The Nature of Media Coverage

Media reports on Tuesday, September 11 were deeply influenced by the breaking nature of events and the restraints of live television reporting. Indeed, the events transcended the typical norms and routines that journalists use to guide the news production process. On his personal news Web site, veteran magazine journalist and television pundit Andrew Sullivan posted late Tuesday that “I have been unable to think of anything substantive to write today. It is almost as if the usual conventions of journalism and analysis should somehow remain mute in the face of such an event. How can one analyze what one hasn't even begun to absorb? Numbness is part of the intent of these demons.”

At the television networks, some journalistic conventions, however, did take hold. From the beginning, there was a framing of events that focused narrowly on reaction from high-profile leaders. These reports typically offered speculation on the anticipated actions and statements of President George W. Bush and of New York City Mayor Rudolph Giulani. Across the media, Bush was characterized as “facing his greatest test,” and there was conjecture as to what Bush should do “politically.” Later in the week, Bush’s early response was unfairly compared to that of Giulani’s, who was on the scene of the World Trade Towers almost immediately, while Bush sought the sanctity of a NORAD air command base.

On Tuesday there were also attempts to frame the events in historical perspective. CBS’ Dan Rather was one of the first to introduce the context of battle, calling the incidents “the new face of war.” Jeff Greenfield, CNN’s resident sage, compared casualty levels at Pearl Harbor (2,400 killed) and the Civil War’s Antietam (20,000 killed), to the potential casualty counts in New York City. As the day wore on, framing the events in the context of Pearl Harbor became pervasive, as the phrase “day of infamy” was used liberally throughout coverage. By Wednesday morning, headlines in the New York Post and the Daily News blared “Act of War,” and “It’s War.”

Other more troubling journalistic conventions were also apparent. The desire to beat the competition with exclusive reporting or new footage was initially dismissed by the news organizations. In one example, Dan Rather echoed election night by announcing on CBS News that it didn’t matter to the CBS organization if they were first to report news, but instead CBS was concerned only with getting the story right. Early in the day, there were remarks on several networks that the news organizations were sharing footage of the events. However, in several instances later on, including on CNN and ABC, new footage of the second airplane collision with the World Trade Towers was introduced with an “exclusive” tagline, calling into question the appropriateness of trademark competitive reporting in light of human tragedy and national crisis.

The competitive nature of the cable news networks moved ahead on other fronts, as CNN used the events to introduce to captive viewers Paula Zahn, their new on-air personality recently acquired by way of rival Fox News. Also on September 11, for the first time in history, the vast vertical integration of America’s mass media came out of hiding, as parent companies simulcast their news flagships across sister cable networks. CBS News coverage was carried on Viacom-owned MTV and VH1. AOL/Time Warner broadcast CNN coverage on TNT, TNN, and CourtTV. Even ESPN was taken over by ABC News broadcasts. Wherever Americans turned on television, avoidance of news was virtually impossible.

In many cases, the visual spectacle was grossly misused by the television networks. Newscasts ran repeating footage of the second World Trade Center plane crash in the corner of the screen as interviews and other reporting was ongoing. In an exceptional display of unfortunate editorial judgment, the New York Times in Wednesday’s edition joined the tabloids New York Post and New York Daily News in carrying full-page color photos of victims falling from the top of the World Trade Center towers.

On Wednesday morning, as new information and events slowed, the media turned to showcasing the human tragedy and drama related to the attacks. Airwaves and newspapers were full of images of suffering and anecdotes of personal misery. American nationalism, religious devotion, and symbolism took over, with heavy coverage of flag-waving and religious services.

Though such human interest coverage in part may be necessary, it was mainly overemphasized. Missing in early coverage was proper attention to Congressional debate, Presidential planning, broader historical and political contexts, and international response. Only in a few elite media outlets, including NPR, the New York Times, and PBS could reporting be found that rose above the human drama.

The shock that swept across the public in the wake of the September 11 events underscores one possible effect of trends in the news media over the past decade. The news media’s overwhelming obsession with scandal, sex, and celebrity has failed to provide the American public with the necessary international context and understanding that might help people cope with the terrorist attack, and enable the public to apply some level of differentiated knowledge in the assessment of an impending American military response.

Maintaining Reason and Deliberative Democracy

As events unfold in the coming months, the public’s overwhelming dependence on the American media establishment for news and information presents several challenges to the ideal of a reasoned deliberative democracy. History, from the First World War to the Gulf War, suggests that media coverage will increasingly turn hegemonic, driving out alternative considerations or information in deference to a prevailing majority perspective that mirrors closely official U.S. government sources.

Here several forces will be at work. First, American journalists are prone to certain cultural or national assumptions and biases in their reporting that is often magnified in times of national security crisis. Second, in instances of military action, the media are highly dependent, and sometimes exclusively dependent, on official government sources for the release of information. Third, political leaders from both parties are likely to unite solidly and uniformly behind the perspective and the policy choices of the President, meaning that voices of dissent or minority perspectives on courses of actions or the nature of the events will be scarce or difficult to find.

There are, however, several recommendations for how an informed and skeptical citizen should confront the media tide in the coming period of great national action and development:

Balance Television News Coverage with Print Coverage. In cases of breaking events, television is the best possible medium for keeping up with the latest information. In recent years, some have speculated that Web-based news represented a strong challenge to the primacy of television. However, the complete overload of news Web sites on September 11 disproves this notion for now.

Though television is the best method for gaining instant information, and carries some value through the pure power of its images, the best reporting remains in print. Here I suggest reading a diversity of local and national newspapers, gaining a well-developed context for the news, and a multitude of perspectives. Newspapers are less immediate in their reporting, sorting out and filtering news accounts. They also have the ability to explore issues in much greater depth than television. A wealth of communication research indicates that television is not very good at conveying complex information, and that integrated knowledge and diverse considerations are best gained through news-in-print.

Discuss Issues Often and with a Diversity of Others. In coming months, heightened intolerance, prejudice, and hate for certain individuals or political groups across the world will emerge. Sadly, within the United States, fear and distrust has increased among neighbors and across communities. Individuals of Arab descent or Muslim faith have experienced physical attacks, discrimination and threats. Some political leaders and religious leaders, in an effort to marshal support for government policy or further their own interests, have appealed to nationalism or to extreme beliefs.

Countering these forces, past communication research indicates that it will be necessary that citizens seek out and engage in frequent deliberation, not just with other individuals with whom they already agree, or share a common background, but with a wide range of members of society that hold a diversity of perspectives. Such activities foster greater tolerance, lead to a higher quality of public opinion, and enhance knowledge. Discussion helps place in context breaking news reports, and mobilizes citizens towards volunteerism and political participation.

Seek Out International News Coverage. Again, as American media converges on a common perspective, it will be necessary to use the Web to seek out the media perspective in Europe and elsewhere abroad. This will be especially important as military actions are considered and carried out.

The events of September 11 are not uniquely American in scope. Terrorism is a world problem, and Americans should consider themselves global citizens. These horrific events are deeply rooted in world history, religion, ethnicity, economics, and politics. Perhaps, if any good can be found from these events, it is that they might spark an enhanced American interest in world affairs, and a greater understanding of world culture and history. For too long, the news media in conjunction with the entertainment media have cultivated a vision of reality that values materialism, fame, and melodrama. Yet now, it appears that never before has one single event made what America considered important yesterday, seem so trivial today.

Recommended Reading

• Entman, R.M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41, 6-27.
• Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkely: University of California Press.
• Glynn, C.J., Herbst, S., O'Keefe G.J., & Shapiro, R.Y. (1999). Public opinion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Lewis, J., Jihally, S., and Morgan, M. (1991). The Gulf War: A study of the media, public opinion, and public knowledge. The Center for the Study of Communication, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Archived at <http://wwwunix.oit.umass.edu/~commdept/resources/gulfwar.html>
• Mac Arthur, J.R. and Bagdikian, B.H. (1993). Second front: Censorship and propaganda in the Gulf War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Mueller, J. (1985). War, presidents and public opinion. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Mueller, J. (1994). Policy and opinion in the gulf war. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
• Pratkanis, A. and E. Aronson (1992). Age of propaganda. New York: Freeman.
• Shanahan, J., ed. (2001). Propaganda without propagandists? Six case studies in U.S. propaganda. Amherst, MA: Hampton Press.
• Taylor, P.M. (1995). Munitions of the mind: A history of propaganda from the ancient world to the present era. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press.
• Taylor, P.M (1998). War and the media: Propaganda and persuasion in the Gulf War. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press.

The past decade has been witness to significant scientific and economic developments related to agricultural biotechnology, otherwise known as genetically-modified (GM) agriculture.¹ The technology has met with strong public resistance in Europe, but has been widely adopted in the United States with little public attention or controversy.

U.S. environmental and consumer groups in recent years, however, have prioritized public campaigns against GM agriculture, while biotechnology companies have hired public relations firms to conduct a global advertising and promotion campaign. A recent review of past public opinion trends by James Shanahan and his colleagues at Cornell University concluded that U.S. public awareness and concern over GM agriculture has increased only slightly over the last decade, and has yet to reach levels in Europe. These preliminary findings on public attitudes to GM agriculture correspond with recent increased media attention to the topic.

Though current public attitudes in the U.S. may still stray towards the ambivalent, agricultural biotechnology is likely to be one of the most prominent technological and scientific developments of the next decade. Widespread claims of the technology’s brightest benefits will be increasingly countered by allegations regarding GM agriculture’s darkest perils. Universities and their scientists will be at the center of this debate, both as developers of new applications, but also as those chiefly responsible for engaging the public and policymakers regarding biotechnology’s ethical, social, and legal implications.

Universities are therefore confronted with a public communication dilemma. When dealing with an issue like GM agriculture that is heavy with political controversy and scientific uncertainty, what strategies of successful public engagement and communication can these institutions pursue? In this column, I outline the problem, and suggest strategies based on past research in the social sciences. While the recommendations presented are prompted by the current GM agriculture debate, they can be applied as general guidelines for public engagement related to other scientific and technological controversies.

Universities: Caught in the Crossfire

As political controversy emerges in the U.S., and various stakeholders compete to frame debate, shape policy, and influence public opinion related to GM agriculture, U.S. universities find themselves caught in the crossfire. Historically, development of agricultural biotechnology has occurred as a close partnership between universities, federal agencies, and industry members. Academic institutions have benefited substantially from this partnership, receiving steady and sizable economic subsidies that have led to additional facilities and faculty, and increased prestige.

