March 1, 2002 at 3:09 pm #62356
(I make a point never to copy negative articles to this folder, because I feel it’s the visiting skeptic’s or cynic’s job to posit the negative stance. But because Marcia’s response is so accurate, and she is a member of our community, I am posting this, so that our visitors and regular members can read and decide for themselves.)
From the Greenwich Village Gazette:
John Edward Crosses Over Into Wartime Profiteering
By Vicki Reed
For those of us who remember, or who know, we can recall those scabrous fellows that exploited wartime needs and became by definition profiteers. They charged too much for copper, cotton, butter, you name it. They had it, we needed it, they raised the price. For every ration stamp issued in this country during WWII, there was someone who had that good in plenty if you had the bucks.
It wasn’t until September 11th that we found out that the commodities qualifying as wartime needs were as intangible, as unexchangeable, and uncountable, as the needs of the thousands of victims who screamed out into the dark of the horror of the death that we saw on that day.
Very few have had the tremendous balls to profit from such needs as John Edward. If you don’t know who John Edward is, you must be dead…even then, it’s doubtful you’d know of him despite his assertions to the contrary.
He’s the star of his own television program, “Crossing Over”; which doesn’t purport to be entertainment, so much as it absolutely declares that what you will see is John Edward talking to dead people. Recently he declared he would be talking to the people that died in the World Trade Center on September 11th.
Sometime around the week of October 20th, Studios USA, the producers of “Crossing Over” announced that a special series of broadcasts would coincidentally be running during the November ‘sweeps’ beauty contest. This series centered around Edwards specifically reading for friends and family members of the September 11th victims, those who died in the World Trade Center. One can only imagine what normal humans thought as bus slapped ads featuring Edward’s promised rolled by those devastated Manhattan streets. To me and a few others, his ad was the loudest ignored example of war-time profiteering. It beats the shameless overkill marketing of American flags (made in China, Mexico, or Thailand.)
Where does the rage begin? Edward’s producers, represented him more tastefully than his skill digifies. Studios USA President Steve Rosenberg, told Broadcasting & Cable magazine Thursday, October 25th, that the resounding condemnation of Edward’s WTC shows was, “A reaction that none of us expected.” Wasn’t John’s ghostly antennae working when that message was sent?
By Friday the 26th, “Crossing Over”‘s official web site, http://www.crossingoverwithjohnedward.com posted the statement,
“Although such readings will continue to be conducted privately, the statement said, they “will NOT air.”
Continue until when, I wondered? Almost seven thousand people died on September 11th.
Is he going to do psychic readings for every victim? Would he pull the stunt of getting a communique from say a slaughtered Department Director, who would in turn kill a few birds with one stone and drop hellos from everyone on his floor? Is Edward getting an special stipend from his syndicators as a wartime-goodwill arm-twisting?
Edward is one of many self titled, ‘Mediums’ that haunt daytime TV-and Larry King. They also hold ballroom-sized seminars; purporting to help bring-out the psychic in you. Most people attending such events would admit they’re gagging up the $200-plus dollars in the hopes that Edward will choose them for an individual reading. There are touring all star psychic shows: check out the “Journey Of The Soul Through Healing-Palooza (http://www.jodere.com/journeyofthesoul/ ). If you repeat “journey of soul through healing” fast you eventually say, “journey of the hole through peeing”. These are normal human beings trying to contact dead loved ones. Now ‘dead’ is supposed to mean something different. ?
But these professional psychics, like Edward, enter the publishing world and start merchandising. They charge people as much as a grand for an hour-session (who do they think they are, Naomi Campbell?). The odious medium, Sylvia Browne passes the overflow customers to her son, who is also blessed with psychic abilities-but charges only half as much. He must have a bad angel or agent.
“Crossing Over”‘s syndicators heard from the public, upon the announcement that Edward would be communicating with the WTC dead, which is why Edward’s sweeps’ concept will never be seen. Sadly, USA’s Rosenburg’s comments imply that the yankage had more to do with not wanting to mess-up a potentially long-lived cash-cow,
(The reaction) “….seemed a little crazy, but we have too good a show to do something that might offend people.”
