Freedom Magazine has just released a documentary of their filming of what John Sweeney and his crew actually did in the filming of the "Scientology and Me" documentary. What you saw on YouTube was only the smallest part of what he was up to. It's amazing that BBC would support someone with his lack of integrity. I hope they realize now that he simply isn't up to their standards. Otherwise it's their standards that are in question.
This is the first of a three part clip on YouTube. You can watch the whole show on the Freedom Magazine web site.
2 comments:
I'm not convinced on this one. If the BBC or JS's actions are as bad a Freedom Magazine makes out, then surely the way in which the magazine's material has been edited and presented to the public is just as inflamatory as the BBC's original programme? I for one found the Panorama episode extremely interesting, and the following actions of Freedom Magazine to be - to some extent - embarrassing. Why does Scientology fear any form of criticism, and why do they actively seek to destroy the credibility of those who do not support their views?
Thanks for posting this "anonymous." It's definitely a very heated subject, and I appreciate that you stated it in straightforward terms. While I absolutely agree that people have a right to learn "both sides" of any story, that's the point. They should have the opportunity of really seeing both sides. The reason I am so happy that Freedom Magazine and the Church of Scientology filmed their counter-documentary and made it public is that Sweeney and crew were not presenting both sides. I seriously doubt any of the Scientology staff enjoy running after a runaway menace like Sweeney who is clearly bent on digging up dirt whether it exists or not (and there was a serious lack of anything new in what Sweeney presented, if you reflect back on his show. Most of his allegations date from the the 1980's and were questionable even then). I'm sure they'd rather put their time into promoting Scientology activities like the Volunteer Ministers program and their new churches. But if you knew someone was very actively looking for everyone who ever had a problem with you, ever spoke badly about you, ever wanted to see you fail, and was interviewing them exclusively and not contacting a single one of your friends and presenting that as "the true story of **** (whatever your name is) wouldn't it be foolish to just let him go ahead and do that and air it on the most popular "investigative journalism" show in the UK?
Post a Comment