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.

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

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoeYWNPgCEM Part1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sJpCNRRBb4 Part2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8psae3bP1MU Part3

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

I wonder how it’s rating?

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

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…

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.

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…)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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’.

I know it wouldn’t fly, but who knows?

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.

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.