Great Time.com article. "Larry King and the Paranormal

[bozothedeathmachine]

We're all thinking it.

Larry King and the Paranormal


P.S. If this has been posted already...oops.

 

[LFTKBS]

"I have a suggestion for CNN. Why not launch a show, along the lines of “Crossfire,” that would pit skeptics against paranormalists, giving each side equal time for rebuttals? The friction would be monumental, the rational case could be made, and the network could restore some of the credibility — and trust — lost by Larry King’s occasional forays into the supernatural."

That show would never air because few 'famous' paranormalists would go on the show without any advantage. Sylvia and JVP and JE can't and won't be questioned about it. It would be stuck debunking the claims of crazies who really believe that stuff instead.

I would watch it, though. Note to CNN: one guaranteed viewer right here.

 

[renata]

I have not seen this article, thanks for the link.

I do have a quibble with a premise of the article. Larry King is a media whore, like the rest. His job is to get ratings. He has never been a hard interviewer, hence his appeal. He interviews paranormal claimants, with narily batting an eye, but also devotes time to other nonsense- sensational celebrities, trial and other crap. That is just his show. He does not ask hard questions of anyone.

But it was a fun column to read

 

[hgc]

Does Larry King really believe the nonsense spewed by his far-out guests? When asked that question by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, King replied, “For the most part, I’m a skeptic, like you.” Then why does King seem so credulous and approving when his guests utter sheer nonsense?

Why? because LK knows his business, and confronting popular guests won't cut it. This is more troubling to his credibility than the fact that he has them on. How can you trust him on any interview topic if you know he doesn't believe it, and yet let's it go unchallenged. Especially considering the damaging nature of this particular fraud (preying on the bereaved).

Now from the laughably wrong and checkable dept...

Wendy Whitworth, senior executive producer of "Larry King Live," downplays the appearance of off-the-wall guests. "Over the course of 2003," she says, "fewer than two percent of our original shows have bee devoted to the paranormal. That represents a very small slice of a very large and diverse programming palette."

Who are you kidding. Let's assume 220 shows so far in 2003 (I'm figuring 44 weeks x 5 shows/week). 2% of that is 4.4. Haven't Brown, Edward and Van Praagh been on more that this year? Not to mention all the other paranormal folderol?

Another LK complaint: Most of the time when he's not featuring paranormal, his show is devoted to a) true crime current events (Kobe, Lacy, etc) and b) has-been entertainment celebrities and dead celebrity tribute. In other words, worthless crap.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I agree with renata. If Jaroff thinks he can embarass King into suspending all programming to do with the paranormal he is sadly mistaken. King will go with the ratings and because such a large% of the viewers are interested in this subject what Jaroff thinks doesn't make any difference. Truth is TIME does the same thing and it is not a media whore, it is the media. Even more ironic and proof of the widespread interest in the paranormal is that many JREF forum members who would never watch King when he is interviewing some celeb of yesteryear will tune in when he has Edward or some UFO "researcher"/theorist on........

 

[hgc]

I agree with renata. If Jaroff thinks he can embarass King into suspending all programming to do with the paranormal he is sadly mistaken. King will go with the ratings and because such a large% of the viewers are interested in this subject what Jaroff thinks doesn't make any difference. Truth is TIME does the same thing and it is not a media whore, it is the media. Even more ironic and proof of the widespread interest in the paranormal is that many JREF forum members who would never watch King when he is interviewing some celeb of yesteryear will tune in when he has Edward or some UFO "researcher"/theorist on........

True the curtain has long been pulled back on the reality that the news business is profit-driven and that entertainment sells. I doubt that Jaroff harbors any illusion that he'll affect change over at his corporate sibling LKL. He's been a journalist for 40 years, and knows the score. That shouldn't stop him from pointing a finger, though. Fortunately Jaroff is not as easily swayed by an argument from popularity as some. I applaud him, and just sent him a congratulatory e-mail.

 

[renata]

Now from the laughably wrong and checkable dept...
Who are you kidding. Let's assume 220 shows so far in 2003 (I'm figuring 44 weeks x 5 shows/week). 2% of that is 4.4. Haven't Brown, Edward and Van Praagh been on more that this year? Not to mention all the other paranormal folderol?

