Paranormal Review A Proper Reply to Brutons Interview +

Admin wrote:Of course those of you who have the digital images of Two Worlds when Emma Hardinge Britten edited it would understand the huge difference between the current version and the hugely challenging weekly paper that Emma produced. I am sure Z would understand that.

We have all the original printed copies of "Two Worlds" when it was a weekly paper.

When Barbanell took the decision to turn "Two Worlds" into a monthly magazine he changed its remit.

He edited both PN and TW and kept them completely separate regarding content etc. One was a newspaper and the other a magazine.

It is easy Z David Bruton makes it clear that under Tony Ortzen Psychic News was a

tabloid-like presentation of Tony Ortzen’s time

Not hard your current Two Worlds editor clearly changed the style from, to quote yourself

If you read the "Psychic News" under the editorship of Maurice Barbanell from its inception in 1932 you will note its 'tabloid-like presentation' which was totally different from other Spiritualist periodicals of its time.

Z please confirm that the current ownership of Two Worlds was not a direct continuation of the ownership from Maurice Barbanell but an acquisition of the name after Two Worlds had closed down. As I understood it that was the case and the name was claimed. Do you have all the old archival material as part of the ownership? The pre 1900 material is so far ahead of the current material.

Admin wrote:It is easy Z David Bruton makes it clear that under Tony Ortzen Psychic News was a

tabloid-like presentation of Tony Ortzen’s time

Not hard your current Two Worlds editor clearly changed the style from, to quote yourself

If you read the "Psychic News" under the editorship of Maurice Barbanell from its inception in 1932 you will note its 'tabloid-like presentation' which was totally different from other Spiritualist periodicals of its time.

That is precisely my point, Jim. Tony Ortzen, as did Roy Stemman, followed Barbanell's "tabloid-like presentation"
as both were at one time assistant editors under Barbanell.

That is why there is a difference between "Two Worlds" and "Psychic News".

zerdini wrote:

Admin wrote:However, when that method is used I believe that any editor should state that so no one ever believes it is a true interview. I believe that should be the case in any publication.

This morning, I received an e-mail from Tony Ortzen. Part of it reads:

"I am never above criticism, but reject the claim that my interview with David Bruton was a "whitewash." However, the matter is very easily solved. If anyone at Psychic News feels that the interview with Mr Bruton was unfair in any way and too pro-SNU, let Psychic News conduct its own e-mail interview with him..."

What utter twaddle!!! "if anyone at Psychic News feels that the interview with Mr. Bruton was unfair ..." Just WHO said it was anyone from PN that made that remark? I made that remark and I am not from Psychic News.

What an utterly smug remark on the part of Tony Ortzen. He would know full well that Psychic News would be unlikely to get agreement from the president of the SNU to be 'interviewed' by email or in any other manner, by the editor of that publication.

I wonder why Mr. Ortzen, doesn't suggest, since he claims that his 'interview' with Mr. Bruton wasn't 'a whitewash' he isn't saying that suggestion could be easily resolved by HIM INTERVIEWING the SNU president on the issues that were not covered in his initial interview. I cannot see why he is suggesting that such an interview should be done by another Spiritualist publication when it is the 'journal' he edits which has published the interview.

Please explain you made it clear earlier on this thread that Maurice Barbanell did not use

'tabloid-like presentation'

now you claim he did to justify what is going on. Please stop Twisting your answers Z that is absolute rubbish.

They may have been assistant editors but just how different are they

I very much doubt that now, at this time, there is much love lost between Tony and the others however much they may smile at each other

I absolutely concur with Lis. Z your justification of Tony O comes from being his Chairperson and to be honest you are justifying the indefensible in my honest opinion.

It is time not to try and score points but to make the Spiritualist world know just how badly the NEC behaved.

Admin wrote:Z please confirm that the current ownership of Two Worlds was not a direccontinuation of the ownership from Maurice Barbanell but an acquisition of the name after Two Worlds had closed down. As I understood it that was the case and the name was claimed. Do you have all the old archival material as part of the ownership? The pre 1900 material is so far ahead of the current material.

