Comments on: Quoting ‘Psychics’ Like Experts: How Low Can News Judgment Go?

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:38:16 +0000

Doh, you’re right, and the first to notice…fixing now.

By: Phil Riske

Phil Riske — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:22:15 +0000

C’mon, Dan, you misspelled judgment.

By: dee harvey

dee harvey — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:09:15 +0000

Yes, that is the story alright. Well said.

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:50:45 +0000

Fifteen years ago I was at a fair where I decided to have a tarot card reading. It was unplanned and I had no advance appointment. There were several psychics there, and I chose one at random. This was not something I had ever done before, and I was skeptical. The psychic’s cards were so worn that the ink was gone, and she said it didn’t matter because she could still read them. Then she predicted things that left me completely astonished. She said I would have a new job soon, which seemed impossible to me at the time because I had a job and wasn’t looking. She said that this time, I needed to negotiate my salary carefully. She couldn’t possibly know this, but I tended to not be good at negotiating my salary. She also said some very specific and useful things about my family life. Three months later, I had a new job and had successfully negotiated a higher salary. I didn’t tell her anything more than my name and date of birth. There is no possible way that someone could have fed her any of the information that she shared with me. I paid a small fee and we never had contact again. Was it all a good guess? Did she get this information by sizing me up? Did she simply plant suggestions which might have been helpful to most people? I wouldn’t call myself ignorant, uneducated or naive, but to this day the incident remains a mystery.

Since that time, I have had a few rare tarot card readings by professional psychics. It’s always been for entertainment purposes, and not real advise on important matters. Not one of these psychics had been nearly as helpful, perceptive or accurate as that first one.

Obviously some of these people are hucksters. Certainly their abilities cannot be proven. But I like to keep an open mind, and would enjoy reading articles about psychics. I think Mr. Gillmore sounds hostile to the topic rather than the way it was covered.

By: Michael Welch

Michael Welch — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:36:40 +0000

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance–that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” – Herbert Spencer
I agree with the posts that “journalists” in both print and digital media often neglect to research their pieces. (This reflects their personal and professional bias.) There is an organization endeavoring to inform the public: the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR) — of which I remain a long-standing member (reflecting my personal and professional bias).

By: Roger Peterson

Roger Peterson — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:22:13 +0000

Remember – no one ever went broke overestimating the lack of intelligence of the American public.

By: Dan Lyke

Dan Lyke — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:19:27 +0000

To Mr. Randi’s point: Yep, a large percentage of the readers don’t knoew that astrology is claptrap, but y’all are confusing readers with customers! The purpose of the newspaper is to deliver ads to easily swayed consumers. If I were selling stuff on the consumer level, darn right I’d want more readers who buy into astrology and aren’t much on critical thinking.
And how many ads do you figure that article sold to those psychics? As the classified section is waning, the small display section towards the back that has the personal services in it is probably still profitable.
Maybe it’s that I’m old and cynical, but for as long as I’ve been reading newspapers I’ve seen that their purpose is to deliver eyeballs in the appropriate demographic to advertisers. This sort of article is completely consistent with that mission.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:31:04 +0000

Bill, they would never in a million years write a story with the headline you describe and then a) take the word of the loan sharks and scammers that they were getting more customers; b) blandly quote those people; and c) fail to have a comment or two from law enforcement. In fact, the story would be framed as a warning, starting with law enforcement folks saying that more people were turning to the wrong people for help. I’m not calling the “psychics” the same as loan sharks, btw, but this story begged for editorial (as in an editor or two who had time to think about it, something editors have much less of these days) supervision.

By: Bill Stewart

Bill Stewart — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:28:06 +0000

Dan, I think you’re misreading the story. If it were saying “Loan Sharks and Get-Rich-Quick scammers are seeing more new customers coming in because of the economic downturn”, you probably wouldn’t have a problem with that (other than the questionable statistical methodology of extrapolating from the few scammers and loan sharks the reporter knows into a purported trend.)

The article isn’t saying that genuine psychics are foreseeing more business, it’s saying that people in the non-scientific-advice business are getting more suckers.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:53:46 +0000

Joe, apparently you haven’t been reading any of my work these last few years, or you’d know that I’ve been a fairly persistent critic of bad journalism.

By the way, you need to protect yourself. No one else can do it for you.