Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 88
vilified because they are “different” and (2) this stigmatization is attributable to virtually
everyone in power or with a social or professional position, especially the media. As graduate
students Laurel Rowe and Gray Cavendar state:
In the past years, the media covered Satanism in light-hearted Halloween interviews
with the Church of Satan’s Anton LaVey. Today, however, television news and
newspapers cover satanic crime, ranging from sensationalistic national stories of
ritual murders to local coverage of vandalism in cemeteries. Because they present
“hard news,” the mainstream media lend legitimacy to allegations that satanic
activity is on the rise, posing a threat to society. However, stories about Satanism,
like all news stories, represent the media’s social construction of reality through news
frames. (p. 264)
The implication is clearly that somehow the media make up stories about Satanism, or at
least radically distort the real picture. This argument is, of course, rather sophomoric and
would not be held by any credible sociologist, let alone a media analyst. The media are
notorious for subtly editorializing and flaunting their biases, for ignoring or even censoring
certain subject matter. Journalists, however, rarely fabricate stories. When they do,
immediately, they are held up to public disrepute or they may be threatened with actual
prosecution, as happened in 1991 when a television reporter in Colorado allegedly helped set
up an illegal pit bull dogfight.
In sum, The Satanism Scare substitutes a tiresome stream of political ideology for
documentary evidence, while in the same breath systematically accusing American opinion
makers of inventing what information is available. Also, some of the few facts in the book are
presented horribly wrongly. These falsities are not mere trifles they turn out to be effective
forms of character assassination against credible experts. For instance, American Studies
professor Bill Ellis (Pennsylvania State University at Hazleton) characterizes Dale Griffis as a
mild-mannered crackpot “driven by emotions created by his personal life and his professional
fears” (p. 289). Supposedly, these emotions were inflamed “after his teenage son committed
suicide, allegedly `in the name of Satan’” (p. 289). In fact, Griffis’s son is very much alive and
has never been involved in Satanism.
One breathlessly awaits the next volume on the whereabouts of Elvis.
Carl Raschke, Ph.D.
Professor of Religious Studies
University of Denver
These book reviews are an electronic version of reviews originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1992, Volume
09, Number 1, pages 120-135. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of
the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
vilified because they are “different” and (2) this stigmatization is attributable to virtually
everyone in power or with a social or professional position, especially the media. As graduate
students Laurel Rowe and Gray Cavendar state:
In the past years, the media covered Satanism in light-hearted Halloween interviews
with the Church of Satan’s Anton LaVey. Today, however, television news and
newspapers cover satanic crime, ranging from sensationalistic national stories of
ritual murders to local coverage of vandalism in cemeteries. Because they present
“hard news,” the mainstream media lend legitimacy to allegations that satanic
activity is on the rise, posing a threat to society. However, stories about Satanism,
like all news stories, represent the media’s social construction of reality through news
frames. (p. 264)
The implication is clearly that somehow the media make up stories about Satanism, or at
least radically distort the real picture. This argument is, of course, rather sophomoric and
would not be held by any credible sociologist, let alone a media analyst. The media are
notorious for subtly editorializing and flaunting their biases, for ignoring or even censoring
certain subject matter. Journalists, however, rarely fabricate stories. When they do,
immediately, they are held up to public disrepute or they may be threatened with actual
prosecution, as happened in 1991 when a television reporter in Colorado allegedly helped set
up an illegal pit bull dogfight.
In sum, The Satanism Scare substitutes a tiresome stream of political ideology for
documentary evidence, while in the same breath systematically accusing American opinion
makers of inventing what information is available. Also, some of the few facts in the book are
presented horribly wrongly. These falsities are not mere trifles they turn out to be effective
forms of character assassination against credible experts. For instance, American Studies
professor Bill Ellis (Pennsylvania State University at Hazleton) characterizes Dale Griffis as a
mild-mannered crackpot “driven by emotions created by his personal life and his professional
fears” (p. 289). Supposedly, these emotions were inflamed “after his teenage son committed
suicide, allegedly `in the name of Satan’” (p. 289). In fact, Griffis’s son is very much alive and
has never been involved in Satanism.
One breathlessly awaits the next volume on the whereabouts of Elvis.
Carl Raschke, Ph.D.
Professor of Religious Studies
University of Denver
These book reviews are an electronic version of reviews originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1992, Volume
09, Number 1, pages 120-135. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of
the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