Of course, we have all the original "Two Worlds". I have been on the Board of "Two Worlds" for many years so I know the history extremely well.

In fact I am the only surviving board member as all the others are now in the Spirit World.

zerdini wrote:

Admin wrote:However, when that method is used I believe that any editor should state that so no one ever believes it is a true interview. I believe that should be the case in any publication.

This morning, I received an e-mail from Tony Ortzen. Part of it reads:

"I am never above criticism, but reject the claim that my interview with David Bruton was a "whitewash." However, the matter is very easily solved. If anyone at Psychic News feels that the interview with Mr Bruton was unfair in any way and too pro-SNU, let Psychic News conduct its own e-mail interview with him..."

You don't need a load of "roving reporters' since as you have already acknowledged TW is the production of just 2. But one of those 2 could have made enough effort to actually ask the questions that had actually been on so many people's minds. Failure to do so, whether by email interview or in person, still represents a failure to take on the issues affecting Spiritualism at this time, one of which, and an important one, was what happened to PN.

Surely as Chairman of Two Worlds, you can come up with a better response than those seen so far on this thread.

Z you were not alive when the original Two Worlds closed. Please let us know how and when it came back into publication. Maurice Barbanell re invented it. Or do you have more information.

Admin wrote:Please explain you made it clear earlier on this thread that Maurice Barbanell did not use

'tabloid-like presentation'

now you claim he did to justify what is going on. Please stop Twisting your answers Z that is absolute rubbish.

They may have been assistant editors but just how different are they

I very much doubt that now, at this time, there is much love lost between Tony and the others however much they may smile at each other

Nothing has been twisted, Jim. I merely stated facts which anyone can see by reading old copies of PN.

zerdini wrote:

Admin wrote:Of course thosw of you who have the digital images of Two Worlds when Emma Hradinge Britten edited it would understand the huge difference between the current version and the hugely challenging weekly paper that Emma produced. I am sure Z would understand that.

We have all the original printed copies of "Two Worlds" when it was a weekly paper.

When Barbanell took the decision to turn "Two Worlds" into a monthly magazine he changed its remit.

He edited both PN and TW and kept them completely separate regarding content etc. One was a newspaper and the other a magazine.

This hardly answers the point being made Z - since you are not the only person who has all the Two Worlds publications - and the remark was a direct comment about Emma Hardinge Britten's editorship, as the originator of TW, not about what Barbanell did, or did not do a long time after.

Admin wrote:Please explain you made it clear earlier on this thread that Maurice Barbanell did not use

'tabloid-like presentation'

now you claim he did to justify what is going on. Please stop Twisting your answers Z that is absolute rubbish.

They may have been assistant editors but just how different are they

I very much doubt that now, at this time, there is much love lost between Tony and the others however much they may smile at each other

That is simply speculation and supposition with not a scrap of evidence to back it up.

It is also interesting Z to realise that there was both a break in the ownership of Two Worlds after Emma's editorship but also after it closed following financial difficulties under Maurice Barbanell. The current magazine, as you should be willing to accept, has nothing to do with either Maurice or Emma.
I find that the failure to acknowledge this is rather debasing to the publication which tries to suggest this direct link.

[quote="zerdini"][quote="Admin"]Please explain you made it clear earlier on this thread that Maurice Barbanell did not use

'tabloid-like presentation'

Z that is the real point I made I will keep it simple from now on

Whatever, the current chairman of TW says, the reality is that the present editor did not take on the opportunity to ask meaningful questions about what had gone on with the closure of PN, the subsequent liquidations and eventual sale.

While the chairman claims that Two Worlds is not a publication focused on investigative journalism, but is concerned with the "philosophy" of Spiritualism, it would appear that the publication diverted itself from its main concern by interviewing the president of the SNU - either that, or it really isn't actually focused on the philosophy at all, but is a publication that will publish whatever it feels like, philosophical or otherwise if it thinks it might gain readership.

