barry Williams may be quite relevant:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1997/2.pdf

Page 32

Many readers will have seen the documentary The
Guru Busters, which was shown on ABC TV in April.
The show, which originated on Britain’s Channel
Four, showed the activities of the Indian Rationalists
Association, seeking to counter the influence of
charlatans in Indian society.

It was an excellent programme, although it contained
items that may have been more than a little
unsettling for some of us. One was a scene in which
a man who claimed to be able to cure snakebite by
mystical means was given the chance to cure a dog
that had been deliberately bitten by a cobra. Not surprisingly,
he failed and the dog died, gruesomely,
on screen. The initiator of the event explained that
20,000 people died from snakebite in India every year
and that part of the reason was that people placed
trust in the claims of those who peddle quack cures.
Among the gurus the programme exposed was
the extremely influential Sai Baba who has a following
among some of the most powerful people in India,
including senior politicians. He was shown performing
his famous “miraculous materialisation” of
a gold chain and presenting it to an official. In the
clip, which we understand has been banned from
viewing in India, it was clear that this trick owed
more to his prestidigitational skills than to any ability
to perform miracles.

More disturbing to Australian Skeptics was the
“disclaimer” run as a voice-over during the end titles
of the programme. It proclaimed:

We wish to advise that The Guru Busters is a purchased
documentary and does not represent the beliefs and
attitudes of the ABC.

What an extraordinary statement; that the ABC
does not take editorial responsibility for programmes
it broadcasts; that the ABC, a publicly owned corporation,
has “beliefs and attitudes”.

For good legal reasons, many broadcasters and
publications (including the Skeptic) publish a disclaimer,
“that views and opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of [the publishers]”, but the wording
of this disclaimer left no doubt that the views
expressed in this programme were definitely not
those of the ABC.

In 40 years of viewing, we have never heard a
disclaimer of this nature. Our immediate response
was to contact Stuart Littlemore’s Media Watch programme
to register our complaint. We were clearly
not alone, as the reply from the researcher on hearing
our complaint reveals: “You’ll have to join the
queue”, she said.

And Mr Littlemore did not let us down. On the
next Monday, he said that following broadcast promotions
for the show, “looney devotees of the gurus
phoned the ABC to protest” and asked for the programme
to be taken off. His summary was that the
disclaimer was a “meaningless and pointless piece
of cowardice” which could not be allowed to stand.
Melbourne subscriber, Peter Miller, went further
- he wrote to the ABC Documentary unit and voiced
his concerns. As Peter pointed out to us:

I feel that the initial decision to use the voice-over,
made on the strength of a vigorous telephone campaign
from fanatics, should be highlighted for all to
see so that we all may be aware that this kind of lobbying
exists and is acted upon by broadcasters. In this
case the mistake was public and visible, but it is conceivable
that these kinds of things happen all the time
without our knowledge; if, for example, the show had
been taken off air on the strength of the complaints,
we would never have known about it.

He received a courteous response from Mike
Rubbo, Head of ABC TV Documentaries. Mr Rubbo
conceded, inter alia, that:

It was an error of judgment to include a disclaimer at
the end of the program ... the disclaimer was an overreaction
...the ABC accepts editorial responsibility for
all programs it broadcasts, regardless of their source.
We have reviewed Guidelines for the use of Disclaimers,
strengthened the requirement for senior editorial
staff to be involved in any decision for their use, and
circulated these Guidelines to key staff.

This is encouraging, as we should be able to rely
on the ABC as a reliable reporter of a wide variety
of subjects, especially those not normally covered by
the commercial media. The ABC should also be wary
of giving free platforms to all sorts of “alternative”
practitioners as has been the tendency of late on ABC
Radio. Not that such people should not be heard,
but, when listeners are invited to phone-in to them,
it may appear to some that they have the endorsement
of an Australian cultural institution.

However, to give “Aunty” her due, the ABC does
acknowledge its errors and does provide air time for
programmes such as Media Watch. Mr Littlemore is
equally sceptical about in-house blunders as he is
about those of the commercial media, and more
power to his elbow for that.

[Questioninggeller]

Hopefully the Australian Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au/) will write some letters to ABC voicing discontent.

