The Press: 'More ghosts' after earthquake

Gah... Here's one of the reasons I dislike reporters. :/ Or maybe editors. Not sure. Anyway, last night I was called by a reporter at The Press to comment on the supposed increase in paranormal events since #eqnz.

http://goo.gl/w7YWI

I'm quoted at the end and they miss the important bit. The bit where I point out that there is, to date, no credible evidence of an afterlife. :/

The way this runs... Is it worth putting any effort in when the reporters seem to have an inability to look at what they write with a critical eye?

Reading the article though; it appears our local paranormal investigators may actually be less competent than I hoped. They come across as quite credulous, which is a shame.

Mind you, that could just be the reporting too. They missed out on what I considered an important piece of the interview. They may have done the same with the Anton.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/230

Heh someone on FB posted it

Heh someone on FB posted it expressing incredulity that such a group existed in NZ and I said that you'd tried to get them to SitP before reading the article and then realised you were in it as well! Win!

The way this runs... Is it worth putting any effort in when the reporters seem to have an inability to look at what they write with a critical eye?

I disagree, I think the guy absolutely can look at what he writes with a critical eye. It's just a critical eye as to whether it's a story that people will read as opposed to a critical eye as to whether it's a story that is honest/representative.

As to whether you can get an in with someone who is sympathetic to the latter category though I would have no idea. Wasn't Vicki the media representative for a while? Does she have any relevant input?

Also did you notice comment

Also did you notice comment 18?

Brigette #18 10:50 am Nov 08 2010

Unfortunatley yet another case of poor reporting. I am part of CPINZ and we were approached to do this article which was to be based around scientific evidence. Yet again we have been led down the garden path by a reporter! Poor job!!!!!! What we do is investigate locations with "supposed" activity using the latest technology available to us. We are not saying there are ghosts, in fact 90% of the time we can rationally explain things away, and prove it is anything but.In saying that we do record things which cannot be easily explained away and warrant further investigating.

Maybe not as dire as you think?

I did notice that. I even

I did notice that. I even replied. But it's either been moderated off or not been moderated yet.

It was a little critical of the author.

My comms with Anton in the past didn't make him sound like the way they were portrayed in the article and I'm glad Brigette commented to say as much too.

I also extended the invite to the pub again and let people know that it's an open thing should they wish to meet other Skeptics.

Ah yeah, filtering through

Ah yeah, filtering through now. Anton's reply was pretty damning as well.

Seems like the reporter just

Seems like the reporter just ran with what seemed to be the best byline, looks to me like the reporter picked the quotes that suited them with the token opposing quote for balance (if anyone bothers reading that far). That is an article full of fail.

It's like they say "...most cases related to strange noises...". That's hardly going to be a surprise when a house, particularly a wooden one is near on shaken off it's foundations and hit by continuous aftershocks. Things are going to move and settle. That can mean noises. Not really that different to what happens when you stand on a floor board and squeaks due to the movement on having weight put on it, but people left anxious and frighted can and do think there must be more to it. It obviously was just to hard to add a sentence saying that the majority of the time the claimed phenomena is easily explained by the earthquake.