Having read a number of more recent TW - I am somewhat at a loss about this alleged "philosophy" but perhaps it will return in time to that focus.

Admin wrote:I absolutely concur with Lis. Your justification of Tony O comes from being his Chairperson and to be honest you are justifying the indefensible in my honest opinion.

It is time not to try and score points but to make the Spiritualist world know just how badly the NEC behaved.

Of course you will always concur with Lis - she's your wife.

I am not his Chairperson. I am Chairman of the Board of Directors.

It is not my job to convince anyone of the NEC's behaviour. That is for the members of the SNU at their AGM.

I am not trying to score points I am simply defending "Two Worlds" from unwarranted attacks.

You will probably try to twist that Z but please do not, take on board that this interview added no value to our Spiritualist world. In honesty Two Worlds, to quote David Bruton

'tabloid-like presentation'

leaves me cold so far.

zerdini wrote:

Admin wrote:Please explain you made it clear earlier on this thread that Maurice Barbanell did not use

'tabloid-like presentation'

now you claim he did to justify what is going on. Please stop Twisting your answers Z that is absolute rubbish.

They may have been assistant editors but just how different are they

I very much doubt that now, at this time, there is much love lost between Tony and the others however much they may smile at each other

Nothing has been twisted, Jim. I merely stated facts which anyone can see by reading old copies of PN.

This discussion is not about PN - or its editorial policy. It is about Two Worlds, and the interview of the president of the SNU by its editor. Trying to flim-flam about whether either publication was ever 'tabloid style or not only serves to divert attention from the real issues being considered.

Admin wrote:It is also interesting Z to realise that there was both a break in the ownership of Two Worlds, after Emma's editorship, but also after it closed following financial difficulties under Maurice Barbanell. The current magazine, as you should be willing to accept, has nothing to do with either Maurice or Emma.
I find that the failure to acknowledge this is rather debasing to the publication which tries to suggest this direct link.

Z you have avoided this point which I believe is a very important one, The late 1800's newspapers are a vital part of our history, which I search through regularly. If the current magazine has no direct genetic links to the past, as the historical records show, then people should be made well aware of this.

zerdini wrote:

Admin wrote:I absolutely concur with Lis. Your justification of Tony O comes from being his Chairperson and to be honest you are justifying the indefensible in my honest opinion.

It is time not to try and score points but to make the Spiritualist world know just how badly the NEC behaved.

Of course you will always concur with Lis - she's your wife.

I am not his Chairperson. I am Chairman of the Board of Directors.

It is not my job to convince anyone of the NEC's behaviour. That is for the members of the SNU at their AGM.

I am not trying to score points I am simply defending "Two Worlds" from unwarranted attacks.

Zerdini you go too far. I may be Jim's wife, but that does not mean he will always agree with me or I with him and to suggest that is the case is offensive and quite inappropriate. You may not like my viewpoint, or Jim's but you have no right to make such a derogatory and prejudical remark.

By the way, I stated you were the chairman - it was not said you were Tony Ortzen's chairman - give the distortion of what is written a rest Z.

You claim comments expressed about the handling of the Bruton interview are "unwarranted attacks" - they are not. The comments represents a viewpoint that you don't agree with. To call them unwarranted attacks is an attempt to denigrate another person's viewpoint, just because you don't agree with it. As chairman of the board of directors of Two Worlds you can hardly describe yourself as an impartial, objective or disinterested observer, making a comment.

Admin wrote:You will probably try to twist that Z but please do not, take on board that this interview added no value to our Spiritualist world. In honesty Two Worlds, to quote David Bruton

'tabloid-like presentation'

leaves me cold so far.

David Bruton was referring to PN not TW.

I absolutely concur with Lis. Your justification of Tony O comes from being his Chairperson and to be honest you are justifying the indefensible in my honest opinion.

That is what Jim wrote, Lis.

Bending it like Beckham again Z -