Several of you are trying to "rationalize" things based on theory. The media can't be all over something they can't prove (unless you're with the Ntl. Enquirer or Star) they can't "prove" things because of how "the system" deliberately conceals specifics. On the other hand we have televised accounts of dozens of cases in which psychics were vital to solving the crime, even if it were something as simple as giving investigators a new set of eyes on the issue.
You talk about "insider knowledge" but how is this possible when the psychic in question lives hundreds or thousands of miles away and has absolutely no direct sense of connection to anyone involved. . . not even the famed 6 degrees of association a.k.a. Kevin Bacon scenario.
I've simply seen too many situations and even participated in one major and a couple of minor situations in which crime or "loss" was an issue, through which psychic or intuitive phenomena was the key. In my personal experiences the biggie was locating a stolen car and ultimately leading authorities in Nevada, Arizona and California to a car theft operation based near Palm Dale, CA. Yet, you won't find me or any other psychic mentioned in the reports for several reasons, the primary reason is that it all started with one man that came to see me at the store in Reno and it was his insistence and personal follow-up to my leads that lead to the bust. Nonetheless, he credits me for telling him where to look and what to look out for.
In the more "minor" scenarios, I've helped locate lost pets and in one instance, an elderly man with dementia that had wondered off. . . of course, I could list trivial situations like finding car keys, lost packs of cigarettes and beating a GPS team on a treasure hunt, but I'll not go there (especially that GPS thing, in that I probably cheated when I did that one).
The big problem that really exists is the refusal of the more cynical mind, to give credit where it is due and instead, attempt to explain away things in ways that are all too frequently 'weak"... for example, insisting on solid, unshakable testimony by ALL parties (from law enforcement) that are involved and on top of that, being able to prove each individual is unshakable and stands-up to their idea of being creditable. . . if history is an indicator I believe we've seen how quickly once respected scientists & researchers are suddenly made to look like radical idiots of questionable ethics the instant they suggest that PSI is possible, so what are the chances for a typical human being to withstand such antics of character assassination?
Like the various flavors of religion, the "skeptics" (actually, the cynics with an agenda) will support ANYONE regardless their lack or morals & ethics, so long as they a "yes men" to the cause and ardent atheists that are willing to spread the gospel of disbelief. On this the naysayers share common ground with every form of religious zealot, including acts of violence (though not nearly as inhumane as certain cults have managed to get over the millennia). If people don't yield to your personal point of view, they are chastised and made fun of and all too frequently demeaned or discredited; something many in this mind-set take pride in for some odd reason. But similar, actions that are akin to any other animal backed into a corner and feeling threatened -- you lash out in the hope of taking a few out with you. Or worse, you'll model yourselves after the military manners of a certain Mr. Custer whose idea of fighting Indians was to wait until the braves left camp on a hunting party, then swooping in to murder all the women & children. . . a little trick he learned from studying the Crusader era and war tactics I'm willing to bet.
I AM A SKEPTIC far more than not. Yet I KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt, that there are things about the "paranormal" that have legitimacy and just because we've invented explanations or discovered the subtle nature as to how these things happen DOES NOT MEAN it's all trickery, fake, deliberate deception or criminal behavior. It only means that we've figured part of it, out -- not all of it! Not everything in the Universe fits in the niche of a laboratory and as anyone that works with statistics will tell you, anything can be proven as correct now days, based on who is financially supporting the research as well as the political atmosphere of the day. So maybe it would be more wise to hesitate and consider the alternative and look a bit beyond reason, especially the more extreme areas of "critical' some wish to imply. . .
EXAMPLE: Most everything causes cancer based on your consumption/exposure to it. The constant flow of announcements about this and that causing cancer ALL seem to be based on outrageous, statistically irresponsible research -- test results based on a consumption level that is frequently more than ten times typical consumption/exposure, if not more. So, given such known and proven lack of fairness and logic, how can anything withstand such testing? How can anything not be proven to cause cancer? Or, as the case were, how is there any chance in hell of realistically proving something the "establishment" doesn't want proved? Like Global Warming? The Big Brother Scenarios? UFOs? or any other thing that might challenge things as they stand and are encouraged as being acceptable?
The whole peer review rhetoric we hear in retort is not a fail-safe means of check & balances now days, hasn't been in a very long time. It is a highly political-economically dependent aspect within society that is obliged to keep certain ideologies "controlled" and only through very small baby spoon fulls, feed the greater auspices of society "new ways" of looking at and understanding situations. This includes scenarios like the invention of the AMA and even FDA who, truth be known, have brought about a greater sense of harm and information loss that fulfilling their role and supposed obligation to the masses.
Step Back and look at the bigger picture, gents. Open your eyes a bit and see just how unfair and unbalanced all of it actually is and more importantly, look at the core of it all so you can understand where such "corruption" comes from and why it sustains the FACT that science is no long neutral nor as "fact based" as you may wish to believe.