58 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
nevertheless attractive to those born within
Australia.”41
Needless to say, this apparent attractiveness has
not translated into impressive membership
numbers, and the conclusion that “it is fair to
expect Scientologists to be more educated than
the average population” might be queried.42
Certainly, the researchers’ upbeat assessment
that “this chapter has demonstrated that
Scientology has come a long way” with “more
people claiming so be Scientologists in official
censuses.” seems overly effusive.43
Media Coverage: Fair or Foul?
Another possibility is that critical media
coverage might have impacted adversely upon
the growth of the organization. Indeed, there is
academic interest in determining the extent to
which Scientology might have been unfairly
treated even to the degree of alleged bias
against the group. Some scholars of new
religions conclude that Scientology has been
“damaged” by unfair media coverage.
In one book chapter, two authors claim that the
satirical style found in a selected proportion of
newspaper reports (those deemed to be
“somewhat negative”), rendered those reports
biased and damaging to Scientology. The
authors conclude that: “This style of reporting
and its impact on its readership should … not be
devalued, as there is a clear bias represented.
Although the media is not informing its readers
to fear Scientology, it is stigmatizing the group
into a ‘joke’ and presenting its central doctrine
as a ‘comic story.’”44
41 A. Possamai, A. Possamai-Inesedy, op. cit., p. 350, making a
comparison with two other recently imported groups and the
general population (ibidem, p. 347).
42 A reviewer has alleged that the researchers “make claims beyond
the scope of their statistical data” and that “hastening to such
conclusions risks error, especially when … no data exist to support
their claims” (T. Manca, “Book Review: Scientology,”
International Journal of Cultic Studies, 2010, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 87).
43 A. Possamai, A. Possamai-Inesedy, op. cit., p. 358. The authors
note that “between 1996 and 2001, the Church experienced a
growth rate of 36.6 percent, which is an increase from 1,488 self-
reported members to 2,032” (ibidem, p. 346). Hardly an earth-
shattering increase, even if favorably comparable to some other
miniscule religions.
44 Ibidem, p. 359.
Another academic paper looks at tabloid
television coverage of Scientology between
2007 and 2012. Again, while focusing perhaps
more on the style of the reports (Sensational
Scientology! is the title) than the substance of
the allegations, it is claimed that: “These
journalistic forays have been as damaging to
public opinion of Scientology as any media
scrutiny of a new religion in Australian media
history.45 … Few stories feature content about
the beliefs or practices of Scientology, except to
reinforce their reputation for unorthodoxy in
wider society, and instead feature hyperbolized
themes that ‘serve to legitimate and reinforce
negative stereotypes.’”46
Despite these conclusions, the extent of any
alleged damage and impact on membership
numbers (if that is what is meant by damage)
can only be inferred. Another researcher has
pointed out an alleged nexus between negative
media coverage and public perception,47 but
again does not link the inference of negative
public perception with stalled membership
growth. Indeed, yet another researcher in the
field of new religions has suggested that the
presumption of a negative impact from critical
reports might be counterintuitive.48
Some scholars focus on media campaigns
critical of Scientology, lamenting the fact that
the organization seems to receive more than its
fair share of unwelcome attention. However, the
organization may also attract more attention than
other unconventional groups because it has
courted publicity. From its earliest days, the
history of the movement in Australia can be
readily tracked through newspaper and
45 B. Doherty, “Sensational Scientology!,” p. 44, quoting D. E.
Cowan, J. K. Hadden, “Gods, Guns, and Grist for the Media’s
Mill,” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent
Religions, November 2004, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 71.
46 B. Doherty, “Sensational Scientology!,” p. 50.
47 C.M. Cusack merely notes that “in company with other new
religions, Scientology has received negative publicity which
impacts upon community perceptions” (idem, “Celebrity, the
Popular Media, and Scientology: Making Familiar the Unfamiliar,”
in: J. R. Lewis [ed.], op. cit., p. 390).
