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

[thaiboxerken]

But if JE had multiple guess hits why would he need to mismatch O’Neill’s head nods and answers?

Simple, some hits are very uninteresting.


Here is an example of an uninteresting guess and hit.

JE: You like girls
O'Neille: Yes (nods yes)

Now, that's not much of a hit at all.. nothing "extraordinary".

Ok, here is another guess.

JE: You fell in love with a woman named Barbara and she drove a red corvette. She is german and is a midget.

O'Neille: Not even close.



JE, being an entertainer, realizes that the first guess is a hit but not very entertaining. He realizes that the second guess would be great if it was a hit.

So... mismatching nods and answers with some editting, the Crossing Over show plays this.

JE: You fell in love with a woman named Barbara and she drove a red corvette. She is german and is a midget.

O'Neille: Yes (nods yes)



It's not a hard concept to grasp, SG. But you are so blinded with hate towards skeptics that you automaticallly want to rationalize to yourself that O'Neille must be telling lies.

 

[Pyrrho]

Here is Shermer's version of the O'Neill/Jaroff thing excerpted from a larger article he did called Deconstructing the Dead:


Shermer: Last month Skeptic magazine was the first national publication to run an expose of John Edward in James "The Amazing" Randi's column (in Vol. 8, #3, now on newsstands and bookstores or at www.skeptic.com), a story that was picked up this week by Time magazine, who featured a full-page article on what is rapidly becoming the Edward phenomenon.

Comment: Okay, I hope this supports contentions about the provenance of Jaroff’s article.

So far, so good. Agreed.

Shermer: Time's reporter Leon Jaroff, quoting from the Skeptic article, wrote a skeptical piece in which he reported the experiences of an audience member from an Edward taping. His name is Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, who reported his experiences as follows (quoting from the Skeptic article):

"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hits" on me that was featured on the show.

Comment: Here it is …. Multiple “guess hits” And what were these guesses and just how guess were they? We will never know, I guess.

No way to know. O'Neill's story was anecdotal, except that his presence at the show could have been verified.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill: However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched.

Comment: But if JE had multiple guess hits why would he need to mismatch O’Neill’s head nods and answers?

No way to know. This is what O'Neill is telling us is true. All we can do is to read his statements and say, "Hmm."

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill: Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to acknowledge something he said.

Comment: Well of course. The taping is 4 hours, the 30 minute show you O’Neill was on was only 22 minutes. Of course O’Neill, Randi nor Shermer and certainly not Jaroff failed to mentioned that 6 to 8 or moiré shows are cut from the 4 hour taping. A minor lapse perhaps or deliberate prevarication?

Certainly not a lie. Since O'Neill cites no numbers other than "30 minute show", I'd say neither a lapse nor a lie.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

Also, his "production assistants" were always around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow.

Comment: Yes, eavesdropping while telling you to remain “very quiet/” Makes no sense whatsoever. Ah, and here it is: “the whole place is bugged somehow.” Another stupid reason to tell the audience to “keep very quiet” They should’ve been saying “talk about your dead relatives so the mics and production assistants can hear you. Speak up for gosh sakes.”

O'Neill is giving his opinion: "I think" is the modifier. He could be wrong in his suspicions, but that doesn't make it a lie.

Shermer quoring Randi quoting O’Neill:

Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized.

Comment: And did O’Neill say what he and his family were saying about their dead relatives come up in the reading he had? Nope. {erhaps he was looking hard at people trying to connect for them. Perhaps he was trying to figure out which one
The mics on the stage foor was picking up muted conversations in the gallery and
from whom. This is whacko.

A directional mike could certainly pick up conversations in the gallery. O'Neill said he was guessing; he does not state anything with absolute certainty. Opinions are not lies.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

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."

Comment: Again, if JE had ringers in the audience, why weren’t any or all of them read instead of O’Neill? Still can’t answer that one.

