For all the people who doled out grief to my friend Richard Saunders for being on a TV show in Australia looking for psychics, I give you this clip:
It shows Richard stating one of the most basic of logical misuses by psychics: remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. And he does it politely, even respectfully, making him appear to be — gasp — a nice guy and not a baby-eating skeptic.
Just like I said he would.
Now of course the show will be edited to make the psychics look good and all that, but my hope still is that skeptics will be shown to not be all jerks, and that some skeptical content will osmosify into the brains of believers.
That’s the goal folks. Get people thinking. And I think Richard will do just that.
However, we can’t judge the show until we see it. I’m hoping to be able to watch it so I can talk about it more, but it may be a while. Stay Tuned.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Well, we won’t see it here, I guess, unless an American network sees this and copies it ala Big Brother, American Idol and numerous other reality shows that had their origins elsewhere.
Incidentally, I saw Criss Angel debunk psychic readings recently. He set up a booth in Vegas, and had different individuals come in for a “reading”. What they didn’t know was that he had taken a Horoscope from somewhere, picked one part, and applied it to everyone. So, he had 6 people, and gave them the exact same reading, and all of them said there is no way he could have known the things he told them.
It goes to show how people are susceptible to these charlatans.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Read the headline and thought there was going to be an announcement that the Skeptologists had been picked up and was going to air soon.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Knowing what the editors of these shows are like, I’m still dealing with a host of reservations regarding the actual outcome of this show. I’ll believe it when I see it. Let’s not forget that for each pleasant and polite banter that Saunders provides, we’re going to be dealing with lots of credulous nonsense by the psychics. The editors are going to run ragged trying to give the psychics a semblance of credibility. Unfortunately, this has been going on in many television shows, and the producers don’t really care whether the truth comes out or not. All they want are ratings, and by disproving every psychic and showing that it’s all a load of horse manure, there may not be as many people interested. I guess I’ll reserve judgement as well and try to keep an open mind, but I’ll have to see the evidence for myself.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I too thought this was an announcement of Skeptologists on tv soon.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I really like how Richard said he found the readings “entertaining”. With this one sentence, he suggests that it’s ok to appreciate psychic readings as entertainment, but they shouldn’t be taken seriously. This is the kind of rhetoric I think skeptics need to use. If you frame your argument carefully, no one gets offended but the message still comes across. As anyone who has ever trained a dog (or a child, or a spouse
) knows, if a message is repeated often enough, it eventually sinks in.
Well done Richard! I can’t wait to see more of the show.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
SPOUSE?!
Sheesh.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Mrs. BA said:
“I really like how Richard said he found the readings “entertaining”. \
I see your point, unfortunately most of the general public won’t hear that, and I doubt Richard can get on there and say, “This is bunk. It’s never been proven scientifically.” That would defeat the purpose of the show. Unfortunately, these “psychics” are bilking desperate and grieving people out of millions of dollars. If people want to spend their money on that as entertainment, fine, but when these people start to prey upon people, we need to say, “Hold on a minute. This is wrong.”
July 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Phil,
The peril of allowing your wife to own her own computer…
July 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Does this mean they will replace the “Mind-freak!!!!!”, with “Normal Guy!!!!!”. I might actually be able to watch his show then.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Most of my friends are women, and when I haven’t talked to them for a while I always ask them how their children and pets are. I never ask how their husbands/boyfriends are doing, because that would be repeating myself (to paraphrase Samuel Clemens).
July 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I missed the first episode of this show because I forgot about it. Then, I had a friend over and he was telling me about it (I’m not sure if he believes in their ‘abilities’ or not but he did say that some were pretty good - or there abouts). So I realllllly wanted to watch this show on Tuesday … when I found out that it clashed with the Simpsons. My choice was watch some people try to scam their way through some challenges or watch something that I’ll know I’ll find amusing (even if the quality of the Simpsons has decreased of late). Sorry to say, I chose the Simpsons.
To any other Aussies out there (or, out here?) - is this show any good, amusment wise? I might have to cast the Simpsons off next week.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
@Jose, LOL. I find it hard to watch too, but he’s never claimed “supernatural” abilities. He’s always maintained it’s an illusion. (I’m not a fan of his, I just thought it was interesting that he debunked these people.)
