Guest Post: Dave Manganelli re: Television

My friend and colleague Dave Manganelli had some additional comments on my posts on TV, but first a few words about him:

More than 30 years ago, Dave Manganelli saw his first haunted house through the viewfinder of an Arriflex 16mm film camera, and some claim he hasn’t been the same since.

Through his long career in the film/TV industry, Dave has done it all, working as a cameraman, editor, director, and producer.

As a Broadcast Producer in the advertising industry, he’s produced over a hundred broadcast TV commercials (many of which involve creating things that really aren’t there). In the corporate world, he’s produced and directed several hundred films & videos for Fortune 500 companies, even winning a Gold in the New York Festivals for his work, along with a few Telly and Monitor Awards as well.

He served as the Paranormal Consultant on the premiere episode of MTV’s “Fear: Moundsville”, and was one of the featured investigators forThe History Channel’s MonsterQuest “Ghosts: The Lizzie Borden House” episode.

He’s often called upon by fellow investigators for analysis of — and opinion on — possible paranormal photos & videos, and is well-regarded for his no-nonsense, practical approach to evaluating those images.


As Loyd points out in his great postings about paranormal reality shows, there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes in paranormal shows than is ever apparent to the average viewer.

Here are a few more real world observations about paranormal reality shows:

The economics of reality shows are this: they are relatively inexpensive to produce (at least compared to the scripted comedies & drama that also populate our TV channels), so they are very manageable risks for the producers & networks. And those networks need stuff to show.

Many of these shows will launch and not succeed, but the ones that do succeed will be relatively darn lucrative for the producers & networks. As long as that continues, these shows will not be going away anytime soon!

Next: to this day, there continues to be absolutely no shortage of people who audition to be in reality shows — so there is an endless supply of people who will gladly do whatever the production companies/networks need them to do in exchange for being on TV. Frankly, even the producers of these shows remain somewhat amazed that people want so desperately to be on TV. That’s definitely a defining characteristic of our current age. When I first started looking into ghosts & hauntings over 30 years ago, most people with possible paranormal problems generally avoided publicity at all costs (for fear of being regarded as “kooks”). Not today, boy – talk about the pendulum swinging the other way!

So that endless supply of subjects is fabulous for entertainment goals, but generally not so fabulous for serious paranormal research goals.

Why? Because, as a producer, you really don’t want to have a show where nothing truly spooky actually happens while cameras are rolling – which, in my experience, is the unvarnished truth about the bulk of the time spent on paranormal investigations. (When I first started looking into the paranormal back in 1980, that was the most common observation I found as I started to meet other credible paranormal investigators. That continues to be true to this day — except on current TV shows and certain places on the internet, where it seems almost everyone comes away with some sort of anomalous evidence as long they spend at least, say, 6 to 8 hours looking for it. Doesn’t seem quite possible that evidence should suddenly be so amazingly abundant, in my humble opinion, but I’m generally quite demanding when it comes to video/audio evidence, so maybe it’s just me. It’s alright, don’t worry… I’ll take a walk, and then I’ll calm down eventually).

After all – you wouldn’t want to watch a horror movie in which nothing actually happens, and there’s no monster to be experienced!

And therein lies the key to the staying power of modern paranormal reality shows: historically, they accomplished one thing that paranormal shows in preceding decades couldn’t (because either there was a scarcity of compelling actual case footage, which remains true to this very day, OR because what you saw was understood to be a dramatic recreation done with actors): the reality shows — for better or for worse — finally provided the viewer with a spooky, real-time “You are there and experiencing it as well” paranormal experience. Didn’t matter if even a lot of viewers kinda knew they were being manipulated (and a lot of them do, I find) — watching is the equivalent of stepping into haunted-house ride at an amusement park; of course, the whole point is get spooked and thrilled while you’re there.

All of these shows are essentially descendants of two influential media creations (and, to be completely clear, I have nothing but respect for these two): MTV’s “Real World”, and the movie “The Blair Witch Project”. You may ask: “What’s the ‘Real World’ go to do with it?” Well, “Real World” invented a general format & flow for reality shows so amazingly durable that it continues to be copied now, some 20 years later…. I still see the approaches and the techniques used in every modern reality show.

And then “The Blair Witch Project” came along in 1999 and established a whole new mode for how scary stuff could be presented in a horror movie (i.e, apparently real amateur footage, low-budget production techniques, night-vision video, average-person protagonists, etc.)… and that mode promptly became the basis of paranormal reality TV.

Some of you may not know that “Blair Witch” was an utter sensation when it premiered 14 years ago at the Sundance Festival, and generated HUGE word of mouth before it even got to wider release to the general public. Because there have been so many variations of it in paranormal TV in the years since, the impact & freshness of the film has been diminished for those seeing it now for the first time. I saw it with a group of filmmaking colleagues when it came out, and we were blown away by how effective it was. A lot of that had to do with seeing it on a big-screen in a theater, because you got sucked into the paranormal experience with the characters in a way that hadn’t been done in movies to that point. And it used a ghost-story setting that was centuries old: people lost in a dense forest! Unfortunately, the movie loses its original power when seen on TV – the small screen and constant interruption by commercials work to blunt the desperate atmosphere of the film. But it absolutely deserves all the praise it’s ever received.

The more recent “Paranormal Activity” (also extremely effective) added another basket of tricks that have also been picked up by paranormal reality TV (most notably, using extremely long stretches of surveillance camera footage in which nothing happens…. and then when you finally relax and figure nothing will happen, it does. Very cleverly done).
So paranormal reality shows found an economical way to provide endless “paranormal experience simulator” rides in a wide variety of settings and contexts, something predecessor shows never could do (because the “paranormal reality” genre hadn’t been invented yet). Much as I sometimes hate to say it, the new ones found an effective and affordable “spook you out” formula. They are mini horror movies, and there’s a new one to watch every week.