It was never established that these "ringers" were read or not read. You can't legitimately say that they were not, any more than I can say that they were. No way to know if they were "ringer" or not. I would agree that it does not follow that a chartered van full of attendees is full of ringers.

Pyrrho, you bring up another good reason besides the one I brought up as to why CO will not sue TIME, Jaroff, Randi or Shermer. None of them are making their own assertions, they are using O'Neill and therefore they are not liying except by reason of quoting O'Neill. Piss poor and worse journalism by Jaroff is an understatement.

Quoting O'Neill is not committing a lie.

The effect, at the end, is the same. Using the convivance of language and hiding behind a source, Randi, Shermer and ultimately Jaroff caused O'Neill's pap to reach millions and Jaroff never checked out out. So Jaroff can't even say for sure that any of what O'Neill allegedly wrote was true. I agree. I am not sure what that makes him. But it isnt pretty.

You do not know that Jaroff never checked O'Neill's statements. Jaroff's article contains the statement that a Crossing Over spokesperson would only say that John Edward does not respond to criticism. We have only your claim that Crossing Over subsequently invited Jaroff to inspect the show, and frankly, you're not a reliable source. It's plain that Jaroff or his staff did contact Crossing Over for a comment on the article, and they blew their chance to discredit O'Neill. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jaroff's.

Besides, a planned visit by Jaroff or his staff would not have revealed anything, even if Crossing Over had been planting hidden microphones, etc., because they would have had the opportunity to sanitize the operation long before Jaroff or his staff arrived. No, Jaroff would have had to assign someone to pose as an audience member, without the knowledge of Crossing Over, in order to properly inspect the operation.

Coming up next: Does Michael O'Neill even exist?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps JE was looking hard at people trying to connect for them. Perhaps he was trying to figure out which one
OF THE he mics on the stage foor was picking up muted conversations in the gallery and from whom. I dont know but the latter seems ridiculous if not impossible. It is not parsimonious.

Looking hard at people "trying to connect for them" is parsimonious? Hardly.

It's very easy to believe that JE could have been looking and memorizing who looks like what. The people operating the mics that could be listening can easily transmit to JE "see the guy in the red sweater, he wants to connect with his mom". Very easy to believe because it doesn't violate physics.

O'Neille did not lie either, he is speculating about the whole microphone and hot reading thing.

I guess speculation is fabrication to you.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: You do not know that Jaroff never checked O'Neill's statements. Jaroff's article contains the statement that a Crossing Over spokesperson would only say that John Edward does not respond to criticism. We have only your claim that Crossing Over subsequently invited Jaroff to inspect the show, and frankly, you're not a reliable source.

Reply: Your ad hominem is duly noted but you missed Clancie's reference to the source for this information which was JE. JE was my source also. Oh, I know, he's also not a reliable source for this. But when Edward revealed this, Jaroff responded not at all. Oh well. It will go on forever.


Pyrrho: It's plain that Jaroff or his staff did contact Crossing Over for a comment on the article, and they blew their chance to discredit O'Neill. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jaroff's.

Reply: First of all Jaroff has no staff. He lives in retirement in Boca Raton, Florida. He must be nearing 80 god bless him. Secondly, CO was not interested in discrediting O'Neill nor were they interested in getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. This is exactly what Randi, Shermer and Jaroff would have liked. But it didn't happen.


Pyrrho: Besides, a planned visit by Jaroff or his staff would not have revealed anything, even if Crossing Over had been planting hidden microphones, etc., because they would have had the opportunity to sanitize the operation long before Jaroff or his staff arrived. No, Jaroff would have had to assign someone to pose as an audience member, without the knowledge of Crossing Over, in order to properly inspect the operation.

Reply: From my understanding he or a researcher was invited to come to a taping the next day. But Jaroff refused.

Pyrrho: Coming up next: Does Michael O'Neill even exist?