[Richard]

Bad slot for mumbo jumbo

Australian Skeptics are miffed by the ABC's decision to lend the Catalyst timeslot to Psychic Investigators for the summer, writes Leigh Dayton
November 29, 2006

FANS of ABC television's science program Catalyst may be in for a surprise when they tune in tomorrow night. Not only is the program off the air until February 11, its timeslot is being minded by psychics. Yes, there are 15 weeks of Psychic Investigators ahead.

more...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20838028-30417,00.html

[Richard]

The paper itself........

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/files/abc_psychics_2006.jpg

[jenspen]

And I quote in part:

" Psychic Investigators is a series in which police involved
in investigating crimes, in the absence of evidence indicating the guilt
of a particular perpetrator, have called upon the services of psychics
as a possible way of achieving a breakthrough in a case. These are
actual documented police investigations and the police involved are
interviewed in the series, along with the psychic employed. Many of the
police involved state that they were initially sceptical that a psychic
would be of any help and that they were astounded by the information
they learned...." [Not in all the cases I did some research on. One wonders about 'many of those police' - how bright are they? Also I gathered from the cases I looked at that the police had "a particular perpetrator" very much in mind all the time - just had to wait for better DNA technology.]

"I can assure you that that the ABC is committed to broadcasting programs
of an educational nature. However, the Corporation also has an
obligation to appeal to a diverse range of tastes, and the ABC Charter
requires that the ABC broadcast programs that inform and entertain." [Love that "inform".]

[wombatwal]

Well just watched the first episode of Psychic Detectives.
What a load of rubbish this show is,the ABC should be ashamed of themselves for even telecasting this let alone on the timeslot that science is usually shown.
This so called Psychic came up with nothing that was already known. The police to their credit refused to work with her.
The sister of the victim seemed to be taken in by the Psychic.
The body was never found even though the Psychic said she is in constant psychic communication with the victim.
Score out of 10, probably 1 because it does show what the Psychic can't do.:mad:

[wombatwal]

Have just sent an email to the ABC taking them to task for telecasting this show. I have asked them to take the show off and replace it with a science programme. If enough of us complain they will at least have to hopefully put a large message at the beginning of each show saying it is a ficticous show.

[PeterB]

Celtic crosses in a Welsh cemetery!! Trees in the countryside!! :jaw-dropp

Things so rare that it almost proves that the psychic was psychic. If she'd said that the body would be found within a hundred miles of coal I would have been completely convinced.

What a load of (adjective not allowed by forum rules) (noun not allowed by forum rules).

[Zep]

Spooky music, muted voice-over...WooOOOooo!

Also, it gives a total lie to the ABC's consumer affairs claim above that:...police involved in investigating crimes...have called upon the services of psychics as a possible way of achieving a breakthrough in a case.In this episode, they did no such thing. And I suspect in future episodes they won't either.

[Zep]

I have just sent the ABC the following complaint:Dear ABC,

I'm sorry, but how on Earth can you call a program like Psychic Investigators "science"? Especially in comparison to programs like Quantum that formerly occupied the time-slot? A mixture of "spooky" music, arcane but inane rituals, and a whole lot of hand-waving essentially, does not a serious TV police detective investigation story make. In short, what insulting rubbish! Eventually I was forced to change channels to watch some vapid cartoon or other it was so pathetic. Or maybe it was Jerry Springer, I don't know. It wasn't this program, that's for sure.

And I'm surprised the ABC is now in the habit of actually promoting these psychic charlatans too. Maybe the program producer has fallen for their slippery tactics, but there is no reason why the ABC needs to promote their scope for ripping off even more victims both monetarily and psychologically. Is there no review process for ABC programming such that what is essentially advertising for con-artists is actually filtered out, instead of in?

To borrow an old phrase, I'd like my eight cents back for today's effort from the ABC, thanks.

<my real name>
Sydney

[Richard]

I cannot offer the video.. but here is the audio.

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/audio/PI_01_30_Nov_06.mp3

[logical muse]

Unfortunately, I missed it. Does anyone in Melbourne have a video of it that I can borrow? PM me, pretty please.

