Simon Singh

Science and the Media – the good, the bad and the ugly

Simon Singh — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:02:00 +0000

Part of the Open Lecture Programme at the University of Kent.

More information at http://www.kent.ac.uk/openlectures/pdf/latestopenlecturebrochure.pdf (page 10)

No booking required
Woolf College, Lecture Theatre, Canterbury campus / 6pm
Contact: George Chandler / T: 01227 823902 / E: events@kent.ac.uk

Why did Psychic Sally lose her powers in September 2011?

Simon Singh — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:31:48 +0000

Yesterday, Psychic Sally (aka Sally Morgan) announced that she is suing the Daily Mail for libel. She is taking action against two articles published in the Daily Mail last year in the wake of allegations made in September that Sally uses an earpiece to receive information on stage in order to help her perform apparent acts of mediumship. Sally Morgan has strongly denied these allegations.

You can find out more about the allegations and subsequent controversy in an article by Chris French, and in some blogs by me here, here, here, here and here.

With September’s earpiecegate in mind, I went to see Psychic Sally in three shows late last year. Before discussing the content of the shows, I should point out that Psychic Sally was not wearing an earpiece when I saw her. On each occasion her hair was tucked behind her ears. She has admitted to wearing an earpiece in the past (for stage direction only), but even this was not being used when I attended her shows.

I found her performances to be very disappointing. Apart from the ethical issues and some distasteful readings (in my opinion), she had very few direct hits and spent much of the evenings struggling to give convincing readings (in my opinion).

Her national tour has been a major success with 1,000-seat venues sold out night after night (tickets £20- £25), so I wondered why she was so popular in light of the lacklustre performances that I had witnessed.. Perhaps her current popularity was based on previous success. Maybe her performances had been more impressive earlier in the year. How could I find out if the shows that I had seen were a pale shadow of the sort of mediumship Sally had been capable of in the past?

Fortunately, Ticketmaster allows people to post reviews of Sally’s shows (and other shows) on its website. Reviewers can also award up to five stars. So, yesterday morning I looked at all of the reviews for 2011 and worked out the average star rating for each month. Before I reveal the data, I should point out a couple of things.

This was a rush job, so it does need to be checked. I have tried to be accurate, but there were lots of shows and reviews to wade through.
There are some gaps in the data. This might be because Sally was on holiday and there were no shows, or because shows not sold via Ticketmaster are not reviewed on its site.

This is what I found:

January 81 reviews 4.5 stars

February 85 4.6

March 130 4.3

April 11 4.2

May 7 4.6

June 29 4.4

July - -

August - -

Sept 12 2.3

October 90 2.5

November 100 2.9

December - -

Technically, I probably should not present this data in a bar chart, but I have already drawn it and this is what the data set looks like. As you can see, fans were much less impressed by her shows at the end of the year. I have shown September as a half-width bar, as all the reviewed shows in September took place in the second half of the month, after the allegations about the earpiece.

So why bother with this exercise? First, those thinking about going to see Sally might be interested to know that she is much less popular than she used to be in terms of her reviews. Second, does it throw any light on Sally’s supposed psychic powers?

There are many reasons why Sally’s performances might have suffered from autumn onwards. For example,

Sally might have been nervous and anxious after the allegations.
Critics might have posted fake negative reviews in late 2011 – perhaps encouraged by the publicity.
Sally’s powers may have genuinely waned and may continue to wane. Maybe she has lost the knack.

Perhaps you can think of other reasons why Sally’s performance suffered from September onwards.

Originally posted on slsingh’s posterous

Skeptics in the Pub – Winchester

Simon Singh — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:09:10 +0000

Alan Turing & the Cracking of the Enigma Cipher

http://winchester.skepticsinthepub.org/

York Skeptics in the Pub

Simon Singh — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:06:43 +0000

http://yorkskeptics.org.uk/

7pm start

Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial

Skeptics in the Pub – Coventry

Simon Singh — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:02:42 +0000

http://coventry.skepticsinthepub.org/

Trick or Treatment? Alternative medicine on trial.

Can you think of a name for my new thing?

Simon Singh — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:31:19 +0000

My New Year’s resolution is to set up a small hub for pursuing and promoting various skeptical activities. In fact, planning is going well and I hope to announce something in late January. However, I still don’t have a name for this entity, so I need your help to find one.

I don’t want to constrain your creativity, but here are some thoughts that might be helpful…

1. This is undoubtedly a skeptical ‘thing’ that is being created, but the word skeptic has pros and cons.

2. The ‘thing’ will act as an umbrella for various projects, so it needs a name that is not too specific.

3. The ‘thing’ will probably have a charitable status, so it could have “Foundation” stuck at the front or end or nowhere.