July 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@ Michael L - Oh no you didn’t! (imagine indignant head bobbing while this is said).
July 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
As the comedien John Wing mused, “Married men only need to learn four words in order to have a successful marraige: oh, yeah, right, sorry. They can be used individually or as a combination.”
Learn these well grasshopper.
I can only add it helps to mot mix up a question from a statement.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
@CanadianLeigh…
Yes Dear may go along way too, but what do I know, I’m divorced!
July 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Unfortunately that 5 seconds was about the only critical thinking that happened the whole episode. BA your right the sceptics are not portrayed as jerks, they don’t get a chance at all. There is just a lot of choice editing, and no scientific analysis of what happened (exactly how many hits and misses).
The main tasks of the night was:
1) in a shipping yard with 70 possible 40ft containers, find the only not empty one (it had a couple of barrels in it) in 15 minutes. The editing showed a lot of hovering around the right container, but in the end none of them picked it. The general consensus was that they over thought it, or didn’t go with their heart.
2) Perform a cold reading on an Australian Olympic star. They all reported very good readings, but these were all elite athletes with very high public profiles.
As a previous comment said, given the choice between an hour of the Simpsons (1 new eppissode and a repeat) or “The One”, I would choose … D’Oh!
P.S. I got the distinct feeling that Richard is too controled by the produceres, at one stage he was critiquing the performance, and then finsihed it off with saying that doesn’t mean your not a physic!
July 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Sorry, edit that last word (though it probably true as well).
psychic not physic
July 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
My wife and kids have been watching this show and I’ve been catching bits and pieces of it. Usually I can make it through one of the challenges and Saunders isn’t too bad (although IMO treating the inane and absurd with way too much gentle respect) but just about every time the other judge talks (Stacey Demarco, supposed Witch) I have to leave the room. My tolerance for the inane and absurd when presented as unquestioned expert opinion is not up to Saunder’s impressive level of composure.
Afterwards, I get to deprogram the kids. Fun. At least now they’ve developed a basic understanding of Cold Reading and statistical likelihoods.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Please remember that none of the ‘tests’ on the show are scientific. They are for entertainment only and should be viewed as such. Australian Skeptics have indeed been getting more attention due to the show and that’s a good thing. This clip being on youtube is a good thing. I have been given good press and radio interviews.
I know not everyone is happy that I took part and that’s fine. I accept your thoughtful criticism and praise. I don’t pay much attention to knee-jerk reactions. I have no say in the editing of the show but I knew that would be the case.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I have been backing Richard Saunders since the start. However, I did watch the pilot,(live in Australia) and it was pretty weak. I love the fact Richard was able to get across his point there at the end, but it just wasn’t enough. As he said in that clip “…but it was very entertaining.” That was the problem for me. I felt it was trying to entertain people rather than really try to expose the fallacy of psychic power. It just did not come across as a truly skeptical show. In fact, Richard as the skeptic came across to me as a side bit, even though he was his polite self. I reckon many of the believers followed exactly what the point he was trying to make out; that people forget the misses and remember the hits. They will just forget he said that.
It was a great concept but lacked enough skeptical ‘meat’ for my taste ;p Still, it’s a slight win for the fact that Australia has little to no skeptical stuff on TV at all, so its not all bad. I’m still cheering on Richard Saunders, and thanks BA for making me aware of the show itself. I hope we can see some meatier stuff on Australia TV in the future. I will watch the show again if I can, just to see if it gets any better.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
he’s never claimed “supernatural” abilities.
Oh, I know. That’s not what I object to. If you had a show about squirrels called “Michael L’s Wonderful World of Squirrels” or “Gettin’ down with Squirrels”, I’d definitely watch. If it was called “Squirrel God!!!” or “Lord of Squirrels!!!”, I’d pass. Does that make more sense?
July 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Richard,
Glad to see you here. My comment was more about producers and editing than your involvement.
Unfortunately for everyone this is only a short clip, and did not cover all of conversation. The athletes were able to respond about the cold readings, which again left the general impression that the readings were all correctly “psychic”.
