MediaWatch
March 2002
January saw its share of high profile uninformed criticism of
astrology. There's nothing wrong with criticism of astrology,
but it's a shame that astrology's most prominent critics often
get the wrong end of the stick. Some, though, are more relaxed
than others. The first article was penned by Martin Rees, Astronomer
Royal, in the Sunday Times New Review (p. 4.8) on 6 January 2002.
In an interesting departure from the hard line taken by Richard
Dawkins he was quoted as saying that 'I think the scientific basis
of astrology is non-existent, but unlike some of my colleagues
I'm relaxed about astrology's pervasiveness. It seems a near-harmless
frivolity and to crusade against it would simply reinforce the
view that scientists are over-solemn'.
Compared to Rees' measured tones, journalist Thomas Sutcliffe's
full page denunciation of astrology in the Independent (9 Jan
2001, Review, p. 1) was a howl of rage. Sutcliffe's primal scream
hit every clichéd target: Jonathan Cainer earns millions,
the planets are too far away to influence us, and so on.
It's worth pointing that Sutcliffe did absolutely no research
beyond reading a few sun sign columns and talking to a sceptic
or two. Evidence-free journalism! Still, no doubt Sutcliffe is
very pleased with himself. The complete disinterest of most astrologers
in replying to these attacks may be an indication of the fact
that they are perceived as irrelevant.
The Independent published one response - by John Etherington
on 11 Jan.
While the ' up-market broadsheets' were running new-year attacks
on astrology, the Daily Mail revealed tabloid support for it by
running a substantial extract from Derek and Julia Parker's latest
volume.
Light news reports on astrology included the story that two lottery
winners had their wins 'written in the stars' (Daily Telegraph
29 December 2001, p 13) and that, (and we don’t know if this
is true), within the last decade a jury tried to reach a verdict
using a defendants birth chart (Sunday Times, 6 Jan 2002). Many
astrologers, though, would say that a birth chart cannot decide
matters of guilt and innocence.
Celebrity acceptance of astrology was revealed by Penelope Cruz,
star of the movie Vanilla Sky, who confided to the Sunday Times
magazine (6 Jan 2002, p. 33), that 'I'm more tough than sweet'.
The reason, she said, might be because she is Spanish and a Taurus,
a star sign known for its stubborness'.
Royals have long been devoted followers of astrology, and never
more so than in southeast Asia. According to a Reuters press release
dated 30 Jan, a recent issue of the Bangkok post reported that
Thailand's Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn married in secret
last year, wearing a tracksuit and slippers after his astrologers,
Buddhist monks, told him to hold a low-key wedding.
The forty-nine year old prince has two daughters from previous
marriages and a pretty bad public profile due to his philandering
ways. He said that the astrologers had warned that putting too
much effort into the wedding would backfire, so he married Srirasmi
Mahidol na Ayudhya, 30, in a secret ceremony. In his own words,
'That day we were dressed very casually in T-shirts, tracksuits
and slippers at the Nonthaburi palace. We were sitting on the
floor in the living room when the district chief came in, also
dressed very casually, with papers for us to sign'.
The prince, who rarely speaks to the press, said the marriage
ceremony, performed by the king, was kept secret and still refuses
to name the date, presumably because his rivals' astrologers may
use it to find weaknesses to use against him.
From the Australian newspaper The Courier-Mail comes a story
that Geminis are 'most accident-prone drivers'. The story reports
that 'A new survey of Australian accident insurance [by Suncorp
Metway, based on 160,000 car accident insurance claims over the
last three years] suggests that Geminis are the most likely to
have a crash.
The survey of Australian accident insurance claims shows Taurean
and Piscean drivers come in second and third place. The survey
shows that Capricorns are least likely to have accidents. "Geminis,
typically described as restless, easily bored and frustrated by
things moving slowly, had more car accidents than any other sign,"
Warren Duke, Suncorp's national manager of personal insurance,
told The Courier-Mail.
Taureans are thought to be stubborn and inflexible, Pisceans
are risk-takers and dare-devils, while Capricorns are generally
thought of as patient, he added. The full list, starting with
the most accident-prone star sign, is as follows: Gemini, Taurus,
Pisces, Virgo, Cancer, Aquarius, Aries, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius,
Scorpio, Capricorn. The company isn't planning to base its premiums
on people's star sign, we are told. (see http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_518078.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
)
A big story in the USA, which the British tabloids missed, concerned
the case of astrologer
Vicki Hill, who testified against the 'astrology-bomber' in Fremont,
CA, and is in line to share a third of a $90,000 reward.
For a report on this story see:
http://www.theargusonline.com/Stories/0,1002,1968%257E364071%257E83%257E%257E,00.html
And lastly, from the Archers, the popular BBC Radio 4 soap opera,
February 2001 (we didn't get the exact date).
The scene: Jolene, mother of Fallon, is reading the horoscopes
for Gemini out to her lover, Sid Perks, the pub landlord.
Sid: 'If astrologers are so clever how come there's nothing in
there for Fallon. She's a Gemini. "There's no activity in
any house. You are suffering from a hangover"'.
Jolene (defensively): 'It's just a laugh'.
MediaWatch
is compiled by Nick Campion
|
