Examining an erroneous and malicious character assassination

Gary E. Schwartz, PhD

Reported on www.drgaryschwartz.com

October 10, 2007

Introduction: Truth First, Justice Second

It has been said that there are three sides to every story: her side, his side, and the truth. More often than not, the truth may be many layered, multi-caused, and complex. To understand the truth requires a commitment to collecting all the facts, piecing them together carefully, and then allowing the bigger picture to emerge.

Scientists have a responsibility to truth – meaning, to obtain accurate information and to consider all possible interpretations of the information in an open and balanced fashion. Unfortunately, this high ideal is not shared by many individuals – examples can be found in the media, politics, law, religion, and entertainment.

Scientists regularly debate, and may have heated discussions about, the collection and interpretation of evidence. Though their motivation is at times practical – publishing papers, receiving research grants, presenting their findings at scientific meetings – their ultimate motivation is discovering truths in their respective areas of specialization.

However, people sometimes have agenda’s that are neither beneficent nor concerned with truth. They will take specific pieces of information (be they letters, memories of discussions, and so forth) and slant them to fit their agenda, their story. They implicitly or explicitly follow the philosophy of “don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

A simple way to make Michael Jordan, widely viewed to be the world’s best basketball player, look like he can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to play basketball, is to focus the highly slanted report on a few missed shots in a given game, and fail to report the majority of his baskets.

Selective reporting and interpreting information can be conscious or unconscious (see http://lach.web.arizona.edu/hos.htm). The challenge is to be mindful of both possibilities.

As you read the brief summary statement below regarding a recent segment on Geraldo at Large, you may wish to ponder how much of what transpired was a conscious versus unconscious misrepresentation of the complete story. You may also wish to ponder the motives of the collection of individuals involved in promoting this selective and fallacious information.

Summary: Response to Geraldo

In what can be described as a character assassination segment on “Geraldo at Large” on Saturday, October 6th, explicit defamatory claims were made against Dr. Gary E. Schwartz concerning his ethics regarding fund raising for afterlife research. The one-sided segment presented interviews with three people – (1) Mr. Knopf, a father grieving the death of his son who had been a former client of Ms. Campbell (2) a medium currently co-starring in the television show Sensing Murder, and (3) Ms. Macy, an investigative reporter hired by Mr. Knopf. The segment was highly selective and biased in its reporting. A summary of the claims, with additional information not shared on the segment, is discussed below. Together they reveal a very different story.

Mr. Knopf claimed that Dr. Schwartz engaged in unethical fund raising following the death of his son, including making statements regarding his deceased son’s purported wishes from the other side. What the Geraldo segment did not mention is that (1) it was Mr. Knopf who initiated contact with Dr. Schwartz following Mr. Knopf’s successful private readings with Ms. Campbell, (2) Mr. Knopf claimed that he was a very wealthy man who wanted to honor his deceased son and help support afterlife research, (3) he invited Dr. Schwartz to his home to discuss possible research programs that he would fund, (4) Ms. Campbell provided specific information about his son’s wishes from the other side, (5) Mr. Knopf promised The University of Arizona an unrestricted gift of $100,000 but only followed through with $50,000 to The University of Arizona, (6) Mr. Knopf communicated to Dr. Schwartz that Mr. Knopf had recently been released from spending time in jail, (7) Mr. Knopf also communicated to Dr. Schwartz that he was currently being sued by partners in a medical school he purported to own, and (8) he was upset because Dr. Schwartz refused to participate in a proposed business venture with Mr. Knopf that would compromise Dr. Schwartz’s ethics.

Ms. Campbell claimed that she resigned from Dr. Schwartz’s laboratory in 2005, and that this speaks to her opinions regarding Dr. Schwartz’s ethical behavior. What the Geraldo segment did not mention is that (1) new guidelines and procedures for advancing the ethics and scientific understanding for mediums were being formulated at that time, initiated partly by some inappropriate behavior by Ms. Campbell and some other mediums, (2) all mediums would be required to go through a nine step evaluation procedure, including taking a government mandated human subjects ethics examine required of scientists and research staff, plus take a test based on a book describing previous scientific research with mediums, (3) Ms. Campbell was upset that she would have to undergo the required testing for the new guidelines and procedures, (4) she decided not to participate in the testing, and therefore (5) she was about to be let go by the laboratory, and chose to resign instead.

Ms. Macy claimed that she had interviewed other individuals who had been approached by Dr. Schwartz for research funding in an unethical manner. What the Geraldo segment did not mention is that (1) Ms. Macy had previously contributed to the spreading of a false rumor concerning fund raising related to Dr. Schwartz and the Forever Family Foundation, and that (2) after being confronted with the facts, she had written a formal letter of apology to Dr. Schwartz for her being part of spreading the false rumor.

One wonders why “Geraldo at Large” presented such a one sided story. Geraldo made a point on the show of reporting that Dr. Schwartz did not return their calls, with an implicit negative connotation. The truth is that there was no genuine attempt by the Geraldo show to contact Dr. Schwartz to have a fair representation of both sides of this story. What Geraldo failed to mention was that the call to Dr. Schwartz’s office was made only after closing hours of his office on Friday, October 5, for a show that was ready to be aired on Saturday, October 6. Also, a call had been made to Dr. Schwartz’s home late Friday night. As it happened, both Dr. Schwartz and his wife were out of town that weekend. They returned to Tucson on Sunday evening, October 7, after the show had aired.

As the title “Veritas Research Program” (http://veritas.arizona.edu ) indicates, Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues are concerned with truth. As Dr. Schwartz reports on his laboratory’s website (http://lach.web.arizona.edu/hos.htm),“Responsibility to the truth is the heart of science.” The Geraldo segment about Dr. Schwartz reveals a striking disregard for balanced truth in reporting. Legal action will be taken against each and every individual who has made defamatory comments against Dr. Schwartz, and the truth will be brought out in the court room 1.

1 An expanded and more academic discussion of these issues – including the philosophy and consequences of erroneous character assassination – will be available at a future date.