Not only have universities played a key role in the development of GM agriculture, but they also now find themselves as key sources of public information regarding the technology. In an increasingly complex society, the public and policy-makers turn to universities and their experts for reassurances and reliable information about the unintended consequences and risks of technological development. University scientists are often called upon for expert testimony at federal and state government proceedings, and past surveys of media coverage show that university scientists are usually the actors most likely to be quoted or referenced by the media. In a recent Gallup survey of the American public, respondents were asked who they were most inclined to rely on when it came to competing views on scientific controversies involving environmental issues. University scientists were named by 58% of respondents, in comparison to 28% of respondents who named scientists from environmental groups, 9% who named scientists from the Federal government, and 3% who named scientists from corporations.

In the communities surrounding some university campuses, there has been growing concern among local citizens over the risks of GMO release, and the ethical implications of university research. In several incidents, university research facilities have been the target of activist vandals. Of greatest concern to universities is continued financial support for research. Scientists in Europe report that strong public reaction has led to dramatic cut backs in research funding, an event that U.S. universities seek to avoid.

Although university administrators are likely proponents of GM agriculture, universities as institutions have a long-standing commitment to the appearance of impartiality in political controversy. Furthermore, from an ethical position, universities should consider any deliberate attempts at control over final public disposition on the issue well outside the boundaries of their institutional missions.

Universities are also faced with a high level of scientific uncertainty on the issue of GM agriculture. A solid consensus among researchers on the risks and potential impacts of the technology has yet to be reached. In a survey of agricultural science faculty at U.S. universities conducted by Susanna Hornig Priest of Texas A&M University, respondents generally believed that agricultural biotechnology held great promise, but were neutral in their assessment of whether GM agriculture might reduce plant genetic diversity. There was, however, divergence in expert opinion based on stakeholder interest. Agricultural scientists whose research directly involved biotechnology rated the possibilities of negative social and environmental impacts of GM agriculture as less likely than other scientists. In another national survey of over 1000 agricultural scientists and social scientists by Thomas Lyson of Cornell University, diverse viewpoints were found among land grant faculty that fell along disciplinary lines. Social and natural resource scientists were more likely to express concerns and reservations about GM agriculture, and held a greater level of reservation about research linkages between universities and private industry. In contrast to their social science colleagues, biological scientists were mostly supportive of moving rapidly ahead with GM agriculture development and adoption.

Public Outreach Strategies for Universities

Universities are therefore confronted with a public communication dilemma. When dealing with an issue like GM agriculture that is heavy with political controversy and scientific uncertainty, and a technology that is closely tied to institutional research and resources, what strategies of successful public engagement and communication can the universities pursue?

Several courses of action based on past research in the social sciences can be recommended. They include: 1) sponsoring participatory public forums; 2) acknowledging uncertainty and strategically framing messages; 3) targeting specific publics through specific media; and 4) carefully monitoring public reaction and media coverage.

Sponsoring Participatory Forums. Inviting the public and various stakeholders to identify their concerns about GM agriculture in participatory forums gives voice to lay perspectives on social and ethical issues related to GM agriculture that may not otherwise be considered by “experts” in university settings. Going to the public to discover the nature of their concerns should be an initial activity of any communication strategy.

Public participation also leads indirectly to increased public trust. Participation generally fosters increased knowledge among the lay public of technological controversy. Informal learning occurs not only among the citizen participants directly, but also among members of the public attentive to media coverage of the participatory process. Past research has shown that increased knowledge can lead to increased trust of democratic institutions. Specific to science, greater knowledge among the American public has also been linked to positive perceptions of both science in general and genetic engineering.

These activities also foster greater feelings of efficacy in the outcome of technological disputes. Participants, and non-participants exposed to media coverage of the event, are likely to experience feelings of greater control and involvement over how GM agriculture impacts their lives.

Acknowledging Uncertainty/Framing Messages. In addition to sponsoring public forums, universities should acknowledge scientific uncertainty regarding GM agriculture, but where possible qualify this uncertainty by comparing GM agriculture risks to other known environmental and health risks. Besides providing meaningful risk comparisons, universities should tailor and frame messages that address the specific concerns of different publics and stakeholders.

One of the dominant public and stakeholder constructions of GM agriculture is characterized by the “precautionary principle,” which holds that where a technology raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if science has not identified clear mechanisms or possibilities for harm to occur.

Although application of the precautionary principle to GM agriculture is embraced by the majority of opposition groups, and may appear pragmatic to members of the lay public, it often confounds scientists, and is contrary to scientific evaluations of risks. The common response to the precautionary principle from the science community, and often from their representative expert institutions, is that a negative can never be disproved, and it is therefore impossible to ensure that some future unknown or unforeseen harm will not occur. Although this response fits with the scientific outlook, it is likely to have little meaning to the public and to members of the opposition. To opponents of GM agriculture and to many members of the lay public, the precautionary principle is unrelated to science, and is instead a value preference for caution in the face of the unknown, and for a slower adoption of new technology.

This gulf between lay and expert construction of GM agriculture means that any communication efforts centered solely on the scientific perspective are likely to experience little impact or possibly even detrimental results. The reason may not be because the public lacks scientific understanding or appreciation for science, but because the scientific response does not address the public’s concerns, and reduces GM agriculture to a question of science, while ignoring other social, political, or ethical perspectives.

Strategically Using Media. Universities should also promote coverage of GM agriculture among specific types of journalists and media outlets. This strategy has the dual purpose of reaching specific audiences through specific media, while attempting to limit coverage by certain types of media, like television, that have tendencies towards sensationalism or controversy.

Media strategies should be combined with communication efforts that bypass the traditional mass media altogether. Examples include university Web pages and sites dedicated to GM agriculture, the provision of information subsidies to food retailers and grocery markets, and communication with agricultural interests through the extension offices of universities.

Measuring and Monitoring Attitudes/Media Coverage. In order to plan and successfully carry out any public communication campaign on the issue of GM agriculture, universities need reliable and timely indicators of the changing opinion and media environment. Quantitative surveys are useful methods for measuring and monitoring public attitudes because of their relatively high level of reliability, and given representative and large enough samples, their high degree of generalizability in comparison to other methods. In the careful design of surveys, the institutional resources of universities can be of great assistance, employing faculty researchers and university-sponsored survey centers in the development, implementation, and analysis of surveys.

Quantitative surveys should be complimented by the use of qualitative investigations including case studies, focus groups, and interviews. Although these methods have less generalizability and reliability than quantitative surveys, the open-ended nature of the questions posed in these contexts allows for greater exploration of various social constructions and meanings linked to the GM agriculture issue.

At the beginning of public engagement efforts, the results of quantitative and qualitative measurement of attitudes combined with the feedback from initial public participation forums allows for the informed development of messages and strategies. Continued measurement of attitudes enables the anticipation of any adaptations needed during the course of the communication campaign.

Furthermore, policy makers, interest groups, and industry members are generally sensitive to shifts in public opinion, and the prevailing climate of public opinion can be a possible indicator of their strategies and actions. In this direction, it is recommended that expert institutions carry-out periodic quantitative and qualitative assessment of the attitudes towards the GM agriculture debate among journalists, elected representatives, industry members, and interest group leaders.

Surveys of public attitudes should be conducted in conjunction with surveys of media coverage. Not only does media coverage influence public opinion, but it also impacts policy-making. Past research has shown that policymakers often consider the media agenda to be the public agenda, and regard media coverage to be a better indicator then polls of public sentiment.

No “Magical Key” to Public Engagement

The communication strategies presented here are not comprehensive in nature, but they do provide general guidelines for public engagement by universities, and are based on relevant research from the social sciences. In some instances, these recommendations have already been implemented at varying levels across regulatory agencies and universities. What should be clear from the review of these public engagement strategies is that there is no “magical key” available for unlocking public acceptance and understanding of emerging science and technology disputes. Indeed, scientific calculations of risk and rational estimations of technological impact comprise only one part of public debate. As recent history indicates, the outcome of the GM agriculture controversy is more likely to turn on social constructions of the technology based on politics, ideologies, values, and economics than on any scientific perspective. Universities therefore must invest in careful estimations and explorations of these social dimensions of technological controversy before and during any public engagement efforts.

Note:

1. A “GM,” gene-altered, or biotech crop is “transgenic,” meaning that the crop bears a gene from a different species, or that it over expresses or under expresses one of its own genes. To date, crops have been genetically modified to effect ripening; resist frost, drought and herbicide; produce more of the edible plant; increase levels of nutrients; produce proteins toxic to pests; produce non-natural products in plants such as vaccines; and remove heavy metals from soil.

Web Resources:

• Cornell University Genetically Engineered Organisms—Public Issues Education Project
• Cornell University Genomics Initiative; Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications
• New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Biotechnology Page
• Cornell University, Media & Society Research Group
• Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000, Feb.) Science and Society. Third Report, by the Select Committee to Consider Science and Technology. United Kingdom: House of Lords.

Recommended Readings:

• Dierkes, M. & Von Grote, C., (Eds.) 2000. Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology . New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.
• Gaskell, G., N. Allum, M. Bauer, J. Durant, A. Allansdottir, H. Bonfadelli, D. Boy, S. de Cheveigné, B. Fjaestad, J.M. Gutteling, J. Hampel, E. Jelsøe, J.C. Jesuino, M. Kohring, N. Kronberger, C. Midden, T.H. Nielsen, A. Przestalski, T. Rusanen, G. Sakellaris, H. Torgersen, T. Twardowski and W. Wagner. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9): 935-938.
• Lyson, T.A. 2001. How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnologies? Chemical Innovation, 31(4):50-53.
• Nottingham, S. 1999. Eat your genes: How genetically modified food is entering our diet. New York: University of Cape Town Press.
• Priest, S.H. 2001. A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Priest, S. & Gillespie, A. 2001. Seeds of discontent: Expert opinion, mass media, and the public image of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6 (4): 529-539.
• Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. & Lee, E. 2001. Attitudes about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly (forthcoming).
• Krimsky, S. (1991). Biotechnics and society. Westport, CT: Praeger
• Krimsky, S. & Wrubel, R.P. (1996). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment : Science, policy, and social issues. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press

Programming choices at CNN and MSNBC during the first and second weeks of April served to further tarnish the journalistic reputations of the two news organizations. On the April 3 edition of CNN’s Larry King Live, it was more of the same, as King and his producers shamelessly dedicated another program to the paranormal, this time a dramatization of haunted houses. At MSNBC, the situation wasn’t much better. Between April 9 and 13, under the pretense of “investigative journalism,” MSNBC filled its 8pm (EST) weekday slots with programs detailing Satanism, exorcism, near death experiences, and psychic mediums.

