And Fox calls this article news? WTF?

Here is a copy of a letter sent to foxnews.com. I will be sure to post any reply received from Fox concerning this letter. Pretty disgusting overall.

For maximum impact, read the linked article completely first.

Dear FoxNews,

I am writing concerning the story, “Television Crosses Over” at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69794,00.html
I was very disappointed by the piece. It was far too uncritical to be a feature story, linked from the front page of a prestigious news site such as yours. Specifically, it was sloppy and arbitrary in its groupings (lumping fiction with ostensible non-fiction), it presented the claims of psychics without qualification, and it trivialized a scary trend in public thought as though it was discussing the inconsequential trends of fashion.

Lets look at the article line-by-line, article in bold. (Edited down for this board due to copyright issues, but you can compare to the original article to get the full impact)

NEW YORK — A psychic talks to pets in doggie and kitty heaven. A man wakes up from a 6-year coma with psychic powers. A dead funeral-home patriarch visits his family from the other side.

Psychics claim to speak with lost loved ones and pets, and sell this as factual with not a reason in the world to presume that these claims are true. The other two shows (The Dead Zone, and Six Feet Under) are clearly presented as fiction/fantasy.

…… “People are really trying to connect with the other side,” said Richard Fernandes, co-executive producer of Pet Psychic. "They’re looking to know that people are well, their pets are well.”

It is nice that people are looking to know that people or their pets are well. However, given the (serious) lack of evidence that any psychic has actually put people in touch with their lost loved ones, it seems prudent (at least) to avoid the appearance of ENDORSING these claims by presenting them without qualification.

Crossing Over With John Edward, which documents psychic readings by the medium, has garnered a cult following. Viewers have lapped up Pet Psychic, where Sonya Fitzpatrick communicates with pets, alive and dead. And The Dead Zone – …… – has taken off on cable.

Why the popularity of these shows is discussed in the same breath is beyond me. The Pet Psychic and the Dead Zone would be expected to have different audiences watching for completely different reasons. Again this article states, “Fitzpatrick communicates with [dead] pets” without qualification, giving the appearance of endorsing the claims as factual.

Those who have been in the paranormal business for years feel as though the newfangled attention justifies a craft often deemed hokey.
“I’m really happy to see what the TV shows are doing,” ………"It’s heightening people’s awareness that there is more to life than just what we see every day.”

I have to ask:

  1. What is this paranormal “business”?
  2. Why, exactly, would a “medium” have any credibility?
  3. Again, the statement of the medium is presented completely uncritically.
    ……“The Sixth Sense did help facilitate interest in the supernatural,” ………

Resurgence in fictional occult accounts would be strictly a preference in “entertainment”… It would be very sad if The Sixth Sense paved the way for a show like Crossing Over. A fictional account of the occult should not lend any credence to supernatural claims in reality. A journalistic piece should avoid giving the impression that THE SIXTH SENSE offers any kind of “evidence” that ghosts exist.

…….E! Networks is working on a special hosted by Mark Wahlberg called Hollywood and Beyond, set to air early next year. It features “tomorrow’s gossip today” with astrologers forecasting future Hollywood dish, plus segments where paranormal experts communicate with deceased stars like Marvin Gaye.…….

This idea is so bad, I don’t even know where to begin… A show combining the completely trivial with the completely worthless. I am sure it will sell very well. As pointed out repeatedly, the claims of speaking to the deceased are parroted without any qualification.

As an aside: I think it is remarkable, were such an ability to exist, with all of the possible deceased personalities one could learn from (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Gandhi, Einstein, etc.) that they would choose a figure as trivial as Marvin Gaye. Weren’t Elvis or John Lennon available, at least?

………“It gives peace to people, it gives hope,” she said. "If people didn’t believe in something other than this, they wouldn’t pray. You’re talking to the other side – exactly the same thing that mediums do.”

Not the same at all. Mediums claim they are being directly and specifically answered on the spot. Of course, there is no evidence to support this claim at all, but plenty to contradict it. Not to mention they make money from it. Prayer is free.

She thinks the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks left many wanting to believe – and stay connected with the ones who were lost.

Who doesn’t want to believe in a very comforting idea? I find it very disturbing that these self proclaimed seers are so willing to make a buck by exploiting the very people hurt by this tragedy. Does FoxNews endorse the bilking of 9/11 victims?

"It was a wake-up call for a lot of people spiritually," she said. "Heaven is a very real existence. If you can connect with someone from the other side, it gives people peace knowing their loved ones are OK.
“Their love hasn’t died,” she added. "They’re just not in visual contact. It’s almost like they’ve moved.”

