Looking for anyone willing to be interviewed and recorded

Fighting_Oreo

New Member
Hi!
I'm currently studying media at Dickson College in Canberra, and my major assignment is to produce a short radio broadcast. I am doing an information piece on Scientology, and I am looking for people willing to be interviewed. Questions asked will be along the lines of why people join Scientology, Why they left, and what it means for members in day-to-day life.

The piece will be as objective as possible, and your privacy will be protected (including voice changing if you wish). If you are located in Canberra, I would prefer to meet in person, however Skype is certainly feasible.

If you are unwilling to be recorded or interviewed, but still have information that you are comfortable sharing, please send me an email and I will get back to you. Finally, please remember that if you don't feel comfortable during the interview, none of the questions are mandatory.

Sincerely,
Cai Holroyd
[email protected]
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
This is an extremely difficult topic to do justice to in a short broadcast. The few people you have on air will slant it considerably. This is an exes message board: most of the people who post here are rabidly against both the subject and the organization (CofS, cult etc), whether they have personal experience of it or not. Some are more mellow, i.e. not rabid, but are still against both. A few here are pro-Scn (but anti-cult) like Terril Park who may even be willing to be openly interviewed.

The CofS won't give you any help, so you won't get any current (pro-Scn, pro-CofS) CofS Scientologists to interview.

If you merely want to record a few peeps tossing out a few opinions and some experiences with Scn that should be relatively easy, but it won't mean anything. Maybe you don't care.

It's like this message board. This post I am writing is post #1,068,904 in over 40,000 threads. It's not representative of the posts here as it is too narrow in scope. Even a dozen posts here taken together would not be representative of the very wide spread of views and topics here.

Anyway, good luck. And no thanks, I don't want to be interviewed, although I can't stop anything I've ever said here being quoted.

Paul
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hi!
I'm currently studying media at Dickson College in Canberra, and my major assignment is to produce a short radio broadcast. I am doing an information piece on Scientology, and I am looking for people willing to be interviewed. Questions asked will be along the lines of why people join Scientology, Why they left, and what it means for members in day-to-day life.

The piece will be as objective as possible, and your privacy will be protected (including voice changing if you wish). If you are located in Canberra, I would prefer to meet in person, however Skype is certainly feasible.

If you are unwilling to be recorded or interviewed, but still have information that you are comfortable sharing, please send me an email and I will get back to you. Finally, please remember that if you don't feel comfortable during the interview, none of the questions are mandatory.

Sincerely,
Cai Holroyd
[email protected]


Contact Tony Ortega. I think he's in Australia.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Are you planning to do a private interview and then edit it for distribution over the radio or are you trying to conduct an interview over live radio?

If you are doing this privately there may be a concern over who you are, what your motivations or biases are and whether you can be trusted. I think the few people doing private YouTube interviews are well known and have established credibility within the Ex community.

The concept of a live call-in type format has a lot of potential but it can be very easy to reveal something that can have serious impacts on oneself or others. Unless someone was highly knowledgable about the subject they would not know what to edit on a live feed. Perhaps a comparison would be like interviewing someone who used to work for a drug cartel. They might not mention a name but they could give enough general information to identify somebody nonetheless.

In the world of Scientology a very likely scenario would be the identification of an UTR critic who is still connected to friends or family members who are active and in good standing with the church. The critic gets declared a Suppressive Person and everyone else then has to decide between them and staying connected with the church.

There are many different levels of experience within Scientology. You could interview a college student who took some entry level courses and read Dianetics and left. Their story may seem strange but not necessarily harmful. But if you want to interview someone who has seen the belly of the beast they are probably going to know that the church has a long history of using plants with aliases to spy on critics. Setting up a school project to preemptively rope in unsophisticated exes is not outside the realm of possibility.

If you reach out to people who have already done interviews, are already known as critics and have a firm grasp as to what can be said without putting others at risk, then I can see how they might take an interest in your project out of a desire to cultivate interviewers who can work effectively and safely with the subject. In other words, it might be better to approach this as a kind of apprenticeship or collaboration with established interviewers and interviewees as opposed to going it solo.
 