Though it’s tempting to wish the shows would “clean up their act” or be “more genuinely scientific”, that’s not going to happen with most of them, and here’s why: the creators of these shows always knew they were making paranormal reality entertainment, not scientific documentaries on the reality of paranormal phenomena. And, in entertainment, there has to be a monster (in our case, a that would be a ghost), AND something has to happen – you have to deliver on those 2 things. And, oddly enough, most shows deliver on those 2 things! See how that works?

There was a time prior to reality shows when programs and documentaries on the paranormal at least made the attempt to be more straightforwardly documentarian, clearly maintaining a line between the documentary footage and the dramatization footage, but that line got blurred and crossed about a dozen years ago and has not moved back. It will not move back as long as the current shows are popular, and as long as the TV channels need that programming.

There’s also little chance that anyone who stars in these shows is going to have a change of heart, come forward because their conscience is bothering them, and then blow the whistle on anything that may have fabricated for the purposes of the show. Why? Well, they can’t – as Loyd said in his posting, they have already signed extremely onerous legal agreements that, among many other things, forbids them from saying anything detrimental or out-of-line about the show. In fact, financial penalties for doing so are built into a lot of those contracts, so you’d have to weigh the consequences of being out a lot of money for speaking up.

As Loyd explained so well in his posting, many of these contracts are so skewed against any consulting paranormal investigator that a number of us just stopped agreeing to do any of the shows anymore. Even when the show’s producer starts out with the best of intentions, the paperwork then arrives, and it’s like: “Holy Bleep, no way am I signing this thing!” You’ll note that that hasn’t stopped the flow of paranormal shows in the least.

To that point, most people aren’t aware that – less than 10 years ago – there was a dust-up over paranormal monkey-business going on in a British show, “Most Haunted”. There were complaints about things that were misleading and what was allegedly being faked, but the British Television Regulator Ofcom ultimately ruled that the show contained “a high degree of showmanship that puts it beyond what we believe to be a generally accepted understanding of what comprises a legitimate investigation”. In other words: sorry, everybody, but this show is considered entertainment, so creative license is allowed. You can read about all that in more detail here:

That many of these shows still thrive actually speaks to the power and timelessness of ghost stories (which were here long before any of us). I have no problem with that, as I always love a good ghost story.

Unfortunately, the shows have also done a fair amount of damage in spreading misconceptions, setting wildly false expectations (especially when it comes to video and audio evidence), and in promoting maybe-not-so-experts, some of whom seem to have utterly no knowledge that there is a history to paranormal investigation that stretches further back than, say, 12 years ago. Just sayin’.

Personally, I think that 9/11 had an effect on what viewers seem to want to watch — the very legitimate horror of that seemed to spark a very widespread fixation on death in our culture. I think (again, just my own opinion) that’s a key reason that procedural murder-investigation shows AND paranormal reality shows — AND now zombies — have had such staying power in the last decade. I mean, it seems a bit weird to have so many popular shows themed around graphic police inspections of the newly dead, the reanimation of the recently dead, AND then the supposed spirits of the definitely dead.

But that’s our culture as it is now… it will be interesting to see how historians look back and evaluate this particular period.

In closing, I want to thank Loyd – who has remained the most sane, reasonable, and credible voice for serious paranormal investigation throughout all the craziness — for giving me this space to share my viewpoint.

I now return control of your television set to you.




My lengthy blog last week – which many have correctly called a rant — was perhaps a bit tough on paranormal TV shows, but rightly so. However, I want to underscore a couple of things said in the article, which perhaps people may have glossed over, related to the positives of TV and people I’ve worked with over the years.

Having read that blog, some might feel I’m mighty down on television. While that may be true with regards to most of the paranormal “reality”(unreality, in my mind) shows, there have been occasional shows that at least tell a good ghost story, and that don’t seem to have screwed with the story or the interviews with witnesses.

One that I’ve enjoyed from time to time has been Ghostly Encounters on BIO, which at least appears to allow people with all sorts of ghostly experiences (good, bad and neutral) to tell their own story, with re-creations happening on screen under their own narration. I don’t know for sure that the editing hasn’t screwed with the stories, but at least they fall more into the range of the experiences that parapsychologists have had reported to them for over a century.

On occasion, there’s a good portrayal of a medium or psychic at work, though all too often these days the show devolves into one where the camera is more interested in the non-psychic activities of the medium/psychic and her/his family. They also give the impression that these folks can walk up to anyone on the street and start giving a reading, no matter how intrusive – and I’ve had a number of people (viewers) tell me how off-putting that seems.

Those folks and everyone reading this should be reminded that almost anyone these days backed by a TV camera crew can walk up to just about anyone on the street, and often someone from the crew makes sure it’s “okay”(after all, the person does have to sign a release).

I’ve met a few of the psychics/mediums who do those shows, and none of them (they tell me) would walk up to someone on the street, in a market, etc. and start a reading uninvited without a TV crew to smooth the way.

Frankly, this isn’t much different than a street magician (a la David Blaine) walking up to someone saying “want to see a magic trick?”No camera crew, most likely the people would walk away – and that I’ve seen in person (I used to be a magician myself).

On to Positives…

Television has the ability to bring good information to the masses. It has the ability to educate while it entertains. It has the potential to be a tool to introduce concepts and experts to many millions of people, and the potential to push them to question all sides of a subject or issue.

As mentioned in that last blog, having grown up in a TV production family, I’ve been around TV people all my life, and absolutely through my formative years. My first appearance on TV, I was told by my parents, was when I was 6 months old and my mother was visiting the set of a NY talk show my father was working on. I worked as a “runner” (okay, a go-fer) for NBC Sports at a bunch of baseball and football games when my father was a producer, and ended up on camera a couple of times playing catch with Joe Garagiola. Had a great time as an extra on All My Children back in the early 80s (only one day, unfortunately).

I love television, and have known great people over the years, both through my family connections, and ever since I had my first job in Parapsychology at the ASPR. Some of the folks I’ve worked with – whether for actual shows or pilots or for proposed series – are still people I’d jump for the chance to work with, and a few of them have become good friends.