48 Lewis recounts anecdotal information that some Scientologists
see television show “mocking” as “free publicity” (T. Manca, op.
cit., p. 87) see J. R. Lewis, “The Growth of Scientology and the
Stark Model of Religious ‘Success,’” in J. R. Lewis (ed.), op. cit.,
p. 132.
nevertheless attractive to those born within
Australia.”41
Needless to say, this apparent attractiveness has
not translated into impressive membership
numbers, and the conclusion that “it is fair to
expect Scientologists to be more educated than
the average population” might be queried.42
Certainly, the researchers’ upbeat assessment
that “this chapter has demonstrated that
Scientology has come a long way” with “more
people claiming so be Scientologists in official
censuses.” seems overly effusive.43
Media Coverage: Fair or Foul?
Another possibility is that critical media
coverage might have impacted adversely upon
the growth of the organization. Indeed, there is
academic interest in determining the extent to
which Scientology might have been unfairly
treated even to the degree of alleged bias
against the group. Some scholars of new
religions conclude that Scientology has been
“damaged” by unfair media coverage.
In one book chapter, two authors claim that the
satirical style found in a selected proportion of
newspaper reports (those deemed to be
“somewhat negative”), rendered those reports
biased and damaging to Scientology. The
authors conclude that: “This style of reporting
and its impact on its readership should … not be
devalued, as there is a clear bias represented.
Although the media is not informing its readers
to fear Scientology, it is stigmatizing the group
into a ‘joke’ and presenting its central doctrine
as a ‘comic story.’”44
41 A. Possamai, A. Possamai-Inesedy, op. cit., p. 350, making a
comparison with two other recently imported groups and the
general population (ibidem, p. 347).
42 A reviewer has alleged that the researchers “make claims beyond
the scope of their statistical data” and that “hastening to such
conclusions risks error, especially when … no data exist to support
their claims” (T. Manca, “Book Review: Scientology,”
International Journal of Cultic Studies, 2010, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 87).
43 A. Possamai, A. Possamai-Inesedy, op. cit., p. 358. The authors
note that “between 1996 and 2001, the Church experienced a
growth rate of 36.6 percent, which is an increase from 1,488 self-
reported members to 2,032” (ibidem, p. 346). Hardly an earth-
shattering increase, even if favorably comparable to some other
miniscule religions.
44 Ibidem, p. 359.
Another academic paper looks at tabloid
television coverage of Scientology between
2007 and 2012. Again, while focusing perhaps
more on the style of the reports (Sensational
Scientology! is the title) than the substance of
the allegations, it is claimed that: “These
journalistic forays have been as damaging to
public opinion of Scientology as any media
scrutiny of a new religion in Australian media
history.45 … Few stories feature content about
the beliefs or practices of Scientology, except to
reinforce their reputation for unorthodoxy in
wider society, and instead feature hyperbolized
themes that ‘serve to legitimate and reinforce
negative stereotypes.’”46
Despite these conclusions, the extent of any
alleged damage and impact on membership
numbers (if that is what is meant by damage)
can only be inferred. Another researcher has
pointed out an alleged nexus between negative
media coverage and public perception,47 but
again does not link the inference of negative
public perception with stalled membership
growth. Indeed, yet another researcher in the
field of new religions has suggested that the
presumption of a negative impact from critical
reports might be counterintuitive.48
Some scholars focus on media campaigns
critical of Scientology, lamenting the fact that
the organization seems to receive more than its
fair share of unwelcome attention. However, the
organization may also attract more attention than
other unconventional groups because it has
courted publicity. From its earliest days, the
history of the movement in Australia can be
readily tracked through newspaper and
45 B. Doherty, “Sensational Scientology!,” p. 44, quoting D. E.
Cowan, J. K. Hadden, “Gods, Guns, and Grist for the Media’s
Mill,” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent
Religions, November 2004, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 71.
46 B. Doherty, “Sensational Scientology!,” p. 50.
47 C.M. Cusack merely notes that “in company with other new
religions, Scientology has received negative publicity which
impacts upon community perceptions” (idem, “Celebrity, the
Popular Media, and Scientology: Making Familiar the Unfamiliar,”
in: J. R. Lewis [ed.], op. cit., p. 390).
48 Lewis recounts anecdotal information that some Scientologists
see television show “mocking” as “free publicity” (T. Manca, op.
cit., p. 87) see J. R. Lewis, “The Growth of Scientology and the
Stark Model of Religious ‘Success,’” in J. R. Lewis (ed.), op. cit.,
p. 132.
