The press vs. Scientology
After years of conflict, the church and the media seem to have reached a truce. Is it because Scientology has become less confrontational -- or because the press is scared?
By Joe Strupp
June 30, 2005 | For anyone interested in the
Church of Scientology,
the May 6, 1991, issue of Time magazine remains a milestone in news coverage. For those who back the church, it
ran an outrageously biased account that eventually led to a libel suit by the church -- later dismissed -- and
prompted Scientology leaders to launch a counterspin that continues today.
But for many who have long questioned the church, founded by the late L. Ron Hubbard and embraced by a string of Hollywood stars, that article represents one of the genuinely aggressive reports on the organization. And their concern is that what subsequently happened to Time -- and to other publications that tried to peek behind the church's cheerful exterior -- explains why few investigative reports on the church have followed.
The Time cover story, written by Richard Behar and headlined "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power," called the church "a hugely profitable global racket" and described its intimidation methods as "Mafia-like." The story was one of several by major news operations who took on the church with in-depth reports in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Los Angeles Times launched a series that focused on Hubbard's rise to power and the myths and distortions about his life -- including bogus military claims and a dysfunctional relationship with his son. The series also looked at church marketing techniques and high-pressure tactics against members; accounts of former Scientologists about life in the church, which included the micromanagement of everything from careers to the preparation of baby food; and its counterattacks against critics, including the press and the IRS.
But several of the news outlets paid for their curiosity, either (like Time) through costly lawsuits or, according to reporters, personal harassment. In the intervening decade, there's been a détente of sorts. What's less clear is why. Has the church simply been more open to journalists -- and less quick to take critical reporters to court? Or has the press simply shied away from potential court fights, especially at a time when many news outlets are cutting back on budgets and facing stronger competition in a growing media market?
It's tough to dispute how aggressive the church has been in the past. Behar has said he had 10 lawyers and half a dozen private detectives following him as he researched the story, asking friends about his health and tax history. Joel Sappell, who co-wrote the June 1990 multipart series in the Los Angeles Times, recalled similar counterattacks. "They had private detectives follow us and they were rummaging through my past," he recalls. "They have a real history of hardball and litigation."
In addition to the libel suit, the church countered the Time story with a 12-week ad campaign in USA Today that summer. "This consisted of daily full-page advertisements and two full-color supplements," says Ed Parkin, vice president of cultural affairs for the Church of Scientology. "It was so effective that we have heard from journalism professors that they have used it as a model in their university journalism classes."
And while the Los Angeles Times was never sued for the series, the church bought up many billboards and bus ads in the L.A. area to counter the paper's charges. "They even put a billboard at the end of my street, where I lived," Sappell says. Other news organizations examined the church on everything from its tax-exempt status -- which was granted in 1993 after a long fight with the IRS -- to allegations of pilfering the savings of unsuspecting members and to cases of suicide by followers. Allegations by former Scientologists of being held captive were common, along with coverage of the church's battles for recognition with government leaders in Germany and France.
Reporters have said the church fought back in other ways. In 1988, a St. Petersburg Times reporter accused the church of illegally obtaining his credit report, making obscene phone calls to his wife, and sending a private investigator after him. And in 1998, the Boston Herald reported that one of its writers had been pursued by a private detective after writing a five-part series on the church.
"There was a lot of negative coverage, and they had a policy that if you write something about the church that is incorrect or libelous, they will take you to court," says J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, who has observed the church for years. "They are very persistent."
Next page: "The church has changed the way it conducts business"