I’m not disappointed in you or your involvement, just the fact that not as much detail is put into how they are not psychic as that they are.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
@Jose, Gotcha… BTW, my show, It’s called “Shakin’ It With Beavers”, I mean what else would it be? I’m Canadian. I do hope you’ll watch.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Richard, I haven’t been able to see the show yet, because I can never arrange my time around a television show, but where/when have you been interviewed? Are any of these online?
July 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
David, this might be a good start for all things Richard…
http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/
I’ve been watching “The One”. Richard is good. But, he’s not on long enough. At least he got the ‘remember the hits’ bit out. I was cooking dinner during the last part of the show but I’m sure that one of the psychics “guessed” that one of the Olympians was a swimmer. No sh*t Sherlock. Discounting Louise Savage the wheelchair athlete the odds that a famous Olympian would be a swimmer in Australia is almost a given. Fair dinkum as far as a cold reading test goes using athletes in Australia doesn’t get any hotter.
As far as the container test went, in the wrap up it almost sounded like that fact that the psychic walking past the container with something in it could almost be claimed as hit. A bit like walking past the agency that sells a winning lotto ticket is almost as good as buying the winning ticket.
One word sum-up of the show, frustrating.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
The 25sec. clip of “The One” is a JOKE!! My whole point all along with this wackaloon show has been we need a ‘No Nonsense Skeptic’. For Richard to tell all hard working ‘grass roots’ skeptics this show must be viewed as ‘entertainment’ I can only allow my jaw to drop and slither off into the murk!
No scientific testing! only entertainment! Whoa!!!!….what would the man himself (Randi) have to say about that! What did Richard sign on for? Does he want to further skeptisism in the community or have a jolly good ol’ entertaining piece of misleading Goobung!!!
My neighbor (poor deluded soul) thinks the “skeptic looks as though he may be impressed”. I chided her that,that he may look depressed!
For Richard to say that the Aust. Skeptics have been “getting more attention since the show and that is a good thing” what attention is he referring to?? Does he mean good attention or bad!!?? The saying “bad publicity is good publicity” maybe what he refers to!
Time to lite the fuse and wait for the BIG BANG!!!!
July 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Richard, I haven’t been able to see the show yet, because I can never arrange my time around a television show, but where/when have you been interviewed? Are any of these online?
I have posted some the JREF forum. But here is one online: See page 29
http://digitaledition.innerwestcourier.com.au/
Oh, when I said something like “it doesn’t mean you’re not psychic..” I meant it in the true spirit of being open minded. I don’t think for a moment that the contestants were using magical powers in that ‘test’ but they could still prove that they have them at some stage. That’s why Randi has his $1,000,000 and Australian Skeptics have $100,000 prize. I just want to get away from the public perception that skeptics are closed minded and say it’s all BS.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
It is sad that Phil has only seen this tiny clip. Remember that there is another hour of the show each week that shows Richard Saunders looking confused, impressed with the psychics, and saying insane things like “gee that was good, im not sure how you did that” and “you didn’t perform all that well on this test, but that doesn’t mean you’re not psychic”, and “wow, you did get lots of hits, all I can say is that was very accurate”. There has been no mention of what cold reading is, no mention of test controls and no damn skepticism. I’ll be waiting for the BA blog that Phil does after he sees the show.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:15 am
G’day Ben S
I’d like other viewers to have as many doubts about *all* the psychics’ abilities as I do, but what can Richard say which is going to make it through the editor’s room? We can already see that they’re trying to cram in a few images of Richard looking puzzled or grumpy (and never any of Stacey the Witch looking that way). So while maybe the softly-softly isn’t the best, it’s better than nothing.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:01 am
I’m not sure what the format of the show is (yet), but perhaps we could - as skeptics - email the producers and see if they can fit in a ’skeptics overview’ show. One where they go back over the past episodes and point out where they failed, where they were being too general, where they misdirected, etc etc.
I know it wouldn’t fly, but who knows?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:14 am
‘The One’ is not a documentary. It is not the kind of program you’d hope to find on Discovery or NatGeo, or PBS (in north America), or NPR or BBC Radio. It is purely (supposed) *entertainment*. Its only raison d’être is to provide ratings for Australia’s number two commercial television network.
