Post by hkev on Jan 16, 2007 17:41:57 GMT
www.openmedia.co.uk/urigeller.htm
---
There was mention of Mr Geller's litigious nature recently, so I thought some people might find this interesting:
Some extracts:
---
BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION
Complaint about unjust or unfair treatment by Mr Uri Geller submitted on 31st October 1997 about Equinox: Secrets of the Psychics on Channel Four, broadcast on 24th August 1997.
Mr Geller complained that:
several contributors to the programme had been wrongly put forward as being unbiased and the programme had used unrepresentative extracts from interviews;
no positive views had been put forward of Mr Geller’s work.
doubt had been cast on the value of scientific testing of Mr Geller;
the programme had used selective and distorted extracts from previous programmes featuring him; and
the voice-over in the programme had been generally derogatory.
---
Positive Views
Mr Geller said that he had declined to take part in the programme himself since he felt that the programme-makers had had a pre-set agenda against him.
Ms Sara Ramsden, commissioning editor, told the Commission at the hearing held to consider the complaint, that the programme-makers’ had been unable to find any person of standing in the field to include in the programme who would support Mr Geller’s claims. They had looked at Mr Geller’s website, but none of the people referred to had succeeded in convincing the wider scientific community that his powers were real. In any event, the programme had included extracts from several of Mr Geller’s performances and positive remarks by Mr Mike Molloy, former editor of the Daily Mail, about a demonstration of spoon-bending he had witnessed in his office.
---
Scientific Testing
Mr Geller said that he had not wishes to submit himself to testing arranged by the programme-makers as he felt that they were hostile to him. He had felt that he might not be able to demonstrate his powers in such conditions. He complained, however, that positive scientific papers and research relating to his work had not been presented in a fair manner.
Channel Four said it had been made clear to Mr Geller that the programme was scientific and the programme-makers had spelt out clearly how they wished to test him. They had tried to obtain a copy of the SRI film but had been unable to do so. They had looked at the website referred to by Mr Geller, which showed that the longest period of testing had been that undertaken at SRI, which was a government institute, not connected to Stanford University. The resulting paper had been unique in that it was the only one mentioned on the website to have been peer reviewed according to standard procedure. They said that none of the other tests listed on the website had been included in a major mainstream scientific publication or published in such a way as to be recognised as having passed the peer review process, long established by the scientific community as the only scientifically acceptable form of publication. The paper resulting from the testing at SRI, which had appeared in Nature, had caused great controversy and had been criticised in various scientific quarters. These criticisms had been fairly presented in the programme.
---
Previous programmes
Mr Geller said that Mr Randi had suggested in the programme that, in an extract from Noel’s House Party, Mr Geller had been using a conjuring method known as the ‘peek’ (i.e. looking through the fingers which appeared to be covering the eyes). He complained that, had the full extract been shown, it would have been clear that this was not the case. In relation to an extract from the Andrew Neil Show, the voice-over had unfairly suppressed Mr Geller’s account of the conditions under which he had been tested at SRI.
Channel Four said that the extract from Noel’s House Party had suggested that Mr Geller may have been using the technique described by Mr Randi as the ‘peek’. They said that the extract had clearly shown Mr Geller turning towards the person making the drawing before the drawing had been completed and hidden from view. They denied that the full recording of the item contradicted Mr Randi’s assertion. As regards Mr Geller’s appearance on the Andrew Neil Show, his account of the testing at SRI had not been relevant to that part of the programme, which had been looking at Mr Geller’s eagerness to continue to cite the Nature paper, despite long-established criticisms of it.
---
The Commission does not, therefore, find that the programme was unfair to Mr Geller.
Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld.
17th June 1998
---
There was mention of Mr Geller's litigious nature recently, so I thought some people might find this interesting:
Some extracts:
---
BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION
Complaint about unjust or unfair treatment by Mr Uri Geller submitted on 31st October 1997 about Equinox: Secrets of the Psychics on Channel Four, broadcast on 24th August 1997.
Mr Geller complained that:
several contributors to the programme had been wrongly put forward as being unbiased and the programme had used unrepresentative extracts from interviews;
no positive views had been put forward of Mr Geller’s work.
doubt had been cast on the value of scientific testing of Mr Geller;
the programme had used selective and distorted extracts from previous programmes featuring him; and
the voice-over in the programme had been generally derogatory.
---
Positive Views
Mr Geller said that he had declined to take part in the programme himself since he felt that the programme-makers had had a pre-set agenda against him.
Ms Sara Ramsden, commissioning editor, told the Commission at the hearing held to consider the complaint, that the programme-makers’ had been unable to find any person of standing in the field to include in the programme who would support Mr Geller’s claims. They had looked at Mr Geller’s website, but none of the people referred to had succeeded in convincing the wider scientific community that his powers were real. In any event, the programme had included extracts from several of Mr Geller’s performances and positive remarks by Mr Mike Molloy, former editor of the Daily Mail, about a demonstration of spoon-bending he had witnessed in his office.
---
Scientific Testing
Mr Geller said that he had not wishes to submit himself to testing arranged by the programme-makers as he felt that they were hostile to him. He had felt that he might not be able to demonstrate his powers in such conditions. He complained, however, that positive scientific papers and research relating to his work had not been presented in a fair manner.
Channel Four said it had been made clear to Mr Geller that the programme was scientific and the programme-makers had spelt out clearly how they wished to test him. They had tried to obtain a copy of the SRI film but had been unable to do so. They had looked at the website referred to by Mr Geller, which showed that the longest period of testing had been that undertaken at SRI, which was a government institute, not connected to Stanford University. The resulting paper had been unique in that it was the only one mentioned on the website to have been peer reviewed according to standard procedure. They said that none of the other tests listed on the website had been included in a major mainstream scientific publication or published in such a way as to be recognised as having passed the peer review process, long established by the scientific community as the only scientifically acceptable form of publication. The paper resulting from the testing at SRI, which had appeared in Nature, had caused great controversy and had been criticised in various scientific quarters. These criticisms had been fairly presented in the programme.
---
Previous programmes
Mr Geller said that Mr Randi had suggested in the programme that, in an extract from Noel’s House Party, Mr Geller had been using a conjuring method known as the ‘peek’ (i.e. looking through the fingers which appeared to be covering the eyes). He complained that, had the full extract been shown, it would have been clear that this was not the case. In relation to an extract from the Andrew Neil Show, the voice-over had unfairly suppressed Mr Geller’s account of the conditions under which he had been tested at SRI.
Channel Four said that the extract from Noel’s House Party had suggested that Mr Geller may have been using the technique described by Mr Randi as the ‘peek’. They said that the extract had clearly shown Mr Geller turning towards the person making the drawing before the drawing had been completed and hidden from view. They denied that the full recording of the item contradicted Mr Randi’s assertion. As regards Mr Geller’s appearance on the Andrew Neil Show, his account of the testing at SRI had not been relevant to that part of the programme, which had been looking at Mr Geller’s eagerness to continue to cite the Nature paper, despite long-established criticisms of it.
---
The Commission does not, therefore, find that the programme was unfair to Mr Geller.
Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld.
17th June 1998