In this column, I explore trends in the mass media that have made the paranormal — along with crime, celebrity, entertainment, and human melodrama — into standard journalistic fare at America’s leading news organizations. This new news, dubbed “soft journalism” or “infotainment,” is the media industry’s reaction to a nearly two decade decline in its readership and viewership base. Paranormal subjects are ready made for the soft journalism formula, as they mix high levels of human interest, drama, and sensationalism with unending story lines.

But at what price do we displace public affairs coverage with coverage of celebrities, psychics, and crimes? Although reinvigorated sales and ratings are the goals of soft journalism, recently released research from the field of political communication indicates that infotainment has actually accelerated the decline in news audiences, while serving to impair the public’s interest in and knowledge of public affairs.

Slouching Towards Soft Journalism

“Hard news” refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues, or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster. Hard news has traditionally been considered essential for an informed and participatory citizenry. “Soft news,” on the other hand, is news unrelated to public affairs or policy, and is typically more sensational, more personality or celebrity oriented, less time-bound (meaning that the traditional journalistic norm of “timeliness” does not apply), and more incident-based than hard news (Patterson 2001a).

Historically, a distinction between hard news and soft news was maintained through a number of institutional structures and processes including:

• The division of media organizations into separate news and entertainment divisions
• An assumption that public affairs programming would be free from expectations of profitability
• Trade distinctions between news and entertainment media
• Print layout and programming cues that distinguished for readers or viewers hard news from soft news
• A routinization of program schedules that placed a time orientation to hard news, with local news in the early evening followed immediately by national news, and then local news again at 10 or 11pm
• A limited number of television stations through the 1980s that broadcast news at the same time
• The professionalization of journalists
• Formal standard operating procedures for determining newsworthiness (Delli Carpini and Williams 2001).

Structural changes in the telecommunications industry and in technology over the past 20 years have erased what was once a “walling off” between hard news and soft news. Due in part to the ubiquitous adoption of the remote control, the widespread availability of cable and satellite television, the popularity of the Internet and World Wide Web, and the horizontal and vertical integration of the media industry, the public can now find news anywhere, anytime — or virtually ignore the news altogether, choosing alternative programming.

With increased competition, news organizations today are held to strict profit expectations, resulting in economic performance pressures that increasingly guide content choices, and staff cutbacks that damage product quality. This sea change in organizational imperatives has spurred a reconsideration of professional standards, with a new generation of media operatives who hold little allegiance to prior codes of journalistic ethics, and who fashion themselves as celebrity personalities shape shifting across the genres of news and entertainment (Delli Carpini and Williams 2001).

Government regulations that once mandated public affairs programming in return for the licensing of the public airways have been lessened, removed or ignored, and the integration of the entertainment and news industries by an oligopoly of conglomerates has meant that entertainment products are increasingly the coverage topic of news outlets (Bagdikian 1992; McChesney 1999).

These changes have led to an embrace of soft journalism across the media landscape. A recently released report authored by Thomas Patterson (2001), Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard University, finds that soft news has increased dramatically over the past two decades. News stories lacking public policy content jumped from less than 35% of all stories in 1980 to roughly 50% of stories appearing today. Stories with a moderate to high level of sensationalism rose from about 25% of news stories in the early 1980s to a current tally of 40%. Stories that include a human interest element also figure heavily in contemporary reporting, accounting for less than 11% of news stories in the early 1980s, but more than 26% of reports today. The same holds true for stories with crime or disaster as a main subject, rising from 8% of stories in 1980 to close to 15% of stories today.

Programming examples of soft journalism abound. These include tabloid syndicated programs like Hard Copy, and nightly network newscast features on personal finance , consumer affairs, and health. The regular features of network news magazines Dateline NBC, ABC Primetime Live, CBS 48 Hours, and the made-for-soft-news spin-off ABC 20/20 Downtown, are notorious for their soft news formats.

Major print media outlets rate only marginally better than television at providing hard news over soft news coverage. The leading example of newspaper soft news journalism is the USA Today, which from its inception has adopted an editorial direction that seeks a “television in print” style, with a heavy emphasis on color, photos, flashy graphics, brief articles, and lifestyle, entertainment, and news-you-can-use coverage. Elite newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe have avoided the USA Today approach, making purposive editorial decisions to build readership through in-depth journalism focused on public affairs. Other newspapers, however, like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Los Angeles Times, have weakened their strong journalistic traditions by attempting to compete with television on television’s terms, and by combining business with editorial departments (Underwood 2001).

In the magazine industry, many publications have taken a soft journalism approach to public affairs; the most prominent examples include Talk and George, both of which mix politics with celebrity culture. Newsweek and Time routinely feature soft journalism cover stories. For example, across the eight issues released in March and April 2001, Time ran cover stories on phobias, yoga, Jesus (an annual Easter rite), how to a raise a “superkid,” and the death of race car driver Dale Earnhardt, Sr.

There is little doubt that the paranormal is an excellent fit for soft journalism. Stories about psychics, ghosts, UFO abductions, or miracles feature heavy elements of human interest, sensationalism, and drama. And due to the public’s lingering fascination, these stories are never in short supply. The paranormal also appeals to journalism’s “investigative” preference, allowing reporters to conduct “hidden camera” reports on faith healers, or put psychics “to the test.” These investigative conventions, originally employed in coverage of political corruption, or in investigations of workplace dangers, industry polluters, or consumer fraud, are now just as likely to be applied to fantasy yarns like the paranormal.

This is not to say that journalism that uncovers false claims related to the paranormal or the pseudoscientific does not provide a public service. In fact, if done well, some stories on paranormal topics can offer valuable insights into psychology and the natural sciences, and might actually foster an appreciation for the scientific method, or cold hard logic.

Still, if a news organization’s motive in deciding to cover the paranormal is based on the topic’s dramatic appeal, there is little incentive to provide scientific or critical assessment of the given claims. After all, where is the entertainment in learning that psychics are ordinary, UFOs are earthly, and that haunted houses are built on haunted minds?

Infotaining Ourselves to Death

As Patterson argues in his recent report, although soft journalism may bring some people to news that otherwise may not pay attention or be less informed, and even though some soft news might provide valuable information about fraud, safety, or health, evidence points to a net social cost. Based on collected survey evidence, Patterson argues that the news industry’s reliance on soft news as the answer to shrinking audiences “may be diminishing the overall level of interest in news.” He finds that more people (63% to 24%) are attracted to news because of its public affairs content than because of its stories about crime, celebrities, and the like. Also, the people who prefer public affairs coverage are 50% more likely to have a strong interest in news. Yet the study found that these individuals are also the ones who are most dissatisfied with news trends, and most likely to say they have been cutting back on their news consumption.

“The market research that tells news operations crime and entertainment-based news sells, may be right in the short term,” says Patterson. But over the long run, he argues, the media are undermining the overall demand for news by failing to account for the interests of those who traditionally have followed news regularly. “For more than a century, [public affairs coverage] has been the primary reason that millions of people each day choose to spend some of their time on the news.”

Soft journalism also undermines the credibility of news organizations. Consider the April 3 edition of CNN’s Larry King Live. Appearing the same week of the U.S./China stand-off over a downed U.S. surveillance plane, King and his producers opened with 10 minutes of coverage related to the breaking story. The program then shifted to 50 minutes of interviews debating the veracity of haunted houses, all in promotion of a new program airing on the Fox Family Channel. At each commercial break, clips taken by a camera rolling through allegedly haunted houses ran, supported by a background of suspenseful music, and complimented by testimonials related to the authenticity of the location’s haunting.

By opening a program with relevant coverage of breaking news, and then seamlessly transitioning to dramatized depictions of haunted houses, Larry King and his producers had pulled off the ultimate in professional relativism, shape shifting from public affairs reporting to pure entertainment promotion! If Larry King and his producers either fail to understand, or blatantly ignore, the difference between journalistic reporting and entertainment, how can audiences ever rely on the program as a credible source for reliable and accurate information?

Larry King’s penchant for psychic mediums, UFOs, and haunted houses is in stark contrast to other CNN programming like Inside Politics. It’s hard to imagine that veteran journalists at CNN don’t cringe with every additional episode of Larry King Live. Network execs, however, are captive to King’s nightly million-something viewers, unwilling to change King’s formula (or let him go), without a substitute program that is guaranteed to maintain ratings.

Not only is soft journalism simultaneously eroding the core news consumer base, while undermining news organization credibility, but a steady stream of sensationalistic news has adverse effects on public perceptions. For example, during the 1990s, when media coverage of crime sharply increased, the public came to believe that the crime rate was rising, when in reality, it was in steady decline (Patterson 2001b). Media coverage that sensationalizes coverage of politics and government also leads to decreased institutional trust and can minimize feelings of efficacy in the political process (Moy & Pfau 2000). Related to impacts on perceptions, an increase in soft news content minimizes opportunities for the public to learn about events that are relevant to public life and important to government affairs. Our “mediated” democracy is rooted in the concept of an informed citizenry, but if tales of celebrities, psychics, entertainment, and crime dominate news coverage, then the likelihood of a knowledgeable public stretches towards impossibility.

Doing Well, But Also Doing Good?

A public characterized by diminished interest in public affairs, distorted perceptions of current issues, high levels of distrust, low levels of political efficacy, and widespread political ingorance, is not only a threat to democracy, but also a threat to the continued success of news organizations and their parent companies. The continued embrace of soft journalism will ultimately lead to the end of journalism. Therefore, as Patterson asks in his recent report, is it possible for news organizations to do well and succeed in the marketplace, while also doing good?

Like so many other mistakes in the history of business, the resort to infotainment is the combined result of a short-term outlook on profit returns and a blind disregard to longer term market and social costs. The continued segmenting of audiences and readers into narrow niches is inevitable, but the societal need shall always remain for public affairs coverage, and consumer demand should remain if not completely snuffed out by the current practices of news organizations. “What is good for democracy, is also good for the press, “ writes Patterson. “In the long run, the best way to build an audience for news is through balanced public affairs reporting. To believe otherwise is to assume that people follow the news for its entertainment or shock value....A news habit takes years to create and takes years to diminish but, once diminished, is not easily restored.”

Sources

• Bagdikian, B. 1992. The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Delli Carpini, M. and B. Williams. 2001. Let us entertain you: Politics in the new media environment. In L. Bennett and R. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 160-191). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McChesney, R. 1998. Rich Media, poor Democracy : Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
• Moy, P., and M. Pfau. 2000. With malice toward all? The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Patterson, T. 2001a. Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy — And what news outlets can do about it. The Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics, & Public Policy at Harvard University.
• —. 2001b. The American Democracy. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 309-310.
• Underwood, D. 2001. Reporting and the push for market oriented journalism: Media organizations as business. In L. Bennett and R. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 99-117). New York: Cambridge University Press.