Reply: Oh, Michael definitely exists. This is why CO did not want to get into a debate with or about him. He was a gallery member and he did have an evidential reading even though somehow the word "guess hits" were found to describe it. His raw footage and aired segment has been reviewed as well. The bigger question is why doesn't Michael want to come out and discuss this in the open, agree to be interviewed by the press (several reporters wanted to speak to him after Jaroff's story appeared but were rebuffed, I think through Randi who is protecting his source). In fact even Jaroff probably would've like to talk to him and wasn't allowed to either.

 

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: You do not know that Jaroff never checked O'Neill's statements. Jaroff's article contains the statement that a Crossing Over spokesperson would only say that John Edward does not respond to criticism. We have only your claim that Crossing Over subsequently invited Jaroff to inspect the show, and frankly, you're not a reliable source.

Reply: Your ad hominem is duly noted but you missed Clancie's reference to the source for this information which was JE. JE was my source also. Oh, I know, he's also not a reliable source for this. But when Edward revealed this, Jaroff responded not at all. Oh well. It will go on forever.

I'll accept that John Edward was a source. Did you or Clancie get your information directly from John Edward? Can you cite a corroborating source where John Edward says this?

Pyrrho: It's plain that Jaroff or his staff did contact Crossing Over for a comment on the article, and they blew their chance to discredit O'Neill. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jaroff's.

Reply: First of all Jaroff has no staff. He lives in retirement in Boca Raton, Florida. He must be nearing 80 god bless him. Secondly, CO was not interested in discrediting O'Neill nor were they interested in getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. This is exactly what Randi, Shermer and Jaroff would have liked. But it didn't happen.

Fine, Jaroff has no staff. Did he or did he not contact Crossing Over for comment? It would seem that he certainly did. Again, you claim some kind of Randi/Shermer/Jaroff conspiracy, which is irrelevant to this question.

Pyrrho: Besides, a planned visit by Jaroff or his staff would not have revealed anything, even if Crossing Over had been planting hidden microphones, etc., because they would have had the opportunity to sanitize the operation long before Jaroff or his staff arrived. No, Jaroff would have had to assign someone to pose as an audience member, without the knowledge of Crossing Over, in order to properly inspect the operation.

Reply: From my understanding he or a researcher was invited to come to a taping the next day. But Jaroff refused.

His attending a taping would have proved nothing, as I already explained.

Pyrrho: Coming up next: Does Michael O'Neill even exist?

Reply: Oh, Michael definitely exists. This is why CO did not want to get into a debate with or about him. He was a gallery member and he did have an evidential reading even though somehow the word "guess hits" were found to describe it. His raw footage and aired segment has been reviewed as well.

Good, he exists.

The bigger question is why doesn't Michael want to come out and discuss this in the open, agree to be interviewed by the press (several reporters wanted to speak to him after Jaroff's story appeared but were rebuffed, I think through Randi who is protecting his source). In fact even Jaroff probably would've like to talk to him and wasn't allowed to either.

Back to Randi again...obviously Michael O'Neill isn't an anonymous source, and Crossing Over should certainly have his contact information. Who knows why he doesn't discuss it openly? No point in speculating. We're getting into more second- or third-hand reports from you, which are about as trustworthy as O'Neill's email, and there is little point in discussing your assertions.

 

[SteveGrenard]

In addition to Randi who would have his e-mail address at the very least, CO at that time may've had his signature on a release form and since he was read additional, contact information. Again, and I dont know how many times I have to say this but CO clearly was not interested in getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. They may've called him or they may not have. If they did, he may have said he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, leave me alone. We dont know. Yes, it is now entering the realm of speculation. The time was ripe for Jaroff, however, to interview him for the TIME piece. Clearly this was not done.

It would be up to Michael and Michael alone to confirm, deny and answer a reporter's questions on his own. If he decides to come forward.