[Brainache]

Well it seems pretty obvious to me that it is all part of the new "Unbiased" ABC policy. They are now obliged to give lies as much air time as truth. This of course suits Howard quite nicely. The ABC is headed down the same idiotic lowest common denominator path as SBS and it makes me very angry.:k:

[Moochie]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200612/programs/ZY8319A004D14122006T200000.htm

Psychic Investigators

Rachel Domas
Jason Williams
Margie Calciano

Our national TV, the ABC, are showing this BS in what is normally a science time slot. - Anyone know of this series?


It got panned in the Green Guide yesterday -- Thursday, November 30 (TV supplement in a major daily).

M.

[Richard]

It got panned in the Green Guide yesterday -- Thursday, November 30 (TV supplement in a major daily).

M.

Can you scan it and post it to me or here?

[IceSage]

This reminds me of a better, much more "realistic" show, called "Psych." Way better than this crud ABC is airing.

[Aussie Thinker]

Sheesh...

Saw this adverised the other night.. could hardly believe it !

Here is what I sent to the ABC !


As a regular fan of the ABC, ESPECIALLY the science shows, I must express my absolute disgust at the ABC presenting inane drivel like “Psychic Investigators”.

Even worse it is presented in s time slot normally reserved for SCIENCE !

I would honestly be disappointed if this show was on Channel 10.. but being on the ABC has flabbergasted me!!!!

Please do a small amount of independent research about ANY crime where “pshycics” supposedly “solved’ or helped solve the crime. You will quickly discover they did NOTHING more than informed guesses and some cold and hot reading of the issues. Many times the “psychics” hang around crimes like ambulance chasing lawyers, often grieving families are accosted by these leeches and given ridiculous false hopes.

NO psychic phenomena have even been proven or even passed the most modest of scientific testing. A million dollar prize exists for ANY psychic who can pass the simplest of tests.. IT HAS NEVER BEEN CLAIMED !!!

Enough people already believe in this garbage without the ABC given it some sort of credibility.

I am disgusted, ashamed and pissed off that MY tax money is going towards an inane UNTRUE and misleading show like this.

Please remove it from your programming!

Thanks Richard for goading me into doing something !

[gtc]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200611/20061130.htm

The ABC lists this as must see TV!

[logical muse]

Unfortunately, I missed it. Does anyone in Melbourne have a video of it that I can borrow? PM me, pretty please.

Thanks to Rahl for supplying me with an .avi of the episode! :)

[Richard]

Can someone review this page for me please? Let me know if I made any typos etc..

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm

[Zep]

If you read the synopses of the episodes, it appears that the police NEVER contact the psychics at all, nor do they have much to do with them. It always seems to be a "friend of the family" who talks the mark...sorry, bereaved person into getting a psychic involved.

Being cynical, given some of the slimy tactics they use, I would not be surprised if the "friend of the family" had nothing to do with it - the psychic probably pretended they did when they showed up on the front door.

[Zep]

Can someone review this page for me please? Let me know if I made any typos etc..

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm

I doubt the victim was "stubbed" to death! ;)

The location is "the Brecon Beacons", in Wales.

Can you make it not quite so condescending? We know damn well this is all a self-delusion and beat-up, but the average punter reads what you wrote as "they just hates psychics".

[Moochie]

Can you scan it and post it to me or here?

Here's the URL for the critique of the episode for November 30:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv-reviews/psychic-investigators/2006/11/29/1164777640770.html

It's not the Green Guide critique I mentioned -- I'll try to scan and post it later.

M.

[Richard]

My letter to the ABC:

ABC, where is your quality control?

It seems there has been no attempt by the producers of this show to verify the alleged powers of the “psychics” involved. There is however, and this something for which the ABC should hang its head in shame, an attack on the police for not consulting “psychics”. An attack for NOT consulting “psychics”? Can anyone at the ABC have actually watched this show before it when to air? Police are to be praised for sticking to tried and true methods and not resorting to magic and delusion. Did anyone at the ABC stop to think that this show may now cause people to pester the police to use “psychics” and therefore waste time, money and valuable resources?

I have set up a page at http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm which will offer an analysis of the episodes from a more rational point of view. As a science presenter, I owe it to students who may now get a false impression from this sorry production.