Here is a link to all transcripts from 1/1/2000, showing all the guests to the show.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

Someone more patient than I can do the math

 

[TruthSeeker]

Truth is TIME does the same thing and it is not a media whore, it is the media.

I don't read TIME regularly but was interested in this idea. So, I searched their archive for PARANORMAL and found this article about John Edward by the same author:

Clairvoyants who claim to communicate with the dead--and warnings not to listen to them--go back at least as far as the Old Testament, yet psychics continue to flourish in back parlors and storefronts across America. None today is better known or more listened to than John Edward, a fast-talking former ballroom-dancing instructor who is cleaning up on his proclaimed ability " to connect with energies of people who have crossed over." Died, that is. Indeed, his nightly Crossing Over with John Edward is the highest-rated show on the Sci Fi network and is about to go into syndication.

And then there is this article, again by Jaroff describing a failed attempt to win Randi's challenge

Jaroff has an impressive list of articles (for purchase) including one about Mr. Randi.

Aside from Jaroff...

This article about talking to the dead on TV requires purchase but the teaser paragraph has a skeptical tinge.

A short piece on the remote viewing program concludes with the following:

"The CIA and the Defense Department have used psychics to pinpoint POW's in Vietnam and Cambodia, and there have been instances where they have helped. But their batting average is pretty low, and it's never really panned out."

There are others but because only a teaser paragraph is available, I will not judge. Instead, I'll ask, how would you describe TIME's stance towards the paranormal?

 

[SteveGrenard]

TS: There are others but because only a teaser paragraph is available, I will not judge. Instead, I'll ask, how would you describe TIME's stance towards the paranormal?


Its not TIME's stance, its Jaroff's. These are all signed editorial columns. If you were familiar with TIME you will know its "fact-based news" (which could still be slanted by editorial input) is not usually signed but is put together by staff or signed by multiple staffers in small print down at the bottom. TIME publishes on paranormal because they know it is of interest and appeals to a large number of readers. They have even done major cover stories discussing religion and creationism for example. There is no problem with this. Why shoudn't they publish stuff that sells? That's their business. What "would be" hypocritical of them is their failure to realize Larry King (CNN) is doing the same thing. But it's not really hypocritical because Jaroff's article does not represent their official position, its represents the opinion of the writer, Jaroff. And it sells magazines.

TIME is part of a huge conglomerate (Time-Life Warner AOL) which owns many subsidiary companies including my publishers. We would be naive if we didnt realize all they were interested in was their bottom line. If renata chooses to characterize Larry King as a media whore, I can't disagree. But TIME is also.

Guess who owns CNN (Larry King)?

© 2003 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you. from CNN's website.

(note: Recently Time-Life Warner AOL eliminated AOL and Life from its corporate name and shortened it to Time Warner but they still own AOL, Life and, yes, CNN and many other media and publishing companies).

 

[Unas]

Evidence that Jaroff lied?

Have you been able to find any evidence to support your claim that Jaroff lied in his TIME article about John Edward, Mr. Grenard?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

But it's not really hypocritical because Jaroff's article does not represent their official position, its represents the opinion of the writer, Jaroff. And it sells magazines.

Hi Steve,

I don't know if you're referring to the JE article by Jaroff or not, but if so, I disagree. That article was in the science section, appearing as a by-lined feature with the clear implication that it was all factual (which it wasn't). If Jaroff had labelled it an Op-Ed piece, "I think Edward is a fake because...." etc. I wouldn't have had any objections.

Appearing in the Science section of TIME gave the (false) impression that it was well-researched by Jaroff, their long-time science reporter, and completely factual.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Unas

Have you been able to find any evidence to support your claim that Jaroff lied in his TIME article about John Edward, Mr. Grenard?

Unas, have you read the article? Here's an analogy to what Jaroff does in it.

Its like me writing a TIME news story saying that I've heard from a friend of mine who knows your neighbor that he says you, Unas, are a drug addict and thief. In my article, my only "facts" are the second hand quotes that your neighbor told my friend, combined with my own opinion that its all true. I title my article about you "Unas: Are Drugs and Theft Becoming His Undoing?" I never interview the neighbor for myself, or even drive past your house to see if you really seem to be a man with a drug problem. I never ask what your other neighbors think about the allegations.