CNN’s Larry King Live is just the most recent example of the mass media’s package and sale of John Edward and other psychics. Spirit mediums have emerged as top-grossing media personalities, the result of a synergy between recent trends in the media industry, and a likely increased public appetite for “crossing over."

"Gifted” Psychic Showman John Edward

John Edward speaks to dead people, or so he claims. According to the official bio on Edward’s Web site, “John exhibited psychic abilities from an extremely early age, and was deemed ‘special’ by many in his family.” Born and raised in Long Island, apparently no one in Edward’s family made a “fuss” over his abilities, as Edward took up the habit of divining family history or events that took place before his birth. After college, Edward worked in the health care industry, and as a dance instructor, but according to his bio “due to the large demand for his time and ability, John now devotes his time to pursuing his psychic work full time."

For Edward, “full time psychic work” translates into lectures and seminars across the country, and appearances on various afternoon television talk shows where he promotes his books including One Last Time, a “non-fiction” treatise on his abilities, and his new novel What if God Were the Sun?, an “account of a family that weathers tragedy, bonds together, and passes on healing messages of love from generation to generation."

In July 2000, The Sci Fi Channel premiered Crossing Over with John Edward. The typical format for the half-hour program features fast-talking Edward in a darkened amphitheater, surrounded by risers packed with audience members. As various investigators have observed, Edward walks around the enclosure, pointing his attention to different sections of 20 or so audience members at a time, throwing out fast successions of general and random statements like “I’m getting something about a George over here. I don’t know what this means. George could be someone who passed over, he could be someone here, he could be someone that you know,” and then turning to focus on individuals that respond to Edward’s guesswork by nodding their heads, breaking out in tears, or raising their hands in excitement (Shermer 2001).

Edward’s psychic shtick is nothing new. He is the latest in a century-and-a-half lineage of full-time flamboyants that have laid claim to spirit communication, ranging from the nineteenth-century rappings of the Fox sisters to present-day media celebrities Rosemary Altea, Sylvia Browne, and James Van Praagh. But what is unique about Edward is that he has emerged as the right kind of psychic, in the right place, at the right time.

Part of Edward’s current success may be attributable to an apparent increase in public fascination with spirit communication over the past several years. A Gallup survey conducted in 1996 indicated that 20% of Americans believe that it is possible to communicate with the dead, while another 23% are unsure about the possibility. There is a significant gender difference on the topic, with 24% of women indicating belief in comparison to 16% of men. There are also differences across religious affiliations, as 27% of Catholics believe in spirit communication in comparison to 16% of Protestants and 9% of Jews (Gallup 1996).

"Without a doubt, visiting spirit mediums is becoming amazingly popular,” author Cathy Cash Spellman told the New York Times last October (La Ferla 2000). Spellman’s novel Bless the Child, about a girl with psychic abilities, was released as a film with the same title by Paramount this past fall. Panned by critics, the film grossed a disappointing $30 million. Bless the Child, however, was the second major film featuring psychic mediums over the past two years. Walt Disney’s Sixth Sense, starring Bruce Willis as a child psychologist who administers to a boy traumatized by visions of dead people, grossed an extraordinary $300 million in 1999.

Spellman attributes spirit medium popularity to a growing public embrace of the New Age. “We live in a world where many people have an acupuncturist, understand that there is energy, and practice the martial arts. People are so much more open minded about the unseen” (La Ferla 2000).

While a trend among the general American public is difficult to assess because of an absence of relevant polling data gathered since 1996, some observe that spirit mediumship has captured the fascination of the trendy urban elite. “Quite a lot of people in the fashion world are paying visits to people they have lost,” Nadine Johnson, a New York publicist, told the New York Times. “ I wouldn’t call it booming, but it’s harder to get appointments with mediums these days, so you know the business has increased tremendously. To hear it from the people I know, mediums are a hotter commodity than the Prada bowling bag” (La Ferla 2000).

So what is it about Edward that allows him to capitalize on a possible growing public appetite for his claimed abilities over other more established psychic mediums? For one, Edward as television show host holds certain personality and stylistic traits that lend advantages over contemporaries Van Praagh and Browne. Edward exhibits greater personal and physical charisma than the rotund and twitchy Van Praagh. He also doesn't attempt the arcane mysticism that typifies Browne. Instead, Edward offers audiences a brand of psychic “street smarts.” To get a sense of his appeal, imagine a Brooklyn taxi cab driver who can channel your dead relatives. Or as one journalist observed of Edward’s Crossing Over routine, “He’s like a psychic short-order cook, barking out personal messages then moving on to the next person” (Browne 2001).

In terms of technique differences between Edward and Van Praagh, one critic estimates Van Praagh’s hit rate at between 20 to 30 percent, while Edward only scores 10 to 20 percent of the time. What Edward lacks in accuracy, however, he makes up for in sheer volume of guesses. After a recent analysis conducted in conjunction with ABC News, the consulting skeptic wrote in an e-mail commentary that “the advantage Edward has over Van Praagh is his verbal alacrity. Van Praagh is Ferrari fast, but Edward is driving an Indy-500 racer. In the opening minute of the first reading captured on film by the ABC camera, I counted over one statement per second (ABC was allowed to film in the control room under the guise of filming the hardworking staff, and instead filmed Edward on the monitor in the raw). Think about that—in one minute Edward riffles through 60 names, dates, colors, diseases, conditions, situations, relatives, and the like” (Shermer 2001).

Appearing five days a week, the Sci Fi Channel’s Crossing Over follows on the success of the television talk-show format that includes programs like Oprah, Leeza, Sally, and Montel, all of which have packaged and sold New Age self-help. Crossing Over also mimics the more recent success of unscripted television programs like MTV’s The Real World and CBS’ Survivor. For the producers of Crossing Over, the situation is ideal. Edward is the only actor on the payroll, the producers don’t have to worry about employing writers, and they don’t have to hassle with booking guests.

Since its premiere, Crossing Over has increased Sci Fi Channel ratings 33% over the same time period for the previous year, to a daily average of 533,000 households. The program is also attracting more female viewers to the network’s traditionally male-dominated audience. While women generally make up 45% of the network’s audience, Crossing Over’s audience is comprised of 60% women (Brown 2001).

The popularity of Crossing Over, combined with Edwards’ well-oiled publicity machine, and the corresponding media attention across entertainment and news media outlets have made Edward’s One Last Time a national best-seller. In order to measure a possible correlation between media coverage of Edward and sales of his book, I ran the keywords “John Edward” and “psychic or medium” through the Lexis-Nexis Universe database. My search identified for the past year the population of articles featuring Edward that appeared in major U.S. newspapers, and the population of relevant transcripts from major national television news programs, talk shows, or large media market local newscasts. The results provide an indicator of the amount of media attention to Edward across time. I also tallied the average position for each month that Edward’s One Last Time appeared on the New York Times' weekly paperback non-fiction bestseller list, providing a less precise, indirect measure of book sales.

Figure 1 indicates that a spike in Edward’s media profile over the past year precedes each of One Last Time’s sales jumps. For example, after an increase in both print and television attention in July 2000, One Last Time appeared on the New York Times bestseller list for the first time. Later, after a major media blitz during the month of November, including appearances by Edward on NBC’s Today Show, CBS’ This Morning, and NBC Dateline, One Last Time jumped for the month of December to its highest best-seller position to date. The pattern of increased media attention preceding a jump on the best-seller list occurred again for the months January to February 2001.

Figure 1. Relationship between media coverage of John Edward and sales of Crossing Over

Journalist-Skeptic Leon Jaroff

John Edward’s emergence on the public and media agenda has not gone without strong criticism from skeptics. Over the past two years, both Paul Kurtz (2000) and Joe Nickell (1998a; 1998b) of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) have critiqued Edward and other psychic mediums in articles published in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and in press releases or public statements. In covering Edward, however, many mass media reporters have either favored the norm of “journalistic balance” in their coverage, or have honored the American media tradition of uncritical coverage of topics related to religion. The result has been a serious failure on the part of journalists to question Edward’s claims.

Enter veteran science writer Leon Jaroff. “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,” wrote Jaroff in his lead to a March 6 Time magazine feature. “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” (Jaroff 2001).

Jaroff is one of America’ senior science journalists. Named Time magazine’s chief science reporter in 1969, Jaroff has won numerous awards for coverage ranging from space exploration to anthropology. In 1980, Jaroff became the founding managing editor of Discover magazine, and like many science writers of his generation, he exhibits in his reporting a strong enthusiasm and appreciation for the scientific paradigm. A long time fellow of CSICOP and friend of magician James Randi, Jaroff has reported on several controversies related to the paranormal and the pseudoscientific, including Randi’s efforts to expose psychic Uri Geller.

Therefore, for Jaroff, Edward’s performances were less than remarkable, and merited critical coverage. In the Time magazine article, Jaroff explained Edward’s “psychic” success as a likely result of two very earthly techniques. First, there was the old fortuneteller’s technique of “cold reading,” a succession of quick generalizations about individual audience members made by Edward that were meant to elicit a response, followed by a series of educated guesses based on demographics. Second, there was what Jaroff referred to as a “hot reading,” a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. (For a full discussion of cold reading techniques, see Hyman 1977)

In support of his assertions of Edward’s possible hot readings, Jaroff detailed the experience of Michael O'Neill, a past audience member on Crossing Over who had been the subject of a reading by Edward. According to O'Neill’s account, producers of the show had spliced into the final program clips of O'Neill nodding yes into the videotape after statements by Edward with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, according to O'Neill, most of Edward’s “misses,” both in relation to him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape.

O'Neill also claimed that before the show, assistants to the producers had gathered information about audience members, including their names and family histories. O'Neill also told Jaroff that most of the conversations among the audience while they were seated in the stands waiting the start of the show were about dead loved ones, information that could have been picked up by microphones strategically placed about the amphitheater.

As he notes in his article, Jaroff did not include in his article reaction from Edward, since upon contacting Edward’s publicity people, Jaroff was informed that the medium does not respond to criticism.

The Psychics, the Philosopher, the Rabbi, the FBI Agent, and the Maverick Scientist

With Jaroff’s article appearing in Time magazine, the stage was set for the March 6 edition of CNN’s Larry King Live. Host Larry King has long been a promoter of psychic mediums, in recent years providing hour-long platforms for both James Van Praagh and Sylvia Browne. (For a review of Van Praagh’s 1999 appearance on Larry King Live, see the CSICOP web article by Joe Nickell).