Indeed, an unnamed USA exec was quoted in Media Life’s October 30th, news shorts ( http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/oct01/oct22/4_thurs/news7thursday.html ) as saying,
“… Edward decided to do the special shows only after being asked by victims’ families… “Crossing Over” is the best rated of a crop of freshman talk shows including “Iyanla,” “The Other Half” and “The Ananda Lewis Show.”
As his show that never was seen sinks into what might’ve been, we are left with what actually is. The incredulous fact that everyone seems to be saying that something as offensive as a performer making entertainment out of raping strangers’ grief; would be more offensive after September 11th than before. Edward didn’t fight the cancellation, he knew that much.
After all, the guy’s not stupid: if you read audience participation requirements on his website, (http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/abouttheshow/) Edward frankly insists that you make it easy for him to con you,
“…Validation is important! Since John does not know your friends and relatives, it’s very important you give feedback. A simple nod of the head, a yes or no answer goes a long way in a reading. Please don’t give more information than John asks for…”
Publicly he had zero shame about the WTC series or his ‘take’ on it. His own home page is graced with a somewhat exculpatory essay called “Life Changes In A Moment” (http://www.johnedward.net/lifechangesinamoment.htm ). As the heat was turned on him for exploiting the September 11 Tragedy, his response was one of helplessness,
“Many of the emails and calls I have been receiving are from people who want to know what my personal thoughts are regarding this devastating loss. I have many.”
“Crossing Over” was crass and exploitative all along. It airs in one-hour and thirty minute versions in different markets. The Sci-Fi Channel made pointed disclaimers that the show is for entertainment purposes, that you have to be the judge of his talents, and their site’s “Crossing Over” page (http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/ ) even promotes a discussion board (which is constantly pummeled by meteoric anti-Edward people).
This season, Edward even added ‘private’ celebrity readings to the show’s format. It’s probably not an act of God that you see mainly B-level celebs who appear on a lot of syndicated series and movies by the folks who distribute “Crossing Over”. It’s less a testament to psychic ability that he can ‘hear’ the message from Jane Seymour’s late father about a pet name he had for her; than it is proof that he’s able to search all of the Medicine Woman’s fan sites online.
What’s the problem with Edwards and people like him? They do really bad things. They brag about helping police investigations when in truth they are interfering with the process of law enforcement and justice. They send cops and detectives on wild goose chases and give information that is so specific that it’s treated as a lead and pursued.
They go on TV and tell parents of missing children that indeed their child is dead, how they died, where they can be found, and of course, that they’re at peace and with Gramma. Oh, yeah, The Dead: they’re always with you. They give general descriptions of the murder/s but can’t come up with a single name or complete license plate number or a shred of information that would be of real help.
They charge a lot of money to people who mostly middle class, not rich; the poor couldn’t begin to afford it so they come to the TV show tapings. (No time soon according to a warning on Edward’s own web page http://www.johnedward.net/index2.htm : “Due to the overwhelming number of calls we receive on the 1st Wednesday of the month call in, we will not be taking any more calls beginning January 2002.”) Apparently not even Edward can tell you when a reading or show ticket will be available.
Edward and all his psychic talk-show warriors make fools of people on national
Watch the show (check http://www.johnedward.net for broadcast times) and you will watch every single broadcast participant saying ‘no’ to Edward’s rapid fire guessing game; they will all still say he was amazingly accurate and no one could’ve known what he did. It’s true, no one could-not even him.
