Clancie said:
Of course, now that I re-read it, it does have a familiar "rant" feeling to it, that I have shared at this board since. What can I say, US? It was late...I was...irked...ABC News had no "preview" button...just that little email box....and, worst of all, they totally ignored my original paragraphing!!!!!
Noooooo......not a "rant"......not at all........no...........
Clancie said:
I can't help admiring how deftly Shermer avoided responding to almost -all- of the points I raised. 
Well, let's see just how many points you raised. Feel free to correct me.
After you watched the piece on 20/20 do you really feel it followed the principles of good journalism — i.e. was balanced and fair?
A question. Basically the same as you end with. Shermer answered that.
Personally, I think the readings (and commentary) were edited in a way so that they would support and illustrate Mr. Shermer's points.
An opinion. Doesn't need reply.
Edward had no opportunity to respond to any of them (except one question like, "Are you really self-deluded AND preying on grieving people?")
But you had no problems when Zahn asked basically the same question. Of course, you were then defending why it was
not a slanted show....
Still, an opinion. Doesn't need reply.
The readings were all chopped up into little negative sound bites (again, illustrating the negative "spin" of Shermer and Ritter — i.e. "the swagger of a rock star" — how slanted a characterization is THAT?)
Yet, we see pro-paranormal programs with the token skeptic getting perhaps one or two statements in all. But no complaints from you there.
Still, an opinion. Doesn't need reply. It's hardly up to Shermer to defend how the producer puts the program together.
And who evaluated the "40 out of 41" misses for your producer, using what criteria?
A question. Do you have any reason to believe that it was not the producer, and that he used exactly the same criteria that all other sitters do: See if they can make it fit?
Couldn't we have seen more of that reading and his comments of how nothing fit for him?
A question. Hardly one that Shermer can answer, since he is not the producer.
(And it would only have been fair to contrast a dissatisfied sitter with a satisfied one, and perhaps get both people to talk about their different perception of the experience).
An opinion. This, incidentally, is complete hypocrisy from you: You don't demand that we see the same on CO.
It also would have been FAIRER and more BALANCED to have shown more of the readings themselves, and to have talked with some of the people who felt he got excellent information for them (and why, even if later you debunked it.)
An opinion. Did this happen at all? Were there people who felt JE got excellent information for them?
AT LEAST, you would have presented a balanced view!!!! But no. This wasn't investigative journalism. More like a (deceptively UNlabelled) op/ed piece.
An opinion. You should refrain from using too many of those exclamation marks, they are the hallmark of a person ranting. You should also look at how investigative journalism is done: That is not the same as a "balanced" piece.
In demanding "balance" in such a shrill tone, you came off as a raving creationist.
Not a good idea with Shermer...
My question is: Do you both think it was actually a fair and balanced piece of reporting? I'll be extremely surprised if you both can honestly say, "Yes".
A question. Which Shermer answered.
You complain that Shermer did not answer your barrage of "points". Those "points" were mostly opinions, and very biased themselves. Most were unanswerable by Shermer, since you should have directed them at the producer. The one question that Shermer was able to answer, he did. So what are you complaining about?
Strange how you complain when
I ask you the same number of questions, or even when I list your unanswered questions, collated over many threads....
Way to go, Clancie.
