John of God on CNN with Dr Gupta

[Neon Genesis]

Isn't the name John of God rather arrogant for someone to name themselves?

[trickledown]

This doesn't surprise me. He was on Larry King saying how he believes outer-body death experiences.

Moron.

[Neutral Milk]

Your edits on the wiki page were quickly removed, Haleyscomet.

(This is from an unsourced website that only provides links to the actual blog. It has no place here.)

[Halleyscomet]

Your edits on the wiki page were quickly removed, Haleyscomet.

(This is from an unsourced website that only provides links to the actual blog. It has no place here.)

I restored a bit of the content, leaving off the blog links. we'll see where this goes.

Update:

Apparently whoring for a con artist who cuts up the corneas of his marks isn't "notable."

Update:
It appears there's a user with a history of removing content critical of Gupta. My edit:

===John of God===

On December 22, 2010 Gupta did a piece on CNN's AC360<ref>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/o-magazine-meet-john-of-god/ O Magazine: Meet John of God</ref><ref>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/23/video-john-of-god-a-faith-healer/ Video: 'John of God' a faith healer?</ref> in which he treated the claims of faith healer [[João de Deus (medium)]] credulously <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxF8ROlrDSs John Of God "THE MIRACLE MAN"</ref>

Has been reverted with the line:

Rvt as per BLP, "shilling for a con artist" is a POV. Please show how this was notable and controversial through reliable secondary sources.

Since the JREF link was already deemed not a reliable source, anyone know of third party coverage of Gupta shilling for a guy who slices people open while handling chicken parts?

[EarthMachOne]

Scorn should be heaped firstly on those who give these frauds a platform to sell their BS.  There's definately a need for a way to go after the networks that air this crap.  Based on the way that fans of TeeVee shows influence networks today, it would probably be best to target commercial sponsors.

Oprah, though, is a scumbag and a fraud.  And she's moving to her own network.   So you won't get anywhere changing her mind. 

With networks like NBC or CNN I'd say the only thing that would make them pause over airing this voodoo crap would be to create a campaign that went after their largest corporate sponsors and made it a public issue.  They're the only ones who can influence content on those networks.

[JoelWhy]

Since the JREF link was already deemed not a reliable source, anyone know of third party coverage of Gupta shilling for a guy who slices people open while handling chicken parts?

I've got some experience trying to edit controversial wiki pages that are frequented by editors who are zealots.  Who deemed JREF an unreliable source?  Just one user, or was there any type of consensus on the talk page?

[Eternally Learning]

So basically, they are saying that they know some of this is slight-of-hand, but that they can't explain all of it and just because they can't explain it, doesn't mean it's not true, but since he's not hurting anyone and the reporter didn't get a dangerous vibe from the place it's ok.  Gupta even use the term "woo woo!"  How can he be familiar enough with Randi and his work to know that phrase, and also know that John of God is being partially deceptive in his medical treatments, but still go for the false balance of, "needs further investigation," in this story?  Simply awe-inspiring...

[David E.]

In all seriousness.  Get the Daily Show involved. 

[snakeman]

Scorn should be heaped firstly on those who give these frauds a platform to sell their BS.  There's definately a need for a way to go after the networks that air this crap.  Based on the way that fans of TeeVee shows influence networks today, it would probably be best to target commercial sponsors.

Oprah, though, is a scumbag and a fraud.  And she's moving to her own network.   So you won't get anywhere changing her mind. 

With networks like NBC or CNN I'd say the only thing that would make them pause over airing this voodoo crap would be to create a campaign that went after their largest corporate sponsors and made it a public issue.  They're the only ones who can influence content on those networks.

I doubt anyone could actually change Oprah's mind, but don't for a minute think that she's immune to pressure on her sponsors just because she owns the network.  She still has to keep them happy and buying ad time to keep the bills paid for the network.  After all, I doubt she wants to just run it commercial-free out of her own pocket and highly suspect her organization is marketing and justifying expensive ad rates based on the "look how many people love Oprah and will buy whatever she tells them to" argument.