Really? John Edwards, Sylvia Brown, James Von Prague, etc have been often caught cheating and lying. There is not a single thing they do in their shows that nearly anyone couldn’t be trained to do just as well without any paranormal talent at all. Given the intelligence gathering and general spying that goes on before a taping of Crossing Over, it’s a wonder that his show needs editing “for content” at all.

People have a strong desire to believe. It is very comforting. When a person is told something he wants to believe, it is often accepted without thought or examination. People want to believe that someone can talk to their dead relatives. Not a shred of evidence has been offered that would support the claim except the “psychic’s” own blustering. These people are making money (a lot of money) by deceiving/defrauding the gullible. They do this by knowing what these people (who have often suffered a rather tragic loss) want to hear, want to believe. They make up something that will satisfy the audience, often using subterfuge to obtain “unknowable” confirming evidence. Then the “psychic” feeds this lie to them and they accept it. And the cash register goes "cha-ching”.

If I sell a necklace as pure sterling silver, when in fact it is silver plated brass, is it still fraud if the buyer never finds out about the deception? If the buyer goes to his grave without ever knowing that he didn’t get what he paid for, was he cheated? I would say that he clearly was. These people are being sold information with the stipulation that it is the truth. Many of the people attending these “psychic” shows will never realize they were defrauded, at least not in this lifetime. It doesn’t mean that it is not fraud just the same.

Children are disabused of the fable that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real for obvious reasons before they reach adulthood, regardless of how comforting the notion may be that they exist. I will not argue that people have the right to hold any belief they care to, even if it is demonstrably false. However, there is a big difference between letting these people do what they want, and the major media networks not only allowing, but enabling, hucksters to prey upon these people.

Fox isn’t as guilty as the networks running these “shows” by publishing a piece of journalism as uncritical as this. But, every article like this is just another little piece of evidence that these psychics are legit for the people who want to believe.

I have discussed these shows with a number of people who watch and believe. You would not believe how often the phrase, “They couldn’t show it on TV like this if it wasn’t true” comes up. This article does nothing but reinforce this message, especially as it appears in a news outlet.

Finally, with the resources available to Fox, it would be pretty trivial to send some people to attend some of the tapings and reveal them for the crap that they are in a national venue. Let’s look at how Crossing Over is produced to see how effective a simple plan could be.

  1. The audience arrives hours before the taping.
  2. They are kept where they can be listened to and chatted up by people working for the show. (Of course, everyone is going to be discussing what they hope to hear about in their reading, if they get one)
  3. All the audience members are required to fill out a family tree questionnaire while they are waiting. (Could there be any chance that this information falls into John’s hands?)

It would be pretty trivial to plant a couple to discuss while waiting a completely fictional sob story. If done a few times, a psychic reading would likely occur in short order regarding this fictional tragedy. This would reveal pretty conclusively that information from the anteroom was being passed to the “psychic”. Also, if any kind of recording device can be smuggled in, it would be very revealing to compare the unedited readings to the edited versions that actually make the air. The practice of editing responses from one question to appear to answer other questions has been well documented.

Why would Fox want to do this? I can think of a couple of reasons:

  1. You would be making a positive contribution to a more critical and thinking American public.
  2. You just might shut down a prolific scam artist.
  3. If viewers weren’t watching pure crap on one of the other channels, surely some of them would be picked up as viewers by Fox in those time slots.
  4. The other networks appear to prefer the advertising revenue to delivering anything like a balanced account of what is happening (because a balanced account wouldn’t fool anyone and no one would watch), nobody but another network can really do anything about it except through legislation (and that probably won’t be happening anytime soon).

Do the world a favor and expose this stuff for the fraud that it is. I look forward to any response.

scotth

Damn, that thread title sucks.

Mods, if you see this, would you mind changing that title to “Fox News endorses Psychics and the Paranormal! WTF?”

That would be much more descriptive.

Thanks!
scott

It’s not an editorial, it’s simply a story that these shows exist. I’m not sure it would be the proper place for debunking. Not that I wouldn’t like to see every news source on earth show what piles of shit these psychic “reality” shows are.

Did you read the whole original article? That wasn’t the flavor of it at all. It was completely credulous.

I also failed to mention that it was a “featured” article right off their front page.

Featured in that it used a “picture” link to draw attention to it.

It was appearently considered big news.

This is sarcasm, right?

Okay, one of two things is happening here. Either I’m being gigantically whooshed by an X-treme and subtle purveyor of whoosh, or else you are remarkably clueless. If (A), I bow before the Master–you have out-whooshed even the Mighty Fenris.

