The Sweeney
"Good for you!"
I quote, of course, Ms Jade Goody. Since Celebrity Big Brother and for all eternity, she has imbued the phrase, "Good for you!" with evil, top-of-the-lungs menace. And now, Mr John Sweeney, venerable BBC reporter, has done the same for the innocuous phrase, "You were not there." This is how he said it, in last night's Panorama on the Church of Scientology: "YOU - WERE - NOT - THERE! YOU - WERE - NOT - THERE - FOR - THE - FIRST - HALF - OF - THE - INTERVIEW!" There's no point in watching the YouTube clip out of context, but at the same time, it is a great media moment. Alternatively, you can watch the whole programme on Panorama's website, thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded.
The context: Sweeney had been attempting to make a balanced film about Scientology, which has yet to be granted the status of a religion in this country, and should, thus, be on a charm offensive. In order to make his film, he had sought official access through the Church, whose reptilian representative on earth, Tommy Davis, responded to any loss of editorial control with what turns out to be a common Scientology tactic - borne, we must assume, out of deep paranoia, and perhaps even a little embarrassment - that is, stalking, shouting and intimidating. (This went on long after filming had wound up. They are nothing if not tenacious, these Scientologists.) When Sweeney finally snapped (see: YouTube, footage filmed by Davis's ever-present cameraman and gleefully posted as a counter-attack that failed miserably - it was the only reason I bothered to tune in!), you were utterly on his side. Never mind that he lost his rag. I would have lasted two minutes. He lasted days.
He had been invited to interview such Scientology celebs as Juliette Lewis, Anne Archer and Kirstie Alley (religion that attracts Hollywood stars: approach with caution), but all of whom refused permission for Panorama to use the footage because Sweeney used the word "cult" in questioning them. He was shown round an exhibition called Psychiatry: Industry Of Death, attacking psychiatry and claiming in lurid, illustrated detail, that it was a Nazi death camp invention, and linking it explicitly to the Holocast, which Sweeney found distasteful. It was at the exhibition, which looked a bit like the London Dungeon, that he started shouting back at the shouting Tommy.
Read Sweeney's account here.
I don't object to Scientologists believing in what they believe in, if it makes them happy, and if people wish to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, then good for them. Jehovah's Witnesses come round my house and try to convert me. I politely tell them I don't want converting thank you very much, but they're not hurting anyone, merely politely asking for a moment of my time. That's all fine. But to see the media wing of Scientology trying to shut down a BBC investigation, threatening legal action, reporting it to Ofcom over what they see as 150 guidline breaches, and then to use intimidating tactics such as we saw in the film, does them no credit whatsoever. It'll take a personal appearance by Tom and Katie to paper over this one.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 4:16 PM
21 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
21 Comments:
I - WAS - NOT - THERE - FOR - THE - FIRST - HALF - OF - THE PROGRAM....but the final bit seemed to show these slimeballs for what they are.Did anyone else think John Sweeney sounded like John Cleese doing the Dead Parrot sketch in Monty Python live at Drury Lane " Ello Mr Polly Parrot .A wakey wakey....."
Of course it's all tripe, we all know that. I felt a bit sorry for John Sweeney as he seemed a bit embarrassed by losing it, but good that he did.
They're impossible to get through to and so frustrating that no one's opinion counts but their own. Still, there's a lot of it about these days.
I'm rather glad John Sweeney lost it in such spectacular fashion, although he is to congratulated for keeping his cool for as long as he did-I can't help thinking that if it was me in that situation I would have lost it much earlier.
Such unquestioning, hollow minds the actual members must have. Little more than automatons made flesh, stifling anything remotely resembling free speech or debate.
To look at, and listen to the members, suggested to my untrained eyes and ears something akin to a cult, but what do I know.
I admit to being revulsed by the "facts" being given whilst touring around the "Psychiatry-an Industry of Death" exhibition, were they really talking about euthanasia in the same breath as the Nazi gas chambers or did I just dream that bit?
Theres a reason they won't let you talk to them about any 'difficult issues'. Guys like Davis know the religion has no foundation, that it's a practical joke played by a second rate sci-fi novelist, that the 'Science' element is absurd and actually makes little logical sense.
The problem lies not in the actual belief or the 'make it up as you go along' science, but in the fact that it's an embezzlement racket and a destroyer of families and relationships. Hence the ultra defensiveness and the insistence that it's a real religion or form of science.
I did like Sweeney's rant. Seems he'd had enough of the creepy MIB he was talking to. To be honest, I think it's futile to take this sort of tack with people like that. The Jon Ronson/Louis Theroux 'faux innocent' thing works better. These people usually do a better job of stitching themselves up than any investigative reporter would.
There was something about the idea that they could just whistle up a load of well-known actors and get them to line up to be interviewed, one every hour, that was very chilling.
I've just read Sweeney's account and it would almost be funny if it wasn't so scary.
