SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

ABC Has a Medium on Staff

by Mark Edward, May 22 2010

Kelli Faulkner

While researching some info on phony Robbie Thomas, I found out that an ABC affiliate station in Indiana has their own private “spiritual medium and remote viewer” on staff for their daily “Indiana’s News Center at Noon Extra.” What a surprise to find out that ABC is now providing these “extra” services to the Northern Indiana community.

Check out Kelli Faulkner. She’s listed on the same page as other legit authorities that channel 21 offers including an attorney, a pediatrician, a certified nurse practitioner, a veterinarian, a psychologist and several other experts whose credentials I don’t doubt.  Is having a so-called medium hired to call back the dead from their graves and remote view where missing corpses might be rotting away news worthy journalism? Some people apparently think it is.

Allison DuBois

Lisa Williams: Cuddly Isn't She?

I had never heard of Kelli Faulkner, but that’s not surprising. I have never heard of thousands of self-proclaimed mediums who we see crawling out of the woodwork to make such absurd and totally unproven claims. I had thought until now they stayed at home and contented themselves with dowsing for spare change or doing readings at local psychic fairs. I never considered them on-air news commentators worthy of a position at a network affiliated television station. I suppose I’m just not up on the times. In my day, you had to actually prove something or a least do some decent mentalism to be able to pull the wool over the eyes of an entire nation’s broadcast system and land a job as cushy as Ms. Faulkner’s. I suppose these days with women like Lisa Williams, Allison DuBois and Kelli Faulkner, a pretty face will do. Kelli’s blurb at ABC’s Indiana News Extra affiliate reads:

Kelli Faulkner – Spiritual Medium/Remote Viewer
Kelli Faulkner was born and raised right here in Fort Wayne. After the passing of her grandmother in 1994, Kelli realized she was carrying a gift that could help others with their grief or journey in life. Yes, as a medium Kelli is able to see those who have passed on. But please don’t call Kelli a psychic. A psychic’s work is about predicting the future, and Kelli finds more love in guiding people towards their destinations in life. Kelli Faulkner has appeared on countless radio programs throughout the United States and Canada. She has also been featured on Court TV’s “Psychic Detectives,” where she helped a family find their missing loved one.

Uh huh. Please don’t call her a psychic? Give me a break. Here we go with yet another “psychic detective” sham. How long can we put up with these fantasies beamed into our living rooms? It’s one thing to have fictional fare like “Medium” and “Ghost Whisperer” inculcating false beliefs in prime time audiences. Now in Indiana it’s called NEWS.

Another "Police Psychic" Getting a Vibe Off a Stuffed Animal

I Googled Kelli and found way too many pages of complete woo poo. It’s just disgusting. Try out this one: and you will be treated to phrases like:


Really? Support who exactly? Even though Kelli sternly denies in her publicity that she is a psychic and puts herself on a pedestal somewhere above such mundane activities, she clearly calls herself one on her own website and is listed all over the internet as a psychic. In no less a place than a site called “,” you can also sign on for a reading with her. Whether she’s cashing in on the ABC  trade name call letters or whether “abc” is a sanctioned ABC site is not clear as looking at the abc “directory,” it looks like a totally different bunch of woo people.

To Eric Noll at ABC: Do you know that what your Indiana affiliate is actively promoting is totally unproven nonsense?

To Corrine Rose: (Kelli’s boss) can you provide us with JUST ONE case that your golden girl “remote viewer” has solved all on her own? I can’t find anything.

Readers can all Corrine at (260) 483-8331 and ask her yourself the next time she’s on the air (noon Monday through Friday EST.) I searched and read for as many pages as I could stomach and didn’t find one single case.I’m prepared to make a retraction when I see the proof in black and white. No anecdotal evidence, television hyperbole or buffaloed family members please; just facts like names, dates and police or court records.


You can’t. And you know you can’t. If you could prove that such a thing as remote viewing or mediumship exists on your staff you would be the most powerful television news desk in history.

This is the same station in Indiana that gave free publicity to Robbie Thomas the day before his “big show” in Fort Wayne. In a broadcast puff-piece, Robbie was touted (totally unchallenged) as being a “psychic detective” who would be appearing in Fort Wayne and “charging a fee for his “show” the next night.