King’s failure in previous programs to include guests who could provide a scientific rebuttal to the psychic’s claims has enraged many skeptics. Last year, CSICOP’s Kurtz and Nickell sent a protest letter to King, provoking an angry response by telephone from the show’s producers.

Besides Larry King’s preference for all things psychic, other factors likely contributed to the decision to air a special program on Edward. Jaroff’s article provided an opportune moment for parent company AOL/Time Warner to promote both the company’s flagship magazine and the longest running talk show on its leading television network.

The line-up of guests and the ultimate format for the March Larry King Live program was subtly stacked against criticism of Edward. In his Los Angeles studio, King sat at his desk with Van Praagh and Browne, while Edward was interviewed via satellite hook-up from the CNN studio in New York City. Jaroff appeared via satellite from Boca Raton, while CSICOP chair and philosopher Paul Kurtz was interviewed via feed originating from Buffalo, New York. On satellite from London, England, the panel also included Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, author of various self-help books including Kosher Sex : A Recipe for Passion and Intimacy, and the forthcoming The Psychic and the Rabbi: A Remarkable Correspondence , co-authored with psychic Uri Geller and spiritual guru Deepak Chopra.

Boteach appeared on the program supposedly to present criticism from the perspective of a traditional religious leader, while Van Praagh and Browne were framed by King as an unbiased jury of Edward’s “psychic” peers, able to objectively attest to the legitimacy of Edward’s abilities. In reality, however, all three individuals have economic ties to Edward’s success, as they all share a book publisher with Edward. Table 1 outlines the publishing links between Edward, Van Praagh, Browne, and Boteach.

Making a cameo appearance on the program was physicist Dale Graff, author of two books recounting his version of the CIA’s attempt to use psychic “remote viewing” for spy purposes. Also appearing in a cameo role was Cliff Van Sant, a former FBI profiler able to offer first-hand familiarity with Bureau and police agency use of psychics to assist in crime solving.

Throughout the hour-long program, the in-studio, “stage center” presence of Browne and Van Praagh allowed the duo to dominate the program’s dialogue. Both psychics took turns interrupting other guest’s comments or reframing responses. Van Praagh appeared well-coached and practiced in his comments, while Browne, with a seat next to King, was able to maintain a visible screen presence throughout the program, often lowering her head as if in meditation, or frequently closing her eyes, cultivating a persona of mysticism for the studio cameras.

Larry King played the role of stage master, carefully controlling and managing commentary from Kurtz, Jaroff, and Boteach. If Van Praagh and Browne were stage center on Larry King Live, the other guests, including Edward, were side stage shows only to be revealed when King directed questions their way.

In order to measure the “talk time” allocated each guest, I analyzed the full text of the transcript of the television program using CATPAC, a software package developed by communication researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo for use in quantitative content analysis. As an indicator of a guest’s “talk-time,” I tallied the number of words spoken by each guest during the program. The total number of words for each guest can be considered a function of the individual’s verbal speed, the number of opportunities to offer commentary afforded by King’s questions, and the time allocated by King for a response.

Not surprisingly, Table 2 indicates that at 2,244 words spoken, Larry King dominated the program, accounting for 26.3% of the total talk time. The three psychics combined for 36.6% of the total talk time on the program, in comparison to just 13.8% of the talk time afforded the two skeptics. The disparity was a likely result of the nearly twice as many questions asked by King of the psychics (34) then the skeptics (18). The disparity may have also been caused by Van Praagh’s and Edward’s talent for quick speech, and Larry King’s tendency to cut-in on answers by either Jaroff or Kurtz. King’s management of responses by guests and the impact of the fast-talking mediums are reflected by the measure of average number of words spoken per question asked, with “Ferrari-fast” Edward (153.3) and almost-as-quick Van Praagh (80.4), able to get more out of their allocated time on camera than either Kurtz (68.4) or Jaroff (62.4).

In addition to comparing the time allocated to each guest’s perspective and input on the topic of psychic ability, I also used CATPAC to provide an indicator of the major themes that each guest emphasized. Table 3 indicates the most frequently used unique words for each of the seven guests and Larry King. The prominence of each individual’s themes was measured by assigning a coefficient equal to the individual’s percentage of talk time contributed to the program.

As host, King emphasized themes of “belief,” the impact and import of the Time magazine “article,” what “people” “think,” “psychics,” and aspects of “know"-ledge or certainty about the veracity of the psychic’s claims. At a prominence coefficient of .26, King’s themes carried greater weight than any other individual guest.

The psychics emphasized “people,” but concentrated mostly on transcendental themes of emotions, “spirituality,” “God,” and “energy.” The three psychics also highlighted the type of service that they promote, namely general “information” about “somebody” or “something.” Combined, the prominence coefficient of the psychic’s themes was a dominant .37.

Skeptics Kurtz and Jaroff emphasized themes of “reason,” “science,” “evidence,” “testing,” or “challenge” of claims, and what “people” might believe or “think.” At a combined prominence coefficient of .14, the skeptic’s themes comprised a minority perspective on the show, and were almost three times less prominent than the psychic perspective.

While the skeptics offered criticism from a scientific viewpoint, Rabbi Boteach framed his criticism in the light of Judaism. He emphasized “religion” and “God” while highlighting the religious “elitism” of mediums promoting themselves as self-proclaimed chosen ones able to “communicate” with God. Boteach also emphasized “ethics” and a naturalistic spiritualism based on “earth,” not in an “afterlife” or heaven. At a prominence coefficient of .12, Boteach’s themes were only slightly less than the combined prominence of the two skeptics.

FBI agent Van Sant emphasized that he was “open” to the possibility of psychic ability. He also highlighted his “experience” in police work, and his acceptance of psychic involvement in crime cases if it could “help” law enforcement efforts. Physicist Graff emphasized his “experience” working on the CIA “remote viewing” project, the general reaction of the scientific “community,” and his belief that the “data” supported the claim that psychic ability was “real.” As cameo guests on the program, the prominence coefficients of the themes emphasized by Van Sant and Graff were negligible at .06 and .04, respectfully.

Eternal Life Through Syndication and Spin-off

Despite the appearance of balance in the guest line-up for Larry King Live, the analysis of the program’s transcript presented here indicates that King and his psychic guests heavily dominated the hour-long debate, both in total ‘talk time,’ and in regards to the emphasis on themes highlighting the transcendental over the scientific or critical.

For television producers, spirit mediums are a new form of staged drama, able to capture audiences at a relatively low cost. Crossing Over with John Edward is already headed for syndication (Browne 2001), and based on the program’s ratings, it doesn't take a psychic to predict that other television studios will attempt to mimic its success.

Sources

• Brown, Ivy. 2001. Hearing from dearly departed proves a hit on Sci-Fi Channel. Los Angeles Times, March 5.
• Gallup Organization. 1996. Phone survey taken September, 3-6. Data archived at the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut-Storrs.
• Hyman, Ray. 1977. Cold reading: How to convince strangers that you know all about them. Skeptical Inquirer 1: 2 (Spring/Summer), 18-37.
• Jaroff, Leon. 2001. Talking to the dead. Time, March 6.
• Kurtz, Paul. 2000. The new paranatural paradigm: Claims of communicating with the dead. Skeptical Inquirer 24:6 (November/December) 27-31.
• La Ferla, Ruth. 2000. A voice from the other side. New York Times, Oct. 29.
• Nickell, Joe. 1998a. Review: Talking to heaven — Who’s answering? Skeptical Inquirer 22: 4 (July/August), 51.
• Nickell, Joe. 1998b. Investigating spirit communications. Skeptical Briefs 8: 3 (September).
• Shermer, E. 2001. Deconstructing the dead: Cross over one last time to expose medium John Edward. E-Skeptic. Archived at http://www.skeptic.com/.

Last May, Oxford University Press released Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud authored by physicist Robert Park. A past chair of both the physics and the astronomy departments at the University of Maryland, Park is probably best known to science policy insiders, members of the media, and the interested public for his weekly e-mail bulletin ”What’s New,” archived and maintained at the American Physical Society (A.P.S.) Web site.

With his close proximity to Washington, D.C., Park has had a Zelig-like ability over the past two decades to pop up on the scene in a number of science-related controversies, often detailing many of his adventures and insider observations in “What’s New.” Heavy with wit, sly spin, and useful information not reported in the mass media, each edition of “What’s New” ends with Park’s trademark signature disclaimer: “Opinions are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the A.P.S., but they should be.”

Voodoo Science, Park’s first book intended for a general readership, is a 200-page essay on foibles, fads, and frauds related to a range of pseudoscientific claims. Written at times in the first-person, Park details his experience as an expert witness before Congress, media spokesperson, and combatant over the truth of competing claims. Among various topics, he writes on media sensationalism, free energy claims, junk science in the courtroom, homeopathy, cold fusion, and government support for bogus science projects.

Market reaction to Voodoo Science has been favorable. In a year dominated by Harry Potter fantasy yarns and the self-help book Who Moved My Cheese, sales figures by year-end placed Voodoo Science within the top 2000 books sold through the Amazon.com Web site.

Beyond sales, however, the release of Voodoo Science was an event in itself, placing Park’s unique and colorful personality for a brief time on the media stage. Features profiling Park appeared in the USA Today, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Boston Globe, Montreal Gazette, New York Times, Baltimore Sun, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Buffalo News. The profile in the New York Times lionized Park as a scientist-warrior doing battle in a fuzzy-thinking Washington. The caption of a picture of Park read: “Robert Park, a University of Maryland physicist who delights in deflating tales of alien abductions, miracle cures, during a pause in his morning run. He is leaning against a model of the Washington Monument, with the original at right.”

In March, Park was the featured member of a special panel on junk science at the annual APS meetings that was appropriately titled “Voodoo Science.” Throughout August and early September, C-SPAN’s “BookTV” carried segments of a press conference that featured Park discussing Voodoo Science at the National Press Club. Park also became the choice du jour among the media when a skeptical voice was desired, and he appeared on a number of television programs to discuss a range of claims and issues.

A hot media topic during the summer was magnet therapy. “Magnets can’t cure you. We're just not made of very magnetic stuff,” Park told NBC reporter Janice Leiberman in a taped segment appearing on the June 12 Today Show. “A magnetic field really just doesn't do anything to us at all. Makes us no worse, makes us no better.”

Although reporter Lieberman noted during the taped segment that “there are numerous claims of what magnets can do, but almost no scientific proof that they work,” her post-segment studio chat and commentary with Today show host Matt Lauer framed the legitimacy of magnet therapy as a wait-and-see-matter.

Lauer: “Why haven't there been more scientific studies about their—their usefulness?”

Lieberman: “Well, the scientific studies are usually funded by the drug companies.”

Lauer: “Right.”