In other words, Jaroff did no research at all. He took the email that a man sent to (Jaroff's long time friend) Randi. The man had been read at CO (initially with some satisfaction). Jaroff didn't interview the man about his claims ("hidden mikes" for example, has never been backed up by anyone, including Jim Underdown from CSI-West, a CSICOP semi-affiliate, who investigated a taping for himself). Jaroff never interviewed anyone who had been read by JE (including O'Neill, the man who sent the email to Randi). He never went to the show, never did any research and just spouted off what he apparently -thought- was true, using Randi's email to support it.

A shoddy piece of work. If you read it, you'll see....

 

[CFLarsen]

Appearing in the Science section of TIME gave the (false) impression that it was well-researched by Jaroff, their long-time science reporter, and completely factual.

What, in the article, was not "factual"?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry I thought we were talking about this week's column re Larry King. That should be abundently clear from my response.

No, I am NOT talking about the JE article Jaroff signed (which is still a signed piece with his picture no less -- show me any other news item in TIME that is presented that way.) Shermer did the same story in his column in Scientific American. Randi did the same story in his column in The Skeptic. Then, after Jaroff borrowed the Randi story from The Skeptic with a full nod from Randi, Shermer did another column in The Skeptic bragging how a story in The Skeptic made it into TIME. I guess Randi and Shermer will never stop bragging about it.


Jaroff's article on JE was not an opinion piece but was presented as a fact based investigation by, er, Jaroff. Jaroff never left Boca Raton (FL) to file this story. He was invited by the producers to investigate for himself (or he couldve sent a researcher) to a taping but refused. He did not notify CO untril the day before the story was going to press.

The holes in Jaroff's JE story are self evident by applying critical thinking skills to the statements made and the account of the source (provided by Randi)" Michael O'Neill. Yes Clancie, it may've masquaraded as "science" but was pure and simple personal opinion in the end. I have said repeatedly that if this is science we are in big trouble. It was the biggest pile of rubbish I frankly have ever seen Jaroff write (up to that time) and at one time I was sorta a fan of his.

PS: Remember Jaroff used to be a science editor at TIME so this is why his status but not necessaily his content, gets him that position. Was it misrepped as science? Without a doubt.

 

[Unas]

A shoddy piece of work. If you read it, you'll see....

You still have provided no specific evidence for any specific lies allegedly told by Jaroff in the article.

What are the specific lies you claim Jaroff told in the article, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I am NOT talking about the JE article Jaroff signed (which is still a signed piece with his picture no less -- show me any other news item in TIME that is presented that way.)

Shermer did the same story in his column in Scientific American. Randi did the same story in his column in The Skeptic. Then, after Jaroff borrowed the Randi story from The Skeptic with a full nod from Randi, Shermer did another column in The Skeptic bragging how a story in The Skeptic made it into TIME. I guess Randi and Shermer will never stop bragging about it.

What is your evidence of this, Steve?

Jaroff's article on JE was not an opinion piece but was presented as a fact based investigation by, er, Jaroff. Jaroff never left Boca Raton (FL) to file this story. He was invited by the producers to investigate for himself (or he couldve sent a researcher) to a taping but refused. He did not notify CO untril the day before the story was going to press.

Tsk, tsk, Steve....

The holes in Jaroff's JE story are self evident by applying critical thinking skills to the statements made and the account of the source (provided by Randi)" Michael O'Neill. Yes Clancie, it may've masquaraded as "science" but was pure and simple personal opinion in the end. I have said repeatedly that if this is science we are in big trouble. It was the biggest pile of rubbish I frankly have ever seen Jaroff write (up to that time) and at one time I was sorta a fan of his.

Yes, yes, we know you think this, but what is wrong with it? Where are the lies, what are the "holes"?

PS: Remember Jaroff used to be a science editor at TIME so this is why his status but not necessaily his content, gets him that position. Was it misrepped as science? Without a doubt.

To you, perhaps. But your perception of the universe is (luckily for the rest of us) not the real one.