Your additional ad hominem is also noted. The source for JE having said Jaroff was invited is JE in his book which Clancie cited above and you seemed to ignore. Was this in order to take another potshot at me. Is this reaching the level of harassment yet? I suppose you honestly could've missed it but then all you could've done is simply ask.

Do you guys have a smilie of an ad hominem meter yet?

 

[Pyrrho]

In addition to Randi who would have his e-mail address at the very least, CO at that time may've had his signature on a release form and since he was read additional, contact information. Again, and I dont know how many times I have to say this but CO clearly was not interested into getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. They may've called him or they may not have. If they did, he may have said he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, leave me alone. We dont know. Yes, it is now entering the realm of speculation. The time was ripe for Jaroff, however, to interview him for the TIME piece. Clearly this was not done.

It would be up to Michael and Michael alone to confirm, deny and answer a reporter's questions on his own. If he decides to come forward.

Good. You admit that it's speculation; therefore, it cannot be said that Michael O'Neill lied when he emailed his opinions and suspicions, and it cannot be said that Randi, Shermer, or Jaroff lied when they quoted O'Neill in their articles.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Oh lord..I said realm of speculation about why Michael O'Neill will not or would not talk to reporters after the TIME piece appeared and in the realm of speculation as to what CO may have done about contacting him or not.

There is nothing speculative about Randi, Shermer and Jaroff using O'Neill as a human shield to their prevarications about JE. They stand squarely in back of him, protected by a gallery member whose every statement is disputable and makes no sense; educated persons of Shermer's and Jaroff's calibre know this. It doesnt excuse Jaroff for taking O'Neill's word for it, a 3rd party hearsay in an e-mail message. LOL what a farce.
It doesnt excuse Shermer for repeating it as above and worse again in Un-Scientific American magazine.

You can play word games all you want. Jaroff's article on JE was, is and will be for a long time the biggest piece of rubbish in the history of anti-everything journalism. The only thing that comes as troublingly close is Emily Rosa's one subject (herself) study getting published in JAMA. Thank god that editor is gone now.

 

[Pyrrho]

Source for John Edward comments re: Michael O'Neill.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/06/lkl.00.html

KING: That's from John Edward, a very successful show on the Sci-fi Network, which by the way, is going into syndication. Here is just a portion of the article by Jaroff in "TIME" magazine in which he says, writing about our guest: "It is a sophisticated form of the game 20 Questions, during which the subject, anxious to hear from dead, seldom realizes that he, not the medium or the departed, is supplying the answers."

That is from "TIME" magazine. John, were you upset over that article.

EDWARD: Was I upset? I don't think I was as upset as the people who work on the show and the people that actually have come to the show. I think it is insulting to the intelligence of the people in the audience, and I think it's insulting to the credibility and the integrity of everybody that works on show trying to do, and that's to help people understand that this is real.

KING: Well, the claim says there are a lot of setups in the audience. Questionnaires are filled out, bugging is used. They listen to people --they learn things in advance. When you have the thing wrong, they edit out things when you are wrong. All of that is wrong?

EDWARD: All of that is complete wrong -- completely wrong, and if the person had actually come to the show and maybe interviewed the people who work on the show, spend time with us at the show, maybe, interviewed me, asked me about what my process is or how this works, bring people on his own, for us to work with, you know, I mean I think that the show and myself would have been more than happy to do that for this guy or for "TIME" or for anybody. We just want to show that this is something that's real and credible.

Is the show edited? Absolutely. It's edited for time, not for content. Some of the readings that we do go on for anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. It's only a half hour show. So, if you do the math, it's only logical that there are certain things that are not going to make it.

KING: He quotes a Michael O'Neil (ph), who attended one of your shows, and writes that O'Neil claims that his encounter on the show was edited and gave a false impression. Clips of him nodding "yes" spliced into the videotape about statements which he remembers disagreeing. Is O'Neil wrong?