4. The ‘thing’ will probably interact with grown-ups, so a name that carries some credibility would be preferable.

5. On the other hand, quirkiness is also a good thing.

In short, all suggestions would be welcome.

Please email me your suggestion via http://simonsingh.net/contact/

Whoever comes up with the winning name will get something nice.

Thanks,

Simon.

Originally posted on slsingh’s posterous

Uncaged Monkeys on Tour

Simon Singh — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:01:03 +0000

Details here:
Tue 6th O2 Apollo Manchester
Wed 7th O2 Apollo Manchester
Sat 10th Plymouth Pavilions
Tue 13th Hammersmith Apollo
Wed 14th Hammersmith Apollo
Thur 15th Brighton Dome
With Robin Ince, Brian Cox, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and guests.

Medical researchers born in 1943

Simon Singh — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:45:15 +0000

Thanks for all your comments on my previous blogpost. Very helpful and very much appreciated.

I have now removed that post as it has done its job.

More news soon.

Thanks again,

Simon.

Originally posted on slsingh’s posterous

Part 2: My open reply to my legal pen pal (Psychic Sally’s libel lawyer, Graham Atkins), after he sends me three more emails.

Simon Singh — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:09:49 +0000

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Dear Mr Atkins,

As I explained to you in our recent correspondence, I am making our email exchange public (again), which includes my reply to your most recent query. The exchange appears below in chronological order.

Please note that Sir Peter Bottomley (MP for Worthing West) has specifically asked to be copied in on any further correspondence between us. I will forward our previous correspondence and kindly request that you copy future emails to Sir Peter.

Best Regards,
Simon Singh.

P.S. You have twice written “its” when I think you mean “it’s”. You might find this site helpful:
http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm

—–Original Message—–
From:                Graham Atkins
Sent:               30 October 2011 17:40
To:                   Simon Singh
Subject:            TV psychic Sally Morgan’s powers to be tested in Liverpool

Some misunderstanding? No doubt you have corrected the position.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/10/29/tv-psychic-sally-morgan-s-powers-to-be-tested-in-liverpool-100252-29682267/

——Original Message——
From: Simon

Dear Mr Atkins,
Thanks for getting in touch.
Please can you identify your concerns, including specific lines, and
then let me know.
I am just packing for Liverpool, so I am a bit rushed. If you can
email me in the next 15 minutes then I will drop a note to the Liverpool Echo.
Best Regards,
Simon.
________________________

From: Graham Atkins

Perhaps when you have read the article all will become clear….

—–Original Message—–
From: Simon

I have read it, but I would rather not play battleships.
Just point out your concerns and I will take a look at them.
I am now on the road, so please be helpful if you genuinely want to correct something.
Best wishes,
Simon.

PS As we are discussing a matter of public interest, and judging by my previous blog, you will be aware that I consider our communications public and I may well post them online.

—–Original Message—–
From: Graham Atkins
Sent: 31 October 2011 00:33
To: Simon MSN
Subject: Re: TV psychic Sally Morgan’s powers to be tested in Liverpool – Liverpool Local News – News – Liverpool Echo

Simon

Its [sic] a very misleading piece, whether intentional or not. Neither you or your team of Mersey Skeptics [sic] saw fit to have it corrected. I will endeavour to find out how this occurred and advise my client accordingly.

I’m concerned that there may be more people thinking worse of Sally as a consequence of her not showing up, as she is effectively ‘billed’ to attend. The reporter also mentions $1m twice in the article, so maybe you will have a packed house – but it seems like this ‘error’ is at my client’s expense.

I have a client who has been libelled. I have many things to consider, and I need to look after her interests. Again, I ask you to desist from any form of harassment, as per my previous email.

It would be appreciated if you followed the usual professional or other etiquette and refrained from publishing this private email on your blog.

Thank you

Graham Atkins
Atkins Thomson

——————————————————

VERY ROUGH REPLY

Dear Mr Atkins,

I am sorry for the delay.

My reply comes in two parts. As before, both parts are public and posted online here, for the reasons I explained previously.

Part 1

I am sensing the name Gordon … does that mean anything to you? And maybe the name Bennett? The spirits tell me that they may be connected.

In short, I find your emails bizarre.

Why do you deem it necessary to email to me? If there are errors in the article, then why not contact the newspaper as soon as possible and ask for a correction? Instead, you choose to email me on a Sunday at 6pm and 7pm and past midnight, when you know that I am travelling to Liverpool.

