There has been a lot of discussion on this topic in other boards as well. It is really a subject where opinions widely differ.
Did Houdini come out and tell everyone "Hey, this might look like magic, but I really have a big mirror" or "Don't worry folks - I have the key to these padlocks in my mouth, I'm perfectly safe"
Of course not! We don't come out and ANNOUNCE that what we're doing isn't real. Anyone older than 6 already knows that - but anyone with an interest or taste for magic and illusion will suspend that belief and enjoy the show. I say again - calling Criss Angel a fraud for selling himself as something he's not, would IMMEDIATELY mean that everyone else who practices magic or illusion is a fraud.
Actually, Houdini DID claim exactly that later in his career and he DID expose how he achieved his feats. Did this decrease his audience's admiration? No, actually the opposite - people admired the skill he actually possessed. They did appreciate that he did not stoop to use gimmicked tools and shills to tie him up.
Remember, magic is not about trickery or fooling people - it is an art of creation. The art of creating amazement and wonder (my favorite quote from R. Osterlind). Sometimes, it involves doing
exactly what you claim to do.
There is an important difference between a magician who achieves his results with genuine "skill" - misdirection and showmanship included - and somebody who uses stooges, gaffed props and camera tricks.
Imagine a Mentalist stepping up to a stranger and telling him the name of his first love (this actually happened in a German TV show). Does this convince laymen that a Mentalist can do this every time? Or do they rather believe that it was stooged like all the rest of the show?
Well, there are two kinds of people: a) Those who do believe that a decent Mentalist
can do this sort of thing and that anybody who doesn't do things exactly as seen on TV must be no good, and b) Those that believe that the entire stuff is just a huge scam since this effect is absolutely impossible and cannot be reproduced outside of a TV production.
Hence, the fake mind reading is harmful not only to the show where it is presented, but also to people doing similar effects. It may not have involved a shill at all - there are many ways to gain the information. But if the audience starts to think "stooge", the impression of the entire show is destroyed. To make matters worth, the spectator might be debriefed later by his friends. And once they learn that e.g. he wrote the information down to help him focussing, they will yell "Ah,
that's how it's done" even before he has a chance to explain that the paper was ripped up immediately afterwards before anybody had the chance to read it.
All of this could have been avoided if the
entire presentation was shown on TV without omissions.
So, on the other hand, if a performer is videotaped when doing an actual show. Only those actions are cut out that the audience does not see due to misdirection. The show
can be reproduced in a close-up setting. And any performer who does so will receive full credits for his skills and the fact that his show is so good that is was worth being shown on TV.
Is this not a better show after all?
I think many people in this thread made the mistake to believe that the viewers are stupid. In my experience, audiences are
not stupid and they can spot if a performance could not possibly be reproduced close-up or on stage. They know that they miss "something". Regardless of what that "something" is, it will diminish their appreciation of the show and even of magicians in general.
They won't believe you could do an ID routine without a stooge or learn secret names from somebody who is not a shill. You cannot float objects unless the wires are cut out in post-production. Unless you get a chance to prove them wrong. And guess what? You cannot prove them wrong since you genuinely cannot do what was shown on TV!
No performer (including Derren Brown himself!) can step up to random people on the streets and do "what Derren Brown did on TV" since there will inevitably be skeptics around that saw the TV show and will yell "But he didn't do XXX on TV!" Yeah, right!
So is all TV magic bad nowadays? Probably not, Gandalf fighting the Balrog is still captivating although people know that the "work" happened in a post-production studio and the battle cannot be reproduced on stage. But the point is that it doesn't have to be! It is the entire story that matters. Watch the scene in separation, and the effect evaporates. Watch it as part of the movie, following the flight from the orks in the impressive mountain halls, and it is as mesmerizing as magic can possibly hope to be!
But many TV productions are claiming to show "magicians" and then show actors, cutting and post-productions, instead. Excessive orgies of preshow-work, shills, and cuts. Rather than "magicians". Are current magicians and their effects so bad that they are not worth being shown on TV without post-production?