None of these millionaire mentalists are capable of predicting real things that we need to know. James Randi (arch enemy to Uri Geller and sponsor of the yet unvanquished Million Dollar Psychic Challege) made a surgically delicious point on his website (http://www.randi.org )after the September 11 Attacks,
“… ‘psychic’ John Edward appeared on TV for a full hour with Larry King just the night before, but didn’t pick up on the event, which was less than 12 hours away…”
There are plenty of online resources that can verify that Edward is a fraud. The best pubs like Skeptic (http://www.skeptic.com ) , CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org ), The Official James Randi Site (http://www.randi.org ), have dozens of archived articles covering everything from detailed explanations of “cold reading” and “NLP” (Neuro-Linguistic Programming ) to tattling on bad psychic television appearances. Their sites also invite discussion boards (on Randi’s you have to be cleared and screened before you can post messages) which expand the table of proof that this is a scammy situation.
Go to the library; you’ll camp out for weeks, sifting through all the info on this spiritualism-era con-job. The truth is , Harry Houdini actively debunked mentalism and mediums almost a hundred years ago and yet we forget too quickly what we have to realize by now: no one has ever proven they’ve had communication with the dead. The most authentic thing about cold reading is that False information is becoming part of another person’s real life and memories.
One of them most heavily trafficked articles I ever wrote was about Crossing Over (http://www.tv-now.com/vikireed/nov2000.htm ). I still get email eleven months after it’s posting. Most of the letters were from people who agreed with me in that Edward is a sham, his show is unmanly, and the truth should be pushed as hard as his show is. There were a handful of folks that tended to believe in John, weren’t totally convinced and thought I was being too hard on him. I didn’t get any true Crossing Over devotees; but last week I finally got a bonafide former psychic: Dan Yaman.
You wouldn’t know him. He got out of the medium business years ago, before pushing his claim to power into a claim to fame. If there was ever a question that John Edward is a fraud (and thereby crossed the line into wartime-opportunism), Yaman easily invalidates all possibility of doubt.
Yaman, who lives in Minnesota and runs three very earthbound companies: Interactive Personalities (http://www.iperson.com ) and Event Think (http://www.eventthink.com ), and Learningware (http://www.learningware.com).
A working psychic, Yaman got into cold reading at the age of 12. After following passions for magic, showmanship and being the center of attention; he found a job where all of those dividends appeared: Medium. A good student; he studied his new trade with the kind of exacting approach that’s available to anyone wanting to be a psychic con artist. He poured over books about related social scientific theories and glamorous old time mentalists alike. He even met two of the world’s most famous psychics in the world, Uri Geller and Peter Hurkos (http://steffy.home.netcom.com/Peter.html ); who actually read Yaman in a staggeringly blatant session of trickery.
After ditching the role of professional psychic; he wrote a technical book about spoon bending that was distributed in Canada. The following are Yaman’s comments on my subject. He was no more or less what John Edwards now is. Listen to what comes out of this horse’s mouth; ask yourself what John Edward must really be like. .
With regards to John Edward:
I’ll just have to say that the first time I watched him, I immediately saw a cohort doing the same
I use to do. Granted, he’s very good, but a fraud none-the-less.
The guy is an entertainer.
On the one hand he could be delusional and truly believe he has the power to talk to the dead…but he’s too much of an operator for me to really believe that. He’s smarter than that.
He may be totally out for himself, and have little regard for his believers. In every generation, there has been a John Edward who rose to national prominence. Maybe he sees that as his role. … he may feel that he is helping people by providing solace and closure. I’m not commenting on whether he DOES do this… I’m talking about his rationalization.
What finally caused you to leave such a lucrative, flashy gig?:
I couldn’t justify it any more in my own head. ..got tired of people looking at a representation of me that was totally false. An actor is done with his craft when he walks off the stage… I never had that freedom. I always had to be on…because I was good at it, it was hard to walk away. I guess it got to the point where the pain overrode the pleasure.
Regarding Edward’s World Trade Center shows:
My guess is that this guy is out for himself, so seeing the disaster like the WTC, he had to wonder how he could exploit it. You have to admit it would be a ratings windfall. It would catapult him to world recognition. There may be a part of him that’s pissed off that Madame Cleo has better public recognition then he does.
