Panorama on Scientology
I was a bit disappointed with this in the end. Firstly, it wasn't long enough. Secondly, I wasn't too sure that the journalist had the skills to get the story that he wanted. This is nothing to do with the infamous shouting moment that has been so widely seen on U Tube. It was more to do with the fact that he insisted on using the word "cult" which they had obviously forbidden and as soon as it was said, interviews were curtailed and things brought to a halt. He was either being inflammatory or stupid. Either way he didn't really get the inside breaks that he needed to get a good story. I think my issue is partly that Louis Theroux could have done it so much better. Louis would have let them dig their own graves and been above all the psychological tricks of survellience.
The programme did show what a bunch of wierdos they all are and it amazes me that so many Hollywood types just seem to lap it up. No wonder they have so much money sloshing around. I also hadn't realised they swoop in on disasters in order to bring comfort and relief (and then suggest that they need dianetics/scientology in order to bring happiness into their lives).
Labels: Louis Theroux, Panorama, Scientology
posted by Helsalata @ 11:58 am
8 comments
8 Comments:
www.bbc.co.uk/panorama
for those who aint sinit.
I agree with you, Hels, half an hour did seem a bit brief and the report itself did have the potential to follow some more avenues if the guy was a little more supportive.
Overall though, it was informative and (showed hints of being) balanced which is what I'd expect from a BBC docu.
Louis Theroux? Yes and No. Yes, because he would introduce a different style of reporting that would reveal a side of the organization not revealed by the Panorama report. No, because the Panorama report was analogous to stirring an ants nest with a stick (poor stick), and testing its soldier ants for cunning, strength and aggressiveness. Yet another type of reporting could take the form of someone going undercover, as an apparent convert – but that can be dangerous (depending on the cult).
Weirdos? From the outside yes, but ‘cults’ are predicated on the fact that their “worker ants” are fairly bog standard human models. If they depend too much on picking up weirdos there simply isn’t enough human fodder around to feed their systems.
The Moonies also made use of “love bombing” (That is, engaging in philanthropy). The perspective of some might see Christian events like “Reality” in a similar league.
If I were you I would keep an eye out for that not-so-fine line (it’s actually a fuzzy line) because before you know it somebody you know is enveloped and ends up on the wrong side of it.
I just watched it and don't think much... it wasn't an informative documentary at all - I still dont really know what they believe or how they practise it.
I'm not surprised John Sweeney lost it though, the leader was like a brick wall
Well Laura, “Belief Content” may not be so important. It’s a bit like the business world – for example, the man who became CEO of IBM a few years back used to run a biscuit company (he came from Nabisco) – what was more important was his business knowledge and he could probably run a business selling widgets. (where widgets=anything). Analogously, there is a lot of common ground between the cults – that may be why the Hubbard organisation hates the word “cult” - it dislikes seeing it’s own reflection in other cult groups.
The “belief product” of a cult group does have bearing of course, but cults have generic aspects, independent of that product. A good cult can sell the most bizarre of “spiritual” products – holy water (Kabbalah), flirty fishing (Children of God), Poison drinking (the snake handlers), “batteries” filled with prayer, numerous UFO religions, even suicide! And let’s not forget to mention the sci-fi “cargo cult” techniques of scientology! You name it, I’ve seen it! But then perhaps I’m a grumpy old cynic. Better keep an eye on Ben, Laura, he’ll probably end up like that as well!
i worship toast atm
... but don't spread it.
On the contrary I think their beliefs are very important in determining if it is a cult or not - eg why the blind devotion to it? If it's something worth beliving in then maybe the devotion is understandable. If otherwise, then it's a cult
Clearly people will differ as to what is worth believing! On your terms, then, there will therefore be disagreement about which persuasions have ‘cult’ status.
However, my own opinion is that groups as diverse in belief as the Jehovah’s witnesses and the Hubbard organisation have common ‘social system’ properties that mark them out as a distinct and generic phenomenon. I suspect that the devotion of otherwise normal human beings to these groups has a lot to do with these systems aspects.
I didn’t mean to diminish the absolute importance of the peculiar beliefs held by those in these ‘cult’ systems (although I did intend to diminish it relative to this ‘systems’ perspective on cults). As I have said elsewhere, the belief and practice found in cults form the “DNA” of the group, providing it with the pattern and rationale of its existence. But diversity in belief between cults should not mask what I believe to be a fact; namely that there is a commonality of functioning that marks out ‘cults’ as a distinct phenomenon.
I certainly do not distinguish myself from this or that cult simply because I don’t hold their beliefs – I distinguish myself from them because I am not bound into the body of one of these cult systems. If the definition of ‘cult’ is too closely tied to belief then there will be a problem when you’re faced with cult groups containing what appear to be close approximations to core Christianity .... and people who fail to recognise a cult soon enough, sometimes end up in its ‘digestion’ system.
Post a Comment
<< Home