Saturday, July 01, 2006

Stung by The Bee

This was so predictable

After decades of research and controversy, there is still no significant evidence that anyone possesses so-called “psychic” powers. There's a lot of evidence, however, that I don't.

When I complained to Allen Pierleoni about his puff-piece interview on Allison DuBois, a professional medium and “profiler” who is currently reaping the rewards of a book tour and the dramatization of her life by the NBC series Medium, I hoped to get something better than the curt acknowledgment he sent me. (“Thanks for taking the time to read the piece, Anthony, and share your thoughts.”) Well, given that Pierleoni had been the author of the credulous article in the first place, perhaps it was unrealistic to expect him to take seriously the disappointment of a skeptic.

I sent a copy of my comments to Armando Acuña, the public editor of The Bee (a position that used to be called “ombudsman”). It's the public editor's job to provide a view of The Bee's journalistic endeavors that is professionally informed (the public editor is a newspaperman, after all) and independent of editorial oversight (his column is officially off-limits to The Bee's editorial staff and management). No doubt Acuña would share some of our concern over the use of the newspaper's Scene section for the irresponsible promotion of charlantry.

Boy, was I wrong! From the June 25, 2006, installment of The Public Editor:

And reader Anthony Barcellos of Davis asked: “Does a feature writer have responsibilities different from those of a news reporter? I know that the Scene section … is devoted to entertainment rather than hard news, but I think even entertainment articles should be scrupulously factual.”

Here's what I think. Yes, the story could have been more skeptical, though there is a deliberate element of tongue-in-cheek to some of the “serious” questions that are laugh-out-loud funny.

Like this one: “Isn't seeing dead people sometimes frightening?” Or this one: “Sometimes you have uncontrollable mental flashes, such as seeing a woman murdered while you're grocery shopping. And you constantly get mental impressions from people around you. I can see where your ability might be a day-to-day hassle.”

Mainly, though, I think people should lighten up. We're talking about ghosts after all.

Yeah, we're talking about ghosts. And seeing dead people. And problems while grocery shopping. Acuña thinks it's all kind of silly—and I do, in fact, agree— but he does not see that there is a problem in the way his newspaper is treating the story. To me, this is the comment that exposes Acuña's real blind spot:

It's a straightforward discussion with a successful author peddling a new book on a subject most people find ludicrous.

There's no mystery about DuBois's claims or intent by the paper to portray her as something more than she is. Writing about her in this way doesn't give her more credibility, despite the criticism.

If you believe in this stuff, you will continue to believe. If you don't, you still won't.

You see, folks—just between smart people like you and me—only idiots take this sort of thing seriously. So it's okay to give it a “straightforward” presentation in the entertainment section of the newspaper, because the only folks who will be fooled by it are already imbeciles. In a follow-up comment to Acuña, I explained why I thought this was a really bad excuse:

What continues to bother me is the notion that The Bee is dishing out goo for its more gullible readers while giving a sly wink to those who aren't as credulous. “If you believe in this stuff, you will continue to believe. If you don't, you still won't.” The “this stuff” believers are beyond reach anyway, you say, so I guess it's okay to pander to their delusions about yet another financially successful psychic. What's the harm? We can ask that question again when the ill-informed go to thin-credentialed psychics instead of board-certified physicians for healing, but since we've given up on them, it's their own hard luck.

Acuña wrapped up his column on the DuBois controversy by contacting staff writer Pierleoni and giving him the opportunity to respond to the criticisms:

“The point of the piece was to interview an author who was touring for her new book,” explained Pierleoni....

“The critics want me to do an investigative piece to show that is a fraud or for me to challenge her and accuse her of being a fraud,” Pierleoni said. “But that's not the point of the piece.”

Pierleoni talked to DuBois for about 40 minutes and did a quick turnaround on the story. He said he was well aware of the skepticism about her claims and asked her in his story how she responds to the skeptics.

“She says I am what I am ... accept me for what I am or not,” he said. “I never said I believed or disbelieved. My concern was interviewing a woman who has made a good living doing what she does.” ...

“Skeptics,” he said, “they jump all over this stuff. And I wonder how many of the letter-writers have actually read the books.”

Hmm. Well, that sounds sort of fair. We should read her books with an open mind and then decide. Except that I prefer not to waste the time. Her supposed validation in a university's parapsychology lab has been thoroughly shot down. Why should we buy her books and enrich her purse when she and others like her (I'm looking at you, John Edward!) have never produced any reliable evidence of their abilities? I'm afraid that Acuña has a point when he says believers suck this up without question—but we doubters have ample reason for our doubts.