It is the most recent in a long (endless) line of cheap, easy-to-produce, intellectually void so-called ‘reality programs’. The rest of the western world is similarly afflicted with this scourge as us southern sufferers; and while singing or dancing is relatively harmless and mildly diverting (at least to those who enjoy watching attention-seeking adolescents hopelessly embarrass themselves for their fifteen minutes of fame), so many of these ‘reality’ programs seek to tell us how to live our lives, and make us feel guilty and inadequate: for not being as fit as we should be, for not being as healthy as we should be, for not being as rich as we should be, for not buying the right house, for not being as pretty as we should be, for not being as smart as we should be, for not being good parents, for not caring about other unfortunates, blah, blah, bloody blah-blah blah.
(Phew… initial rant over…)
What was I saying? Oh yes. ‘The One’ is not scientific, it *does not care* about explanations, rationalisations, or even common sense. It wants *tears*. It want *emotions*. The entire set-up is a prop to get responses from people. From Richard, the ever-so-sensible, but hopelessly edited-out skeptic. From the exotic, compassionate, but clearly utterly deluded ‘witch’. From the competitors, self-described psychics, who through either success or failure will still produce what the makers of the show want.
Don’t you all see? IT DOESN’T MATTER. Psychic success results in great publicity for the show, lots of gullible acceptance by the tabloid papers, and the supermarket magazines. Failure gives human drama: excuses, tears, desperation, disappointment. Likewise, the comments from the (cold-read) audience or D-list ‘celebrities’ produces amazement, or credulousness, or dismissal, or (yep, you got it), more tears.
Richard is there solely to placate the non-tabloid type TV critics; the producers can say: “But we had a skeptic on the judging panel. We gave everyone a fair say.”
Sadly, this program will be used by believers to further bolster their faith. Even if only one in ten activities is successful (maybe roughly according to chance), the method of editing, the length of exposition given to the successes, etc, clearly favours this over the non-successful (and thus boring) attempts. I can already see the arguments in ten years… “Remember the psychic show years ago? Yeah. So many of them were spot on. And they even had a skeptic to judge them who couldn’t find any holes.”
Before formulating these thoughts here I had been… ambivalently amused, you could say… by ‘The One’. I thought it harmless, and perhaps not unhelpful for the rational thought cause. But writing this has certainly coalesced my impressions. I now think this *far more dangerous* than ‘pure’ psychic nonsense type shows. The veneer and lip service of rationality and respectability falsely portrays this program as having legitimacy and presenting an even-handed approach.
The inevitable cynicism of ratings-driven TV entertainment would necessarily conquer any attempt at intelligent treatment or even basic credibility. I understand Richard’s motives in appearing, and I truly hope the exposure he and the Australian Skeptics have received compensates for the negatives of being associated with this strange version of ‘reality’.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:26 am
[…] of ghosts. Over there, a bit of video contributed by the Bad Astronomer explaining some of the logical fallacies psychics use, and next to it video from Orac of a supposed faith healer in action. I even have some […]
July 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
To Roman Sandstorm - It seems you have just done what is known as the Gish Gallop… I question Richard Saunders motives for appearing on the show if he did in fact know that this show was going to very pro psychic. Why would he sign up for such garbage and become a sell out, losing all integrity? As someone else commented elsewhere, I hope the pay was worth it… “The One” may not care about scientific explanations, but I do. Why didn’t Richard insist on, AT THE VERY LEAST, a tally of hits and misses??? He has not uttered the words “cold reading”, “hot reading” or said anything about how statistics work… And why do you think this show is giving the Australian Skeptics exposure?? The only mention anywhere that even remotely alludes to them is in the first episode where the host says “and you are part of a skeptical society Richard?” Thats not the Australian skeptics!
To Chris Owen - in an ideal world that would be certainly the right and best thing to do to attempt to repair the carnage and harm the show and this silly skeptic has caused, however I hold no hope in the network agreeing to do this whatsoever. The show is exactly how they have planned it all along, and would not be interested in casting a skeptical show afterwards.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Ben S asked: “And why do you think this show is giving the Australian Skeptics exposure?? The only mention anywhere that even remotely alludes to them is in the first episode where the host says “and you are part of a skeptical society Richard?” Thats not the Australian skeptics!”