[Daws]

Rvt as per BLP, "shilling for a con artist" is a POV. Please show how this was notable and controversial through reliable secondary sources.

I think that just means you need to rephrase it in more objective and friendly language.

I actually would have to agree with them there. Maintain a level of professionalism. Don't say it, show it.

And I don't necessarily mean with videos and pics.

For instance compare "Bob is a shmuck" vs "Bob has been accused of child molestation but was never brought to trial. He once used slight of hand tricks to make a tribe in Brazil think he was a demigod. James Randi on [link] showed precisely how his tricks were done, and the backlash got Bob chased out of the tribal lands and summarily castrated."

I hope that helps, we all want to expose this guy.

[mkultra]

There's got to be a way to frame criticism of JoG to make it palatable to major media outlets.  This feels a little whorey, but then again - Oprah Inc. isn't exactly a shrinking violet.

Here's what I see: Randi or another knowledgeable magician/skeptic, appearing on a news interview show with a minister.  The angle is that the skeptic is there to back up the claims of the minister.  The latter calls out JoG as a fraud and a manipulator of the faithful.  The skeptic explains (and maybe shows) how the tricks are done, but always in the service of the religious figure's claims.

This goes a long way to preventing the skeptic from being seen as a "Bah! Humbug"-er.

If attacks against spiritual quacks come from the secular side, that's dog bites man.  But when the attacks start coming from another spiritual figure, there is a story there.  (Many stories, especially with a magician/skeptic involved - if interested, see Appendix)

A major weakness of one religious or spiritual figure attacking another is the assumption of parochialism.  However, by coupling the skeptic to the religious figure, we could project a quality of "It's just common sense, folks."  The religious figure is seen as protecting the faithful, and the skeptic gets vouched for as being non-hostile towards people of faith.

And c'mon - the weirdness of a religious figure paired with a skeptic is too much of an Odd Couple angle for the major media networks to ignore.  Plus, there's the sexiness of an Oprah backlash.  Lastly, there's always sensational blood and guts that the skeptic can brandish to get attention.

Any thoughts?

jb

Appendix
Possible additional angles for additional media coverage

1) Character pieces about religious figure and skeptic as "an unlikely duo," how they overcame differences with respect, how common cause of unmasking con artists who prey upon people's beliefs unites them

2) Showy piece where skeptic and pminister perform JoG-style healing/revival/surgeries with an audience who know beforehand the whole thing is fake.  Demonstrate how even people who know it's fake can be swept into the moment, and also the skeptic performs some gory psychic surgeries

3) Interview in Spiritual-based publication with the religious figure, showing openness and sympathy with the skeptic's beliefs while maintaining respectful disagreement.  Focus on the religious angle of JoG as false prophet, with religious figure giving personal testimony of being amazed by skeptic's performance of psychic surgery - "I knew it was fake, and still part of me believed he/she was really reaching into that person!"

4) Interview in Secular publication with skeptic, showing openness and sympathy with religious figure's beliefs, but saying they simply disagree once they step outside the realm of science (unless skeptic and religious person share a faith!).  "Look, I've got Jewish friends and Hindu friends and Muslim friends and agnostic friends etc."  Admit that it's an unlikely partnership, a skeptic and a minister, but that both agree there is no room for spiritual quackery like JoG.

If this takes off, have religious figure and skeptic organize boycotts, publicize:

5) Stories about boycotts organized against Oprah's new channel until she discards/discredits JoG,  boycotts from the religious and from the secular.

6) Stories highlighting religious skeptics of JoG, to show that skepticism and religiosity are not mutually exclusive

7) Stories highlighting skeptical organizations, showing that religiosity and skepticism are not mutually exclusive

and, if enough steam gathers, start hitting with:

8) Stories about the incredible growth of the skeptics' movement over the last decade.  Maybe even get favorable coverage of the NESS.

Ha!  That cool smug smiley appeared out of nowhere!