Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
The BBC news website has a prominent story about Scientology and the internet. It's superficially neutral in tone. The only really negative things it says are carefully hedged, and it presents statements from the Church as well as from critics; but it shows just how devastating you can be while still sounding neutral.
Critics are cited in strictly neutral terms — they merely 'say' or 'recall' things — while the statements from the Church get just a tiny bit more slant in how they're quoted: Pouw 'admits' or 'plays down', instead of just saying stuff. Critics are identified in ways that make them sound authoritative — a 'former high-ranking Scientologist' or an academic with a university affiliation — while Pouw is just a spokesperson for the Church. There are no gruesome allegations made against the Church, although declining membership is mentioned in carefully hedged terms, but the only positive thing mentioned about the Church is a popular YouTube channel, and even this is presented as an unattributed quote, rather than being reported by the BBC itself, while the article author comments that the big day of YouTube traffic was right after an expensive Superbowl ad. And the photos are unobjectionable but effective: photos of Hubbard and Cruise are decent but distinctly unflattering, while pictures of Anons make them look kind of cool.
Above all, the article sticks quite close to the basic theme of its title, that the Church of Scientology has done a lot to try to control its depiction on the internet. That in itself is pretty damning, today. The message it sends, to the zillions who read the BBC, is simple and clear: if you happen to be at all curious about Scientology, don't trust what the Church says about itself.
For everyone to understand that may not be everything that Scientology's critics could ask for, but if they had to settle for that, I think it would be enough.
Critics are cited in strictly neutral terms — they merely 'say' or 'recall' things — while the statements from the Church get just a tiny bit more slant in how they're quoted: Pouw 'admits' or 'plays down', instead of just saying stuff. Critics are identified in ways that make them sound authoritative — a 'former high-ranking Scientologist' or an academic with a university affiliation — while Pouw is just a spokesperson for the Church. There are no gruesome allegations made against the Church, although declining membership is mentioned in carefully hedged terms, but the only positive thing mentioned about the Church is a popular YouTube channel, and even this is presented as an unattributed quote, rather than being reported by the BBC itself, while the article author comments that the big day of YouTube traffic was right after an expensive Superbowl ad. And the photos are unobjectionable but effective: photos of Hubbard and Cruise are decent but distinctly unflattering, while pictures of Anons make them look kind of cool.
Above all, the article sticks quite close to the basic theme of its title, that the Church of Scientology has done a lot to try to control its depiction on the internet. That in itself is pretty damning, today. The message it sends, to the zillions who read the BBC, is simple and clear: if you happen to be at all curious about Scientology, don't trust what the Church says about itself.
For everyone to understand that may not be everything that Scientology's critics could ask for, but if they had to settle for that, I think it would be enough.