Adam7986

Declared SP
Hi!
I'm currently studying media at Dickson College in Canberra, and my major assignment is to produce a short radio broadcast. I am doing an information piece on Scientology, and I am looking for people willing to be interviewed. Questions asked will be along the lines of why people join Scientology, Why they left, and what it means for members in day-to-day life.

The piece will be as objective as possible, and your privacy will be protected (including voice changing if you wish). If you are located in Canberra, I would prefer to meet in person, however Skype is certainly feasible.

If you are unwilling to be recorded or interviewed, but still have information that you are comfortable sharing, please send me an email and I will get back to you. Finally, please remember that if you don't feel comfortable during the interview, none of the questions are mandatory.

Sincerely,
Cai Holroyd
[email protected]

e-mail me at [email protected]. I am in Los Angeles, CA, USA, but willing to Skype.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

I'll make a very brief comment as an ex-scientologist who completed their highest levels of "auditing" and "training", spending decades at it. My experience is typical.

However, let me advise that anyone seeking to understand, write about or decipher the extraordinarily secretive cult of scientology should know that there is a very carefully arranged minefield to try to prevent you from doing that.

Here are just three (3) of the top 100 landmines you should know about:

1) Scientology and Scientologists lie. Continuously. You will learn very little about Scientology from assuming what they say is true. It is part of their "technology". They actually have training drills the top executives do to learn how to smoothly lie without detection. That one is called "TR-L" (Training Routine - Lies). They have "policies" about tricking others (intentionally) with the use of gimmicks they give names to such as "acceptable truth" or "shore story". They are extremely good at lying and they think they are helping you and themselves and "mankind" by lying to you (directly in conversation or in their vast library of "scripture").

2) Scientology has two (2) completely opposite rules, policies or statements about anything you could ask. For example, if someone wants to know about the scandalous charge that the cult orders family to "disconnect" from their spouse, parents, sisters/brothers or children (because they disagree with Hubbard), the church of Scientology can show you an opposite policy that says you should not disconnect but instead use "communication, the universal solvent". Thus, even if you see something written by Scientology, you should be aware there there is another written document in the cult that says the absolute opposite. (As a kind of joke by ex-scientologists, it is sometimes referred to as the "Hubbard Law of Commotion", a parody on Newton's Law of Motion, stating that (in Scientology) "...for each and every policy or piece of tech, there is an equal and opposite policy and piece of tech.")

3. Scientology costs $500,000 to do. And nobody has ever completed the levels nor has even one person ever attained the "states" that Scientology sells called "CLEAR" or "OPERATING THETAN". The only way one would not end up paying over a half-million dollars trying to reach those fictional "states" is if they joined the elite "Sea Org" management by signing a billion year contract where you work as a slave for the cult 7 days a week, day & night for, well, one billion years. Seriously.
 

Hypatia

Pagan
I think culties perpetuate and forward the lies they've been told. They're constantly lied to. Every event, informal talks with staff, ethics handlings- all on top of Elron's lies. The best way to get someone to lie for you is to lie to them first and convince them that it's not only true but an essential and sacred truth.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...
I think culties perpetuate and forward the lies they've been told. They're constantly lied to. Every event, informal talks with staff, ethics handlings- all on top of Elron's lies. The best way to get someone to lie for you is to lie to them first and convince them that it's not only true but an essential and sacred truth.

Sure that's part of the sad story of being a Scientologist.

But, they also INTENTIONALLY lie also because it is the "greatest good".

I could pretty much GUARANTEE that if I was in a live conversation with ANY Scientologist, I could ask them a few questions that would provoke them to KNOWINGLY lie in their answer.

That can't be blamed on L. Ron Hubbard because he's dead.

Scientologists actually get "wins" from lying.

Mental health care professionals call it "duper's delight".
 

Fighting_Oreo

New Member
Hello All.
First of all, I would like to clarify: I am not distributing the piece at all. It is merely an assignment to be shared to my teachers and assessors. It is a major assignment, and I take pride in it, however it will not be shared with the public.

Thankyou for all your assistance and information, particularly Churchill for the lead on Tony Ortega, and HelluvaHoax for your three 'landmines'. You guys are all fantastic!

Thanks,
Cai Holroyd
[email protected]

PS. This is not a conclusion to the post, I am still looking for interviewees and information.
 
Top