EDWARD: You know, I have to say that I would believe so, because I don't believe that they'd edit the show in that capacity. And again, I think that this is subjective to somebody's experience. And if somebody came to a show, and they were hoping to understand -- if they were hoping to hear from one person, and maybe they didn't, maybe they're disappointed, or maybe they just don't believe in it. I can't speak for, you know, Michael, I can only speak for myself.

KING: And there is no microphones in the audience where you picked up private conversations to learn things that you could use later?

EDWARD: Absolutely not. I mean, the information that comes through during any type of session -- or, actually, I should say this in a bigger, general way: the information that any medium brings through should be something that validates the person, and that is not something -- I mean, these are things that are, like, private personal things that people look at you sometimes and like, why would they say that? You know, something that's completely remote and obscure, but it's a validation of the person who is actually coming through.

It is not always about, you know, love and light, peace and new age fluffy stuff. It is to validate that the energy outside the physical body is still connected to the family that's here.

Jaroff's comments:

KING: Now let's meet our entire panel. In New York, again, with us is John Edward. He'll be with us throughout the program, the subject of the article in "TIME."

Here in Los Angeles, Sylvia Browne, the world-renowned psychic who has appeared on many shows, including this one. Also in L.A. is James Van Praagh, the known spiritual medium who has also appeared on many shows, including this one.

In Buffalo, New York, is Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy at the State University of New York in Buffalo. He publishes "The Skeptical Inquirer." In, I said Miami, I believe it's Boca Raton, Florida is Leon Jaroff, contributor to "TIME" magazine who wrote the critical article that we're discussing here tonight and in London is Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, co-author of "The Psychic and the Rabbi." The co-author, by the way, is the famed Uri Geller.

Let's start with Leon Jaroff, who wrote the article. First, one of the things, you never attended a show yourself nor did you call Mr. Edward.

LEON JAROFF, "TIME" MAGAZINE CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I tried to get in touch with people on the show, but I was told that John Edward does not respond to criticism. So, I did talk to the director of public relations of the show. By the way, Larry, I have written a book, too, but it's on a real subject, the human genome project. I thought I would throw that in.

No mention by John Edward that Leon Jaroff had been invited to attend a taping.

 

[Pyrrho]

Oh lord..I said realm of speculation about why Michael O'Neill will not or would not talk to reporters after the TIME piece appeared and in the realm of speculation as to what CO may have done about contacting him or not.

There is nothing speculative about Randi, Shermer and Jaroff using O'Neill as a human shield to their prevarications about JE. They stand squarely in back of him, protected by a gallery member whose every statement is disputable and makes no sense; educated persons of Shermer's and Jaroff's calibre know this. It doesnt excuse Jaroff for taking O'Neill's word for it, a 3rd party hearsay in an e-mail message. LOL what a farce.
It doesnt excuse Shermer for repeating it as above and worse again in Un-Scientific American magazine.

You can play word games all you want. Jaroff's article on JE was, is and will be for a long time the biggest piece of rubbish in the history of anti-everything journalism. The only thing that comes as troublingly close is Emily Rosa's one subject (herself) study getting published in JAMA. Thank god that editor is gone now.

Steve, if anyone is playing word games, it's you. You equate what you deem to be journalistic laziness with plain lying; you have not established that Michael O'Neill lied at all, yet you accuse others of lying because they quoted him in articles. O'Neill's comments aren't hearsay -- they are his opinions of his experience, and his suspicions and speculation on how John Edward achieves his results. Even if he is completely wrong, quoting him in an article does not make the writer of the article a liar. Even if every statement of O'Neill's is disputable, it does not make the writer who quotes him a liar. Even if the writer is a shoddy journalist, it does not make the writer a liar.

So, now you're going to drag Emily Rosa across the trail as a red herring? Try to stay on topic. That's an entirely different subject which has been hashed and re-hashed elsewhere.

Admit it, Steve. You cannot prove that Leon Jaroff lied in his article.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Check Clancie's reference above. Go to a bookstore and read the book yourself. What JE said extemporaneously on TV may not have included this precise information at that time. This was a live, unrehearsed discussion on LKL....