What does Yaman predict for Edward’s future?:
Depends on how committed he is to his story. He could go on forever and earn a very comfortable living. Even if he is totally discredited, there would be enough believers to keep him busy.
How is it possible for so many people to be fooled by something that is sheer gimmickry?:
Some people just choose to believe. If you want to really understand the psychology of this, there’s a great book by Robert Cialdini called “Influence: The 7 laws of persuasion.” One of the laws is that when a person publicly commits to an idea or belief, he is very VERY resistant to change it, even in the face of contrary evidence.
Most religions, by the way, make it a sin to even begin question their faith. Pretty good method of self-preservation.
When Houdini performed in England, Author Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame) saw him and attributed his abilities of escape to supernatural powers. He relates that during one of Houdini’s escapes, he actually FELT drained as Houdini dematerialized and rematerialized.
Does he think that Edward is dangerous?:
…not really…Sure he’s taking advantage of them and their need to believe all this…but so is any number of religious preachers, gurus, etc. He’s not like a gypsy palm reader who extracts thousands from a client…let’s say he’s fraudulently benign…I know of a number of psychiatrists who are legitimate but infinitely more dangerous.
Did you encounter people at your readings who had terrible stories behind them; lost children, murdered or killed loved ones, etc? How did you handle these people?
Thank god but no. I wouldn’t have been able to handle it. One time a woman wrote down that she wanted to know if her husband was going to have a vasectomy (I use to have people write down their questions and hold onto the paper to help focus their minds. I had a way of knowing what they wrote). I had no idea what a vasectomy was (I was young, remember?), so I mystically spelled it out. The audience was hysterical. I was puzzled.
If you could ask John Edward anything, what would it be?
Can I borrow some money?March 1, 2002 at 3:11 pm #73742
From the Greenwich Village Gazette:
Dear Ms. Reed
by Marcia Secaur
Dear Ms. Reed:
You seem so disappointed that your various articles vilifying John Edward have gone without any spirited (excuse the pun) response that I thought perhaps I could be of assistance. I’m not quite the “true Crossing Over devotee” you may have been hoping for, but maybe I will do.
Your most recent diatribe encompasses everything from the proposed but never aired show from November, celebrity readings, seminars…well, pretty much everything he does…the only thing you failed to attack was his home life and family, although it wouldn’t be surprising to see that in a future article. With such bitter and vicious verbiage your article reads more like a jilted ex-girlfriend’s whining than a journalist presenting facts to those of us comprising the general public. If you want to capture our attention you might want to at least give the ILLUSION that you are in possession of an unbiased and quizzical mind.
I have in fact taken the time to research the various websites and books that reveal the secrets behind the art of cold reading and mentalists’s trickery and resent the implication that people who don’t share your opinion are either too naive or grief stricken to form a valid opinion concerning John Edward. I would like to believe in John Edward, and YES, I, think there is the possibility he is the real deal. I’ve watched his shows and attended his seminars armed with all the information I could muster that would allow me to see through the trickery and yet I still came away unable to dismiss the possibility that Mr. Edward is able to make these connections. I am far from alone in this regard.
Let us say I am completely taken in as you assert…you and a handful of others seem to want to take on the responsibility for making me see the light, convincing me Mr. Edward should crawl back under his rock, so why can’t you quite get me there?? If malicious statements were the only requirement necessary, you would fit the bill, but I require something more substantial and THAT you seem unable to provide. Surely as a journalist you can unearth the truth…get behind the scenes of the show or a seminar…get one of the myriad of people that have to be “in” on this grandest of schemes to be the “Deep Throat” of the psychic world …yet all accusations come from you or others like you. The so called source in your most recent article can claim no inside information to anything more than his own checkered past. You continually deliver the same message (a long winded one at that) in a different package. Surely with all the time you’ve had between your November 2000 article and your most recent you could present us with a little more proof and a lot less rant and rave. I’ve seen exactly ONE account from a person actually read by Mr. Edward (Michael O’Neill) making any claim of hoax and to my knowledge his claim has never been supported by so much as one other person.