There are, in fact, people with real creativity and integrity working in the industry who have either a genuine curiosity about the phenomena and experiences, or even an abiding interest. But there are also folks who think the paranormal can make good television, yet want to make it“right” and have respect for the knowledge, experience and even creative ideas of the experts and the witnesses. They respect the ghost story and they respect the base of what’s actually known and the questions we, the researchers and investigators, ask. They might suggest new technology and new methods, but respect our reactions – positive or negative – to such suggestions.

In my experience, sometimes the right question that needed to be asked in a case that was being shot for TV actually came from a member of the production crew, and not from me or people with me. TV crew members should always be reminded to ask questions and even make observations (though some directors have gotten a little testy when a sound guy or production assistant points something out or asks a question, regardless of whether I’ve thought it was a good one or not).


There are three very important things to keep in mind when working with television.

First, it’s important to always remember television is a visual medium. That’s why producers are always looking for a way to “get something happening on camera.” TV is not just “Tell,” it’s Show and Tell.”

After the release of The Amityville Horror (the original film, ), and after Poltergeist (1982) in the 1980s, the media somehow got the idea that we could take a reporter or TV crew to places where they could pretty much get phenomena happening. Mainly, they thought they would see/record things moving of their own accord any time, as if what was on the screen was an actual representation of what really goes on. I still get people asking the same thing today – and my response is the same as back then: “If we could find places where phenomena happened all the time, or on demand or request, do you really think parapsychologists would be so under-funded (or non-funded) as we are? Or that the field would have little or no acceptance academically?”

Post Poltergeist, and especially post Ghostbusters (1984), there was this expectation that we had an arsenal of technology. Back then I had to remind them that Steven Spielberg had a much bigger budget for pretty equipment than we ever have had. That and “None of that stuff in Ghostbusters was real, guys.” Of course, once environmental sensors became reasonably available (and priced), we did have toys to use on camera – though for a long time some producers moaned about them not having pretty lights or sounds.
The reality is that while phenomena might happen during a shoot, it’s as likely as not to happen behind the camera, or simply out of frame from where the camera is pointed – if it happens at all.

Well, I totally understand the issue and desire of the producers and their networks to have visuals on camera. Hence reenactments/acting out of some of the stories with actors and even occasional special effects during the reenactments. If done well, if representing the story and reported phenomena correctly, this can be quite compelling and even of use to the investigative process.

There are other ideas along those lines which have yet to be done on TV which I’ve shared with a couple of producers who have been trying to pitch shows – but unfortunately networks see their shows as “too different”from the current crop of crappy ones (which still get the ratings).

Then there’s the need for dramatic events in the shows, especially around the phenomena.

But if there’s no phenomena, and you’re not willing to fake it (there’s the integrity thing), you have to get your “drama” from the people– who have to be able to tell a good story, and the story itself ought to be interesting. The experts need to be able to relate to the story, to the location, to the witnesses and above all, to the viewing audience.

To me, one of the reasons to dislike so many of the“investigation” shows currently on TV is that they’re missing the actual ghost story. And unfortunately, most of the shows that focus on the ghost story and reenactments have again and again been shown to play fast and loose with the actual story – even editing the witness testimony to give a particular focus or element to the story that was not actually reported by the witnesses.
Not that there’s always an easy fix to make a ghost hunting show interesting, visual, and accurate. But it is entirely possible, if the producers are willing to learn about the phenomena and science (Parapsychology) AND the experts are willing to learn something about the needs of television.

Now, the second point: TV people are often ignorant of the paranormal/parapsychology or have the same misconceptions as the viewing audience because what they know came from other TV shows.

I cannot possibly calculate the amount of time spent on the phone with producers, directors and production staff answering their questions about the phenomena, research and investigation methods, and findings– as well as misconceptions. In my last blog, the final point made was about getting paid. Yet other than extremely rare circumstances, I’ve not gotten paid (or asked for payment) for time spent educating TV folks about the basics and what they can and cannot reasonably expect. Just as I don’t charge average folks to consult (basically) with me – though I do charge for classes, and for mentoring people beyond the basic conversations.

It’s always been part of my mission in this field is to help educate the public, which is why my first job in the field, as “Public Information and Media Consultant” in the Education Department of the American Society for Psychical Research was so apropos. Even though there’s so much misinformation and misconception –crap – out there in the Media, as the late D. Scott Rogo told me just after I finished my Masters’ degree in Parapsychology, if there’s even one good, credible story in the middle of a lot of bad ones, someone will recognize the good from the bad, and follow up on that. If I and others don’t try to educate and correct the misconceptions, what chance is there that any good information will get out there?

So, I work with the Media, always hoping that the time spent informing and discussing with the production people will lead to occasional bright spots in the darkness that is unreality TV (and even TV news coverage of the subject).

People in TV, until they are assigned a topic or story, or get a request to develop a show, or even a contract for a show/series, may have no personal interest in the paranormal. Consequently, one cannot fault them for not knowing anything, especially how to separate the good info and experts from the oh so big pile of crap that’s out there on TV and the Web.

Most of them are open to what my colleagues and I have to say, even if they can’t follow up on it due to the constraints of the show/series as it has been pitched to a network, or as the network dictates. I’ve had great conversations with producers I’d love to work with on other projects, just not the one they’re calling me about (again, because of what the network wants/has dictated). Some of them have even gone back to the network with what they’ve learned to try to sway them in a different direction (usually fails given the network folks having their own ideas about what “works” without any clue as to what’s actually possible for credible coverage).

Some got so interested in the “real paranormal” that they contact me every now and again for updates, and even try to sell a decent series idea every so often.

In other words, not all people in television fall into the areas I covered in my “Unreality TV” blog.

The third point: What’s on the screen is a result of network executives/personnel ordering the results or intervening directly as much as or even more than what the producers had in mind.

Television is a business, and there are advertisers to be placated, ratings to be had, and politics and personal preferences within the networks. The production companies are in business, and the more the networks like their product, the more shows they sell – or they go out of business.

I totally get that. After all, my father worked for a network (NBC) and then was out on his own. No orders for programming means no business and no money.

