International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 61
of his legendary father has somewhat endeared
him to a population usually averse to tall
poppies. In 2007, Packer married his second
wife, Erica Baxter, in a Scientology ceremony,
and one scholar notes that he converted to the
Church in 2002. The wedding ceremony on the
French Riviera was attended by “premier
celebrity Scientologists Tom Cruise and Katie
Holmes.”63 The conclusion to this scholar’s
piece was that: “Australian women’s magazines
consistently present Baxter’s rise to fame and
success as desirable and positive. … The
profession of faith in Scientology by celebrities
must have a normalizing and familiarizing
effect, rendering the Church of Scientology
mainstream rather than fringe, attractive rather
than unattractive, associated with wealth and
success, and thus desirable rather than
otherwise.”64
With such influential friends in high places65 and
its share of favourable coverage (which might be
further quantified for those who feel the need to
achieve a fulsome assessment), it does seem a
stretch to paint Scientology as a media
underdog. There is always recourse to the
normal complaints procedures against media
outlets, and Scientology has used this avenue,
albeit with little success.66 Even sometimes
salacious gossip, which constitutes the bread and
butter of society magazines, provides to the
group the lifeblood of continuing publicity.67
63 C.M. Cusack, op. cit., p. 403.
64 Ibidem, p. 404–405.
65 Packer and Baxter have since parted. In 2008, an article
appeared with a title indicating Packer had quit the Church, noting
that “closest friends have revealed that he has quietly distanced
himself from Scientology” (A. Hornery, See ya, Tom: Packer quits
Cruise’s church, “The Sydney Morning Herald” 10 May 2008,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/see-ya-tom-packer-quits-
cruises-church/2008/05/09/1210131257772.html). In his recent
book, Australian journalist S. Cannane notes that “according to one
former insider, James was no longer an active Scientologist by the
middle of 2006” (idem, Fair game: the incredible untold story of
Scientology in Australia, HarperCollins Publishers, Sydney, 2016,
p. 310). Despite moving away from Scientology, there is nothing
to indicate that Packer remains anything other than favourably
disposed towards the Church, having stated in 2006 that “it has
been very good for me. It has been helpful” (ibidem).
66 See e.g. B. Doherty, Sensational Scientology!, p. 47 S. Mutch,
“Scientologists in Australia,” p. 563.
67 The saying that “all publicity is good publicity” is probably true
with respect to society magazines. Consumers remember that the
product (in this case Scientology) has been in the society pages in
association with celebrities—they don’t necessarily remember the
Scientology is nevertheless characterized by
some scholars as a convenient whipping dog,
particularly for television journalists anxious to
fulfil the demands of the unremitting news
cycle. The concern is that television journalism
has a disproportionate voice in framing negative
narratives although an alternative view is that
print journalism continues to play the key role in
setting the agenda followed by other journalists.
In any event, there is a difference between the
pressing need for stories and conclusions that
these stories are biased or insubstantial,
particularly when criticisms and conclusions are
arguably based more on journalistic style than
the substance of the allegations.
So despite some tribulations at the hands of the
media, overall one would have expected
Scientology to bask in the reflected glory of
celebrity and reap a handsome dividend in
membership growth. Yet this growth dividend
does not seem to have occurred in Australia. It is
therefore worth pondering whether complaints
about unfair coverage of Scientology are a
convenient excuse, a case of protesting too
much.
Allegations of Antisocial and Internally
Harmful Behaviour
This leads us to further examine reasons for
apparently low membership, and to heretical
thoughts. Might a perceived level of community
aversion to the group be well-founded? Might
the fault lie with Scientology, discoverable in
the litany of complaint and controversy that has
swirled around the organization from inception?
Despite attempts to blame the media and the
messengers, is there substance to the allegations
made against the organization? To re-phrase a
popular maxim, we might ask: “where there is
smoke, is there fire?”