Lieberman: “And the drug companies don’t make money on magnets, so there isn’t a lot of money behind it. However, NIH is expected to come out with two good studies, so we'll hold tight.”

Park’s public advocacy as a scientist was welcomed among many science enthusiasts and members of the science community. His ability to communicate effectively and provocatively both in his book and through the media drew comparisons to Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan. “He is one of the gems of the whole skeptical and critical thinking movement,” magician and friend James Randi told the Baltimore Sun. ” Like Carl Sagan, he is an accredited scientist with considerable clout who is actually willing to stick his neck out.”

“Most of the scientists don’t give a damn. They have no notion of how the real world works. Bob wouldn’t know an ivory tower if it fell on him. He’s a real caring person who wants to get the word out there,” said Randi.

Others drew comparisons to Martin Gardner’s 1952 classic Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science: "...in Voodoo Science, Robert Park has brought us a book that has a freshness and originality — and an importance and potential for influence — perhaps not seen since Gardner’s first,” wrote Kendrick Frazier, longtime editor of Skeptical Inquirer, in a review contributed to Physics Today.

Author Ed Regis described Voodoo Science in a review for the New York Times as “droll and enlightening,” adding that the book was “chock-full of the latest pseudoscientific hoaxes, scams and cases of sheer foolishness. Nothing and nobody are safe from Park’s gaze, which ranges across the absurd and the sublime with equal impartiality....”

One of the few critical reviews appeared in Park’s hometown newspaper, The Washington Post. Park was described as overly-zealous in his attacks on pseudoscience, one-sided in his presentation of evidence, and lacking rigor in his investigations. The reviewer, Charles Platt, compared Park to “a zealous DA who is so convinced that a suspect is guilty that he feels entitled to withhold some information from the jury.” Platt, a senior writer for Wired magazine, speculated that Park’s “widely published attacks create a chilling effect that can discourage even legitimate scientists from discussing controversial work.”

“This hardly seems consistent with the spirit of genuinely free inquiry that should energize science. Likewise, Park’s reliance on second-hand data, his presentation of selective evidence and his refusal to quote his opponents are habits that seem unworthy of a scientist,” wrote Platt.

A series of letters countering Platt’s criticism appeared in a subsequent edition of the Washington Post (See July 23, BookWorld). Several letters alleged Platt’s possible conflict in reviewing the book, noting his veiled enthusiasm for cold fusion in previously authored articles, and his ties to a cryogenic company. One of the letters was by Park himself, who replied with trademark rapier wit that Platt “...is a science fiction writer. The danger in writing science fiction is that, like masturbation, if you do too much of it you may begin to mistake it for the real thing. That could explain Platt’s position as president and CEO of CryoCare, a company that freezes the heads of what the company calls ‘patients.’ Presumably the heads will be reattached to bodies and switched back on when the technology becomes available. It is a truly splendid example of voodoo science.”

Not all of us necessarily share Park’s opinions, but as he would say, we probably should.

Related Information

• What’s New by Robert Park

When I heard that Willey was scheduled to perform and lecture at the Center for Inquiry-International in Buffalo, New York, headquarters to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and Skeptical Inquirer magazine, I was compelled to investigate. On a Saturday afternoon in mid-September, I drove in from Ithaca, New York, to meet and interview Willey just before he began preparations for the evening’s firewalk and demonstrations.

When I met Willey, he was dressed in black jeans and boots, and a black button-down shirt. Trim and fit, he has jet black hair and a beard touched with gray, holds a charming British accent, and carries a quick wit and cleverness that belie his eccentricism.

Born in England, Willey has an undergraduate degree in applied physics from Aston University, and a teaching certificate from Birmingham University. For a time he taught science at a grammar school in England before arriving in the United States in 1972 to earn his masters in physics at Ohio State University. As an instructor of physics, Willey has long believed in the appeal and usefulness of demonstrations in teaching. In the mid-1980’s, he started a traveling “Physics Show,” after his demonstrations proved to be a hit at a department open house. Today, he teaches classes at the university Monday through Wednesday, and travels Thursday and Friday to local high schools and grammar schools to perform.

Willey’s demonstrations are not the cart and magnet exercises you might be used to from high school physics. As he described in his November 1999 Skeptical Inquirer article ”The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations,” Willey’s lessons in science border on the life-threatening. “I always have tried to include demonstrations. Nothing will grab a kid’s attention more than if a teacher is going to kill themselves. I have to use the demonstrations sparingly, just to get attention, and then slip some education into it,” Willey said.

Willey’s interest in firewalking was sparked by an article written by Bernard J. Leikand and William J. McCarthy that appeared in the Fall 1985 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. The article proposed that firewalking is possible because of the low thermal capacity of the coals, and the short time of contact that a firewalker’s feet may have with the coals.

To Willey, the explanation made sense, and he decided to experiment himself. "That night I took a shovel of coal out of the stove, placed it on the ground, and when I stepped down my foot just went to the side,” remembers Willey. But the natural trepidation of his first attempt quickly subsided. “After that then it was easy. Sometimes the inside of you is screaming not to take that first step.”

The earliest known reference to firewalking dates to 1200 B.C., and belief in the supernatural nature of firewalking transcends religions, peoples, and geographic regions. Even today, mystical superstition, popular fascination, and fear still cling to the notion of firewalking. In fact, when I told fellow graduate students at Cornell University that I was traveling back to Buffalo for the weekend to participate in a firewalk, students responded with admonitions that I was crazy. Others asked me if I were planning to prepare with several days of meditation before attempting the “death-defying” challenge.

Although popular myth still surrounds firewalking, scientific explanations for the activity have existed for more than 60 years. In the 1930s, the University of London’s Council for Psychical Research organized two firewalks to study the phenomenon. In 1935, an Indian named Kuda Bux, and two British scientists walked across a 12 foot fire pit, containing mainly oak embers at about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Then, in April of 1937, a Moslem man named Ahmed Hussain, Englishman Reginald Adcock, and several others took part in a second firewalk. With no pretense at supernatural power or assistance, none of the participants was injured or substantially burned. The Council for Psychical Research issued reports stating that religious faith and supernatural powers were unrelated to firewalking. Instead the Council concluded that the secret of the firewalk lies in the low thermal conductivity of the burning wood, and the relatively small amount of time that contact occurs between the hot coals and a participant’s feet.

The World’s Hottest and Longest Firewalks

The prepared fire pit begins to burn down.

However compelling these scientific explanations were to Willey, his interest in firewalking was not contained to his backyard. In fact, the physics teacher side of Willey led him to take up the public demonstration of firewalks, and the scientist in him brought his attention to the measurement of the heat transfer between foot and hot coal.

In 1997, near Redmond, Washington, Willey and a group of 23 people walked a 3.5 meter long fire bed and set a new world record for the “hottest fire intentionally walked on by a human being.” The most sizzling part of the fire, a blazing hot stretch that was approximately 0.5 meters long, ranged in temperature from 1,602 degrees to 1,813 degrees Fahrenheit. The previous world record had been 1,575 degrees, set in 1987.

In 1998, Willey broke the record for the longest firewalk. Held on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, he and 14 others strode across a 165 foot fire bed. No major injuries were reported. The previous world record for the longest firewalk had been set in 1987 at 120 feet. The Johnstown walk was also used to investigate the relationship between time of foot contact with the coals and temperature. Willey and colleagues gathered data on the length and temperature of each individual walk using infra-red and thermocouple pyrometers. According to Willey, the findings have yet to be reported.

Willey prepares the fire pit at the Center for Inquiry as the crowd and local television news crews look-on.

The firewalk at Johnstown gained international media attention, with cameras on hand from the BBC, the Associated Press, and the Discovery Channel. Among the firewalkers was ABC producer John Stossel, who at the time was working on a television special on the nature of belief. According to Willey, Stossel was a bit nervous at first, but eventually gained enough gumption to quickly walk across the coals.

Willey is uncertain as to whether the media attention he gains for his firewalks is beneficial. “Television and news people tend to make it out that we still don’t understand how it is done. It makes better copy.” He does hope, however, that the publicity might serve as a source of inspiration for some young people to take an interest in science. “The firewalks are more of an attention getter than a lesson in physics, but it might spark an interest, it might make people more skeptical of a wondrous claim.”

Preparing for the Firewalk

After interviewing Willey, I was recruited to help build what would ultimately turn into a bed of coals and the firewalk pit. Before we walked outside to start construction, the physicist warned me that people should not attempt firewalks on their own: “It doesn't appear as something you can do, and if you don’t do it right, you will get seriously burned.”

Skeptical Inquirer managing editor Ben Radford dares the wrath of the fire pit at the Center for Inquiry.

In combination with the CSICOP team of Joe Nickell, Barry Karr, and Kevin Christopher, we unloaded a pile of ordinary fireplace logs from a truck at the front entrance of the Center for Inquiry. We laid a railroad line of the logs across the grass, at a width so that other logs could be laid perpendicularly across the bottom rungs. The logs were stacked in this railroad fashion till the pile of logs reached about three feet high. We were careful not to place the logs so that they were packed up against each other. The total length of the fire pit stretched a modest 10 to 12 yards. Newspaper was stuffed in-between the logs, the whole line of logs was drenched in gasoline, and the pile was set ablaze.

After a few hours, the logs had burned down to coals, and the coals were raked out, bringing a hot red glow to the pit. Raking out the coals, according to Willey, leaves the impression that the fire pit is radiantly hot. “After the coals are raked out, it is then about 10 to 20 minutes before the pit is ready for walking, depending on how far down the coals have burned,” Willey told me.

At the start of a firewalk, few of the onlookers are usually eager to walk. “The vast majority of people who come to firewalks, say ‘oh no, I’m not going to do it,’ but almost everyone ends up doing it,” said Willey. “You can’t make promises that someone won’t get burned. No one at our walks have gotten anything more than a blister bigger than a fingernail.”

Skeptical Inquirer columnist Joe Nickell strides across the fire pit at the Center for Inquiry.

According to Willey, any reasonably physically fit person should be able to successfully attempt a walk across a properly prepared pit. The most important factors for avoiding burns are that that the feet are calloused or slightly moist, and that hot cinders are not caught between the toes, or on the more sensitive top portion of the feet. “What I believe happens when one walks on fire is that on each step the foot absorbs relatively little heat from the embers that are cooled, because they are poor conductors, that do not have much internal energy to transmit as heat,” said Willey. “Also, the layer of cooled charcoal between the foot and the rest of the hot embers insulates them from the coals.”

So did this skeptic attempt the firewalk? Unfortunately, no. With full intentions, a prior engagement called me away before the pit was ready for walking. I look forward, however, to my chance in the future.

