To the producers,
"Psionics and Society" (programme 3 in the series "Psionic Institutes"), first broadcast 023-044 at 16:30IST on the IG EduTainment Channel:
While I appreciate your efforts in bringing the vexing Psionic Question to the attention of a largely-oblivious Imperial public, I must protest most strongly about the biased nature of this programme. The EduTainment Channel's charter specifies that it must "make every effort to [...] present a balanced picture"; your presentation failed to conform to this policy. In particular I would like to bring to your attention the following points:
- The 4 1/2 minute "History of Psionics" section early in the program was blatantly pro-psionic. This is self-evident; the final sentence, stating "The promise that psionics holds is bright, and the benefit to mankind, without end", is just one example of many. This in itself is fine, provided that other views are given equal standing. However, labelling the response "An Alternative View" and allocating it only 3 minutes clearly demonstrates the true intention of the programme makers.
- This response - the only anti-psionic piece given significant airtime - was chosen from pre-recorded works of a radical fringe group. The Thought Protection League does *not* represent the opinions of the normal, rational majority who oppose psionics. I can only conclude that the programme makers chose this piece in order to set up a "straw sophont" position, since they considered their pro-psionic arguments too weak to defeat a rational opponent. Please note that no material was presented from the viewpoint of Psionics Now!, your own extremist wing, which could have made the pro-psionic position look bad.
- Why does Shela Jeshop continue to be invited on these programmes as an objective authority in these matters? Her own bias should be obvious, for instance when she says of the Psionics Club's attempts to promote psionics, "Unfortunately, [...] progress has been very slow." [Emphasis mine]
Her accusations of Psilence "spin-doctoring" to present only negative views of psionics are particularly ironic, given the overwhelmingly pro-psionic slant of the media today.
- Towards the end of the programme a brief piece on "the Psychological Effects of Accepting Psionics" was presented. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Cycyowski, and sympathise with the frustration he must have felt as his article was butchered on air in an attempt to squeeze it into less than a minute. I was not surprised to see that no mention was made of his later works, wherein he presented the results of further research demonstrating the vanishingly small chance of so-called "balanced" societies developing.
If necessary I can present a more detailed list for your perusal. I hope that the remaining programmes in the series will redress the balance, but I am not hopeful.
Dr. G. Nisaka