To the Indiana News Noon Extra Desk and ABC:

A Few Questions for You: Did you know that by giving Robbie Thomas; a Canadian citizen, air time and allowing him to pitch for his so-called show, you allowed a person to: a) advertise for an event based on claims that have no evidence, track record or bonafide credentials whatsoever, and b) that by doing so, you in turn gave him access to American dollars he has no legal right to earn? Did you know he has no Work Permit to work in the United States? Did you check up on him at all? Why didn’t your mediumistic remote viewer Kelli see all that and warn you about the harm that could be done to not only your reputation as a news provider but also to the hearts of the victims of this cruel con?

BTW: Only 14 people showed up for his much ballyhooed “Psychic Justice Tour” show.

I tried in vain to email Ms. Faulkner the day before the show and received no reply. I then called “Indiana’s Noon Extra” the day of Robbie’s “Tour” show. The woman I talked with said she was not aware of anyone working at the station named Kelli Faulkner (?) I persisted and told her it was on their own website. She remained positive she had no idea who I was talking about. She did admit that their “Extra” broadcast the day before had given Robbie air time and told me that a rebuttal to his claims had been taped earlier that morning. When I asked who did the rebuttal, she could not tell me any name. I have yet to see or hear anything about any rebuttal. I know who a few of the real scam artists and liars in this situation are, but when it gets down to television reporters sending out this blatant claptrap as news content, it makes my blood begin to boil.

After searching in vain for any shred of evidence or even a put-up story to back Ms. Faulkner’s claims, I found her telephone number on line. I called her and was surprised to hear a cheerful voice. She sounded as sweet and innocent as apple pie, with a slight southern twang to her delivery that made her immediately folksy. But like the sly and cunning ways of many of today’s women in the business of mediumship use to convince the gullible public they are all sweetness and light, my woo radar wasn’t buying it. Sorry Kelli, you are either seriously deluded or a conscious con artist. There’s no other explanation for what you are doing unless you are in league with supernatural forces that should at least be answering your phone for you or getting you a prime time show of your own. The conversation went something like this (paraphrased for clarity):

Mark: Can you tell me where and how exactly you have solved a police case? Are there court records or where can I find solid evidence of your claims to mediumship or remote viewing abilities?

Kelli: Well, I’m not like other psychics. I don’t like to be called a psychic really. They do all that future stuff and I don’t do that. I’m different. I’m a spiritual messenger. Most of the cases that I work on are with private families and I use prayer. But I have helped to find the body of a murdered person.

Mark: Really. Tell me about that please.

Kelli: I told a family and the police where to find a body over and over for five years. Later they did find the body where I had been telling them it was.

Mark: Five years later?

Kelli: Yep. And the family was furious because the police hadn’t listened to me. They were led to the body by the killer after he was caught.

Mark: So this was after the police had his confession?

Kelli:Yes. You see the police like to take all the credit for these things. This was down south and, you know, they don’t treat women to well down there.

Mark: I see. So Kelli, what was it that caused Indiana’s News Noon Extra to hire you as a medium and remote viewer if you hadn’t solved any crimes or helped the police in any way other than that?

Kelli: Well, they watched a segment of a Court TV show I did called “Psychic Detectives” and really liked what they saw and they thought it would be a good thing if I was on their show as a reporter.


Right. So Kelli: If you say you don’t look into the future like other psychics, like telling the police where they can find a dead body – in the future- how are you any different from any other psychic? I don’t get it. I don’t think I’m supposed to get it. I’m just supposed to leave behind any rationality and give in to the God excuse right? Invoking prayer like Sylvia Browne seems to make it all right for many people. It’s hard to argue with the G word when it gets mixed in, lest anyone who challenges that angle might come off as a heathen, unbeliever or a (God Forbid) Atheist.