See Also

• David Willey home page

Fantasy turned to skepticism at the age of 15 when Polidoro came across the book Journey Into the Paranormal World by well-known Italian journalist Piero Angela. The book introduced Polidoro to the adventures of American magician James “The Amazing” Randi. The teenage Polidoro wrote to both Angela and Randi, with Randi responding by sending books to Polidoro on skepticism and the paranormal. A short time later when Randi visited Italy on a lecture tour, Polidoro met with the magician and Angela. Randi recruited Polidoro to serve for the next year as his “sorcerer’s apprentice,” traveling the globe testing psychics and dowsers, and working in front of television cameras to unmask mystery and trickery for global audiences.

Today, at the young age of 31, life is no less exciting for Polidoro as he has built an international profile as an author, journalist, lecturer, and professional skeptic. He is co-founder and Executive Director of the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CICAP - Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sul Paranomale), has published more than a half dozen books, and draws standing room only crowds at public appearances across the globe. In mid-August, I traveled to Amherst, N.Y., to meet and interview Polidoro, who spent the month on a speaking tour of the United States. His first stop was at the Center for Inquiry-International, headquarters for the Committee for the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

About two inches short of six feet tall, slender with a well-groomed Don Quixote goatee, Polidoro speaks fluent English, looks younger than his years, and unlike many international celebrities, lacks the slightest trace of hubris or arrogance. Polidoro and I sat down for about an hour before his evening lecture to discuss his career and insights on the world of the paranormal.

After spending a year abroad with James Randi, Polidoro returned to Italy in 1989, and began to shop around to Italian publishers the manuscript for his first book Viaggio tra gli spiriti (Journey into the Spirit World). Polidoro encountered difficulty in convincing publishers that a book skeptical of the paranormal would interest readers, but Viaggio tra gli spiriti finally made it into print in 1995, and experienced strong sales. Polidoro was then able to follow with a series of books, all in Italian, that included Misteri (1996), Dizionario del paranormale (1997), Sei un sensitivo? (1997), La maledizione del Titanic (1998), I segreti dei fachiri (1998), L'illusione del paranormale (1998) and e Il sesto senso (2000). His first book in English, devoted to the strange friendship between Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is scheduled to be published by Prometheus Books in the Spring of 2001.

In 1989, Polidoro also teamed with Italian scientist Luigi Garlaschelli to found CICAP, and, in the first years, the duo worked tirelessly to recruit members and subscribers to the CICAP newsletter. The newsletter soon grew into the glossy bound magazine Scienza & Paranormale, reached bi-monthly status in 1998, and today boasts about 2,000 readers. Since 1989, Polidoro has contributed over 200 articles and papers, not only to Scienza & Paranormale but also to the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic, and Swift. As a chief spokesperson for CICAP, Polidoro delivers about four lectures a month to crowds as large as several thousand. Polidoro earned a degree in psychology from the University of Padua in 1996 with his thesis devoted to the study of the reliability of eyewitnesses’s reports of unusual events.

Polidoro views his work with the Italian media as possibly his most important achievement. “Before CICAP, the Italian media were absolutely pro-paranormal, and rarely critical, but now CICAP has grown into a friendship with many journalists,” Polidoro said. He and CICAP have tried to adopt a media-relations approach that fosters a partnership with the Italian media, and makes covering paranormal claims from a critical view easy. CICAP maintains a media e-mail list and a state-of-the-art organizational Web site. “There are skeptical journalists and they are certainly supportive of our cause, “ Polidoro said. “But most are looking for a nice story. So if we find a way to present ourselves in a more interesting light, it can be very important."

Polidoro names alternative medicine (especially homeopathy), UFOs (specifically the ancient astronaut claims of Robert Hancock), and various miracle claims as the most frequent paranormal topics he encounters among the Italian media and public. On the miracle front, Polidoro believes that the canonization by the Catholic Church of stigmatic Padre Pio has helped re-ignite widespread belief in miracles. “In Italy, almost every actor or celebrity claims to have been healed at some time by Padre Pio,” Polidoro said. “I think the Catholic Church might be following the New Age and coming up with more miraculous events."

Polidoro envisions CICAP’s main role as “letting people have all the facts, so they can make up their mind. We are not trying to convert people. Often people are asking questions about cases that have already been solved. We are trying to give information to people.” Current efforts by CICAP include increased involvement with schools, initiating programs with teachers to teach critical thinking and science via paranormal topics, and to provide books and tapes as educational resources. CICAP is also expanding its Web resources, building a Skeptic’s Web dictionary in Italian, and offering the sale of books and other materials through the CICAP site. CICAP sponsors 11 regional Italian skeptic organizations, and has held a national conference every two years that features international leaders in science and skepticism. Late this fall, CICAP will unveil in the city of Padua its new national headquarters. Occupying two floors of an office building, CICAP will employ three full-time staff members, several part-time staff, and dozens of volunteers. The organization bases its operations on a growing annual budget of $150,000 raised mostly through subscriptions and donations.

I asked Polidoro if living a life inspired by Harry Houdini ever struck friends his age as a bit strange or eccentric. He claims it doesn't cause any problems. “Though my work is a very important part of my life, I have other interests. I play the piano and the guitar, and I am a big fan of the Beatles. Very rarely do I talk about paranormal subjects with my friends. Sometimes they see me on television, and they say they didn’t know I do these things."

I also asked him about women his age. Did he have any thoughts on the notion that women might be more prone to belief or fascination with the paranormal? “It is possible,” he answered carefully, remarking that his girlfriend might have something to say about his answer. “Maybe women are less likely to be attacking, and are not as cynical. Maybe men are interested as well but don’t manifest their belief in the same way.” Hmmm... stated like a true escape artist.

Recommended Web Resources:

• The Massimo Polidoro Web Site (In English and Italian)
• The CICAP Web Site (In English)

Recommended Further Reading:

• Polidoro, M. (2000). Anna Eva Fay: The mentalist who baffled Sir William Crookes. The Skeptical Inquirer, January/February.
• Polidoro, M. (1997). Secrets of a Russian psychic. Skeptical Inquirer, July/August.
• Polidoro, M. (1994). The girl with the X-ray eyes. Skeptical Inquirer, Winter.
• Polidoro, M. (1993). Testing a psychic on Italian television. Skeptical Inquirer, Winter.

Then a “sender,” another individual located in a adjacent soundproof room, attempts to transmit to you a specific picture, referred to as a “target”. During this signaling period, you are asked to report all mental imagery that comes to mind. Afterwards, the experimenter shows you a set of several pictures, only one of which is the picture viewed by the sender, and you are asked to rate the extent to which each picture matches the mental imagery you experienced during the signaling session. If you score better than chance in rating the signaled picture, you may be classified as having psi ability.

Psi (pronounced sigh) refers to the “anomalous” process of information or energy transfer. More commonly recognized names for phenomena that would be defined as psi include Extrasensory Perception (ESP), telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Psi research has been conducted for decades, and has been a controversial topic of academic debate in the sciences and social sciences.

However, in 1994, psi research received a boost in credibility with the publication in one of psychology’s top journals of an article co-authored by Cornell University psychology professor Daryl Bem. I first met Bem last fall during my orientation as a graduate student in the Cornell department of communication. At that time I asked Bem to discuss his psi research, and I came away impressed by his summary of findings, and his extensive knowledge of the topic. During this past year, I discovered that Bem’s reputation as a top scholar and colorful figure stretched across campus. His name was often mentioned with reverence by professors, and my fellow grad students raved about their experience in his psychology seminar “Beliefs, Attitudes, and Ideologies.”

I was intrigued. Daryl Bem was a psychologist of top academic and research merit convinced of the existence of psi, and had published a review of evidence in support of his conviction in a leading psychology journal. Certainly there was a story to be told here. I gathered my notebook, sat down at my computer for a literature review, and requested interviews with Bem and his arch-nemesis, University of Oregon psychologist Ray Hyman.

Reading the Mind of Daryl Bem

The existence of ESP is a popular notion among the general public, with close to 50 percent of respondents in a 1996 Gallup poll indicating that they believe ESP exists. Other surveys have revealed that belief in ESP is just as prevalent among the highly educated, including university faculty in the sciences and social sciences.

 

The strongest skeptics of psi are often psychologists. Compared to their colleagues in other fields, psychologists are probably most familiar with the type of extraordinary evidence needed to support the claims of psi, as well as the failures of past research. Psychologists are also very familiar with the deep flaws in anecdotal accounts of psi phenomena that often capture the public’s imagination. They recognize that most accounts are the likely product of human shortcomings and biases in interpreting everyday events.

Not surprisingly then, research into psi has historically been on the outskirts of academia and the social sciences, with psi researchers calling their field “parapsychology,” publishing their research in parapsychology journals, and holding parapsychology conferences that receive little notice and credit from psychology or other fields.

Even parapsychology’s strongest supporters and most recognized researchers admit that the field is riddled with inferior research methods and standards, plagued by a chronic inability to replicate supposedly groundbreaking findings, and characterized by shifting tides of paradigmatic experimental designs and theories on how to test, identify, verify, explain, and define psi phenomena.

Occasionally, however, parapsychological research will break into mainstream academic outlets, as was the case in 1994 when Bem and University of Edinburgh parapsychologist Charles Honorton published “Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer,” a 14-page review of past ganzfeld experiments in Psychological Bulletin.

Bem started his academic career as a physicist, earning a B.A. from Reed College in 1960, and heading to MIT for graduate work. The civil rights movement of the early 60’s captured his interest in social psychology, and led Bem to switch disciplines and transfer schools. He earned his Phd in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1964, and proceeded to embark on a distinguished career. Bem’s list of published articles is pages long, spans five decades, and includes almost every major psychology journal. He is a full professor at Cornell, and has held positions at Harvard, Stanford, and Carnegie Mellon Universities.

So I wondered why such a credentialed researcher, a man of science, would put his reputation on the line and embrace a topic many might group in the same category with cold fusion, free energy, and alien abduction. I contacted Bem via e-mail about arranging an interview, and in mid-June I hiked up the hill to the Cornell campus and Uris, the main building for the Cornell psychology department. After winding and twisting through the expanse of hallways, I arrived at Bem’s office a bit late.

I knocked on the door and entered. His office was spacious, even by full-professor standards, without trappings, uncluttered, and modern in a late 70’s to early 80’s way. Bem did not rise from his desk to greet me, and as I sat down and re-introduced myself, explaining the direction and topic of my column, I had the sense that he was evaluating me, assessing my motives with the trained eye of a psychologist.