Television does not purport to be educational in general, though naturally PBS has strived to be that, and some of the cable networks have claimed to provide educational programming (and some do) besides news programs.

But there’s much more to this. Even educational programs on PBS need sponsors, though we hope they don’t have a say about the content. Educational programs, such as they are, on cable networks do depend on ratings for continuation, and as with all programming, no ratings = no sponsors = no shows.

I have little problem with shows that at least admit to be attempting “entertainment,” but real problems when the folks representing the shows – producers, talent, network people – claim it’s all “real” or “as it happened” or “a true story” when it’s very clearly been edited or otherwise put together in a way that is not real, not a representation of what happened (or the order in which things happened), or a story that’s been altered in the writing or editing. Saying events represented on the show have been “edited for time” is fine, as it lets the viewers know something vital (and as long as the events are still presented in a fair representation).

I have a problem if the show utilizes naysayers who clearly have not looked at the actual evidence, or yea-sayers who accept everything happening as paranormally real, without question.

I don’t have a problem when a show spoofs the paranormal, parapsychology, psychic phenomena/abilities, psychics or ghost hunting. As long as it’s an honest attempt at comedy, even if I don’t find it entertaining, I can appreciate the effort.

It All Boils Down to Ratings

The most credible show we could come up with would still need to get decent ratings to stay on the air, though we’d have to get on the air in the first place, and hope the network sees the potential.

On the plus side, I’ve worked with many producers and writers who had great ideas or really wanted to portray this stuff correctly within the context of trying to build an entertaining show.

On the negative side, getting those shows past the network “deciders” is tough, since almost no one in the management of TV networks seems that interested in trying something really “new” – they don’t want to be first to fail, and consequently even if they think a new idea is a great one, they’re often unwilling to take a chance on that in favor of a retread of something they know does get ratings. They have to think bottom line, with little regard to credibility.

Can it be done? Absolutely. I’ve been involved in numerous show concepts that have real centers of good information and stories, presented in a variety of entertaining contexts.

Can it be sold? There’s the rub: how do you sell “credible” when it’s unclear that “credible” can get ratings and clear than non-credible (in-credible) does indeed get ratings (although as we’ve seen, not always).

If it’s sold, will they give it a fair chance? This is a problem in and of itself with networks. I’m sure all regular TV viewers reading this can recall at least one example of a new show they liked being bounced around the network schedule week after week, giving viewers no real chance to consistently even find the show, let alone watch it to help its ratings.

There have been several pilots or specials or single episodes – not just ones on the paranormal — for cable networks being scheduled in such a time period that it’s unlikely anyone would find it (unless they did a search of their cable provider’s schedule) if they even knew in advance the show was coming up. Network doesn’t want to give a show a fair shake? Schedule it at 1 in the morning on a weeknight or early to mid morning on a Saturday or Sunday and don’t do any promos for it. Series have been cancelled by being moved to the worst time slots so ratings would drop (remember the third season of the original Star Trek – moved to a network “death slot” of the 1960s, Friday nights at 10).

I’ve met and worked with and become friends with many in the television industry of good heart and great ideas when it comes to covering the paranormal – and here I’m talking about all facets, from ghosts and haunting to ESP and psychokinesis, from field investigation to laboratory studies, from psychics and mediums to the psychic experiences and encounters of “normal”people.

Great people, with lots of integrity.

Even met people at the network level with the same.

But the unfortunate reality is that such people in the industry are few enough, most especially at the network level, and often can’t get past the biases and expectations of others in the industry who have the buying power or decision-making ability for their networks.

If there were sponsors out there willing to put their money into advertising only on credible shows, we’d have a chance.

One Final Thought….

I came to my interest in psychic phenomena mostly from being a comic book and science fiction fan, with a little bit of the TV/movie watcher fascinated with ghost-infested comedies and dramas – NOT from the horror/scary side of things.

To me, and why I got into the field at all in any serious way, psychic abilities and apparitional phenomena indicate there is way more to human beings and our potential than what we might currently believe. Humans have potential to exceed what we are now, both when we’re alive and when we’re dead.

Too bad that the network named after science fiction, SyFy, has chosen to focus on scares and chills, rather than wonderment and inspiration, for its coverage of the topics involved. I love many of the dramatic and adventure shows on SyFy. But the only “wonder” their paranormal shows inspire in me is wondering why they consistently choose to buy and produce shows that hit almost all my “crap” points (from my last blog).

The Paranormal, when presented properly, can activate the Sense of Wonder! It can inspire!

Psychic phenomena is cool!

There are TV people who get that. Isn’t it time they get a chance, too?


To any network people or sponsors reading this: Get in touch. I know great people in the industry who can put out a phenomenal (pun intended) product and know how to promote it to draw an audience, to give them awe and wonder, to keep them coming back.

Take a chance on credibility and real psychic experiences, research and investigation. Reach out to the majority of people who believe in this stuff (but who rarely watch your current shows) and make them feel wonderment at their paranormal experiences and attitudes about them.

Guaranteed it will get them talking more. It will make psychic experiences more “normal.” It will expand the potential audience exponentially.

More viewers = better ratings = more money.


Son of Things That Make Me Go Aarrgghh! (a bit on the longwinded side)

Another thing that makes me go AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

Paranormal Unreality TV

“If you’re such an expert, how come you don’t have your own series?” or

“You can’t be an expert (or someone knowledgeable) on the paranormal, because you don’t have a TV series.”

Yes, I’ve actually had people ask/say that to me, with a few variations. And what can one say to that, other than “Huh?” Frankly, for those people who think the “experts” are only those who have paranormal TV series (including students and plumbers!!!), I have little to say. Although when they are snide about it (and sometimes downright nasty), I have to come back with responses not only about my education and professional experience in the field of Parapsychology (you know, the actual field that studies this stuff, and has for over a century), but also my own TV experience.

It’s this experience which I discuss below, leading into some possibly unflattering opinions of the current state of what I have to call…

I’ve been involved in television coverage of the paranormal since my first job almost right out of graduate school, as Public Information and Media Consultant to the American Society for Psychical Research back in 1982/1983. Let me restate that – for over 30 years.