 

[SteveGrenard]

In a private e-mail I received just now and will share here:

The first question one has to ask is why did an apparently respectable publication such as TIME employ a professional libeller like Jaroff as Science Editor for so long?

Note that John Edward isn't Jaroff's first victim, not by a very long way. In 1973, TIME ran a story on J B Rhine and the FRNM, penned by Jaroff, entitled Thirty Years of Hoaxes.

Jaroff's number one chum in the denial business isn't Zwinge, but Martin Gardner, veteran liar, propagandist and mudslinger, and father figure to the "sceptical" movement.

Rather odd, actually, when one considers that Gardner is an Evangelical Christian and Jaroff is a militant atheist and one-time admirer of Stalin.

Very strange bedfellows, these folks. What unites them is a hatred of the truth.

A

-----------------------------------------------
I suspect Gardner et al have other agendas. It would be interesting to
understand their motivations given that Gardner is a bible thumping evangelical fundamentalist whose credo is that talking to the dead is akin to satan worship. It does get weird.
_____________________________



There will be NO retractions regarding assertions made against Jaroff for his having signed the JE article.

As Clancie said, Jaroff was using as a source third party hearsay received by e-mail no less (and we know how anonymous that could be--see above)
never went to a taping and never investigated anything. In the first part of the article he made up everything he said as he could not/did not say he investigated the studio personally or sent a researcher (and who) to do so. In the second part of the article he quotes the e-mail source, a man named Michael O'Neill, who was there and made all kinds of unbsusbtantiated assertions that made no sense:

1. Staff were standing around overhearing us while they were telling everyone to be "very quiet" --that makes no sense whatsoever.

2. A van load of ringers came. ONeill tracked them to their seats and said all the van members sat in separate locations. But not one of them received a reading or O'Neill, who was tracking them, would've noticed that. Instead O'Neill received a reading. Makes no sense.

3. O'Neill admits JE got hits for him but qualified the hits as guesses. How could he know they were guesses? Well, I guess he could guess they were guesses . Hardly scientific or factual.
Nor were we told what they are. Even if Jaroff didnt have space to it, Randi in commentary or Shermer could've expanded on this in The Skeptic. They did not. All of them repeated the same pre-agreed editorialized version of O'Neill's account. There was no deviation in their accounts.


4. Jaroff asserts there are hidden mics everywhere eavesdropping on people. If they were hidden how does Jaroff know they there? Also, since he was never there, how does he know this? I have been there, so was Jim Underdown, and many others. There were no open mics to be seen anywhere outside the studio and I could not see how there were hidden mics. Of course there are mics around inside, its a TV studio recording sound. How stupid. Also I wonder how anyone monitoring dozens or hundreds of hidden mics know whose words they were overhearing also? It would be a technical nightmare.

The probnlem UNAS is not that there is evidence that Jaroff fabricated this story based on fabrications or misinterpretations of Randi's e-mail from O'Neill, copies of which we have never seen -- only editorialized versions of it from Randi. There is no evidence he didn't fabricate this story. None of it makes sense. Not one single shred of it.
Sorry.


UNAS, if you put on your critical thinking cap and analyze the Jaroff JE piece very carefully you also will be able to pick it apart. Step outside your cynic's suit
and give it a decent skeptical effort.



PS: You dont have to pay TIME magazine to retrieve this story. If you enter "Leon Jaroff and John Edward" in
Google you will get returns on sites where the story is posted and accessible free of charge.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Where is your evidence that this is a "signed" piece? You are accusing Jaroff of fraud here.

Are there any false statements in the article?

Where are the "holes"?

No answers from you.

Again, I have to correct your own false statements:

In a private e-mail I received just now and will share here:

How can you complain that Jaroff receives something by email, when you try to make an argument from an anonymous source yourself? You are incredibly ridiculous, Steve.

There will be NO retractions regarding assertions made against Jaroff for his having signed the JE article.

And no evidence of your claims, either.

1. Staff were standing around overhearing us while they were telling everyone to be "very quiet" --that makes no sense whatsoever.

That does not mean it didn't happen. As you yourself have agreed to, the rules regarding this were changed, because of the article.

2. A van load of ringers came. ONeill tracked them to their seats and said all the van members sat in separate locations. But not one of them received a reading or O'Neill, who was tracking them, would've noticed that. Instead O'Neill received a reading. Makes no sense.

