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.

International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 59
electronic media coverage, at a level that seems
unique to Scientology among unconventional
groups but very much fed by the organization
itself as well as its critics.
While no doubt many media exposés have been
sourced from the accounts of former adherents,49
parliamentary debates and official inquiries have
also been prompted by material supplied in part
by former Scientologists.50 But media coverage
has often focused on court proceedings and
public campaigns initiated by Scientology. The
media may well be attracted to stories
surrounding Scientology celebrities, but often as
a result of a celebrity focused media strategy
adopted by the organization.51 These strategies
and forays are calculated to attract media
attention. At the very least they are guaranteed
to do so, and the result can be a public relations
success, even if this success is sometimes
qualified by underlying motives and methods
used.
The Chelmsford Campaign
For example, the Church gained some credence
for the fruition of its decade-long campaign
against damaging psychiatric procedures
conducted at the Chelmsford Private Hospital in
Sydney, which involved numerous deaths and
other serious medical consequences. Scientology
sees its opposition to psychiatry and related
professions as an article of faith, claiming in its
guidebook that: “The fact of the matter is that
these self-appointed experts [referring to
49 As with complaints about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church,
there is nothing irregular about this—in fact to ignore these
complaints would be reprehensible. The media invariably ask for
comment from the organization.
50 This is a bone of contention for some scholars of new religious
movements, who can dismiss complaints from former adherents as
apostate atrocity tales. Reputable scholars who understand the
probative value of such testimonies have been subjected to
academic criticism because they use apostate accounts in their
research. These criticisms could be dismissed as foolish nonsense
if the contest over ideas and the public policy consequences were
not so important. For the author’s views on research methodology
in the sensitive area of new religions, see S. Mutch, “Cultism,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security,” Cultic Studies Review, 2006,
vol. 5, no. 2, p. 186–189, and in reply E. Barker, “Stepping Out of
the Ivory Tower: a Sociological Engagement in ‘the cult wars,’”
Methodological Innovations Online, 2011, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 18–39.
51 S. A. Kent, “Hollywood’s Celebrity Lobbyists and the Clinton
Administration’s American Foreign Policy Towards German
Scientology,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 2002, vol.
1, no. 1, doi:10.3138/jrpc.1.1.002.
psychiatrists and psychologists] have never
discovered and do not know to this day that the
mind is composed of mental image pictures, that
the brain is simply a conduit, and that man is a
spiritual being.”52
In this respect its Chelmsford campaign might
be viewed as a case of blind faith versus
pioneering (or dangerously experimental)
medicine. Nevertheless, the campaign,
conducted by the Australian Office of
Scientology’s official sounding Citizens
Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)53 (along
with media exposés on the Channel Nine
network’s 60 Minutes program and detailed
investigation by “The Sydney Morning
Herald”), resulted in the establishment of a
genuinely official royal commission in 1988 to
investigate deep-sleep therapy and other
psychiatric practices in the state of New South
Wales.
The royal commission eventually led to some
redress for patients who had been found to be
seriously injured by psychiatric medical
procedures conducted at Chelmsford and
elsewhere. So even if it is argued that its
motivation was misguided or self-serving
(fuelled by over-zealous antagonism against the
mental health professions54 and helping to
proselytize the Scientology brand),55 some
credit, albeit sometimes qualified,56 accrued to
52 Church of Scientology International, What Is Scientology? The
Comprehensive Reference on the World’s Fastest Growing
Religion, Los Angeles 1993, p. 291.
53 Established in 1969 to “expose psychiatric criminality and
oppression” (ibidem, p. 290).
54 Fuelled by derision heaped upon Hubbard by the psychiatric
profession (S. A. Kent, T. A. Manca, “A War Over Mental Health
Professionalism: Scientology Versus Psychiatry,” Mental Health,
Religion and Culture, 2014, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1–23).
55 This is a fact denied by the CCHR which has claimed, “We do
not have a religious agenda and do not refer our clients, people
whose human rights have been abused by psychiatrists or other
mental health professionals, to the Church” (L. Cottee, “Letters—
No religious agenda,” The Big Issue, 20 September 1999). L.
Cottee was the National Office Spokesperson, CCHR, responding
to an article claiming that “CCHR is widely regarded by anti-cult
activists as a front group for the Church of Scientology” see “Did
cult march on wrong hospital?,” The Big Issue, 6 September 1999.
56 For example, while crediting CCHR as being a “leading
protagonist for the royal commission into the use of deep sleep
therapy” in NSW and for “helping to start the Health
Commissioner’s probe into DST in Victoria,” journalists referred
to “a hidden agenda of retribution … against people whom the
church describes as ‘enemies’” (under the “fair game” policy) (J.