Jaroff clearly alludes to the first contact where he is told to buzz off, the second contact but he neglects to mention the
invitation. or glosses over it. Clearly JE clearly rieterates the invitation in his response. I can read, can you?

EDWARD: All of that is complete wrong -- completely wrong, and if the person had actually come to the show and maybe interviewed the people who work on the show, spend time with us at the show, maybe, interviewed me, asked me about what my process is or how this works, bring people on his own, for us to work with, you know, I mean I think that the show and myself would have been more than happy to do that for this guy or for "TIME" or for anybody. We just want to show that this is something that's real and credible.

 

[Pyrrho]

Check Clancie's reference above. Go to a bookstore and read the book yourself. What JE said extemporaneously on TV may not have included this precise information at that time. This was a live, unrehearsed discussion on LKL....

Jaroff clearly alludes to the first contact where he is told to buzz off, the second contact but he neglects to mention the
invitation. or glosses over it. Clearly JE clearly rieterates the invitation in his response. I can read, can you?

Here's Edward:

EDWARD: All of that is complete wrong -- completely wrong, and if the person had actually come to the show and maybe interviewed the people who work on the show, spend time with us at the show, maybe, interviewed me, asked me about what my process is or how this works, bring people on his own, for us to work with, you know, I mean I think that the show and myself would have been more than happy to do that for this guy or for "TIME" or for anybody. We just want to show that this is something that's real and credible.

That's not a reiteration of an invitation.

Jaroff mentions only one contact, not a second.

Still does not show that Jaroff is a liar.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Okay, take back the word lying and change it to deception. You still don't get it:

Leon Jaroff, Shermer as well as Randi repeated what appears to be factual statements from somebody who wrote Randi an e-mail. Neither Randi, Shermer and Jaroff/TIME who was clearly invited to visit the show (by JE himself) decided to check it out. It suited their agenda., It suited their biases. It was a missive they were in complete agreement with so they did not fact check it, just go with it.

Jaroff, standing alone, was handed this by Randi and Shermer's magazine but did nothing to check it out himself. He did not speak to O'Neill, he did not interview him, he did not verify his existence (yes he exists but Leon Jaroff didn't know that at the time). He took on faith what this e-mail to Randi said.
This is a deception. And Jaroff is guilty of it. Sorry

 

[Pyrrho]

The account of Jaroff's last minute phone call (just asking for a comment he could include in his ridiculous story to, imo, try to give it a credibility that it didn't warrant) is told in JE's book "Crossing Over: The Stories Behind the Stories". Jaroff has never challenged any part of that account--and he said nothing that indicated he had actually followed a higher ethic when he appeared on LKL....nor in anything about the incident in TIME....nor anywhere else, even after the publication of JE's book.

So, because Jaroff hasn't challenged JE's book, what JE claims is true? Sorry, the premise does not justify the conclusion.

Jaroff obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME, and he didn't even check his source by talking with O'Neill or by attending a taping for himself. Very shoddy...very biased. (Reading his attack on LKL for a supposedly pro paranormal bias...how do you spell "hypocrite"?)

Shoddy, maybe. Lie, no.

 

[SteveGrenard]

That's not a reiteration of an invitation.
Jaroff mentions only one contact, not a second. Still does not show that Jaroff is a lying.


Read the book and what JE wrote. Somebody is lying. Jaroff never refuted what JE says therein. Jaroff cold called the producers and got the buzz off and then in a subsequent call he got the publcist. Of course Jaroff is not going to say he was invited. That's because he refused. He also initiated these calls, for comment, on the eave of publishing the story while he was sitting at home in south Florida. It was an ultimatum call he made. Sorry, can't visit the studio, can't research this further. Story is locked. You have one shot at giving us a comment or goodbye. He's a reprobate, liar and deceiver. His story is a pile of dog poop.

