3 ms·
I don't think the writers thought Geller wasn't a fraud. They verge close to saying so repeatedly, comparing his work to deepfakes, quoting him as admitting, “D
by zuminator 3y ago
I don't think the writers thought Geller wasn't a fraud. They verge close to saying so repeatedly, comparing his work to deepfakes, quoting him as admitting, “Doesn’t matter how I do it, whether it’s real or not,” holding back only due to "civility and fairness," etc.
So the NYT didn't "fall for" anything. The point is that at the end of the day he successfully tapped into people's desire to be duped and turned it into wealth and renown, whereas his naysayers spent a lot of time and energy but never really landed a knockout. Speaking as an admirer of Randi (and Martin Gardner and others) back in the day, I think that it ended up a win-win. Geller the hustler got to retire off of fleecing stupid mining companies, whereas the good guys got to write book after book that helped mainstream skeptical inquiry. And lots of curious kids took up the honest craft of magic.
- xbar 3y agoWhy is the NYT so willing to be complicit to his fraudulence? Or at least, trying to sell the reader on the idea that being charmed by a fraud is acceptable? I find it galling. When one of the Davids does magic, we know what they mean. Geller's behavior is fraud. It is neither civil nor fair to the readership of a serious newspaper to hold back.
- cubefox 3y agoIt also promotes a lenient relationship to the truth. It promotes bullshitting: Who cares what's true as long as he/she is entertaining? If such a stance becomes broadly accepted, eventually bullshitters become president.