My local newspaper’s TV guide mentioned the Australian Skeptics in its first entry for “The One”. Then, the day the show aired, the paper mentioned them again. I think it’s reasonable that other newspapers would have provided similar coverage. On top of that, Richard says he’s been interviewed by other media as a result of his appearance on the show. Channel 7 mightn’t be doing much to promote the Australian Skeptics, but that almost certainly means other networks will make an effort to make Seven look silly.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
For people interested in detailed summaries of every episode (in two parts) - they are featured on Podblack.com blog. LolCats and Monty Python gratuitous references included…
Episode One:
http://podblack.com/?p=736
and
http://podblack.com/?p=741
Episode Two:
http://podblack.com/?p=765
and
http://podblack.com/?p=775
And, as I said on an earlier post - there are also the insights of the blog ‘Flop Eared Mule’ (written by a Sydney skeptic who was in the audience for much of the taping!) - http://flopearedmule.net/
and even more breakdowns on
http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com
(who is quite a dab hand at putting up thinking bubbles for the characters on the show).
July 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
To any other Aussies out there (or, out here?) - is this show any good, amusment wise? I might have to cast the Simpsons off next week.
What you get from the show will depend largely on what pushes your buttons - and your reason for viewing. Some people say they want to throw furniture at the TV, others laugh at the whole thing and others say “Wow! Isn’t she amazing?!?!” after someone guesses one thing almost right among a dozen televised misses.
I watch it for two reasons. I’m a relative newcomer to formalised/active skepticism, so it’s an easy one to sink my teeth into. I am having a barrel of fun blogging the show (and reading PodBlack’s take around the same time I post my own). Plus, after preaching the joys of skepticism to my kids for the last few months, I can use this show as a timely educational tool - and it’s “entertaining” enough for them to watch. My son was even taking notes for me last week! I was very lucky last week in that I’d made a prediction about the show and got to show my kids how I could fit my prediction to the outcome with no psychic powers ever getting involved. It’s far more practical than downloading old Randi Youtubes on a slow connection. It’s there, it’s now.
It may be unfortunate that Today Tonight happily reports about their own manufactured “controversies” on shows about dancing and singing but seem almost frightened of doing anything that might upset the paranormal crowd. I guess they rely on these people for their bread and butter ghost stories throughout the year so if they reported on the show at all, it would probably be to boost the pro-psychic view, not debunk it.
If skeptics want skeptical shows on commercial TV they have to demonstrate the existence of a sizable audience - and probably produce the thing too. Writing to Channel Seven may well be worthwhile, if enough people do it but otherwise, it just isn’t going to happen.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Sorry Peter B, but it is irrelevant whether your local TV guide drops the name Australian Skeptics. The damage has already been done with the show going to air, and even IF people do connect the show with Australian Skeptics, do you think that they will be impressed by Richard’s performance enough to investigate further? Hell no. And even IF they do decide to google the Austalian Skeptics, they will be greeted by a boring, out of date website that is of no interest to anyone. Why has there been NO DIRECT MENTION of the Australian Skeptics on the show?
Also, Peter B, you say “Richard says he’s been interviewed by other media as a result of his appearance on the show”. Can you please post the URL for a video clip of him being interviewed by any media? (I’m not interested in your local TV guide…)
July 18th, 2008 at 12:47 am
The Australian Skeptics were mentioned directly by name on the most recent ep.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:18 am
[…] included (note that the Bad Astronomer has been covering ‘The One’ too, writing on logical fallacies!) - Way of the Woo on photographs of ghosts; Orac of Respectful Insolence on ‘When Faith […]
July 18th, 2008 at 4:26 am
As Web Wrangler for the Australian Skeptics web site I must apologise to Ben S for not updating the site since last Sunday, when the announcement that Victor Stenger would be speaking at our August dinner in Sydney went up. (Since then the dinner has almost sold out.) I should also like to apologise to the approximately 100,000 people who visit the site each month for having nothing there that is of interest to anyone.