This is from the Skeptic article, not Jaroff's. Please get your facts straight.

O'Neill says nothing of these people being read or not.

3. O'Neill admits JE got hits for him but qualified the hits as guesses. How could he know they were guesses? Well, I guess he could guess they were guesses . Hardly scientific or factual.
Nor were we told what they are. Even if Jaroff didnt have space to it, Randi in commentary or Shermer could've expanded on this in The Skeptic. They did not. All of them repeated the same pre-agreed editorialized version of O'Neill's account. There was no deviation in their accounts.

Would you call a statement "Yeah, they were messages from the dead" "scientific" and "factual"?

That there was no deviation in their accounts very much speaks in favor of them reporting correctly. That is why cops have people give their testimony many times: If they change their story, they are not telling the truth.

Again, you complain of what they didn't do, not what they did.

4. Jaroff asserts there are hidden mics everywhere eavesdropping on people. If they were hidden how does Jaroff know they there? Also, since he was never there, how does he know this? I have been there, so was Jim Underdown, and many others. There were no open mics to be seen anywhere outside the studio and I could not see how there were hidden mics. Of course there are mics around inside, its a TV studio recording sound. How stupid. Also I wonder how anyone monitoring dozens or hundreds of hidden mics know whose words they were overhearing also? It would be a technical nightmare.

This is what O'Neill had to say in the Skeptic article:

"I think that the whole place is bugged somehow."

It is his opinion.

Jaroff writes:

"These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium."

It is an outright lie that Jaroff "asserts" that there are hidden mics everywhere.

If you cannot see hidden mics, does that mean they were not there?

The probnlem UNAS is not that there is evidence that Jaroff fabricated this story based on fabrications or misinterpretations of Randi's e-mail from O'Neill, copies of which we have never seen -- only editorialized versions of it from Randi. There is no evidence he didn't fabricate this story. None of it makes sense. Not one single shred of it.
Sorry.

There is also no evidence that Jaroff isn't a tentacled bug-eyed alien from Planet X, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

UNAS, if you put on your critical thinking cap and analyze the Jaroff JE piece very carefully you also will be able to pick it apart. Step outside your cynic's suit
and give it a decent skeptical effort.

Where is the evidence of fraud, Steve?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Unas

You still have provided no specific evidence for any specific lies allegedly told by Jaroff in the article.

What are the specific lies you claim Jaroff told in the article, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

Unas,

My point is that Jaroff's article was a shoddy piece of journalism, making untrue statements that were "supported" only by a third-hand account (O'Neill's sent to Randi and forward to Jaroff)--statements that Jaroff neither independently corroborated nor researched for himself (and which have subsequently been refuted, even by skeptics, as in the "hidden mike" claim, among others).

Steve and I have both tried to reason with you about the article, but it is impossible when you apparently haven't even read it, and therefore are unable to intelligently comment on its contents one way or the other.

If you still think Jaroff's work holds up journalistically, (as a completely factual depiction of CO/JE exactly as he presented it), after you've read it, and you want to discuss it further at that point, let me know....

 

[Unas]

In a private e-mail I received just now and will share here:
quote:
The first question one has to ask is why did an apparently respectable publication such as TIME employ a professional libeller like Jaroff as Science Editor for so long?

You are publishing unattributed and unsupported claims of libel against Leon Jaroff. Is this an example of the "critical thinking" you exhort me to employ?

Jaroff's number one chum in the denial business isn't Zwinge, but Martin Gardner, veteran liar, propagandist and mudslinger, and father figure to the "sceptical" movement.

And you follow up with another unattributed and evidence-free accusation that Martin Gardner is a liar.

What are the specific lies you claim Jaroff told in the article, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics against Jaroff, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

What are the specific lies that have been allegedly told by Martin Gardner, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics against Gardner, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

If you cannot provide a shred of evidence for either accusation, why should your credibility be considered to have a value greater than zero?

As Clancie said, Jaroff was using as a source third party hearsay received by e-mail no less (and we know how anonymous that could be--see above)

Why do you consider it acceptable to employ third party hearsay received by e-mail to make an accusation against Gardner?