Your indictment of Mr. Edward carries with it the implication that every person ever associated with him or his show is either too stupid or too dishonest to step forward and expose him as a charlatan. These people have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the man by all published accounts. There must either be the world’s largest concentration of con-artists and idiots surrounding this one individual, or you just may be mistaken after all. You are obviously angry and have a propensity for hurling insults; perhaps if you applied that same energy to fact finding, we would have something from you that is slightly more enlightening. Maybe you began with the honest intention of educating the public but you have allowed this to denigrate to the level of school yard name calling. Mr. Edward comes out looking not only less hostile and positive by nature, but far more intelligent as well.
Brandishing your acid dipped quill, you appoint yourself protector of the 9/11 victims and their families, yet comparing your inflammatory remarks to the very tangible results of Mr. Edward’s recent WTC fund benefit, it’s your motives that appear suspect and questionable. Your efforts on their behalf could surely be better spent ; it’s beneath contempt to use them in your vendetta against Mr. Edward.
I will give you credit for at least one thing…to quickly look the other way when I see your name on a byline…life is far too short to waste it reading anything you may have penned.
Marcia K. Secaur
P.S. It’s Edward, not EdwardS…if you are going to malign someone, you should at least spell their name correctly.March 1, 2002 at 4:04 pm #72446scrambled6Participant
Bravo Marcia!!! Well done!March 1, 2002 at 4:12 pm #72447DonParticipant
Whoa Marcia! VERY nicely done!March 1, 2002 at 4:26 pm #72363marciaParticipant
means a lot to me.March 1, 2002 at 5:35 pm #72178JudeParticipant
Marcia, that was wonderful. You showed a lot of restraint; it must’ve been very difficult.March 1, 2002 at 6:15 pm #72038ariechertParticipant
If John Edward is a fraud how did he know that guy’s German father had been to Brazil, learned Portuguese, and lived on an Island named, “Fernando?” Even the guy he was reading didn’t know it till later.
If John Edward is a fraud how did he know that woman had been to Niagra Falls, found a feather, and told her daughter it was from daddy?
Every day I see him say something similiar. I could start making a list every day of validations that there is NO WAY he could have known. And just saying, “cold reading” says nothing. If they want to criticize John Edward, watch his show and tell me how he knows some of the incredible stuff he comes up with. Give me a list. And then tell me specifically how he knew it. Like the little girl with the flag, or the Mets pennant on the basement of the guys wall? It isn’t just once or twice that he does it either, it’s every day. Some of the stuff you can find online, but a lot of isn’t. – ArtMarch 1, 2002 at 6:33 pm #70543ShannonFayParticipant
Tried to email you privately,
You are a wonderful writer! Very good job…….
I didn’t read the entire article you made reference to, I try to spend my time more positively on better things…like your letter and the good and wonderul things about this web page.March 1, 2002 at 7:27 pm #70541
I ditto that – marcia is a wonderful writer!
I’ve been chomping at the bit to reply to this article as well, and I’d like to address every single erroneous point she makes, but who has the time? And does it even make a difference?
First of all, it’s hard to take her seriously as a professional writer with so many spelling and grammar mistakes, even in the most casual of writing styles. Didn’t the editors of this publication actually “edit”? The next phrase that comes to mind is “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” because she seems to think that quantity of words and ideas will make her point over quality. It took her 2672 words, to say what could have been said in under 100. “I don’t like John Edward, what he does, or why I think he does it, and I’m not going to consider an opposing viewpoint.” Not much else really comes across if I attempt to boil it down.
There doesn’t seem to be a single main point of her article, besides her personal disdain for John. She attempts to use the 9/11 horror imagery as her “emotional plea” to stir up ire towards John. However, John Edward has gone on record about the news reports of a 9/11 special, saying that the reports in the news were inaccurate. (1-8-02 Interview on the Early Show with Jon Stewart, transcript at http://www.johnedwardtalk.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2977) Reed is either guilty of simply accepting what she’s spoon fed in the media, or worse, she’s banking on the fact that her readers will simply accept what she spoon feeds them. I note that no where did Reed ask John Edward for a comment, or attempt to question him.