Over the years, I’ve appeared in a couple of hundred (maybe more — lost track) television shows, a large portion of which have been national, from talk and news show interviews, to appearances and full segments in other shows, including a few paranormal-themed series. Even appeared on Criss Angel: MindFreak and ESPN’s SportsCenter. In the early 90s, I did several episodes of the paranormal magazine show Sightings (and was a consultant on one of the two initial pilots), which aired first on FOX then on Paramount TV (which became UPN). Many, many of the shows I’ve done air in reruns on BIO, the Discovery Channel, TLC, the Travel Channel, A&E, and even SyFy (rare, mainly because SyFy seems to avoid any shows with actual parapsychological researchers whenever they can) – and the reruns keep coming back over and over. Last year, there was even a show I did back in the mid-80s that resurfaced in reruns on cable.

I also worked on several specials for Tokyo Broadcasting System at the time (and about to do some work for NHK Japan).

I’ve generally been pretty lucky with the television shows and interviews I’ve done. While many of the edited segments/interviews I’ve done have cut out important bits of information or cut down what I said to too little – mainly because of time crunch for the segments — or even had a slight change in context, it’s been pretty rare that my portion was too far off what I said or did. On occasion, some of the shows cut the footage so it appeared that I was “finding” a ghost when an EMF meter or two went off (I wasn’t, since they can’t detect ghosts, only changes in EM fields).

I’ve spoken with many dozens of producers and production companies, so many I’ve lost count. Had my name attached to numerous projects that failed to sell, both as on-screen talent and behind the scenes consultant or even production staff. Those shows generally failed to sell for a variety of reasons, from poor execution of the pitch by producers, to the networks – having asked for something “real” — deciding instead to go with “what already works, like the other shows already on,” to not being able to find the right “team members” to suit the production company or network. Would you believe one pilot got away from me because I was unable to find a young, twenty-something (preferably blond) “hot” psychic?

I’m actually surprised no one’s done a mash-up of a ghost hunting show with Bay Watch – a group of good looking, scantily clad ghost hunters investigating haunted beaches and beach resorts. (Yeah, I know, now that I put this out there, Paranormal Beach Babes is sure to be pitched to some network, or at least end up as a porn flick).

I’ve been a consultant on several shows, both fictional (such as a full day with writing staff of Shadow Chasers and a short consult with writers from L.A. Law a ways back), though mostly “non-fiction” specials and series. Even worked with a few screenwriters over the years.

On occasion, I’ve worked as production staff, including associate producer on one pilot in the 90s, field producer for a few segments of Mysterious Forces Beyond, and consulting producer on a big budget ghost investigation reality show pilot (still sitting with the network that paid for it, seemingly going nowhere). I helped with a proposed game show called Telepathy for the Game Show Network (which is GSN these days), in developing one of the games for the show, working with “contestants” for the run-throughs, and effectively “on camera” for the run-throughs. The show was apparently picked up, then dropped when management of the network changed right before it went into production.

Here’s the important piece: I’ve turned down working on several shows or with certain production companies. I’ve turned down working on or appearing in a few shows already in production.

Have you been taken aback? Are you gasping, asking “Why, Loyd, would you do that when it could give you so much more presence in the paranormal community?”

Don’t get me wrong, I love television. I practically grew up in the TV industry. My father, Dick Auerbach, was a well known sports producer (though he did news, including the Mercury and Gemini space shots) for NBC, and then on his own. My uncle, Larry Auerbach, was a director of soap operas (Love of Life, All My Children, One Life to Live), and heavily involved with the Directors Guild of America (still somewhat with the latter). I have a brother who works as a stage manager on The Today Show, and my other brother is co-owner of a major movie trailer (coming attractions) production house in NY.

TV is in my blood – perhaps my very genetics. But it’s not only TV.

I also have an uncle on my mother’s side, Herb Norman, who was a radio newscaster for WMCA Radio in NY, and later a professor teaching broadcasting. And I’ve appeared on literally thousands of radio programs (plus all the podcasts of late) over the years.

But back to my TV-turn downs…

In science fiction literature, there’s an adage from writer Theodore Sturgeon I read decades ago (partly paraphrasing someone else, I’m sure).

Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of all science fiction is crap. But then, 90% of everything is crap.

I just read a brief interview with Joel McHale of the TV shows Talk Soup and Community, referencing a similar adage, and applying it to television.

But perhaps, when it comes to paranormal (un)reality TV, it should be more like 95% or even more is crap.

Here I’m not talking about how entertaining the shows might be.

For many people, a number of the shows I’d throw in the “crapper” because of the lack of credible portrayal of the phenomena, investigation methodologies and conclusions, and even experiences (in some instances, especially the experiences/stories) are actually entertaining and worth watching.

For me, it’s tough to watch these shows and the people on them which proclaim they are even close to accurate portrayals of anything – including a supposedly close representation of what went on during the so-called investigation that was shot for the show. Because of this, I find most of them not entertaining, often boring, and often insulting to my field and the people who have paid their dues in it.

Crap: Manufacturing Evidence: While mainly driven by the production staff, or the network itself, it’s been clear that some of what has been shown on TV is made up, faked, or edited in such a way as to tie an unrelated (though explainable) bit of sensor equipment data or even explainable bits coming through the production camera or mikes to some other such thing or to the reaction of one or more members of the “team” on camera.

Crap: Misapplication of the Sensor Equipment: Either because of lack of education, inappropriate direction by producers/directors, or pure stupidity, environmental sensing equipment provides readings (data) that is used to support statements that cannot be shown to be true.

For example: “An EMF reading of 3.8” (or any other specific number) “indicates there’s a ghost present.”

No, Virginia, it indicates the strength of the electromagnetic field it’s sensing, or the change in the fields (depending on the device), NOT a ghost.