On the Friday after The Bee's publication of Acuña's column, I attended my usual end-of-week lunch group. It includes a number of retired Bee journalists, who teased me about getting blown off by their paper's public editor. The Bee's former book editor also contributed a telling observation: “Oh, Pierleoni? I know him. He's a believer!”

Hey, even without psychic powers I was picking up those vibes!

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well...there may be nothing to it. However, if Ms. Dubois agreed to go to a university to be tested for four years, what more could she do? I mean, if she had the courage to do it, where better than a university would she go to bring proof to the subject? I'm not saying I believe in this stuff, but I'm not dismissive of it either. I think that believers, or non-believers for that matter, tend to be extremists.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that people like YOU in this country try to find fault and judge someone or portray a so called "intelligent understanding" of something that they fail to understand or know much about. How is that intelligent in the least bit?

Hell, we still don't completely know all about our galaxy and outer space and what's beneath some of our deepest oceans, just as with the human potential - WHY? Because we just haven't gotten there YET (technology/info wise) - we are a work in motion. How much did we NOT know up til today about alot stuff we have available to us now. Do/FUND your own research and study and stop sitting on your arse waiting for someone you think or hope is unbiased enough to be thorough enough to do something about it. How many times have we all been "told something scientific" for it to be later changed from what it was "thought or hypothesized" to be? Please!

And anyway, don't hate because there are SOME people (not all are frauds with bad intentions - politicans included) actually DOING something with their lives in a productive way that is actually HELPING someone other than spitting venom and inuendo's and opinions and they (meaning people like YOU - themselves haven't done any REAL DAMN work for anyone BUT THEMSELVES/YOURSELF.

What have YOU done in general for that matter that has HELPED someone and they are willing to SAY IT ABOUT YOU??

That's an intelligent question I'm sure many who read this would like to actually know and you have PROOF of besides your family.

.....done

Anonymous said...

For those who believe no explanation is necessary and for those who don't, no amount of explaining would convince them otherwise!!
Personally I think Allison DuBois is a warm, brilliant, shining, caring, family oriented, loving individual with a wonderful amazing gift. How complicated is that?

Anonymous said...

SOME FOLKS ARE SO HARSH...AND THE SKEPTICS ALWAYS EXPECT MEDIUMS AND PEOPLE WITH GIFTS TO BE PERFECT..EVERY TIME..NO ONE WAS MEANT TO BE PERFECT...SOMETIMES THEY UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION DIFFERENTLY THAN ITS BEING GIVEN..AND I GET SO TIRED OF HEARING WELL WHY CANT THEY SOLVE THE BIG ISSUES OF THE WORLD WELL DUH THEIR NOT SOPPOSE TO..AND IM SURE THERE ARE LOTS OF SMALL ISSUES THAT ARE JUST NOT MEANT FOR EVEN THEM TO FIGURE OUT OR UNDERSTAND THEY WERE JUST MEANT TO BE..AS FOR PUTTING ALLISON DUBOIS AT A UNIVERSITY FOR 4 YEARS WHY TO PLEASE YOU? SHE HAS A LIFE AND A FAMILY SHE OWES YOU NOTHING CERTAINLY NOT YEARS OF HER LIFE TRYING TO PROVE TO YOU SHES THE REAL DEAL SHE ALREADY SAID TAKE ME AS I AM OR DONT SHES NOT TRYING TO PUSH HERSELF ON PEOPLE.SHE DOESNT HAVE TO PROVE HERSELF MUCH BEYOND THE GOOD SHES ALREADY DONE AND WHAT HER HELP HAS MEANT TO THOSE PEOPLE THATS ALL THAT REALLY COUNTS.

Anonymous said...

I think ALL those in defense of this fraud Dubois simply WANT to believe her. The proof shows usotherwise! Wake the 'eff up!

"Just have faith" has been said for thousands of years. Well, why should I? She has everything to gain from it and I'm not going to fatten her wallet for lying about a so-called gift I have to "have faith" in (that's always her convenient answer) to exist.

To those of you saying she's not pushing herself on us: Yes, she is. She lies and when she's called out on it she, again, conveniently can't prove it but says we have to have "faith." How insulting!