There are so many inaccuracies in her article, that I don’t have time to address every single one. After reading “Almost seven thousand people died on September 11th” I had to wonder again, about this publication’s concern with accuracy. Come ‘on Reed, by your article date (1-10-02), the nation knew that the original number, thought to be in the 6-7000 range, was actually significantly lower, and closer to 2-3 thousand.
Reed is either extremely ill-informed, or purposely twists and omits information. For example, “Most people attending such events would admit they’re gagging up the $200-plus dollars in the hopes that Edward will choose them for an individual reading.” Any regular seminar that John Edward (not Jodere’s events, or special charity events) organizes, has a ticket price of $45.00, if you purchase from the designated ticket seller before the event sells out. (http://www.johnedward.net.seminar.htm) What happens with scalpers is another story, perhaps truly worthy of Ms. Reeds ire.
She also makes it seem as if John’s comments on 9/11, (http://www.johnedward.net/lifechangesinamoment.htm somehow came after the “9/11 theme show” as some kind of apologetic response to news reports – when in fact, it was forwarded to me by John’s assistant on 9/18/01, a full two months before those reports hit the public. It was posted on John’s site, as well as the SCIFI site within a matter of days after that.
She also leaves out the public comments made by some of the relatives of those lost in the 9/11 tragedy. A firefighter’s widow was quoted as thanking John for giving her closure in People Magazine. If Reed thinks she has any place to comment on that closure, I’d strongly disagree.
Not knowing where to end, she shows her lack of knowledge with even the most trivial detail, saying that celebrity readings were added this season. Hello? Celeb readings were always a part of the show’s format. Had Reed actually investigated her subject, she might have known this. Trivial, but she should have left out “this season” and she’d have one less inaccurate piece of information to help us understand that she’s clueless on the subject she writes about.
She then stepped up the name calling and deepened her character assassinations citing sources like Randi – an admitted and unrepentant liar himself, when it suited his needs for Project Alpha . http://www.johnedwardfriends.org/readingroom/whoisscicop.shtml
Reed further lessens her own credibility as a journalist when she cites another source, a man who used to do cold readings. There’s that old defense that defies logic: If one is a fraud, they’re all a fraud.
I had to stop there, because this is already too long, and I simply couldn’t take Reed seriously anymore. I’ve been trained to look past bad spelling and grammar, so that I don’t miss the actual message being communicated, but all I got out of this article was “I’m on a rant and I have an audience.”
I don’t need “rants.” I can find “rants’ on any Internet discussion board throughout the World Wide Web or on Usenet. Especially on Usenet. What I do need however, is an intelligent, factual, educated and unemotional presentation of ideas and opinions. And if someone thinks they can present a case about this subject that will convince me that I’m wrong about John Edward, I’m willing to listen. But the leave the “rants” at home.
Reeds approach isn’t new (Read Laura Ballweg’s article, John Edward and the Media: Which is Paranormal?” http://www.johnedwardfriends.org/readingroom/readingroom-lb.shtml ) It’s tired and haggard, and what’s worse, is that she barely readable.
If you click the links to her other articles, you’ll see that she fancies herself someone qualified to comment on entertainment. Perhaps Reed needs to get out from behind her television set, and spend some time with real people. For example the thousands upon thousands of real people who have had personal experiences of after death communication, and don’t need John Edward to let them know that life does exist after death. Perhaps she might want to spend some time with the grieving people who haven’t been lucky enough to have their own after death communication experience, on their own, and do in fact take comfort from watching John Edward’s work.
Speaking of “comfort,” I didn’t find a word of comfort in the many articles of Reed’s that I read. Not one.
In the words of our community member and my dear friend Cyndy, “No soup for you Vicki Reed!” ;)March 1, 2002 at 8:12 pm #68397irene461Participant
I appreciated reading the original piece by Vicki Reed as well as Marcia’s well-crafted, articulate (and unbelievably restrained) response.