Now just because a nice sounding local girl gets on one of the dozens of paranormal programs, an alleged “news desk” thinks it’s a good idea to allow her to spread her version of police work and spiritual messaging to the world on a network affiliate. Unbelievable, yet it’s happening. Less than 300 years ago people like Kelli might have been burned at the stake. Now they are lunchtime news. Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not advocating any witch hunt or anything that severe at all, just a reminder to suggest how far (or how low) we have come in a time when we really need some common sense from the media.

I asked Kelli if she thought that having a banner on INEX’s website proclaiming her a medium and remote viewer was a fair thing to do considering what she had told me. She said she has been thinking about taking it down for a few months. Yeah right. Like she has anything to say about it. Besides, where else could she get such terrific free publicity for her “work?”

Hey Kelli, if you are reading this and you truly feel bad about what you are doing or what I have written about you: take down the banner. I’ll be waiting. Call me. You have my number. Can you stand up to your claims of being different and do the right thing?

Indiana News Extra, let me ask you a final question:

Are you now part of the problem of using missing and murdered children to turn a profit?

50 Responses to “ABC Has a Medium on Staff”

  1. Majority of One says:

    How do these people not get sued? I don’t understand why a grieving family, after some time has passed, sue these people for their false claims.

    • Xiphos says:

      They probably don’t get sued because somewhere, in very small print, there is a statement that says “For entertainment purposes only” would be my guess. Hold on let me consult my spirit guide oracle to see if I am correct.

  2. AUJT says:

    Good goin’, Mark!

  3. Xiphos says:

    good job on taking the station and the “psychic” to task. To bad they will blow you off and the management probably believes all of her nonsense.

    “remote viewing” what a pile of steaming hooey.

  4. Sprawn says:

    “You just don’t get it…” [nod head sadly] “You just don’t get it…”

    [turn to audience]

    “You see folks, some people want to deny their spiritual and psychical connections because they are afraid to face the pain. Denial is merely the FIRST step you need to take to overcome pain, and some people like Mark here are terrified of pain, we can’t all be strong like…


    “P … the letter P… I am sensing…”

    [points to audience member]

    “Do you have a loved one that has crossed over that there’s a ‘P’. Her name starts with … or has a ‘p’ in it? She’s wearing a white dress?”

    Woman with cross around neck holding rosary: Paul! My father Paul!

    “Yes… he’s wearing a white shirt, I can see it now…”

  5. MadScientist says:

    Hey, come on – it’s Fort Wayne. Nothing’s happened in Fort Wayne since – well, ever. Well, OK, maybe back when there *was* a fort there – then again maybe not or else there might still be a fort there. Hehehe … now I’ve got more material to tease my buddy about.

    • MadScientist says:

      OK, so I just remembered that the dude who invented TV was in Fort Wayne, but I’m not so sure that TV was a good thing.

  6. Paul says:

    Just a note: that is not a picture of Allison Dubois, it is a picture of Patricia Arquette, the actress who plays Allison on TV.

  7. Eric Morey says:

    “It’s one thing to have fictional fare like “Medium” and “Ghost Whisperer” inculcating false beliefs in prime time audiences.”

    You seem to be placing malice on the part of those that produce fictional entertainment (and advertise as such). Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong to broadcast a fictional story because a small percentage of people will believe that it is based on reality?


    • Jim Shaver says:

      No, that’s not what Mark said. Broadcasting fictional shows like “Medium” and “Ghost Whisperer” is not wrong, it’s just irritating and stupid in some peoples’ opinions. What’s wrong, as Mark clearly states, is promoting superstitious nonsense on a network-affiliated news program. And by wrong, we mean that it is completely unprofessional and irresponsible.

  8. I detect false advertising here.

    The title of the post is “ABC Has a Medium on Staff”, suggesting that the newsroom of a national network has sacrificed its integrity for a bit of woo.

    Then, when it become clear that you’re writing about one ABC affiliate in northern Indiana, you blur the network/affiliate distinction: “What a surprise to find out that ABC is now providing these “extra” services to the Northern Indiana community.”

    Is that what’s going on? Is the national network involved in this somehow? Or are you fudging this to make ABC as a whole guilty by association? To what end?

    Are you exaggerating the scope of the issue to pump up skeptical hysteria?

    Please clarify.