If (B), then… um… You’re saying that Catherine Donaldson-Evans should have laid into those evil bastards at the TV networks, by golly, she should have debunked all those TV shows that deal with psychic phenomena, how DARE the TV networks air shows that are not TRUTHFUL, that are completely FICTION, that have no basis in reality?

Shows like, say, The X-Files?

I mean, WTF, Scott, it’s just a fucking television review.

Fox isn’t in the business of debunking psychics, they’re in the business of selling entertainment. Psychics are entertainment. People are gonna believe in John Edwards no matter how many news articles and debunking videos you show them.

Um, I’m gonna go waaaaaay out on a limb here and predict that Fox will not waste even a single pixel on responding to your complaint.

And yes, I read the entire article first, as instructed, expecting something really Big and Exciting, and instead found only a fucking TV review puff piece. I sat there wondering, “What’s the deal, Lucille”, and then went back to your OP, as instructed, and found out that you’re evidently on a Mission From God to force Fox to, what, I dunno, be more truthful or something. This is the network that ran the moon landing hoax video last spring, remember?

Yes I read it, and yes, it’s credulous, because it’s not an editorial.

I guess where my HUGE problem comes from, is that this was not tucked away in the entertainment column.

This wasn’t published on E!.. it was considered newsworthy enough for a featured front page link on a NEWS site.

Yes, I figure I won’t hear a word back from them. Everyone who suggests that I am just pissing in the wind are probably quite right.

But fuck, passing that crap off as front page news just doesn’t cut it with me. It was presented as big news when it was linked to the front of their site. It got higher promotion than the latest activities of Al Queda, etc.

And DDG, you are exactly correct, it was a “Puff Piece”… If it would have been filed with in the entertainment section like a “Puff Piece”, I probably would have never spotted it, or as annoyed if I did.

Besides, if nobody bitches…

And as much as I was annoyed with the Moon Landing farce, at least it wasn’t on the news side of the house.

I didn’t catch that it wasn’t in the entertainment section. I agree that showing this as news wasn’t appropriate, and does in fact maybe lean towards giving that bullshit some credence.

One other thing…

I probably did overboard on this one… but those big time tv psychics are a really big hot button for me.

I know a bunch of people (some are family) that completely buy this crap pretty much because “they could show it on TV like that if it wasn’t true”.

They can’t believe that the network would allow them pump the audience for info before the show and edit the final product to make it look more convincing. Their “hits” are just too amazing to be phony. And when they spot shit like this in the “news”, it is just one more thing that supports their conclusion.

fuck…

see, now I can’t even type anymore…

should be:

“probably did go overboard on this one”
and
“they couldn’t show it on…”

Yeah, it IS a puff piece, and it’sprobably pretty trivial, but there are two things which bother me about the story.

  1. They repeatedly make statements about the abilities of the “psychics” without qualification. A supposedly journalistic piece should stick in an “allegedly” here or there, shouldn’t they?

  2. Read the part about 9/11 again. These “mediums” are exploiting the tragedies of others for personal gain. They prey on people who have recently lost loved ones, who are grieving and desperate, and ripe for the plucking. The article glosses right over this, and in fact seems to give the impression that these con-artists are some sort of compassionate do-gooders.

I don’t understand why the media in general (never mind the Fox News piece) has not been more aggressive in exposing these frauds. Puffy entertainment pieces like this are part of the problem because they at least seem to tacitly endorse these claims of “paranormal” abilities. They help to lend mainstream credibility to people who are nothing but liars, swindlers and thieves.

A more subtle implication of the piece is that the public seems to be buying into this crap more and more. The fact that large numbers of Americans actually believe this crap is kind of scary, and should be reported as scary.

Note to Scott: I think a thread devoted entirely to exposing and debunking John Edward would be merited in and of itself.

DtC… we could start another one… I think it has been done (a couple of times) already.

Because there is no point. People who believe like believing. Why do you care?

Well, it wouldn’t be surprising that someone who posts on a board that’s supposed to be about eradicating ignorance would like to see some ignorance eradicated…

…because defrauding the bereaved families of the recently dead is deeply immoral, unethical, and nauseating? Hi, welcome to the Straight Dope. You must be new here.

Oh please, give me a break. I could say the same fucking thing about Christianity. If it makes people happy, who the fuck are you to say it’s wrong?

Not to mention, while we’re at it, the colossal arrogance of those who would say that all claims of psychic ability or communication with the other side are bullshit.

There is nothing more arrogant that the absolute certainty that the limits of YOUR perception consitute the limits of what there is to be perceived.

If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Happiness in a false belief doesn’t make it true, only useful.

And belief in something that’s false is ignorance, no matter how happy it makes you.