The types of allegation made against
Scientology include two general categories:
aggressive behaviour by the Church against
details of any particular story. Scholars who draw up lists of
favourable and unfavourable reports to discover bias really need to
delve into qualitative questions of marketing nuance before they
come to any firm conclusions. In addition, the political as well as
social influence of so-called “women’s magazines” should not be
underestimated.
of his legendary father has somewhat endeared
him to a population usually averse to tall
poppies. In 2007, Packer married his second
wife, Erica Baxter, in a Scientology ceremony,
and one scholar notes that he converted to the
Church in 2002. The wedding ceremony on the
French Riviera was attended by “premier
celebrity Scientologists Tom Cruise and Katie
Holmes.”63 The conclusion to this scholar’s
piece was that: “Australian women’s magazines
consistently present Baxter’s rise to fame and
success as desirable and positive. … The
profession of faith in Scientology by celebrities
must have a normalizing and familiarizing
effect, rendering the Church of Scientology
mainstream rather than fringe, attractive rather
than unattractive, associated with wealth and
success, and thus desirable rather than
otherwise.”64
With such influential friends in high places65 and
its share of favourable coverage (which might be
further quantified for those who feel the need to
achieve a fulsome assessment), it does seem a
stretch to paint Scientology as a media
underdog. There is always recourse to the
normal complaints procedures against media
outlets, and Scientology has used this avenue,
albeit with little success.66 Even sometimes
salacious gossip, which constitutes the bread and
butter of society magazines, provides to the
group the lifeblood of continuing publicity.67
63 C.M. Cusack, op. cit., p. 403.
64 Ibidem, p. 404–405.
65 Packer and Baxter have since parted. In 2008, an article
appeared with a title indicating Packer had quit the Church, noting
that “closest friends have revealed that he has quietly distanced
himself from Scientology” (A. Hornery, See ya, Tom: Packer quits
Cruise’s church, “The Sydney Morning Herald” 10 May 2008,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/see-ya-tom-packer-quits-
cruises-church/2008/05/09/1210131257772.html). In his recent
book, Australian journalist S. Cannane notes that “according to one
former insider, James was no longer an active Scientologist by the
middle of 2006” (idem, Fair game: the incredible untold story of
Scientology in Australia, HarperCollins Publishers, Sydney, 2016,
p. 310). Despite moving away from Scientology, there is nothing
to indicate that Packer remains anything other than favourably
disposed towards the Church, having stated in 2006 that “it has
been very good for me. It has been helpful” (ibidem).
66 See e.g. B. Doherty, Sensational Scientology!, p. 47 S. Mutch,
“Scientologists in Australia,” p. 563.
67 The saying that “all publicity is good publicity” is probably true
with respect to society magazines. Consumers remember that the
product (in this case Scientology) has been in the society pages in
association with celebrities—they don’t necessarily remember the
Scientology is nevertheless characterized by
some scholars as a convenient whipping dog,
particularly for television journalists anxious to
fulfil the demands of the unremitting news
cycle. The concern is that television journalism
has a disproportionate voice in framing negative
narratives although an alternative view is that
print journalism continues to play the key role in
setting the agenda followed by other journalists.
In any event, there is a difference between the
pressing need for stories and conclusions that
these stories are biased or insubstantial,
particularly when criticisms and conclusions are
arguably based more on journalistic style than
the substance of the allegations.
So despite some tribulations at the hands of the
media, overall one would have expected
Scientology to bask in the reflected glory of
celebrity and reap a handsome dividend in
membership growth. Yet this growth dividend
does not seem to have occurred in Australia. It is
therefore worth pondering whether complaints
about unfair coverage of Scientology are a
convenient excuse, a case of protesting too
much.
Allegations of Antisocial and Internally
Harmful Behaviour
This leads us to further examine reasons for
apparently low membership, and to heretical
thoughts. Might a perceived level of community
aversion to the group be well-founded? Might
the fault lie with Scientology, discoverable in
the litany of complaint and controversy that has
swirled around the organization from inception?
Despite attempts to blame the media and the
messengers, is there substance to the allegations
made against the organization? To re-phrase a
popular maxim, we might ask: “where there is
smoke, is there fire?”
The types of allegation made against
Scientology include two general categories:
aggressive behaviour by the Church against
details of any particular story. Scholars who draw up lists of
favourable and unfavourable reports to discover bias really need to
delve into qualitative questions of marketing nuance before they
come to any firm conclusions. In addition, the political as well as
social influence of so-called “women’s magazines” should not be
underestimated.