  9. Mark Edward says:

    Indiana’s News Extra desk has the ABC sponsorship.logo and imprint. Ultimately, the Big Boys who sanction this bull are the ones responsible for their affiliate and who/what they promote. And yes, I’m trying to start some “skeptical hysteria.”

    What are you doing to challenge this idiotic thinking?

    Obviously my goal in taking ABC to task is to put them on notice that a five minute piece on 900 phone psychics isn’t enough and misses the elephant in their own news room. Duh.

    • I’ll challenge sloppy thinking wherever I find it, even in this blog.

      I was asking for clarification of the precise chain of responsibility in a network-affiliate relationship. As far as I know, the affiliate’s right to use the ABC logo may be independent of any direct oversight or accountability on the part of the national network.

      Two further questions:

      Isn’t it odd to try to use hysteria in the service of skepticism? Think of what this means: manipulating people’s understanding of a situation in order to elicit an irrationally zealous response. This seems to be in tension with the aim of promoting clear, critical thinking.

      Does the word, “duh”, really have any place in skeptical argumentation?

      • Jim Shaver says:

        Robert, I hear BP is hiring in Public Relations. Interested?

      • [sarcasm]
        And I hear Fox News is hiring for its Strategic Innuendo Desk . . .

      • But seriously, ad hominem arguments are not amusing, even bracketed as sarcasm. In fact, they’re downright hypocritical in a discussion among those who are the first to cry “Fallacy!”

      • kabol says:

        But seriously, ad hominem arguments are not amusing, even bracketed as sarcasm.

        i disagree. i find them very amusing when done well.

        isn’t “skeptical hysteria” an oxymoron? even if it isn’t, trying to create a bit of a rousing wall of anger/humor/sarcasm against the seemingly unending waves from the ocean of psychic nonsense out there is hardly “hysteria”.

        i like someone’s linking BP with woo — psychic nonsense and the gushing oil catastrophe are very similar in that they are both preventable and HOPEFULLY eventually stoppable — and in the mean time they are both causing incredible amounts of harm, and who knows how long “the mean time” is going to last.

    • Oh, and I just noticed the URL for this post, which suggests its original title was “Network Exploiting the Dead for Cash”.

      I’m glad you pulled back from that claim, which is even more recklessly inflammatory than the current title. Still, it would be more accurate to say “ABC Affiliate Has Medium on Staff”

  10. Mark Edward says:

    Reckless and inflammatory? Oh I see. You must be an ABC employee or be a supporter of sloppy jornalism. No one loves a good ghost story more than me. But when a so-called news desk goes on record as condoning the use of remote viewing and spirit mediumship, then issues free advertising and provides a safe haven for vermin like Robbie Thomas, I’ll take them on. Wouldn’t you Mr. Kirkman? There’s no “bracketed sarcasm” here, just the hurt and misery of hundreds of viewers who might now open their hearts and wallets “bracketed” in the form of my disgust. To have to defend my words to anyone who would call this “adhominem” is clearly not on the team.

    • Yes, sloppy.

      Your charge against the news desk of a local station in Indiana seems quite valid, though it must be said you lay it on pretty thick.

      That’s not the problem, though. What I object to – and I thought I’d made this clear – is the blurring of the network/affiliate distinction to somehow make this out to be the network’s doing. This needlessly inflates the scope of the problem in this one case.

      I asked for clarification, and all I’ve received so far has been more innuendo, this time directed at my character. No, I am not an ABC employee, and I am not interested in a PR position with BP.

      I am interested in clear thinking, and I see lapses in this post and in replies to my comments.

      Do you really object to precision in thinking?

      • Sgerbic says:

        An ABC station has a remote viewer on its “staff” and you don’t seem to get it. ABC in Indiana or ABC in New York or wherever it is still wrong. Imagine if they had a professional Holocaust denier who does a 3 minute segment each week on their topic, or a tailor who gives a little how-to best sew your KKK robes? Do you think that maybe ABC in general should be concerned, maybe reconsider that their affiliate in Indiana is reflecting on ABC in general?

      • Perhaps the network should take some responsibility, or perhaps their arrangement with their affiliates allows for a great deal of independence in such matters – yes, even to the point of having crackpots (of whatever flavor) on staff.