But it's not too late for the ABC to act. You can take the show off the air, or failing that, show it at the 'special time' of 10.30pm on Saturdays or something. Commercial networks do this all the time. Why not replace it with one of the most outstanding TV productions of the last 30 years? I speak of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”. Real science that inspires the young and old.

If you must keep showing it, at least have a disclaimer. When the REAL documentary, “The Guru Busters” was shown on the ABC, you had a disclaimer that said “We wish to advise that The Guru Busters is a purchased documentary and does not represent the beliefs and attitudes of the ABC.” That for a show that exposed the fakes and frauds and pushed science and reason!

I plead with you to do something about Psychic Investigators and redeem the good name of the ABC.

[Mercutio]

Heh. The interviewer at ABC radio is not a fan of this choice by ABC tv. Hear his obvious displeasure after the interview with Kiless (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2141659#post2141659)...

[Zep]

Robin Williams, to whom you refer Merc, is a great ally of skepticism here.

[galla]

Can someone review this page for me please? Let me know if I made any typos etc..

I'm probably a bit late, but as an ex-pat I'm interested in following this story. I noticed a few things on the page that could be clarified or corrected (my suggestions in blue) (and yes, I'm a pedant):

'Psychic Detectives', we inform them, do not help police solve crimes and bring false hope to families at their most vulnerable time.
This reads as "Psychic Detectives do not bring false hope to families at their most vulnerable time." You mean the opposite, something like:

'Psychic Detectives', we inform them, do not help police solve crimes. Instead, they bring false hope to families at their most vulnerable time.

...but what is not substantiated is that Sue had no way of knowing these details before discussing them on camera.
...but what is not substantiated is whether Sue had any way of knowing...

It is after all just a TV show (Something the ABC should try to remember.)
It is, after all, just a TV show (something the ABC should try to remember).

The police, using real methods of investigation, make an arrest ,
Delete space before comma

Sue and sister Julie start their own hunt for the body and a team of psychics are brought in.
...a team of psychics is brought in.

[Richard]

Heh. The interviewer at ABC radio is not a fan of this choice by ABC tv. Hear his obvious displeasure after the interview with Kiless (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2141659#post2141659)...

Kiless, you are my heroine.

[Richard]

You better see this....

http://www.skeptics.com.au/spoon/07psychic1.htm

[Richard]

I'm probably a bit late, but as an ex-pat I'm interested in following this story. I noticed a few things on the page that could be clarified or corrected (my suggestions in blue) (and yes, I'm a pedant):


Many thanks, I've seen to your remarks and adding a link to more comments via mp3.

[Richard]

New posting about this at Australian Skeptics..

http://www.skeptics.com.au/

[PeterB]

New posting about this at Australian Skeptics..

http://www.skeptics.com.au/

I agree with what's on the Skeptics' site. I couldn't have said it better myself.;)

[PeterB]

I agree with what's on the Skeptics' site. I couldn't have said it better myself.;)

And then I went and did it:Banane21:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2006/12december.htm#2abc (That's the permanent link which will keep working long after the front page of the site has evolved into a higher life form.)

[Richard]

Hear what Leigh Dayton, science writer for 'The Australian' newspaper, thinks of the show. This is from ABC radio.

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/audio/dayton_abc.mp3

[Richard]

ABC CORPORATE_AFFAIRS7 <Corporate_Affairs7.ABC@abc.net.au>

Dear Mr Saunders

Thank you for your email regarding Psychic Investigators.

The ABC regrets that you are unhappy about the decision to broadcast this series. Psychic Investigators is a series in which police involved in investigating crimes, in the absence of evidence indicating the guilt of a particular perpetrator, have called upon the services of psychics as a possible way of achieving a breakthrough in a case. These are actual documented police investigations and the police involved are interviewed in the series, along with the psychic employed. Many of the police involved state that they were initially sceptical that a psychic would be of any help and that they were astounded by the information they learned. The cases covered in the series took place in the UK and North America and cover a range of crimes.