The Scientologists seem to have a very childish attitude to criticism of their "faith". Attempting to discredit the views of a critic on the basis that he was once a male hooker are pure playground tactics ("you don't count cos you've got the lurgy").
Plus they really need to smarten up their intimidation tactics. The deputy dawy character that appeared mysteriously at breakfast was hilarious, as was the panache with which they carried off their tailing of Sweeney's car.
They really are a sad joke and I am glad that this programme went some way towards exposing them. I hate the way that they prey upon the vulnerable (can so many hollywood airhead converts be a coincidence?) and then suck up their bank accounts. I'm not sure we can stand idly by with a conscience (however much it sticks in the craw of my natural liberal instincts).
Unfortunately, this harassment by CoS isn't unusual. Several years ago, I was pleased to make the acquaintance of Karin Spaink, a Dutch journalist. She has been subject to years of terrible treatment by the "Church", simply for posting a copy of the Fishman Affidavit on her website. She explains more about the many court cases on http://www.spaink.net/ but the court issues were the least of it...
I agree with Mr Hepworth - by far the scariest thing was the instant summoning of serious A-List actors to come in and mouth their lines in turn, one by one, like good little disciples... and then withdraw their co-operation afterwards, just like that.
Properly spooky - and for some reason oddly put me in mind of zombie movies.
Why differentiate the various religions by names? I see them all as the leftovers of an antiquated system of control. If people want to believe in invisible friends and/or all powerful deities in the sky to get through life, then fine, just do it quietly in the confines of your own home without bothering the rest of us.
I find it alarming that the views of people/organisations who cling to such outdated ridiculous superstitious beliefs have so much influence over the rest of us.
Root of all evil? Probably.
As much as I agree with the above comments regarding Scientologists and their 'religion', I have to say I thought the Panorama programme to be one of the worst I have seen for a long time.
Panorama seems to have let its standards slip recently, sensationalising each story almost as much as 'Tonight With Trevor MacDonald' on ITV (which I can no longer bring myself to watch).
This chase for ratings is harmful to investigative journalism.
I personally would have liked to have seen a longer programme, exposing the Scientologists underhand recruitment tactics and brainwashing techniques.
More emphasis should have been placed on the families broken up and lives ruined by Scientology, rather than the almost cartoonish 'cat and mouse' trailing of Sweeney, which became the main focus of the story.
Sweeney also seemed to make too much of an issue of the use the of the word 'cult', rather than asking the questions I would have liked him to ask. Such as:
"What are the core beliefs of Scientology, and how would those beliefs in themselves attract followers ?"
"Is it right to believe in a religion whose belief system states that the more money you give, the higher status you are granted?"
"Why are they all following the ramblings of a drug-addicted madman?"
And most importantly "If Scientology is attracting rich, powerful figures within the media, is this not dangerous for a society exposed to that media?"
In all, a great chance to expose Scientology for the racketeering fraud it is, wasted by the BBC.
Fair point, Christ. Perhaps the most pertinent thing is that Panorama is half an hour long. What can you really get across in that short a time?
The ultimate irony is that Panorama achieved its highest ratings in the new Monday slot with the Scientology show. The previous high was the quiz-show phone-in con one, another than had advance publicity.
It's a sad world. I really like Jeremy Vine, but what are they trying to say, by having him "top and tail" the show? Is he simply there to attract housewives? Is his soothing, telegenic presence designed to help up acclimatise to the likelihood that the coming half hour may not contain Vernon Kay, text votes or football?
Sorry, Chris, for calling you Christ. A Freudian slip, in the circumstances.
It was interesting and confirmed a lot of what I knew about the "Church" of Scientology.
I'm not sure if John Sweeney was the right person for the job. He obviously knew what would happen so perhaps could have avoided being dragged into arguments so readily.
As Chris said, the way he kept mentioning 'cult' basically wrecked any chance of getting any real insights and immediately caused confrontation.
No worries Andrew, although I fear that people may now start following me round, worshiping me...
...hmmm, maybe I could make a bit of money...
The prevalence and popularity of religion in a historical and modern perspective suggests to me that there is a huge need in many people's lives for it. What is the need? Is it an instinctual need for belonging and acceptance, comfort and reassurance?
Thu May 17, 12:15:00 PM, Gwen said...
The prevalence and popularity of religion...
I don't need it Gwen, and I was put through a sectarian school.
They ARE a brainwashing cult and I look forward to their camera crews camping outside my door anyday now. Bring it on.
Paul
Dunfermline
My favourite part of the YouTube video is most certainly the two relatively-muted, "Do you understand?"s, in between the barrage of shouty volume. It's a veritable "Do you understand?" sandwich.
Furthermore, if Nicholas Briggs is ever poorly when required to do some Dalek voices, I think we know who'll be getting a call...
SUMMARIES OF NEARLY 500 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES
The following website summarizes over 165 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, and/or incidents involving problem JW Employees:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
http://jwemployees.bravehost.com
The following website summarizes 300 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 100+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
Post a Comment
<< Home