        The point is, I don’t know.

        It’s just that I’m unwilling to assume culpability on the part of the network based on the kind of innuendo and attribution of guilt by association being peddled in this one blog post.

        In short, the title of the post makes strong claim – ABC, the national network, has done something reprehensible – in support of which not one shred of even weak evidence has been offered.

      • Sgerbic says:

        So, your real problem is just with the title of the blog? If Mark had used affiliate in the title you would be okay with that? (not that its all about what you want)

        Personally I think the title is just fine. ABC Indiana is still ABC in the eyes of most of its viewers.

      • It turns out that even changing the title to specify “ABC Affiliate” might not do the trick.

        Even a few minutes of investigation suggests there’s a lot of complexity here. I followed the first link in the post, above, and then clicked around a bit.

        The link took me to a website for something called the Indiana News Center, which is somehow connected with the ABC, NBC, CW, and My Network TV outlets in Fort Wayne. At the bottom of the home page for INC appears the name Granite Broadcasting Corp.

        The home page for Granite Broadcasting describes it as a “market leading owner of local media properties.”

        So, who in all this mess, is actually responsible for hiring and paying a medium? At whom should all this vitriol be aimed . . . aside from a fellow skeptic who keeps asking annoying questions?

      • And no, Sgerbic, it isn’t all about what I want. It’s about what readers of a blog by and for skeptics can reasonably expect: careful and thorough inquiry combined with clear and critical thinking.

        I would also point out that your final claim suggests an argument ad populam: “ABC Indiana is still ABC in the eyes of most of its viewers.”

        Funny, how you’ll pass over legitimate and complex legal and moral questions about responsibility (and accountability) in hiring a medium by appealing to the /perceptions/ of the public . . . when you might be the first to ridicule and condemn that same public if some of them were to /perceive/ UFOs in the night sky or pictures of Jesus in slices of deli meat.

    • Max says:

      If some idiot buys an Adidas shirt with an Adidas logo, and paints a swastika on it, will you blame Adidas?

  11. Max says: doesn’t look like it has any relation to ABC. It’s just some directory, where “abc” means items are alphabetized.

  12. I don’t want to keep flogging this, so this will be my last comment on this post.

    It turns out, it isn’t just the attribution of responsibility to ABC that makes the central claim of this post suspect. It’s the claim that the Indiana NewsCenter has a medium “on staff.”

    Here’s what the site actually says: “Every day on Indiana’s NewsCenter at Noon Extra, Corinne Rose will speak with experts and take your calls and emails from you with questions on the topic of the day.”

    The medium in question is among these “experts” (which, I agree, strains the notion of expertise past the breaking point), whose formal connection with the station is not clear. Still, to claim that she’s “on staff” is a stretch, based on the evidence given here.

  13. Mark Edward says:

    Max: Thanks for invoking Godwin’s Law, it makes everything so much easier to explain. Seriously, if you want to follow that line of reasoning: If a guy wearing an Adidas shirt with a swastika on it was handed a spot on a television station’s website alongside physicians and nurse practitioners, given continued air time where he jumped up and down yelling “Sieg Heil,” I’m certain that if the Adidas logo was identifiable more than once; he or she would be hearing from the Adidas corporate office. Okay, so it’s not Adida’s fault and in this case it’s not ABC’s fault their affiliate hired a whack job. I’m not condemning them in any way. It might be possible that if anybody with a brain at ABC could be made aware of the situation through my “skeptical hysteria,” we might see some light cast on this sort of ridiculous programming. True, once in awhile we see a lighthearted segment on Bigfoot sightings, but we don’t see many Bigfoot experts given their own permanent position at any new stations that I’m aware of. Kirkman: please don’t miss my point in all this. It’s not about who is at fault or pointing a finger to blame, it’s about paying attention and demanding accountability in areas where there is absolutely no scientific evidence. Casting so-called mediums and remote viewers to answer health and legal questions and giving self-styled psychic detectives advertising is not NEWS, it’s unproven and potentially dangerous bullshit. If I can rile a network executive or get ABC to pay attention through blogs like this one, I’m doing my part to try and clean up this mess. If you want to nitpick about my culpability or liability, let the people at ABC get in touch with me and we can talk. Obviously, they could give a rat’s ass.