Documentary programs broadcast on the ABC fall within the 'factual' category within the ABC's Editorial Policies and Code of Practice. The ABC makes every effort to ensure that documentaries meet all of the necessary editorial guidelines set out in the relevant sections of the Editorial Policies and the Code of Practice. For example, the content of documentaries must be accurate and in context and must not misrepresent any viewpoint. There is no requirement to provide equal time to "opposing" perspectives within the same or a subsequent program. The ABC is satisfied that Psychic Investigators complies with both the Editorial Policies and the Code of Practice. I have attached a link to the ABC's Code of Practice for your reference: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/codeprac04.htm

As the national broadcaster, the ABC has an obligation to appeal to a diverse range of tastes. Nonetheless, your comments about this series are noted and have been conveyed to ABC Television.

Thank you for taking the time to contact the ABC.

Yours sincerely

Simon Melkman
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

[a_unique_person]

Enough to make you cry.

[wombatwal]

Got the same letter.

Dear Mr Wallace

Thank you for your email regarding Psychic Investigators.

The ABC regrets that you are unhappy about the decision to broadcast this
series. Psychic Investigators is a series in which police involved in
investigating crimes, in the absence of evidence indicating the guilt of a
particular perpetrator, have called upon the services of psychics as a possible
way of achieving a breakthrough in a case. These are actual documented police
investigations and the police involved are interviewed in the series, along with
the psychic employed. Many of the police involved state that they were initially
sceptical that a psychic would be of any help and that they were astounded by
the information they learned. The cases covered in the series took place in the
UK and North America and cover a range of crimes.

Documentary programs broadcast on the ABC fall within the 'factual' category
within the ABC's Editorial Policies and Code of Practice. The ABC makes every
effort to ensure that documentaries meet all of the necessary editorial
guidelines set out in the relevant sections of the Editorial Policies and the
Code of Practice. For example, the content of documentaries must be accurate and
in context and must not misrepresent any viewpoint. The ABC is satisfied that
Psychic Investigators complies with both the Editorial Policies and the Code of
Practice. I have attached a link to the ABC's Code of Practice for your
reference: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/codeprac04.htm (javascript:ol('http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/codeprac04.htm');)

Catalyst recesses every year over the summer period. The 8:00pm timeslot on
Thursday evenings is not a dedicated science timeslot; in fact, last year over
the summer period the ABC broadcast Creature Comforts and Nigel's Place in
France in this timeslot.

As the national broadcaster, the ABC has an obligation to appeal to a diverse
range of tastes. Nonetheless, your comments about this series are noted and have
been conveyed to ABC Television.

Thank you for taking the time to contact the ABC.

Yours sincerely

Simon Melkman
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

[Thinktoomuch]

Honestly, I am not sanguine enough about this stuff to do it myself, but if you are, there is a rational, productive way to get the best of this situation (happy to contribute further advice from a long experience as an internal auditor, if needed...:) )

You just have to tape all the episodes, analise them all carefully and, if you find anything that can be demonstrated to be in breach of the relevant sections of the Editorial Policies and the
Code of Practice. For example, the content of documentaries must be accurate and
in context and must not misrepresent any viewpoint.
you present a formal complaint through the proper channels. If you can find any glaring example early, the ABC might find that the predictable bad publicity, legal costs etc. that could ensue would be too high a cost to continue broadcasting the program.

[Zep]

...Psychic Investigators is a series in which police involved in investigating crimes, in the absence of evidence indicating the guilt of a particular perpetrator, have called upon the services of psychics as a possible way of achieving a breakthrough in a case. These are actual documented police investigations and the police involved are interviewed in the series, along with the psychic employed. Many of the police involved state that they were initially sceptical that a psychic would be of any help and that they were astounded by the information they learned....WRONG! INCORRECT! BOLLOCKS! They have done no such thing!

If this apologist has actually seen this series, they will know this is a lie right from the get-go. No (reputable) police force in modern times has ever officially engaged the services of psychics or psychic investigators. So all the rest of the premise of this show falls apart.

When I get my response, I will be telling him so.

[wombatwal]

2nd episode of Psychic Detectives has just concluded. This one was less conclusive as to what the Psychic had told the police and what she had known of the case beforehand. The policeman working on the case mentioned the psychic a number of times, even said that familiar phrase, "how could she have possibly known" a few times. The case looked to me of police work and DNA forensics. I was unclear of the benefit of this psychic, the copper I think said she helped.