Just to be clear, neither I, nor the Merseyside Skeptics, are responsible for the content of a local newspaper. The journalist appears to have based her article on a website (Merseyside Skeptics), which was correct when the story was written. The website has since been changed. If, as a result of that, the story is inaccurate, you may wish to take this up with the newspaper directly.

However, as a courtesy to you, I did mention your concerns to a journalist from the Liverpool Echo who attended our Psychic Sally Halloween Challenge yesterday.

Please note that it is the Merseyside Skeptics, not the Mersey Skeptics (which is the term you used). The former describes skeptics who live either side of the river. Your term describes skeptics who live in or on the river. I don’t know if such an organisation exists, but it should not be confused with the Merseyside Skeptics. I will do my best to explain to the Merseyside Skeptics that this was merely a mistake on your part and was not intended to offend them.

Part 2

I want to point out that the tone of my replies so far does not accurately reflect how I feel. I have been light-hearted in our first exchange, and above, but I want to admit to experiencing nausea when I receive an email from a heavyweight libel lawyer such as yourself. This is not a metaphorical nausea, but a literal nausea. The only thing that stops me from taking the easy option of shutting up is that I would feel even more nauseous if I stopped doing my job as a science journalist and skeptic.

At the same time, I realise that you are only doing your job. But is it really necessary to send emails at 6pm, at 7pm and then past midnight on a Sunday? Does this reflect well on you, your client or your profession? All you really needed to do to be effective was email the newspaper directly.

Some of the comments on twitter have questioned whether you are an experienced libel lawyer, but other tweets by legal experts pointed out that your tone and style are entirely in keeping with how claimant libel lawyers work. You and I both know that such emails are generally highly effective.

I am sorry if you had to miss the X Factor Results programme and/or Antiques Roadshow in order to write to me, but your emails are having a much more disruptive impact on my life. At the same time, and I must stress this, I am not going to be intimidated.

Finally, you should be aware that I have actually corrected statements about your client Sally Morgan during live radio interviews. I am not harassing Psychic Sally. I am not calling her a fraud. I am merely trying to find out if she has genuine paranormal abilities.

Finally, finally, lots of people were interested in your statement that you know that Psyhic Sally is the real deal. You wrote that Sally has “given details or messages which could not possibly have arisen as a result of “hot or cold reading” or “cheating”. Please, please can you lay out your compelling evidence for this? It might mean that our open challenge to her is no longer necessary. We are genuinely waiting with baited breath to hear about the evidence that convinced a highly trained and rigorous person such as yourself that Sally has genuine psychic powers.

Best Regards,
Simon Singh.

If you are not reading this on Posterous, please note that you can only leave comments at the Posterous website. Also, please bear in mind that these comments are not moderated, i.e., I rely on you to act responsibly.

Originally posted on slsingh’s posterous

Sally Morgan’s lawyer sends me an email

Simon Singh — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:38:42 +0000

With the Psychic Sally Halloween Challenge less than 48 hours, Sally’s lawyer sends me a heavy handed email. He is not a happy bunny.

On Friday evening, I received an email from Sally Morgan’s solicitor, Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson. He has “17 years experience in the legal aspects of the media, reputation management and branding industries”.

The email is headed “STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION”.

However, having consulted with my friend and media lawyer Robert Dougans (Bryan Cave), I wanted to reply to Mr Atkins’ email and make both his email and my reply public. Here goes.

============================================================

Dear Mr Atkins.

I don’t see why you are able to send me what I perceive to be a heavy handed legal email and then oblige me not to disclose this. I do not see anything in your email that is of a confidential nature. Indeed, your email contains matters that should be very public, e.g., I presume you want me to tell people that your client, hereafter referred to as “Sally”, at the current time does not plan to attend the Psychic Sally Halloween Challenge on Monday.

Moreover, I see the contents of your email as a matter of public interest; Sally has a large business, which has a turnover of several million pounds each year, and her abilities are currently the subject of much discussion. Finally, I think the public should also be aware of the way in which Sally is using her solicitor to deal with those who write about her.

By publishing your email and my response, I hope that you, Sally and the public will better appreciate my position.

Your original email is in black italics, and my reply after each paragraph is in red.

Dear Mr Singh

I have seen your email to my client of 27 October, and note you have also contacted Hayley Appleby.

Did you get my email of 10 October? It says that “….this firm has made a defamation complaint”. And it says that “nobody is proposing to say any more….at the current time.” I attach a copy just in case.

Yes, I did get your email. You seem to suggest here (and certainly state later) that my second email to you was unnecessary and you imply that I am harassing Sally. To quote the Prime Minister: “Calm down dear.”

