Psychic Today show faces fine for claims made on UK television

UK media regulator, Ofcom, ruled that a Psychic Today TV show breached the broadcasting code which states that services such as astrology, horoscopes, and tarot readings should be advertised “for entertainment purposes” only.

Psychic TV channel faces Ofcom fine over Dowler and Jackson claims | Media |

A psychic television channel faces a fine from media regulator Ofcom after two psychics made claims about Michael Jackson and the police investigation into murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.

Ofcom said Psychic Today was in breach of broadcasting rules over two interviews with psychics Jenna and Crystal.

One claim was about Michael Jackson. Another was a statement that the psychic participated in a police investigation.

Ofcom said the Jackson story, which was described by one of the channel’s licensees as “showbiz puffery”, “clearly implied [the psychic’s] predictions were accurate and efficacious”. It said the breaches were “potentially serious because they may result in consumer harm”.

With regards to the psychic claim of aiding police:

Ofcom said: “The clear implication of these comments was that various UK police forces had employed Crystal to assist them and that the police would only employ Crystal if they believed that the information she might provide as a psychic would be accurate and efficacious.”

Ofcom announced these rules regarding psychic broadcasts back in December of 2011. I’m not sure about this. No doubt that the psychics had no backing for such claims which could be made up out of thin air for all we know but that was not the point. The question is, did they violate the broadcasting code? That’s not clear from the information given.

  2 comments for “Psychic Today show faces fine for claims made on UK television

  1. February 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM

    As every programme on Television is there for one reason only, to be watched by people, it must follow that the content of everything shown must be entertainment.

  2. Richard Cornford
    February 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM

    Making the significant word the “only” at the end of the disclaimer.

Comments are closed.