[PeterB]

In the second episode it looks like the copper is a true believer, but what really happened is that in the 20 years since the girl's body was found a national fingerprint database has been built so he was able to identify her from a prior arrest. When he talked to the mother, she said that she had always suspected this Peter, who disappeared at the same time as her daughter.

Some good, solid police work then followed, assisted by how, in another advance since the murder, DNA matching had become available.

The psychic's contributions - suggesting the fingerprint check and "seeing" Brooklyn. She also guessed at a truck driver, but since the Yorkshire Ripper every psychic has thrown in a truck driver because they all missed it in that case.

"I see a highway with trucks on it. It crosses a bridge".

Awesome!

[Richard]

Help needed. Did anyone record last week's show? I missed it and I need to write a report on it for my page. H E L P

[Moochie]

New posting about this at Australian Skeptics..

http://www.skeptics.com.au/

Richard, I've just spent an enjoyable half hour viewing a video on the Australian Skeptics site http://www.skeptics.com.au/video/video.htm in which can be seen and enjoyed a veritable orgy of spoon bending, and some interesting discussion.

Thanks for the link, and sorry to be a late-comer.

Heartily recommended.

M.

[Richard]

Updated........

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm

[PeterB]

I couldn't face the episode tonight.:mad:

Channel Ten has brought back reruns of Law & Order: Criminal Intent on Thursday nights, and switching over to Goren after watching drivel would have made me more incensed and depressed about wasting a half-hour of my life. If I'm going to watch fiction about solving crimes I want it to be good fiction.

[Moochie]

Updated........

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm

Alas, there are not enough bent spoons to go around.

M.

[Moochie]

I couldn't face the episode tonight.:mad:

Channel Ten has brought back reruns of Law & Order: Criminal Intent on Thursday nights, and switching over to Goren after watching drivel would have made me more incensed and depressed about wasting a half-hour of my life. If I'm going to watch fiction about solving crimes I want it to be good fiction.

Goren, Grissom, House -- all enjoyable for the non-intellectually impaired.

I don't mind anyone showing claptrap like Psychic Detectives, as long as they clearly describe it as fiction.

Australians might consider withdrawing funding to the ABC.

M.

[gtc]

This week was very poor.

Despite the voiceover trying to make it sound like the psychic and the detective were working together to crack the case the sum total of the help the psychic provided was:

The name of the only suspect in the case (already interviewed);
The victim was already dead;
The victim is in some kind of forest (village seems to be surrounded by forest);
Suspect will be found near 55 gallon drums;
Suspect will be found soon;


The first one was obviously no help, other than to prejudice the case. The final two predictions were made in an interview with the detective (who had been warned not to meet her) while someone else was arresting the suspect at his home. The significance of the drums wasn't explained, the re-enactment showed the suspect sitting by drums before returning home. This contradicts the psychic's statement, but then the voice over suggested that there were drums by the suspects house.

The detective was portrayed as being a believer, but did admit to thinking prior to her interview that the psychic may have been involved in the abduction and murder.

I wonder if the person could appeal their conviction on the basis that the police were prejudiced by the psychic?

[Zep]

Gawsh. :rolleyes:

How near is "near" in "near to 55 gallon drums"? 10 metres? 10 kilometres?

And found by whom? Detectives? The reporters? Ants?

In other words, how much MORE vague could this be and still refer to planet Earth?

[PeterB]

Goren, Grissom, House -- all enjoyable for the non-intellectually impaired.

Are you sure about the placement of hyphens?:confused:

"non-intellectually impaired"

"non-intellectually-impaired"

As anyone who reads my hate mail collection would know, I have a thin skin and am easily offended.

[Moochie]

Are you sure about the placement of hyphens?:confused:

"non-intellectually impaired"

"non-intellectually-impaired"

As anyone who reads my hate mail collection would know, I have a thin skin and am easily offended.


"intellectually astute" :D

M.

[Richard]

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm

Updated today..... Case #3, Rachel Domas

[logical muse]

I just sent this to the ABC:

Dear ABC,

You have been promoting Psychic Investigators as a documentary series that demonstrates the use of psychics to help police solve crimes.

This is misleading. In none of the episodes screened so far has there been any demonstrable evidence that the so-called psychics offered any assistance whatsoever.

