Skeptical Inquirer medium article

[arcticpenguin]

The September/October 2003 issue of Skeptical Inquirer has an article on TV mediums.

Page 41, They see dead people - or do they? by James Underdown.

[Clancie]

Finally! Fantastic!

So...Arctic Penguin? Can you summarize Underdown's conclusions and analysis of how he feels editing worked on the CO tapings he watched (and tape recorded live)?

Does he include full transcriptions of unedited CO readings?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Clancie
Finally! Fantastic!

So...Arctic Penguin? Can you summarize Underdown's conclusions and analysis of how he feels editing worked on the CO tapings he watched (and tape recorded live)?

Does he include full transcriptions of unedited CO readings?

Or you could just buy a copy of the magazine.;)

[Clancie]

Of course, Kelvin. I plan to. :)

I just wanted a preview, if AP has one. (I'm not known for my patience after all--and I've been waiting half a year already to see what Underdown was going to say!)

[Yahweh]

They see dead people - or do they?
Subtlety is really overrated...

[Brown]

Just got my copy in the mail yesterday.

Interesting article. It seemed to rule out most instances of hot reading, but there were a couple of times that there appeared to be some cheating.

The editing is what I found interesting, and I wish there had been an expanded discussion of it. I laughed out loud at Edward's blunder that his folks simply decided to edit out of the show.

Going back in time, "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" used to do spoofs about editing. A celebrity would make a short speech about an issue (the speech being well-organized and thoughful, but not funny), and then Dan Rowan would say something like, "Let's see that speech after it's gone through the hands of an unscrupulous editor." The words of the same speech would then be delivered again in a rearranged and dishonest format, destroying the original intent of what was said, and giving a message that was not intended at all. Laughter ensued.

Well, reading this article made me wonder whether the mythical "unscrupulous editor" of "Laugh-In" now worked for these talking-to-the-dead programs.

[arcticpenguin]

The overall conclusions were that they encountered no evidence of hot reading, the live readings were generally unimpressive and greatly resembled cold reading, and that the editing for broadcast made the readings appear more successful than they actually were.

They give partial transcripts and compare what happened live to what made it into broadcast (they smuggled in an audio recorder).

[Clancie]

Thanks, Brown & AP. It sounds worth reading (and conforms with what Underdown told me--that everything, in his opinion, could be explained by cold reading and editing. No hot reading needed--i.e., no "non-disclosure" agreements with staff either.)

I'm curious how he ruled out hot reading, though, and what the transcripts look like. Guess I'll have to wait until I see it for some of that.....

[Thumper]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brown
Going back in time, "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" used to do spoofs about editing. A celebrity would make a short speech about an issue (the speech being well-organized and thoughful, but not funny), and then Dan Rowan would say something like, "Let's see that speech after it's gone through the hands of an unscrupulous editor." The words of the same speech would then be delivered again in a rearranged and dishonest format, destroying the original intent of what was said, and giving a message that was not intended at all. Laughter ensued.

Bowling for Columbine?

:wink:

[T'ai Chi]

So no hot reading? So how does this jive with others' reports of hidden mics, plants in the audience, and people mining databases of JE's fans' information?

[Yahzi]

The most interesting thing to me was the discovery that even bad cold reading is sufficient to account for JE's performance.

It is a testament to how far a willing audience will go.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So no hot reading? So how does this jive with others' reports of hidden mics, plants in the audience, and people mining databases of JE's fans' information?

Please stick to the truth. Nobody have reported hidden mics or plants in the audience. People are merely pointing out the possibilities of these things. However, one of them - database mining - is most certainly a very possible scenario: How John Edward got two "special hits" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jespecialhits.htm)

T'ai Chi, could you please explain why it is impossible for JE to have gotten these special hits via the Internet?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So no hot reading? So how does this jive with others' reports of hidden mics, plants in the audience, and people mining databases of JE's fans' information?
Reports, or speculations? To me, a report is a statement of discovered fact, subject to verification. In this case, it looks like their speculations might be wrong, but not outside the bounds of possibility. They raise important, relevant questions that should be answered before JE or anyone like him is accepted as genuine.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please stick to the truth. Nobody have reported hidden mics or plants in the audience. People are merely pointing out the possibilities of these things. However, one of them - database mining - is most certainly a very possible scenario: How John Edward got two "special hits" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jespecialhits.htm)

T'ai Chi, could you please explain why it is impossible for JE to have gotten these special hits via the Internet?

I consider a report anyone's verbal or written opinion about what happened. O'Neill, through Jaroff I think and also through Skeptic magazine, certainly did report these things:

"I think the whole place is bugged somehow.", and

"He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."

So gee, I guess I am sticking to the truth. Don't you read Skeptic?

As far as your question, I never said that it was impossible for JE to get the hits from via the Internet. Data mining, etc., certainly is possible. It is also certainly possible that JE is communicating with spirits. I guess we will just have to analyze the data instead of theorize it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Reports, or speculations? To me, a report is a statement of discovered fact, subject to verification. In this case, it looks like their speculations might be wrong, but not outside the bounds of possibility. They raise important, relevant questions that should be answered before JE or anyone like him is accepted as genuine.

Pyrrho, a report is just a formal record, verbal or written, of a situation. It could be fact or opinion.

I agree with what you wrote above after that. There are certainly a lot of possibilities to explain JE and other mediums.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thanks, Brown & AP. It sounds worth reading (and conforms with what Underdown told me--that everything, in his opinion, could be explained by cold reading and editing. No hot reading needed--i.e., no "non-disclosure" agreements with staff either.)

I'm curious how he ruled out hot reading, though, and what the transcripts look like. Guess I'll have to wait until I see it for some of that.....
They did not "rule out" hot reading, he simply stated that he saw no evidence of it. Evil minions did not pump them for info and in both studios (a van Praagh taping and an Edward taping), music was piped in at sufficient volume that electronic eavesdropping would have been difficult.

[Brown]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
They did not "rule out" hot reading, he simply stated that he saw no evidence of it. Evil minions did not pump them for info and in both studios (a van Praagh taping and an Edward taping), music was piped in at sufficient volume that electronic eavesdropping would have been difficult. In addition, the authors discussed false information with others, and if any of that false information was spouted back to them, they would know from whence it came.

It should be noted that there are some con men (see "The Faith Healers" for examples) who use assistants or questionnaires to glean information from the crowd. This information is then presented to the crowd, and acknowledged by the person or persons who supplied it. Those who supplied the info assume that the source is an entity other than themselves, and strangers looking on also are led to wonder "How did the Reverend know that? Unless...." The notion that the information came directly from the affected person is dismissed out of hand.

It was quite reasonable for the authors to be on the lookout for techniques like this.

Another interesting tactic described in the article was "swinging for the fence." It would not surprise me if Edward uses this tactic with considerable frequency, and that it is one that often ends up on the cutting room floor.