I kept wondering as I read her rantings what was she taking so personally? Why was she so angry to the point of hysteria and so vicious in her criticism? It wasn’t just correcting a (perceived) injustice. As you pointed out so well, she seemed to have very little understanding or knowledge of what John actually does and yet she was so inappropriately outraged by it.
Even more than your calm correction of her “facts”, I enjoyed the fact you are a FAR superior writer. I so appreciated it that you took the time to write in and you spoke for many of us. I kept thinking as I read this that you were expressing the things I felt far better than I ever could have done.
Great job! Thanks so much for taking the time to set the record straight (as much as is possible with close-minded people).
IreneMarch 1, 2002 at 8:31 pm #68796marciaParticipant
You are absolutely right, and at first I considered heading down that path………..pointing out every single factual error that she made, but decided I would have to write as many pages as she had and was fearful that would prevent it from being posted on the site. Again, you are right that the thrust of the article seems to be more of her having the opportunity to take personal shots at John than it did to “report” anything substantive. For anyone that has read her November 2000 article, this one is more of the same only on a grander scale. I also read articles she has written on other subject matter and find her style repetitive…..nasty, nasty, and more nasty. She just happened this time to pick a subject matter a little near and dear to my heart. I don’t know what her personal beef with John is, but there is a viciousness there that seems to go beyond a difference in beliefs. One of the things I pointed out to the editor when conversing about posting my response was on the one hand she criticizes John for earning a living, yet has zero qualms about directing people to a website (James Randi) that blatantly asks people for “donations” to support his work. I think $1,000 gets you membership and a nice coffee mug or some such nonsense, so talk about gullibility!!
I sincerely appreciate the kind comments some of you have made about what I wrote and I know you certainly understand why it was so important to me that it be out there. I thanked Pam privately for making a link available, but I would also like to thank her on this board. I am a brand new member and the kindness and support she has shown me right off the bat speaks to the kind of person she is ……………..wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!March 1, 2002 at 11:12 pm #71307JBannisterParticipant
Oh my! You did what I could only dream of doing! What a great
letter. Thank you. I am so glad you are on OUR side!
JulieMarch 1, 2002 at 11:16 pm #71306JudeParticipant
Originally posted by Pam
…Reed is either guilty of simply accepting what she’s spoon fed in the media, or worse, she’s banking on the fact that her readers will simply accept what she spoon feeds them ..
…There are so many inaccuracies in her article, that’s I don’t have time to address every single one…
…Reed is either extremely ill-informed, or purposely twists and omits information…
Pam, I think you hit the nail on the head. Ms. Reed’s inaccuracies are so blatant and so numerous that it appears she was aiming the article at people who simply don’t know any better, in the hopes that they will accept what she spoon feeds them.
It’s one thing to write an editorial opinion, but to write an article that is laden with completely erroneous information is unforgivable. It’s sad to think that it was even allowed to be published. Is this journalism?March 1, 2002 at 11:23 pm #71888PhigalillyParticipant
Great Job!! I couldn’t finish Ms. Reed’s article/diatribe. I made it about half way and then scrolled on outa there…I just don’t understand why those people are so vicious. Your response though, was thoughtful, brilliantly written, and didn’t contain any of the profanity that I would have been soooo tempted to use. A great big Thank You for speaking up!:)
Pam, just my $.02, but I would love to see your rebuttal printed. At least submitted to Ms. Reed (or her boss). If she is calling herself a journalist she should be held accountable for blatant errors and outright lies. No one would do it better than you.;)
Thank you both,
SandraMarch 2, 2002 at 12:07 am #72464lptimmtruckinParticipant
Go Marcia!! Go Marcia!!
Good job very well done with alot more patience and restraint then I could have shown.
Seems like the type of person that takes bits and pieces and makes them fit the way SHE want.
Heheheh bet she never completed a puzzle in her life.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.