Uncricital reporting

There's something very annoying in newspapers these days.  This isn't that new but you'd think we'd have made some progress by now. I am talking about uncritical reporting.

Consider this article: thestar.com blathers on in an interview with Sylvia Browne.  The article is completely sympathetic to Browne.  It just assumes that she is not a fraud.  Not a single critical question is asked of her and her claim that psychics can't see into their own future is just accepted on face value, despite that being the most useless cop-out in psychic history.  (though it does explain all her mistakes).  Heck, the dumb interviewer even asks "Aren't some psychics bogus?"  The true answer is, yes, they are all bogus.  But Sylvia is somehow exempt from bogosity because she successfully ripped off enough people that she has money, and thus is somehow better than the so-called "someone with a cardboard table with cards".

I don't need to go into detail about her many errors.  Wikipedia's article about her lists several examples and includes a link to a study that shows how her success rate at solving crimes is pretty much zero. She's been wrong very many times:
When I read an article like the one in the Star I am embarrassed for them. It's time for the media to reject psychics and ostracize them as the con-men they are.