The reason that Richard is doing the show and not me is that he only gets 90% of what he said edited out but I would have been much closer to 100%. And he looks better than me on TV.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:28 am
BenS: “Can you please post the URL for a video clip of him being interviewed by any media?”
Well, there’s the video from Sunrise, which does make a point about Barnum-bunkum: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5LCXDEvOdF0
If you’d like earlier work he’s done - http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=riedsa
… and at TAM6…. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-1sK_OU9a4
and of course, he’ll be talking about the show at Dragon*Con.
Oh, Peter. You would have been brilliant on the show too! I mean, you could have at LEAST called them a *&$#$ load of @*&#^@# with delusions of @*&#^@#, (@#@^ and *!@^%&@# before they hauled you out…
July 19th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
It is a shame to see Peter Bowditch having to defend this. He does such great work in debunking alternative medicine at his ratbags website. I do question the 100,000 hits to the Australian Skeptics Site, which is 1.2million per year? More popular than PZ Myers, I don’t think so. I really don’t think advertising a dinner to be web update. Anyway I would never say a word against Peter, along with Barry Williams who does a great job with the magazine and news paper blog.
I’ve found a youtube video of The One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIZyPEEWuzI Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iix3XvcutwU Part 2
July 20th, 2008 at 2:23 am
I haven’t been watching it >.> I tuned in on the first episode, saw some of it, and, er, went back to watching repeats of Doctor Who. (UK TV, 7:30 on Tuesday nights, next episode up is Gridlock. I love you, Martha
)
I wonder how it’s rating?
July 20th, 2008 at 6:27 am
What? He made it on to sunrise??? WOW… that’s almost as good as the time I saw Bert Newton’s wig from the opposite side of the room…
July 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Marcus, I’m sure PZ gets far more than 100,000 hits per month. I get a lot more than that, and PZ’s traffic is higher than mine.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m enjoying watching the show. Richard is great, and shows just the right combination of calm reason and non-obsequious open-mindedness. Whether his comments are edited or not is irrelevant: it’s better to have a genuine sceptic presence on the show than not. Nothing could save it if that Daddo (I can’t even remember which one it is) was the most reasonable person on the set!
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
It is very interesting to see that the creator of ‘The One’ is a so called psychic.
From the link below you can see the contestants on this show are very happy and posting their tour dates.
SIMON TURNBULL
Psychic, Radio and TV personality and Creator of the hit TV show ‘THE ONE’
Lia Ramses talks with the psychic who created THE ONE tv show, SIMON TURNBULL, about his life as a psychic, the changes in the public opinion and the long journey toward the making of THE ONE in this very special Underworld Show on Sunday 27 July, 2008 at 8pm (Perth Time)
http://www.ghostradiox.com/theone_insiderscoop.asp
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I’ve found Episode 2 of The One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoeYWNPgCEM Part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sJpCNRRBb4 Part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8psae3bP1MU Part3
July 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Episode 3 has now been reviewed at http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/
Other updates include:
Links to an audience member’s Youtubes, criticising the psychometry readings from episode 2.
A breakdown of the incredible editing of episode 3’s cold reading exercises.
July 27th, 2008 at 4:56 am
‘The One’ Episode 3
5 Parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKacrUxAZ-M Part 1
Audience member’s Youtube, criticising the psychometry readings from episode 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER53Ubta7Nc
From the audience member’s words it shows the problem with this type of show.
The public is unaware of the editing and accepts the show at face value.
The psychics are very happy with the show and see it as a way to showcase themselves.
They don’t consider it a competition.
There are interviews with the contestants that took part at the Ghost Radio Website.
http://www.ghostradiox.com/default.asp
July 27th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Ben S said: “What? [Richard Saunders] made it on to sunrise??? WOW… that’s almost as good as the time I saw Bert Newton’s wig from the opposite side of the room…”
Ben S
If I wanted to reach a large TV audience, I’d choose a program which had a lot of people watching it. “Sunrise” is such a program, even if leaves you underwhelmed. In any case, you don’t appear to need saving from the silliness of psychic powers, while many people who watch “Sunrise” may need such saving.
So I think Richard’s appearance on “Sunrise” is quite a reasonable activity.