    • Max says:

      “It’s not about who is at fault or pointing a finger to blame, it’s about paying attention and demanding accountability in areas where there is absolutely no scientific evidence.”

      Demanding accountability involves pointing a finger to blame, and you pointed it at ABC.
      You’re not a fan of Fox News either, perhaps because it stirs hysteria. Well, we skeptics should be better than that.

  14. Mark Edward says:

    BTW: I called Indiana’s Extra News today and asked if this was a station linked to ABC (The American Broadcasting Company) and was told that yes, indeed it is a proper affiliate. I tried to get on air with Corrine Rose and had to deal with her call screener who would not let me on the air after I asked about Kelli Faulkner and why she is listed on their staff of experts. First my call was dropped and when I called back, I was told my question was not “health related” and didn’t fit in with their topic of the day. I tried again later with no access to this bunch. So Kirkman: Feel free to call the number I listed and find out “what’s really going on” for yourself before stop flogging! You will hear for yourself how a so-called news station (no matter how small) can get away with promoting whacko-science and calling it a community health panel. As Iwote to the latest news reporter who has just given Robbie Thomas a free publicity boost thanks to the column thta just cam eout touting him as a psychic; I can only hope that if/when one day one of their children or relatives goes missing, they will have to endure the hell of an eternity of listening to Robbie Thomas pounding on their door to give them one of his readings.

    • Let me try to be as clear as I can about this, before I really do leave off with the flogging.

      I do indeed find it outrageous that a news organization would give any air time at all to hooey, especially hooey that exploits grief and loss for money. I find it outrageous, but not terribly surprising, as local news has been bottom-feeding for decades to bring in viewers.

      What I object to in this post, though, is that zeal seems to have gotten the better of sense, such that the central claim of the post – ABC has a medium on staff! – can be considered even vaguely plausible only if one ignores the plain facts presented on the one website offered as evidence.

      The plain facts of the case seem to be that a local news desk at a station that may or may not be affiliated with ABC sometimes has a medium on air as a “guest” in the role of “expert” to answer questions for viewers.

      As I say, this is outrageous enough.

      From your most recent replies, though, it seems you’re attempting a kind of strategic hyperbole. The plain facts don’t make a dramatic enough story, so you try to whip the whole thing up into something bigger, something you can use to rile up the shock troops of skepticism, something you can hurl at the powers at ABC or somewhere so they will help you crush the merchants of hooey.

      The problem, I fear, is that the strategy is bound to backfire. Not only can the accusations you level in this post be easily brushed aside, but the manner in which they are delivered – with innuendo in the place of argument – casts skepticism as such in a bad light.

  15. ausGeoff says:

    I’m a little surprised, and disappointed [sic] that apparently, Ms Faulkner’s paranormal abilities haven’t alerted her to the fact that she’s twice misspelled “whose” as “who’s” on one of her web pages. Presumably she’s having some difficulty with getting the spirit of Dr Samuel Johnson to co-operate?

  16. Mark Edward says:

    Okay fine. I see your point. But what we are left with is a spirit medium and a remote viewer.

    • kabol says:

      who is actually neither.

      i’m just wondering what skeptics have to do to get hired on by TV news execs as experts?? tell whopping tales and talk about how they “use prayer”???

  17. Robo Sapien says:

    This whole Faulkner situation is indeed troubling, but what I find equally troubling is that people find it more imperative to protect the integrity of skepticism than to illustrate the ridiculous truth that an institution of so-called journalism endorses this circus of bullshittery. To hell with taking the high road if it leads you right off the edge of a cliff.

    Most men would agree amongst each other that it is not copasetik to kick another man in the balls, because there is some unwritten law of men that we must respect the testicles. Yet if the stakes are high enough, eventually someone will receive a boot to the old boys. Mark Edward simply kicked an ABC affiliate in the balls, and rightfully so. What other recourse is there against a media juggernaut in the battle theatre of public opinion?