Please pay careful attention to the following (skeptics and debunkers also pay attention to this, something I’ve been saying since the late 1980s when EMF detectors were first being used by us, contrary to what Randi and others would have you believe about me):

EMF detectors, thermometers, static electricity sensors, and all other environmental sensing equipment ONLY are designed to detect the changes in the environment relevant to each specific piece of equipment. An anomalous (unexplainable) reading is only that. There has not been any real study to determine if specific environmental changes are indicative of a ghost or residual imprint or any other paranormal phenomena.

There have been correlations between certain environmental changes and peoples experiences of apparitions, hauntings and the like. In other words, a person is having an experience at the same time as or in the same space as (and without knowledge of) some environmental anomaly. Not cause and effect, but correlative.

If one does not believe in the paranormal, that’s fine. The correlations still stand, as saying this correlates to the experience of a ghost is not the same as saying the correlations are to the presence of a ghost.

Before anyone jumps on me regarding the issue of no consistent environmental conditions and the proverbial “cold spot” or dropping of temperature when a ghost apparently is in the room, I have to point out that this is an old wives tale (old psychics’ tale?), fully supported by the visual medium of motion pictures. The idea is that when a ghost “manifests,” he/she draws energy (heat, in this case) from the very air in the local environment. People report feeling “a chill” or even downright “cold” when they also see, hear, or sense a spectral presence.


1) The vast majority of ghost sightings (and here we’re talking between 90 and 99 per cent) is people who clearly perceive a relative, loved one or friend who just died. People do not report drops in temperature, or generally even a “chill up their spine.”

2) In many, many cases where people report feeling a drop in temperature, not everyone in the room feels it, even if they come to the same spot as the individual reporting this. Not everyone perceives the ghost, either.

3) In many, many cases where people report feeling a drop in temperature, temperature sensors do not support the actual change in temperature.

4) In some cases where people report experiencing a ghost, they report feeling warmer.

That’s not to say temperature changes are not recorded in apparition or haunting cases at all. Sometimes they are (temperature drops or rises a few degrees). But this is incredibly far from consistent. And in some cases, there have been physical cold spots recorded – but often there is a less than paranormal explanation for them.

Yes, there are exceptions – still unexplained temperature changes. That’s cool! (Pun intended).

Crap: Misapplication of Technology in general: Ghost Boxes and other devices supposedly designed to detect spirits or communicate with them have not been tested properly as to whether they, at rest (when no supposed spirits are around) are actually random scanners, as they purport to be. The developers and users have also ignored the decades of data in parapsychology showing psychokinetic effects on random event generators by living people, and it’s next to impossible (without very cooperative apparitions) to do a test of how well discarnate entities can psychokinetically affect such devices.

At this point in time, however, to say that any tech-related “communication” is definitely from a spirit is way too strong. It might be, it might be the intent and expectation of the operator working unconscious PK on the device, or it might be pure chance. One can certainly lean in one direction or another, but no definitive statements can be made – unlike what we see on TV.

Crap: Misapplication of the term “scientific”: “The investigators are conducting scientific investigations,” they tell us on the shows. I’ve yet to see any evidence of anything close to that being true. I do see lots of evidence that the producers and the team members on the shows seem to equate using technology to being scientific.

Okay, so I cooked bacon one morning last week with my microwave oven. So, I was being scientific in the way I cooked the food, right? (No, I was not, at least no more than using the stove and a pan – and I actually have some idea how a microwave oven works).

Using technology does NOT equate to doing science. And, by the way, any man-made tool is technically technology, including a tape measure and even stone knives.

Parapsychology, while often bringing in some of the tools and methods of physical sciences, is mainly a social science (like Psychology and Sociology). Parapsychologists study phenomena of the Mind, of Consciousness – and that means at least starting with people’s experiences.

Many of my own investigations, which are mainly in people’s homes, are not fully scientific, or sometimes even close. Our concerns are for the clients, and taking up their time to do measurements and observations over enough time to have enough data to play with “scientifically” is often to the detriment of their well being. I’m just sayin’.

Crap: Dismissal of all witnesses during the investigation, and dismissal of their experiences as “anecdotal.” On the first front, given that it’s the witnesses who have already had a connection to the reported phenomena, removing them from the location during one’s investigation does not do justice to the case. What if the ghost has a connection to them? Will he/she even stay around or will he/she head to the same hotel as the family? What if it’s poltergeist phenomena, caused by a family member???

It is not a bad idea to remove them from the place if you suspect a normal explanation, so you can really look into that.

As to the second, if witness experiences don’t count, what the hell are you investigating? For private home cases, or even “new” cases in workplaces, it’s the very report of a witness (in other words, a witness experience) that one is investigating. If you dismiss that, there’s nothing to investigate. All witness testimony must be considered – even though it indeed may be inaccurate or based on misinterpretation, faulty perceptions, or emotional reactions.

In public places, reputed to be haunted, without current witnesses you are investigating a rumor or folklore. That’s okay, but the investigation without witnesses should be aimed at finding why people might have concluded in the past that the place was haunted, then you can consider whether it might still be haunted.

Crap: Dismissal of all psychics and mediums in favor of technology. Okay, I understand there are lots of publicity seeking frauds or publicity seeking individuals who simply believe they might be psychic – same, by the way, goes for ghost hunters and paranormal investigators, who seem more interested in getting a TV pilot or series than doing a credible job of investigating.

I understand it’s tough to find a good psychic or medium, especially one whose talents actually work in given situations (contrary to popular belief, psychics and mediums, like artists and musicians, are often specialists – specializing in a certain application of their talents, like a violin player who could never play the flute or drums).

I understand that people often get turned off by many of the psychics and mediums they see on TV, thinking the behavior of all is represented by the behavior of the few (often flamboyant or diva-ish) on television. But that’s like saying the folks on Jersey Shore represent all the natives of the New Jersey/New York area. Not!

Given all that, let me say that the best piece of equipment IS a PERSON. This can be one of the witnesses, or it can be a psychic or medium. However, one must use this “sensor” like any other piece of equipment – what they “sense” needs to be correlated to all the other data, including witness testimony, history of experiences, environmental readings, and so on.

