FriendsCommunitiesMetaphyiscalHeader

Forums Forums Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics Answering the "media-watchers" :-)

last updated by  Pam B 16 years, 4 months ago
3 voices
3 replies
  • Author
    Posts
  • #61886
    elizabethorchid
    Participant

    Hi there,
    I am a brand new member and totally new to any kind of discussion group on the Web, so I hope I am doing things correctly here.
    I am a huge JE fan, just from watching his show and reading the new book. I firmly believe he is the real thing with no reservations, and I am very touched by him and his work.
    However I have friend who says he, too, liked JE until he saw a t.v. show on which several things were shown that my friend felt were valid. I don’t believe the show was fair, but I joined this forum to get help on how to reply to my friend, as I was stumped when he told me these things, and very disturbed. I don’t know what show (he couldn’t remember) or when it aired. My friend said the aura of the interviewer seemed clean and that he didn’t seem out to get John. I don’t beleive this could be true! But I simply don’t know how to answer to it. My friend said the t.v. show showed things such as:
    -Detailed cards were filled out–and I am aware this is addressed in many of the postings (as well as in his book), but he claimed they actually showed people filling out the cards, and they showed what the cards looked like, with lots of lines of very detailed and intimate information!
    -Seats are assigned
    -And, the interviewer showed himself aksing JE about these things, and my friend said that JE had no good reply, just sat there kind of blankly?
    And other such comments.
    Help, do you know which show this was, if it was rigged, or anthing else I can know to help reply to my sketical friend? He is not a cycnic, he is psychic himself (can see auras), but has a critical mind, and believes what he reads and sees if it seems “logical.” I myself believe this kind of thing can be “rigged” for t.v., that they can set up questions in a biased manner, and extrapolate as they wish…perhaps even clean up thier auras to look respectable. But I really have no way of knowing how to respond to whatever it was that he saw, nor how to critically, intelligently answer to my friend. Particularly the three issues of my friend claiming they even showed the information-gathering cards, showed this man interviewing John with John not repsonding to why they have the cards, and that the reproter seemed “fair” to him. I need really intelligent and grounded, reality-based answers to his skpeticism! ;-)
    Thanks so much for any help if any of you know what this program was, or anything about these issues in this t.v. special.
    I am impressed with the kindness I have seen on these boards, and the wonderful new quotations every time I open it up!
    Blessings,
    Elizabeth

    #75352
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    I think your friend is taking advantage of the fact that you didn’t see the program. As the webmaster of this and JohnEdwardFriends.org, and a person who wishes to support John’s work, I make it my business to catch everything I can that airs about John. Some of what you describe, could be the Dateline interview done some time ago, but not everything you describe fits that interview.

    It sounds like he’s twisting some facts around to make his point. Yes, there were cards that the staff used to ask you to fill out, but only to jog your memory (see the back of “One Last Time” where there are worksheets to do your family tree, so you don’t get “psychic amnesia” about your own family.) Printed right on the cards, were instructions NOT to share the information with anyone else. The purpose of those cards was twisted by the media, and later the producers dropped the use of the cards, to remove any doubt, and also asked people NOT to discuss their family while waiting in line.

    I’ve never seen John asked about those cards in an interview. I HAVE seen him asked questions that he doesn’t respond to, because he has a policy of not DEFENDING what he does. Even though WE defend him, he’s a lot brighter than we are, because he says:

    “I learned a long time ago that I can’t convince, convert or defend what I do. Because immediately, as soon as I have to do that, I’m putting myself in a position of saying I have to, and I don’t. If they don’t have a belief system, it’s not up to me to create one for them.”

    That could be why John doesn’t answer accusatory questions, and I don’t blame him one bit.

    It doesn’t matter what they do for the television show (cards, assigned seats) because those are TV production issues, and are not done for the seminars or private readings that John does. How would your friend address the fact that cards are not filled out prior to seminars, and that seminars are “general seating” and seat 1000-3000 people? Cards are not filled out there, and there is not assigned seating.

    Beyond that, we’d need more information. I’d ask your friend to back up his statments with some facts. What’s the name of the program the interview was on, and when did it air? He can’t just say “I saw it on TV” and expect you to adopt his opinion. If it WAS the Dateline peice, go and read this review this review of the interview, in terms of journalistic integrity. and this will give you some “ammunition” against your friend’s idle remarks.

    The bottom line here is this: No one can comment on John’s abilities, based on what you see on TV. If your friend doesn’t get out of his armchair, and attend a live seminar or Gallery, or even better, be read by John, his words are just idle chatter.

    #77542
    LiliC
    Participant

    In response to the interviewer appearing “clean”, and not “that he didn’t seem out to get John,” the reason is very simple. Maybe he wasn’t. In many cases the interviewer has no control over how taped material is ultimately presented. What might have been 3 hours of recorded material is often edited down to a mere 10 minutes, showing ONLY what the producers want you to see.

    #77543
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    Right…and that’s why I suggested this:

    this review of the interview, in terms of journalistic integrity.

    Which shows that you are correct in your assumptions about editing.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.