 

[Pyrrho]

Okay, take back the word lying and change it to deception. You still don't get it:

Leon Jaroff, Shermer as well as Randi repeated what appears to be factual statements from somebody who wrote Randi an e-mail. Neither Randi, Shermer and Jaroff/TIME who was clearly invited to visit the show (by JE himself) decided to check it out. It suited their agenda., It suited their biases. It was a missive they were in complete agreement with so they did not fact check it, just go with it.

That's your opinion. If you're mistaken, and I quote you in an article, am I guilty of lying or deception?

Jaroff, standing alone, was handed this by Randi and Shermer's magazine but did nothing to check it out himself. He did not speak to O'Neill, he did not interview him, he did not verify his existence (yes he exists but Leon Jaroff didn't know that at the time). He took on faith what this e-mail to Randi said.
This is a deception. And Jaroff is guilty of it. Sorry

Umm, no. I've already shown that Jaroff is not guilty of either lying or deception in the John Edward article, at least as far as the common definition of lying or deception is concerned. It seems that in your definition, anyone who quotes a source without checking the validity of the source's statements is guilty of lying or deception. Curious. This has profound implications.

 

[Pyrrho]

That's not a reiteration of an invitation.
Jaroff mentions only one contact, not a second. Still does not show that Jaroff is a lying.

Read the book and what JE wrote. Somebody is lying. Jaroff never refuted what JE says therein. Jaroff cold called the producers and got the buzz off and then in a subsequent call he got the publcist. Of course Jaroff is not going to say he was invited. That's because he refused. He also initiated these calls, for comment, on the eave of publishing the story while he was sitting at home in south Florida. It was an ultimatum call he made. Sorry, can't visit the studio, can't research this further. Story is locked. You have one shot at giving us a comment or goodbye. He's a reprobate, liar and deceiver. His story is a pile of dog poop.

Even if Jaroff has not refuted statements made by JE, it does not follow that what JE said is necessarily true. It's like saying that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian because she has never said that she isn't.

He said, she said. Even if Jaroff omitted mention of an invitation to visit the studio, it does not make him a liar. If the invitation to attend came after the story was locked, too bad for the Crossing Over folks. They had their chance and muffed it.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You can twist and color this anyway you want Pyrrho ...

Pyrrho: "anyone who quotes a source without checking the validity of the source's statements is guilty of lying or deception. Curious. This has profound implications."


Sorry NOT anybody. A writer for a magazine such as TIME reaching millions of people. Media that is supposed to be highly credible and fact checked and believed. This is standard in journalism. Newspapers and news magazines and good writers of non-fiction interview and check their sources. This is not some puny two bit discussion on a forum such as JREF. This is a major publication reaching millions of people.
Why do you think Jason Blair got booted form the NY Times? Because he faked his stories much the same way Jaroff faked this story by having someone else source it for him and all but write it for him as well. (I provided the evidence of that above).

 

[Pyrrho]

Now that the discussion has descended to the level of dog turds, I will carefully step aside. Bye bye boys, have fun storming the castle!

 

[Pyrrho]

You can twist and color this anyway you want Pyrrho ...

Pyrrho: "anyone who quotes a source without checking the validity of the source's statements is guilty of lying or deception. Curious. This has profound implications."

Sorry NOT anybody. A writer for a magazine such as TIME reaching millions of people. Media that is supposed to be highly credible and fact checked and believed. This is standard in journalism. Newspapers and news magazines and good writers of non-fiction interview and check their sources. This is not some puny two bit disucssion on a forum such as JREF. This is a major publication reaching millions of people.
Why do you think Jason Blair got booted form the NY Times? Because he faked his stories much the same way Jaroff faked this story but having someone else source it for him and all but write it for him as well.

Good, actionable libel. Always fun to read.

I'll explain why your position has profound implications some other time. I'm leaving this thread.