On the other hand, psychics and mediums – the right ones, anyway – are excellent at dealing with the living inhabitants of the home. In other words, there’s the accuracy issue, but more important is the usefulness issue. [Note: in the next few weeks I’ll post a short piece on the qualities of the best psychics and mediums]

Crap: Dismissal of outside experts or editing of the expert opinions. All good researchers and investigators seek alternate opinions. Why don’t you see scientists on Ghost Hunters? Because they might make more sense than the TAPS folks, and given who the stars of the show are, that just won’t do.

What’s worse is when an outside expert is invited on a show, to have his statements placed out of context during the editing process, or even having the comments edited in such a way that on-screen what’s said is the opposite of what the expert actually said. Yes, this happens a lot.

What also happens – and it’s happened to me and many of my colleagues – is having a director or producer during a shoot try to direct the expert to say something the expert does not agree with. Got into a bit of a fight with a director during an Unsolved Mysteries shoot in the 1980s when I refused to ignore evidence as to what I thought was actually going on and state I thought it was “demonic.” Got cut out of that episode, completely.

Crap (okay, the last one, for now): Investigators running scared from a location like frightened little children. An EVP that says “Get Out!” being declared it’s an indication there’s a demonic spirit present.

As to the latter, I not only see this on TV, I also hear it from individuals and groups out there. But imagine if you were the ghost, and a group of people came in and started invading your space, challenging you to appear or otherwise communicate, even insulting you and yelling at you. Wouldn’t you shout “Get OUT!” to them? Or simply leave so they get no “evidence” at all. Frankly, I’m surprised no one’s gotten a “Get the F*%K Out!” EVP yet.

I ask you, who was being “demonic” – the rude, obnoxious, provoking ghost hunters or the ghost who was just minding his own business?

Idiotic assumption!

As to the former, really? Running screaming from a house? Saying it’s “demonic” and that you’ll never enter the premises again? Really?

Wimps! (and certainly not like any professional or scientist I know in the field).

If it was me, it would take a pretty big spider to send me running (or a living person with a gun or big knife)….

That’s enough “crap” for now, on to other things.

Why have I turned down a bunch of shows in the past, and continue to do so?

My Top Thirteen Reasons

1. The producers are not interested in a credible portrayal of the phenomena or the ghost story.

2. The producers are so insistent on having “something” on camera, that they hint (or even blatantly state) that they might have to fake things.

3. The producers have little regard/respect for the people who need help (the clients), promise them one thing, but don’t follow through. [This happened with a couple of producers for Sightings during their last season or two, with producers promising resources for – meaning money to support — follow-up past the segment shoot.] Or they make the people look silly, ignorant or even psychologically disturbed when they are not.

4. The producers have little regard/respect for the statements of the expert (someone like me), and have proven this in past shows/series they’ve done. Editing statements out of context, or cutting so the expert says/does something other than what he/she actually did/said during the shoot. Making the expert look foolish.

5. The show is focused on “evil.” I refused to work with one show on principle, because the show’s opening indicated that all paranormal experiences are brushes with Evil. That’s about as far from my own position as it comes.

6. The producers are focused on demons as a major explanation for people’s paranormal experiences. Also about as far from my own position as it comes. I don’t even believe in demons (as defined by current religious beliefs).

7. The show is positioned to engender fear (related to #5 & #6). I love a good scary movie (scary, not gross-out). But “reality” television should not try to engender fear by portraying all paranormal experiences as potentially dangerous or evil or harmful. I won’t work with such shows. Nor will I work with such shows as try to focus on what look to be harmful experiences, as though all are that. The regular News is often scary enough.

Got a call recently from someone from a proposed show called When Ghosts Attack (anyone recall the old show When Animals Attack?). The person I spoke with was surprised to hear from me (though she heard this from others as well) that ghosts almost never attack. I had no cases for her, and explained that this is not exactly the kind of show that draws me in to help. Fear-mongering is not good for the field.

By the way, she was also surprised to hear (as so many other producers have been surprised to learn) that even if I had any cases like that, the people would most likely not want to talk on camera. Most people don’t even want their neighbors to know they have a “paranormal problem,” let alone broadcast it to the world.

8. The producers have not done any research/education about the actual field, and instead have bought into the “crap” on other TV shows as “how it really is.” This is not actually a problem, unless the producers are unwilling to take the time to learn about the actual experiences of people, the behavior of the phenomena, and the field of Parapsychology and its findings.

But more often than not, they don’t want to spend any time on that, given the network could care less about such things (or at least, that’s what the producers believe, and sadly often the case).

9. The production company’s track record. With some relationship to #s 3 & 4 – I sometimes hear from production companies that tout how “successful” their previous shows (paranormal and not) have been, thinking this is going to sway me to work with them, even if for only one episode of something. It’s not.

Ratings success is very different than critical success, and the amount of Crap that the shows have included, whether about my subject or something else. Producers of Crap have to prove to me that their new project won’t be the same.

10. The producers are unprofessional/idiotic. Do I need to say more on this?

11. Logistics: Sometimes, my refusal is simply a matter of when and where they want to do the shoot. There have been a few times when I did want to say Yes,, but the lead time was not enough for me to rearrange my schedule, or most frequently it conflicted with something I simply could not change or cancel.

One of the biggest such conflicts was back in 1995. I was slated to go to New Orleans with Tokyo Broadcasting for yet another TV special centered around Japanese psychic/medium Aiko Gibo. I really liked working with these folks, they were respectful, listened to me, and even paid well. Mrs. Gibo was a pleasure to work with.

The shoot was scheduled for early summer, 1995, then got pushed back, and again…I warned them there were absolute blackout dates for me in early September. I was getting married, and heading off to French Polynesia for our honeymoon (which was already paid for, and not alterable).

They changed the dates again…and again…until finally – you guessed it: the dates conflicted with our trip. Realistically, and as I told them, we could have pushed our honeymoon a week or two, but the production company would have had to cough up the money for the new trip, on top of what they were paying me. They were not willing to do that, so, regrettably, I had to bow out.

Had a great time on our trip, though!

