"Visionaries and crackpots, maniacs and saints, monks and libertines”. An open democracy, and a democratic media, is a spectrum whose poles look like this. As the BBC discovered this past week, that spectrum includes Scientology.
Scientology, a so-called religion established in 1952 by science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard (pictured), is famous for its use of Hollywood celebrities to promote an organization marked by heavy-handed tactics in suppressing criticism. Ex-members, journalists, and citizens who dare to publicly criticize Scientology are followed, threatened, humiliated, and sued by the Church which critics say has much to hide.
On the surface, Scientology professes to be “the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life”, an approach based on observation, not faith. However, beneath its Buddhist-like ring of liberation, Scientology is a financial organization that charges its members vast sums to attain ever higher stages of teachings and often force followers to cut themselves off from family and friends in a practice known as 'disconnection'. Although it publicly denies so, those who have accessed the top echelons of the Church's teachings claim the belief is based on a science-fiction-esque story of alien souls (Thetans), killed by an evil galactic warlord named Xenu over 75 million years ago, that attach themselves to humans and cause all the psychological suffering that humankind experiences today. Today, marked by criticism regarding its financial dealings, tactics, and belief system, Scientology struggles to gain recognition in places such as the UK where the British Charity Commission refuses to acknowledge Scientology as a religion.
On Monday, the BBC's current affairs program, Panorama, aired “Scientology And Me”, a documentary about one BBC journalist, John Sweeney, and his investigation into whether Scientology still uses its infamous repression tactics and how it responds to being labeled a cult. Available on the BBC News website and on Youtube, the documentary is a thriller, albeit real, of the kind more often seen in movie theaters. Over the course of his week-long visit to the US to work on the story, Sweeney discovered firsthand the methods used by the Church against critics, methods that were every bit as sinister as those the organization denied it was still using. Beginning with Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis, who insisted that the BBC reporter neither use the word 'cult' nor speak to any critics of the organization, Sweeney interviewed guests including ex-members, parents whose children had been severed from their families, celebrity followers, and one journalist, Shaun Lonsdale, whose investigation into Scientology was featured on his cable access show “Cultwatch”.
During his research, Sweeney was relentlessly dogged by individuals shadowing his every step. Most often, Davis himself was involved. In the middle of interviewing Lonsdale, Davis arrived and listed felonies Londale had been found guilty of since the late 1980s; returning to his hotel late at night, Sweeney found Davis waiting for him; and, exhausted from the relentless intimidation, Sweeney and his crew hid in the bathroom as Davis repeatedly knocked on the door asking what was going on. Other times, an unknown tracker in a minivan followed Sweeney as he drove across Los Angeles, someone sat across the room during breakfasts, and the same person was seen in the garage where the camera crew was parked. In all, an estimated thirteen strangers tracked the crew during their US visit. Close to losing his mind, a final confrontation with Davis drove Sweeney into a fit of rage (pictured), shouting repeatedly at the spokesman, who, true to his training, remained deadpan calm.
Panorama editor Sandy Swift has said about the tirade “I'm very disappointed with John [Sweeney]”. However, neither Swift's disappointment nor Sweeney's apology has prevented the reporter's 'losing it' becoming headline news. The BBC has been criticized for Sweeney's behavior and the Church of Scientology itself has waged an anti-Panorama campaign, placing a documentary on Youtube hitting back at Sweeney and the BBC and distributing a DVD of the documentary to all British Members of Parliament. There is speculation that 10,000 copies of the DVD are in production.
Though the Church has faced high-profile criticism before, the BBC is the largest institution yet to air condescension. In its response to Panorama, Scientology has also used the media, with vigor, raising questions about the use of media as a forum for 'maniacs to saints'. Though one may opine on the true motives of Scientology and condemn its tactics, there can be little doubt about the organization's right to broadcast the Sweeney outburst on Youtube, DVD, and elsewhere, along with its opinions about Panorama's journalistic methods. That such opinions might be spurious and propagandist cannot be due cause for preventing their airing because of the subjective nature of 'spurious and propagandist'. The nature of an open forum that exists in today's Internet age is that ill intentions can vie equally with more righteous ones. This is a messy space, one that can lead to significant miseducation, but to compromise this would be a slide into totalitarianism.
Outlets such as the BBC do, of course, exercise some control over the airing of viewpoints, under its own charter. In this instance, the corporation can be praised for its handling of the Scientology vs Panorama affair. For a start, no attempt was made to gloss over the Sweeney tirade. Sweeney's outburst was aired on the program and the BBC was open in its criticism of his behavior. Swift appeared on the BBC news to address the event and refused to defame Scientology itself. Instead, he addressed the organization's approach to public discourse, questioning the validity of such harsh suppression of criticism.
In this sentiment, Swift is correct. The BBC knows that from a discourse, as well as a public relations, viewpoint, frank discussion is the best approach. Audiences trust flawed but honest institutions. By taking the opposite approach and attempting to stifle open discussion by intimidating reporters and denying the BBC the right to use footage from interviews the Church has originally sanctioned, Scientology became its own worst enemy. The BBC's original intention for the Panorama documentary was to investigate both the Church's reaction to its labeling as a cult and whether or not it had abandoned its intimidating past behavior. The goal had never been, it must be noted, to criticize the Church or its beliefs. By turning the story into something else - a journalist's fight to freely report viewpoints - the Church failed in its main goal: to secure itself a public relations victory.
It is the nature of the territory that all media outlets struggle with the unanswerable question of how much space to give visionaries and crackpots. This is a delicate issue. It is difficult to say if, by investigating, broadcasting, and subsequently responding to such an organization, the BBC gave Scientology a louder voice than it deserved and represented and earned the Church much sought-after publicity. On the other hand, with the recent opening of a lavish new London headquarters, the BBC exposed the debate about the Church to the public.
Of course, one can easily speculate that an organization not interested in arguing its case in an open forum really does have something to hide. Though not the ambit of this blog, much evidence exists to support this notion. But in this case, the Church lost the PR war. The viewer comes away from Scientology And Me with one overwhelming feeling that Scientology is indeed a sinister cult.
ReferencesKeane, J. (1991), "The Media and Democracy", Polity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6655207.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J8-Zfzd55E&mode=related&search=
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/05/investigating_scientology_1.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3172648&page=1
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/05/did_scientology_turn_the_table.html
If you listen to it, you’ll know it is populated with expletives, drug dealers turned emcees, the size of fly bling, rims, and booty in the strip club. The music seems to perpetuate a lifestyle denigrating women, homosexuals, whilst all the while advocating violence and self-destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar bill. 
The other day, we watched a snippet from “Born into Brothels’. We agreed it’s film-makers probably profited in some way or another, but at the end of the day there was not one person who accused it of encouraging inner-city depravation as we suspect Gangsta rap does.
It is a new perspective on Gangsta rap. In the movie, Marcus is given the opportunity and could use violence against those who want to mortally harm him, but instead opts for a more dangerous road; one that inolves using lyrics as verbal bullets to humiliate his foes. He famously walks on stage with a bullet proof vest. He's saying that if you live in the same conditions as he did, then you have braver more nobel means than violence at your disposal. It is the gangland's alternative to 'Kids with Camera's' solution.