By endorsing this sham you are encouraging your viewers to accept without evidence that the psychics in question are not in fact acting fraudulently. They waste police time and resources, prey on the vulnerable, and cheat and lie to gain publicity.

This is a dreadful lowering of standards for the ABC. I urge you to seriously consider the damage this does to your credibilty.



Let's see if I get the same canned response as everyone else.

[Geckko]

MAybe we should be directing our complaints directly within the scope of the ABC Codes of Practice. That leaves them nowhere to hide.

I was reviewing the Codes of Practice sited in the e-mail response people seem to be getting from the ABC. Some of it isn't helpful. The relvant section appears to be "Factual [sic] Programs"

The code is described by four paragraphs:

5.1 The ABC is committed to providing programs of relevance and diversity which reflect a wide range of audience interests, beliefs and perspectives. In order to provide such a range of views, the ABC may provide programs which explore, or are presented from, particular points of view.

My emphasis. Factual programming that is required to reflect beliefs?????? I don't think this part helps our cause. It appears to be a frauds' charter - "but that is what I believe..."

5.2 Every effort must be made to ensure that the factual content of such programs is accurate and in context and does not misrepresent viewpoints.

Even this leaves ample wriggle room for the ABC. What part of is factual content and what part is not?? For example, a nutty policeman voicing an opinion could be interpreted as verifiable "factual content" (as in, it is demonstrably that idiot's opinion), or not factual content at all and hence not subject to this clause..

But I think we could find elements that are presented as facts and prove them to be not supported by evidence (hence "every effort" not made to ensure factual accuracy), or demonstrably erroneous.

If we can find these nuggets then we can try to have the next clause enforced:

5.3 Demonstrable errors of fact will be corrected in a timely manner and in a form most suited to the circumstances.

...but note the caveat "a form most suited...." yeah right...


So let's deconstruct the documentaries for "factual content" and find evidence that demonstrates inaccuracies or hilghlight a lack of evidence.

I don't have program access, but could we jointly compile a clear list of "facts" presented in the programs and then arrange more specific communication to the ABC complaints that addresses the Code.

If they fail to address satisfactorily, there must be a watchdog to whom we could then write to point out that the ABC is in breach of its Code of Practice?

[Geckko]

FYI,

I have submitted a question (as opposed to complaint) with the ABC. Let's see if I get the stock repsonse, despite telling them categorically that I want an answer to my question.

I would like to state at the outset that I am appalled that this program is airing on the ABC as a "factual program" as it appears to fail your own Codes of Practice as they relate to "Factual Programs".

I know you have received a number of complaints regarding "Psychic Investigators" and have drafted a standard response to such complaints. However, I have a specific question for which I require a direct, full, specific and accurate repsonse to convince me that I should not seek to raise this matter with independent regulatory authorities.

My question that requires a specific answer is:

Clause 5.2 of the ABC Codes of Practice, relating to factual programs, requires that "every effort must be be made to ensure that the factual content of such programs is accurate..".
Please describe the efforts that were made by the ABC to ensure that the factual content of these programs was accurate. Your Code state categorically that this "MUST" be done. For example, in many of these programs a specific chronology of events was presented to the viewer (i.e. the "psychic" knew something before the police did, or provided certain information before such information was publically available. Please describe how you confirmed these "facts" and any others contained in the programs.

I look forward to your answer.

Kind regards,

[Big Les]

An update to this thread; ABC's own staff (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20966588-7582,00.html) have complained about the way "Psychic Investigators" is passed off as a factual programme. Australian Sceptics and their award are mentioned.

All is forgiven about the Ashes guys! You wouldn't see BBC or ITV staff doing this.

[baron]

We have a similar TV show in the UK. In fact, it's on right now as I write this. It's called Psychic Private Eyes and, ironically enough, it's on the Zone "Reality" TV channel.

As far as I can make out it comprises a trio of miserable con-merchants mooching about in black macs and muttering about ditches.

[logical muse]

The ABC sent me a reply:

Thank you for your email regarding Psychic Investigators.

The ABC regrets that you are unhappy about the decision to broadcast this series. As the national broadcaster, the ABC has an obligation to appeal to a diverse range of tastes. Nonetheless, your comments about this series are noted and have been conveyed to ABC Television.