My first email to you was about the statement on Sally’s Facebook page: “Sally Morgan has instructed Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson to commence libel action”. In another email that was copied to you, I asked a series of questions in relation to a blog I was writing and invited a statement from Sally. It may well be that you are proposing not to say any more in relation to either of these two emails, but my email on Thursday was on a completely different matter, namely I was inviting Sally to take part in our challenge.

Also, you said “nobody is proposing to say any more….at the current time” in your first email, and it has been two weeks since I last heard from you so “current time” no longer seems relevant. Two weeks is a long time. I learned recently that two weeks is (10!)/3 seconds.

Perhaps its [sic] all part of your quest for “scientific understanding of the universe”. Perhaps you just want to badger and harass people. You will of course be aware of the PCC Code which states at Paragraph 4 – under the heading “Harassment” – “Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.” It also says that “They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist.” Once again, please desist.

“Badger and harass” – again, I would refer you to the Prime Minister’s earlier comment: “Calm down dear.”

I have called Sally’s office four times and sent half a dozen polite emails over the course of the last 10! seconds. On each occasion, my exchange with Sally’s colleague, Hayley, has been very pleasant and she gave no indication that my calls were problematic. Hayley was polite, and I was equally polite.

Would you prefer that I wrote my blogs without asking Sally any questions, or without asking her for a statement, or without her side of the story?

How can I invite Sally to a test of her psychic abilities without emailing or phoning her office? Oh, I get it. I am supposed to communicate telepathically. Or perhaps my dear departed grandfather in the spirit plane was supposed to pass on these messages.

If I have any further questions or invitations for Sally, which I consider to be important, then I will email them to you and you can act as her assistant and/or gatekeeper.

For the sake of clarity, Sally Morgan has instructed us to take libel proceedings, if necessary, in relation to allegations that she is a cheat. Doing your test or any other test is not part of our plans for this case. You have been involved in a libel case yourself. You well know that we all have far more important things to do than take part in this or any other “test” at this point. She will not attend at Liverpool or at any other time. Maybe you and your friends can prove she is a cheat and/or a fraud instead. I know she isn’t, and I have known Sally a good few years.

So, despite her earlier statement, you suggest that Sally has not instructed you to commence a libel action. In the paragraph above you say that you will only commence a libel action “if necessary”. That is very helpful.

I am surprised that this is taking up so much of Sally’s time, particularly as no libel action has commenced. Indeed, my understanding from her twitter feed is that on Friday: “I watched Paranormal Activity 3 today and omg I couldn’t stop jumping!” If Sally is able to spare three hours for a cinema outing, then I would hope that an hour on Monday taking our test would be possible.

Our offer to Sally remains open. We will all be at the Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool at 11am on Monday and there will be an empty chair saved for Sally. As we (Merseyside Skeptics, Professor Chris French, JREF and myself) have clearly stated, if Sally feels that the test is in any way unfair, then we would still ask her to attend in order to discuss how she would like to be tested on a future occasion.

By the way, am I right in thinking that you also acted in a libel case for Dr Gillian McKeith? If so, I would have hoped that you would have developed a natural curiosity about the importance of claims being evidence-based, and that you would be able to see the benefits of scientific rigour in order to get to the truth.

We note with interest that you have not attempted to contact, spoken about or written about anyone who has had a personal reading, or been at one of Sally’s shows, and has been given details or messages which could not possibly have arisen as a result of “hot or cold reading” or “cheating”. Balanced reporting and all that.

First, my main concern, and the subject of my writing, has been Sally’s theatre shows, not her personal readings. Second, I have attended two live shows this month. I have pointed out in my blog how some people have benefitted from her readings, and how (I suspect) some people have been unduly distressed. Third, I have sent emails asking for Sally’s side of the story and have asked for a statement, i.e., “Balanced reporting and all that” … with a cherry on top.

Anyway, there it is. Please do not contact Sally or her office any further. We are busy with our case and have no time or inclination for these peripheral or debatable matters for the foreseeable future.

Graham Atkins

Atkins Thomson.

I can see that you are busy. You seem to be working overtime calling various media outlets who might want to cover Sally Morgan. Is that right? Or am I just being paranoid? Yesterday I was invited to take part in two interviews in which the producers told me that nobody was allowed to mention Sally Morgan on air. One producer explicitly said that Sally’s lawyers had made this very clear.

Finally, the offer is still there. The Psychic Sally Halloween Challenge is going ahead on Monday. I note that Sally’s current plan is not to attend, but we will keep an empty chair for her in case she changes her mind.

Happy Halloween.

Simon.

Originally posted on slsingh’s posterous