12. Non-disclosures and crazy language in a release form.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is one that ties the parties from talking about any details of a deal, production, etc. for a designated period of time, or under certain conditions. In the past, I’ve had releases with NDAs that were workable – usually either stated that or I was able to change to I couldn’t talk about the production or what actually went on during the shoot and the case (if we were investigating). I have no problem keeping my mouth shut about a shoot until the specific episode airs. But once it’s on, all bets are off – if they changed the story, disrespected me, other experts or the witnesses, or did an exemplary job, I want to be able to talk about it, either way.

 In the more recent past, there have been overly inclusive non-disclosure clauses in releases (which look more like contracts than TV release forms). Language restricting not only the ability to talk about the shoot, case or show in anything but non-derogatory terms (!!!), but limiting the ability to even use the name of the show (or that I was in it) in any of my own publicity materials without express written permission. On top of that, one I saw recently actually restricted one’s right to say anything other than the “non-derogatory” about the series, production company and even the network!

That last bit would mean that one could never say anything negative about the network going forward, whether for the particular show the release was related to, or any other. Talk about restriction of Freedom of Speech.

In all cases, when presented with something like that, I change the language, crossing things out, and changing the wording. If they or their lawyers don’t like it, I simply tell them I won’t do the show otherwise. It’s not like they’re paying for my silence (see the next item). In a few cases, including an interview I shot (via Skype) for Ghost Lab, they refused to change the language.

I refused to do the shows. In the case of the Ghost Lab show, that meant they couldn’t use the footage of me.

There’s been other crazy language in the releases, including signing what amounts to an admission that you (the signer) are aware they are able to (and even likely to) humiliate or otherwise defame you, make you look foolish, and you have absolutely no recourse, even if they had intended to do this from the moment they began speaking to you about being in the show. The last one I saw like this actually stated that you had no recourse even if they had “malicious intent” to do all that to you.

By signing without changes, you would give producers free reign to make you look as bad as possible (on purpose!) now and forever – and because of the NDA, you could not say anything but a non-derogatory word about it, let alone sue them.

So, when presented with such an agreement, you have to decide a) What’s your reputation worth? and/or b) What’s your ability to speak freely about the shoot, the show, or even the network, worth? and c) What are you getting out of doing the show, whether monetarily or otherwise, and is it worth as much as the potential losses (of a & b)?

To me, it’s simply not worth the losses here, and it’s not like they’re paying enough to make me think twice about it – or often even offering to pay anything at all.

13. Pay (or lack thereof).

I have been around TV production all my life. I know shows have budgets, and I know the reality of Reality shows is that they usually don’t have great budget (unless they’re broadcast network). In many, if not most, cases, the production company is simply “for hire” and gets a flat amount for the budget of an episode, with no piece of the action down the road (no residuals, no percentage of profits from DVD or online sales or rentals, etc.). Consequently, they often have to penny-pinch, and where that especially comes in is with on-air “talent.” This includes the principals in the show (e.g. the ghost hunting team, or the host(s)) and any outside experts or others being interviewed.     

That said, it’s important to remember that the production crew is being paid, and any outside services (travel, food, lodging, equipment rental, even temp “go-fers”) are being paid.

The production companies have often been able to keep budgets down by not even paying the on-air “talent” (the team), at least for a first season series – though generally they pay travel, lodging and food. However, so many people are so hungry to get on TV that they don’t question the “sorry, but we can’t pay you – but you’ll be on TV!” statement. From what I understand, some have gone broke by giving up a paying job to take a non-paying gig for a short-term on TV, thinking it’ll lead to much more. Yes, sometimes it can, but most of the time, it does not.

Like everyone else who went through several years of education, and like everyone else who’s worked hard to establish a reputation as well as a strong knowledge-base in a subject, all that investment of time, money and experience should be worth something. In other words, like everyone else in every profession, I should be paid for my time.

Naturally, there are exceptions. News programs can’t pay (can’t pay for a news story, even though it may be more of a feature than an actual news piece). Talk shows usually don’t pay, unless you’re a member of AFTRA or SAG unions. The latter usually pays expenses, and sometimes the former does as well.

Radio can’t pay (not even for expenses – they don’t have the money).

The cable shows don’t usually have large budgets, but they do have some money they can spare for experts. I know this, having gotten to know a number of cable producers over the years (and because of my Dad’s looking into this for me many years ago).

“We can’t pay you, but we really want you on the show.” Okay, if it’s a show that sounds appealing to me, or there’s something I do in fact get out of it (such as doing the recent ESPN piece I did on the “Madden Curse” – fun to do, a fun piece, something different, a new audience, all of the above!), or perhaps one of the locations I work with regularly gets something out of it, or maybe as a favor to a colleague or if I have a friend working on the show.

All of the above had led me to do things for no payment. And I’ve done interviews for a number of documentaries for free (or next to nothing), and as long as they’re educational, have the right angles, and are from producers with integrity and/or are actually interested and care about the subject in a serious way, I’ll continue to do so.

When they plead “nothing in the budget,” logistics really do come into play for me. Do I have to take time off actual, paying work (in other words, do I lose money)? Are they willing to come to me, on my schedule, at a location of my choosing? How much time will be spent on this? I consider all of those – and have done a number for little or no money.

Otherwise, I turn them down.

I’m not going to list my fees for doing shows here. That’s between me and any show that wants to hire me, and it totally depends on what I am being asked to do, how much time will be spent –including getting to/from their shoot-location. Often, it’s logistics that makes me decide “No, sorry,” especially if the travel is long/time consuming compared to the money offered. I don’t ask for a huge sum, and I’m told I’m undercharging, especially given how much (free) time and advice/information I’ve given over the phone to producers.

But it boils down to whether I’m being treated as a professional, or an expert – which is what they want me to be on camera.

 So, when people ask me why I don’t have a series, there are many reasons, but it boils down to “most series are crap…crap sells, good ideas don’t…I don’t do crap.”

Sometimes it sucks to have some integrity.

Of course, I am willing to do comedy…. I’m talking to you, Stephen Colbert!!!