I acknowledge your point that none of the episodes screened so far have featured any evidence that the so-called psychics offered any assistance to the investigations. The ABC does not consider this to be contrary to the promotion of Psychic Investigators as a documentary series demonstrating the use of psychics to help police solve crimes. The cases selected for presentation in the program were not chosen on the basis of the success of the psychic in the case, but rather, the involvement of the psychic, the availability of the participants for interview, and the 'interest factor' of the case.

Finally, regarding your assertion that the ABC is "endorsing this sham", I would point out that presenting a perspective is quite a different thing to endorsing it.

Thank you for taking the time to contact the ABC.

Yours sincerely

I think it speaks for itself.

[galla]

none of the episodes screened so far have featured any evidence that the so-called psychics offered any assistance to the investigations...

The ABC does not consider this to be contrary to the promotion of Psychic Investigators as a documentary series demonstrating the use of psychics to help police solve crimes.

Umm...?

[Thinktoomuch]

The ABC sent me a reply:



I think it speaks for itself.

Yes it does. It is factual and you will find extremely difficult finding holes in it.:)

[Moochie]

I agree with a poster who suggested that the program be followed by a discussion session where the entire issue can be debated by proponents and skeptics and other interested parties.

I have not seen one positive review of this rubbish anywhere, and don't really expect to, but the same can be said of a whole host of programs.

I am dead-set against censorship of any kind.

M.

[Thinktoomuch]

But I think we could find elements that are presented as facts and prove them to be not supported by evidence (hence "every effort" not made to ensure factual accuracy), or demonstrably erroneous.

.....

So let's deconstruct the documentaries for "factual content" and find evidence that demonstrates inaccuracies or hilghlight a lack of evidence.

.....

If they fail to address satisfactorily, there must be a watchdog to whom we could then write to point out that the ABC is in breach of its Code of Practice?

This is the way to go. There are many "watchdogs", depending on what you find:
- Breaches of the ABC Act - the legal system, as prescribed by the Act
- Inappropriate content: - The Australian Broadcasting Authority
- Evidence of inappropriate governance - the ANAO.
Enjoy!

[Thinktoomuch]

OK, OK, I'm getting old.... the ABA now is called the Australian Communications and Media Authority...

[CptColumbo]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread earlier. I've been trying to get a similar series off Court TV in the US for a year now. My tax dollars don't pay for it, but my cable bill does. I send a e-mail after every new episode to the network and my cable provider, and a letter quarterly. I get almost the same answer as the ABC is sending you guys. Thankfully, the ratings are declining and it may get cancelled anyway.

I first became irritated with "psychic detectives" when a local station consulted one regarding a missing boy, and she said "he will be near water." We're know as the "land of 10,000 lakes."

[Richard]

Back from a vacation, here is the update.

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm#pi05

[Richard]

*NEW* Letter of Complaint
Dr Alex Ritchie BSc PhD
December 2, 2006

Last week, after watching the final episode of ABC ‘Catalyst’ for 2006, I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard what was planned to take its place over the summer season...


more at : http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/psychicinvestigators.htm

[jenspen]

Richard, how you can sit through every episode baffles me. I tried to watch one of them. Congratulations on your analyses.

[Richard]

Richard, how you can sit through every episode baffles me. I tried to watch one of them. Congratulations on your analyses.

It's not easy... in fact I convert the shows to mp3 and play them while walking. I then look at the bits that need looking at. I find it very hard even to take in the audio from this total trash. New update to the page soon.

[Richard]

SMH
Kenneth Nguyen, reviewer
January 11, 2007

Our ABC is off metaphorically telling us, in prime time no less, to bow to spoon-benders and dream-readers.

more...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv-reviews/psychic-investigators/2007/01/10/1168105041043.html

[rustytunes]

Nice work there by journo Kenneth Nguyen.

I watched this show a week or so ago, and while it was easy to spot the selective editing etc, I thought that the policeman they had on seemed to be overplaying the psychic's input, accuracy etc - he just didn't seem quite right somehow. At the end they revealed that he and the psychic were married! I nearly fell off my chair.