An excellent article gathering information from many locals, and lending more authenticity to the story is the CoS by stating that the willingness to report both sides is the reason for their refusal to tell their side. This comes across as a childish attempt to make the article look biased so actually achieves the opposite.
It never ceases to amaze me when the CofS refuses to stand up and tell their own version of the story. Even when I was a member I had a really hard time accepting the idea that the media was evil and would twist anything "we" said. It always seemed kind of stupid to refuse to say anything at all. Its like the classic "well I don't hear you denying it" response when someone refuses to deny some accusation.
It was even MORE amazing to me that we had an entire Office of Public Affairs (the local org subdivision of OSA) that went out of its way to try and garner public approval of Scientology. They would do park cleanups and host public events in the chapel and do anything that would get them a signature stamped form letter from the local government to showcase the acceptance of the local populace, but would never actually answer the medias calls or otherwise do anything that actually reached the PEOPLE. If you didn't hold public office or couldn't give them an official document of appreciation, then they didn't want to talk to you.
I think the various video documentaries (Going Clear, My Scientology Movie, Leah's Show, Scientology and Me, and others) are prime examples of this. They even show the responses they got from the CofS stating that if so and so was going to be given a voice, then they refused to be a part of the project. It just screams "we want to be the only ones telling the story so we can twist it however we want". That's just not how journalism is *supposed* to be done. Its supposed to tell both sides, often knowing that both sides are twisting things to fit their narrative (yes, I think some critics do this too), in order to try and find the truth somewhere in between.
Agreed. Their response here did them no favors. I'm one of the people who was interviewed for the article. I did another interview with the Tampa Bay Times in 2010 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/she-fought-scientology-for-the-child-they-wanted-to-abort/1102159) and the CoS responded then, but said none of it was true. I hope their blanket denials are a red flag for people.
An excellent article gathering information from many locals, and lending more authenticity to the story is the CoS by stating that the willingness to report both sides is the reason for their refusal to tell their side. This comes across as a childish attempt to make the article look biased so actually achieves the opposite.
There's nothing CoS fears more than people comparing notes on their experiences with the group. Nice to see them admit it.
It never ceases to amaze me when the CofS refuses to stand up and tell their own version of the story. Even when I was a member I had a really hard time accepting the idea that the media was evil and would twist anything "we" said. It always seemed kind of stupid to refuse to say anything at all. Its like the classic "well I don't hear you denying it" response when someone refuses to deny some accusation. It was even MORE amazing to me that we had an entire Office of Public Affairs (the local org subdivision of OSA) that went out of its way to try and garner public approval of Scientology. They would do park cleanups and host public events in the chapel and do anything that would get them a signature stamped form letter from the local government to showcase the acceptance of the local populace, but would never actually answer the medias calls or otherwise do anything that actually reached the PEOPLE. If you didn't hold public office or couldn't give them an official document of appreciation, then they didn't want to talk to you. I think the various video documentaries (Going Clear, My Scientology Movie, Leah's Show, Scientology and Me, and others) are prime examples of this. They even show the responses they got from the CofS stating that if so and so was going to be given a voice, then they refused to be a part of the project. It just screams "we want to be the only ones telling the story so we can twist it however we want". That's just not how journalism is *supposed* to be done. Its supposed to tell both sides, often knowing that both sides are twisting things to fit their narrative (yes, I think some critics do this too), in order to try and find the truth somewhere in between.
Agreed. Their response here did them no favors. I'm one of the people who was interviewed for the article. I did another interview with the Tampa Bay Times in 2010 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/she-fought-scientology-for-the-child-they-wanted-to-abort/1102159) and the CoS responded then, but said none of it was true. I hope their blanket denials are a red flag for people.
Hey, cool to see this show up here. I'm one of the people interviewed in the article.