I began by asking Bem how he became interested in psi. Sitting up in his desk chair, obviously enjoying the prospect of telling the story, Bem launched into a tale that he had undoubtedly crafted and told many times.

An amateur magician as a youth, Bem began ESP shows at the age of 17, a pastime he continues today as a professional mentalist and member of the Psychic Entertainers Association. In 1983, as a mentalist and top research psychologist, Bem was asked to evaluate Charles Honorton’s laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. According to Bem, at the time Honorton had just initiated a new series of ganzfeld studies (dubbed “autoganzfeld” because the targets were randomized by computer) that complied with stringent research protocols. Bem’s visit to Honorton’s laboratory left him convinced that results of the ganzfeld research deserved to be published in a mainstream journal. “I looked over the protocol, and was quited impressed,” Bem recalled. “I had read Honorton’s debate with Ray Hyman, and thought that the one talent I have is that I am able to reach the mainstream journals.”

At that point, I interjected to ask what he had thought of psi research prior to arriving at Honorton’s laboratory. “Before ganzfeld, I was a skeptic,” he answered quickly and assertively.

So when the newly appointed editor of the prestigious Psychological Bulletin wrote in his inaugral editorial that he wanted to take more risks in publication, and contacted Bem about the submission of recent research, Bem responded with a review article co-authored with Honorton on the ganzfeld experiments.

In their article, Bem and Honorton described the results of their meta-analysis of eleven ganzfeld studies. In a meta-analysis, statistical tools are used to combine data from a series of similar experiments conducted over a period of time. The subjects in Bem and Honorton’s meta-analysis obtained overall target “hit” rates of approximately 35 percent, far above the 25 percent that chance performance would predict. Bem and Honorton also detailed several theoretically interesting findings. The ganzfeld subjects who exhibited high hit rates were more likely to have scored high on emotional and perceptual orientation indices, to be artistically creative or possibly extroverted, to have had previous ESP-like experiences, or to have had previously studied a mental discipline like meditation. Experimental conditions using dynamic visual stimuli also yielded higher hit rates than those using static visual stimuli.

“I recommended four reviewers, and all four recommended publication,” Bem said. But it wasn’t that simple. As Bem admits, he considers the sociology of science as having worked in his favor. The authors of submitted journal articles in psychology are known to the reviewers, and Bem considers his reputation as contributing to the article’s acceptance. “Is there a prejudice? Would the same reviewers publish Honorton? But there is a prejudice in favor of me. Reviewers are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. And that is rational in a sense, that they should trust me.”

The statement left me scratching my head. Double-blind peer-review is the standard throughout other fields in the sciences and social sciences for the explicit reason of preventing reviewers from giving authors “the benefit of the doubt.” I am sure that Bem’s reputation assisted the publication of the article, but the scenario falls short of a “rational” outcome.

I asked Bem if there was a physical explanation or mechanism for how psi operated. “No, but there will be a physical explanation,” he answered.

I wondered whether an explanation would occur in Bem’s lifetime. “I’m only in my fifties,” he chuckled in response. He followed by making reference to several comparisons often used by supporters of the unknown. “There are phenomena in quantum physics that physicists don’t have an idea how they work.” Besides physics, Bem also made reference to alternative medicine. “When it was discovered that acupuncture releases pain-masking endorphins, suddenly there was a mechanism, and acupuncture became more respectable.”

Bem is correct in pointing out these comparisons, but drawing analogies to other cases in the history of science do not offer arguments for the existence of psi, but rather offer an argument to keep an open and skeptical mind.

The second major criticism I put forth to Bem was that ganzfeld experiments lacked replicability. Bem accepted the criticism. “I can’t do a ganzfeld study and guarantee results,” he said. Again however, Bem turned to the history of science to support his case, arguing that in early experiments in lasers, scientists couldn’t replicate results either.

According to Bem, his critics simply hold a different world and scientific view. For a phenomena like psi, Bem decribed critics like Ray Hyman as rightfully demanding “extraordinary” evidence. However, the controversy develops over what constitutes “extraordinary.”

Journey to the Center for Inquiry

Ray Hyman

A week before meeting Bem, I drove on a Saturday afternoon from Ithaca to Buffalo, New York to interview University of Oregon psychologist Ray Hyman who was in town at the invitation of the Center for Inquiry-International, headquarters of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

Besides hosting the editorial and business offices of Skeptical Inquirer, the Center includes a 50,000 volume library stacked to the ceiling with books on the occult, the paranormal, science, philosophy, and religion, a museum of oddities and curios from paranormal and pseudoscientific lore, and a 100-plus seat conference center that has featured a roster of prominent speakers this past year including Voodoo Science author and physicist Robert Park, SETI astronomer Jill Tarter, professional skeptic Michael Shermer, and flim-flam investigator James “The Amazing” Randi.

Arriving at the Center for Inquiry, and passing through the security procedures at the front entrance, I was greeted in the hallway by Hyman and CSICOP executive director Barry Karr. Hyman is an instantly likable man with an air of calming ease about him. In his seventies, standing about 5'6” with a sleight build, Hyman walks with a stage entertainer’s nimbleness and carries a constant smile. A magician since his youth, Hyman often frames his conversations with the crisp, deft, and agile hand gestures of a well-practiced conjurer.

Like Bem, I began by asking Hyman how he became interested in the investigation of psychic phenomena. Growing up in Boston, Hyman’s interest in magic often led him to attend message readings and spiritualist gatherings, but he soon grew disillusioned. “At the age of fifteen or sixteen, it became pretty obvious what was going-on,” Hyman said. “Other people refused to not believe. I thought to myself that these people don’t want to see the obvious, and began to ask what do these people get from their belief system.”

As a magician, Hyman learned that audiences preferred mentalist tricks and palmistry, and he became quite good at palm reading. “I was getting fantastic hits, and it was reinforcing. I became a bit of a believer.”

In 1946, he enrolled at Boston University to study journalism. As Hyman recalled, while at BU, the chair of the department learned of Hyman’s palm reading, and called him into his office to admonish him. Hyman protested, and offered to read his palm. The professor acquiesced, Hyman gave the palm reading, and the professor then dismissed him, only a few weeks later to call Hyman back into his office to read his palm again. The experience helped confirm in Hyman an interest in the study of false beliefs, and Hyman later transferred to Johns Hopkins University to earn his Ph.D. in psychology.

Trained as a magician, mentalist, psychologist, and statistician, Hyman first became involved in the evaluation of parapsychological research in 1967 at the request of the American Statistical Association. Since then, he has published over 250 articles critical of parapsychology, has chaired the National Research Council’s sub-committee on parapsychology, and has served as an independent reviewer of the CIA’s “Stargate” research program into remote-viewing.

For all his experience and efforts, the review of parapsychology is not a duty that he relishes. “Parapsychology is incredibly uninteresting and boring. It is not what everyone thinks,” he complained to me. “I really don’t want to be involved any longer, but there is really no one I can trust to hand it off to, to do a good job.”

Hyman described most of the popular critics of parapsychology as not rising to the level of sophistication of current parapsychological research. “Most of the criticism of the field is of straw people. The criticism has been very bad.”

During the early to mid-eighties, Hyman published a series of debates with Charles Honorton over the proper protocols for Ganzfeld experiments. Given his decades of experience, and past debate with Honorton, Hyman was a natural choice to be a reviewer of the 1994 Bem and Honorton Psychological Bulletin review article. Hyman recommended publication, but was asked to contribute a response in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin.

Hyman’s criticisms of the ganzfeld studies and parapsychology in general range from the heavily methodological to the philosophical and epistemological. First, Hyman questions the reasonableness of arriving at conclusions from meta-analysis. He maintains that the proper use of meta-analysis should be to generate hypotheses, which then must be independently tested on new data.

Second, Hyman told me that in thoroughly probing the data reviewed in the Psychological Bulletin article, he uncovered what he considered “peculiar” patterns. He noticed that all of the significant “hitting,” the correct rating of a target by the receiver, was done on the second or later appearance of a target. When Hyman examined the guesses against just the first occurrences of targets, the result was consistent with chance. Adding to his suspicions, Hyman also discovered that the hit rate rose systematically with each additional occurrence of a target. Since all the targets were displayed on video to the receivers, Hyman suggests that to correct for a non-paranormal reason why one target video clip might appear different then another, all the targets be run through the video machine an equal number of times before they are shown to the receiver.

Hyman also severely questions the non-replicability of the ganzfeld experiments and other experiments in parapsychology. “The most serious weakness of parapsychology is that there is a failure of replication by rivals in independent laboratories,” Hyman said. “Every field has ‘paradigm experiments’ where you can get results. There are thousands of experiments in psychology that can be replicated, but in parapsychology there isn’t one where you can get that. In no other field is there something similar.” As Hyman has maintained for several decades, he believes that the ganzfeld experiments continue to need independent replication with tighter controls.

I asked Hyman why he thought Bem had taken such an interest in the ganzfeld research of Honorton. “Most of the criticisms of parapsychology are unfair. I think Bem may have had the feeling of defending the underdog.”

Making Einstein and Newton Look Puny

Do the ganzfeld experiments provide convincing evidence of psi? No, but the results do suggest the possibility, and call for further laboratory investigation, efforts at replication, and confirmation.

Bem told me that he would like to see a large scale series of ganzfeld experiments using as subjects what he termed “superstars"-individuals previously believed to demonstrate psychic ability. “If you were to test for high jumping ability, you wouldn’t take random people; you would use the superstars,” Bem said. He regards psi as a topic that deserves the attention and resources of mainstream psychology. “It is far more interesting than the hum-drum stuff that gets funded.”

Though Hyman doesn't see much promise in current and past psi research, he agrees that a confirmation of psi would be of wide interest and importance. “The first person to make a breakthrough is going to make Newton and Einstein look puny,” Hyman predicted.

The history of parapsychology has not offered much hope that future generations will witness the scientific confirmation of psychic ability, but the prospect remains provocative and tantalizing to the imagination. Daryl Bem’s research may stand as a major guidepost on the road to discovery, or go down in future decades as one of many promising findings never to be replicated nor confirmed.

Recommended Web Sources

• Bem, D.J. (1996). Ganzfeld phenomena. In G. Stein (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the paranormal (pp 291-296). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Full text available at http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ganzfeld.html.
• Bem, D.J. & C. Honorton (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. Full text available at http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html.
• A non-specialists guide to the Bem & Honorton article, written by Bem, is available at http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/guide_to_bh.html.

Recommended Further Readings

• Hyman, R. (1985) The ganzfeld experiment: A critical appraisal. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3-49.
• Hyman, R. & Honorton, C. (1986). A joint communiqué: the psi ganzfeld controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 50, 351-364.