Sometime in the next week or two ABC's 20/20 will air a program they taped yesterday and today with Van Praagh and myself. The producer wants to call it "DECONSTRUCTING JAMES" (remember Woody Allen's latest film, "Deconstructing Harry"?). And I think they really mean it. I was there for three hours. It was exhausting, going through hours of Van Praagh tapes from his performance the night before. He bombed as bad as I've seen any psychic bomb. And still they wanted to give him some hits. Example:

"How did he get the name of this woman's father's dog?"

Answer: He didn't. What happened was he was talking to this guy name Peter, who was poker faced and giving him nothing. James was bombing. Finally, he says to Peter, "Who is Charlie?" Peter looks puzzled (as he did for his entire reading), and finally the woman next to Peter says, "Oh, Charlie was the name of my father's dog." Ah, yes, at last, a hit. Sure enough, "I can see Charlie and your Dad taking a walk right now in heaven." (All good dogs go to heaven, you see.)

Some psychic, I told the producers. He can't even tell the difference between a human and a dog in heaven. Doesn't sound like the sort of place where I'd like to go, especially if I had to come back as a fire hydrant.

But all in all the producers sounded like they really intend to put Van Praagh away for good. This won't happen, of course, but at least it's a start. We'll see what actually makes the airwaves.

QUESTION: How would you answer this question from producers: "What's the harm in what Van Praagh does? These people are elated, happy to have touched their loved ones, they cry, they laugh, they leave happy. What does this hurt?"

I have my answers, but I'm not especially satisfied with them ("alcohol and drugs also makes you feel good, but ..." or "living a delusion can lead to other, more dangerous delusions ... " or "would you pay money to someone to lie to you just because it makes you feel better?"). These don't seem to wow the producers who ask the questions. Any other ideas?