    • Sgerbic says:

      I think I love you.

    • Max says:

      So you’re saying it’s ok for skeptics to do irresponsible journalism in order to battle irresponsible journalism. Fight BS with BS. I say it was not necessary in this case.

      • kabol says:

        just to be clear, max, with “irresponsible journalism” you’re comparing a personal internet blog post to the news department of a major network’s affiliate TV station??

        To hell with taking the high road if it leads you right off the edge of a cliff…Mark Edward simply kicked an ABC affiliate in the balls, and rightfully so.

        well said!

    • . . . and it’s “copacetic”, unless you’re channeling someone who can’t spell . . .

    • Robo Sapien says:

      The only point I’m making with that is there is nothing wrong with Mark’s article. He called bullshit on what is, in fact, mainstream media bullshit. I am objecting to those who criticize his angle because they don’t feel it measures up to some impossibly stringent quality standard for “journalism” (read: blogging).

      And Robert, thanks for the clever spelling correction.

  18. Joe says:

    Speaking as someone who does work in TV and does understand the general lack-of-relationship between the Network and the Affiliates, as an Affiliate you’d probably have to go pretty far to tick off the Network. Usually it would have to involve some kind of loss of revenue. Having a “psychic” on staff at the local level is just a pathetic local news stunt, and ABC Proper is not going to care. They probably think it’s great because of the synergy with their prime time schedule.

    Remember, your local small market news station is most likely staffed by kids and run by guys living in fear for their jobs while sitting under the corporate sword of management in some other city. “Journalism” really doesn’t enter into it.

  19. Jeshua says:

    Sorry for coming to this thread so late. And appologies in advance to Max and anyone else who may be insulted, but YOU’RE ALL WET!

    The analogy of painting a swastika on an Adidas T-shirt was way off the mark. A much better analogy would be if one of their contracted sweat shops starting turning out T-shirts bearing both the Adidas logo and a swastika and selling them in the local market.

    The point is, IMHO, by carrying the ABC label, the affiliate is representing ABC in that broadcast market, regardless of the specific legal and contractual relationship between the two. And if ABC knows about this quackery and still allows it, ABC is tacitly approving it.

    On the other hand, the title WAS a bit of a stretch.

    • Max says:

      The ABC affiliate is NOT an owned-and-operated station. It is not a subsidiary or a subcontractor of ABC. It is not paid by ABC. It BUYS programming from ABC, like a guy who buys an Adidas T-shirt.

  20. Mark Edward says:

    AND THIS JUST IN: 6/14/10: I checked The Indiana News Desk today and found that Kelli Faulkner is no longer displayed on their panel of consultants. Hurray. Chalk one up for rational thinking and making things happen skeptically. I don’t know who made the decision, but if I can I will call Kelli and follow up with what went down.I would like to think that between ABC and this blog, something happened.

  21. Todd says:

    I work at a local news station that happens to be an ABC affiliate. I can tell you right now, 99.99999999% of the stuff we do is unknown by ABC. Max stated it correctly, we buy content from them, and do it exclusively through a contract. I can also tell you they know even less about our in-house shows that aren’t news. It sounds like Indiana’s NewsCenter at Noon Extra is a show that was produced in-house. It was after the news and was a completely different show. At that point, ABC has NOTHING to do with it. The show doesn’t feature ABC’s work at all. Just as when we show infomercials, we didn’t buy it from ABC, it wasn’t made by ABC, they have no clue we are airing it. Would you blame the ABC network if a local TV station showed an infomercial of a faulty product? I would hope not.
    Robert Kirkman spent 2 seconds of his time to find out Indiana’s NewsCenter was affiliated with several networks. Seriously, if you click the link you provided, it shows 4 different networks. So, I think we have every right to think your title/article was lazy and somewhat hysterical. And for the people that think we shouldn’t expect basic journalism must be crazy. I might as well go to Glenn Beck’s website.
    I too will add that I think having a medium is completely moronic and I am in NO WAY defending Indiana’s NewsCenter.

    I mean, we are just doing what skeptics do best, right? Annoy people by asking too many questions.