Boston Now's Scientology lovefest, Day 2
Well, Boston Now published
Part 2 of its "Another side of Scientology" series today, and it's a doozy. The subhed--"Parents, pols grapple with church's role in teaching Boston kids"--suggests that correspondent Kim Abruzzo might atone for
yesterday's puff piece. But Abruzzo sure doesn't.
As with yesterday's story, you've really got to read this article in its entirety to appreciate just how credulous it is. But here are some lowlights:
A pull quote from Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. "[A] workable, secular educational method with proven results." Right there in the middle of the page. That's how Hubbard describes the "study technique" used by Boston's Delphi Academy. There's no dissenting take from any Scientology critic; instead, city councilor Chuck Turner (who's
not always the most reliable observer) is quoted saying he likes what he's seen at Delphi.
A half-assed discussion of Scientology's "Citiznes Commission on Human Rights." Here's what Abruzzo tells us about CCHR, which shares an office with the aformentioned Volunteer Ministry:
According to CCHR, formed as an arm of Scientology in 1969, psychiatric diagnoses are disorders, not diseases, and are not proven to be caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. '[CCHR] is an outlet...if a person has been institutionalized without consent, or if a mother has been ordered to put her child on psychiatric drugs or face losing custody,' [Volunteer Ministry founder Robert] Castagna said.
This is where things get really remarkable. Abruzzo doesn't provide any countervailing criticism of CCHR--which suggests, to me, that she's either a Scientologist herself or just a weak reporter.
[Addendum:
a reader argues the blame lies with Abruzzo's editors rather than Abruzzo herself. In retrospect, I think that's right.]Consider this excerpt of a January 24, 2007
MetroWest Daily News story on CCHR's reaction to the apparent
murder earlier this year of James Alenson by John Odgren, who's been diagnosed with hyperactivity disorder and Asperger's, a mild form of autism. As the excerpt indicates, CCHR's goals are somewhat broader that Castagna indicated:
A Scientology group targeting "toxic" medications plans to protest in Sudbury today for a public airing of any drugs given to the teen accused of murdering another boy at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School last week....
"I think everybody will be devastated," said Rebecca Goniwich, a Sudbury special-needs advocate, of today’s noon protest.
"Walk a mile in our shoes before you judge," added the mother of an autistic teen.
Members of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, established by the Church of Scientology, will hold a 20-foot banner stating: "Psychiatry’s toxic drugs cause suicide and acts of violence."
The demonstration will call for the release of the types of drugs given to accused killer John Odgren, 16, and the name of the doctor who prescribed them [emph. added]. Odgren, who suffers from a mild form of autism, was taking several undisclosed medications when he reportedly stabbed Alenson three times in a school bathroom.
Dismissal of Scientology's critics. Castagna "acknowleges, however, there will always be critics of anything related to his church," Abruzzo tells us. In a sidebar, meanwhile, a Scientology official calls allegations that another Boston literacy program was a Scientology front "exaggerated tabloid claims." This statement goes unchallenged.
A recycled lede from yesterday. Again, Brookline resident Laura
Creedonekhator talks about how great the Boston Scientology Volunteer
Ministry has been for her autistic son, Jake.
This is truly bizarre stuff. I'll be contacting Boston Now to ask about Abruzzo's reportage, and I'll post whatever response I get here.
-
Abruzzo looks like a neophyte reporter:
//www.flickr.com/photos/tinyredrobot/
//www.townonline.com/somerville/religion/x1984916348
//www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=features&sc3=&id=4524&pf=1
//www.theprototypicalbird.com/
-
Bzzzzt!
Adam, you're way off in targeting the reporter. The editors are the ones who need to be blamed here. How on earth did this get past them, is the question.
I've worked with a lot of beginning reporters and have often been faced with stories packed with big holes and lacking the proper degree of skepticism and balance. But you don't let the thing get into the paper!! You send them back out to flesh out the reporting or simply spike the story!
Come on, blame the real culprits at BostonNow.
-
DG, you're absolutely right. I've noted your objection above in bolded text.
-
CCHR seeks to get damaging psychiatric drugs properly labeled with black box warnings and to bring abuses of basic human rights by psychiatrists into the light. They aren't the only ones on that bus.
It disturbs me that you can't see past the CCHR connection to Scientology to the actual good work it is doing. Yes, CCHRwas founded by Scientologists and Psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz nearly 40 years ago, and yes, its mission is one that many Scientologists deeply believe in. So what? There are plenty of people who are NOT Scientologists who deeply believe in that mission.
CCHR has helped get dozens of psychiatrists arrested for abuses of their patients, including murder, rape and fraud. CCHR has helped closed down dozens of psychiatric hospitals for fraud and abuse of patients. Google "Chelmsford" for one example of the actual work for which CCHR is responsible. It was CCHR that broke open the story of the psychiatric slave camps in South Africa under apartheid. Where was the big BBCexpose then?
They are doing mankind a service.
-
I was mystified at your article until I realized you hadn't read the title of the piece, or most of the actual piece. You obviously live in a universe where Scientology is not only accepted but actually plays some sort of insidious role in your daily life, unlike the rest of us, who, while we think that Scientology is ridiculous bunk, aren't ever bothered by it.
Where in either article is the "apologia" (wow. -ia instead of the real ending of the word. You're so cultured!)? Upon the closest possible inspection, I can find no such thing.
And finally, since when is journalism supposed to provide counterpoint? Objective reportage, yes. Opinions from every possible side of the story, no. That's pretty basic journalism.
I could keep telling you what's wrong with your complaint, but I thought I'd try to leave my remarks as cryptic and seemingly unfounded as you have, in keeping with the style of your article.
Next time you want to sully some poor reporter's name with your dubious calumny, do your research first. In the meantime, I'm sure Pitchfork could use more of your work.
-
Ronnie: what the fuck are you talking about?
-
I feel compelled to respond to Ronnie's stupidity because, as a byproduct of having read Ronnie's stupidity, I have actually become stupider myself.
Dear Ronnie:
1) There is a difference between an apologia and an apology, and it has very little to do with culture.
2) Secondly...
...actually, the rest of your comment pretty much runs roughshod over itself, so I'll leave it alone.
-
MattS:
No, actually there isn't a difference between apologia and an apology. The point I'm making there is that there's no use for a pseudohellenism when we have a perfectly good, non-arcane way of saying it. So seriously, learn what words mean before "correcting" people for using them.
Adam:
"What the fuck are you talking about?" is a pretty excellent example of unprofessional behaviour. In the modern world, very few people think of Scientology as anything but foolish nonsense. In fact, that's precisely what I myself would consider it. But see, that's the point of writing an article about the "other side" (note the title of the article you found yourself fit to criticise) of Scientology. You picked out a handful of sentences from the article and picked them apart semantically, trying desperately to find something objectionable, or even, as you so pretentiously put it, any kind of "apologia". Where there was none, you invented it in context, or used "a sidebar" (note: by definition not actually part of the article) as "evidence".
-
Ronnie, there's so much to say, but I'll keep it brief.
1. I love you accusing me of pretentiousness after tossing out the term "pseudohellenism."
2. I'm not sure how they use it across the pond, but I think of an "apology" as an expression of genuine regret and an "apologia" as a defense, specifically involving matters of faith.
3. Here's the great big journalistic problem you're missing: Abruzzo *pretends* she's acknowledging critics of the various Scientology-related groups she discusses, but doesn't actually do it, by design or simply due to negligence. Take the case of CCHR. To accept Castagna's description of CCHR the way Abruzzo did--without at least noting, *in passing*, that the group may actually have bigger goals--is flat-out irresponsible.
4. What's your source for what a sidebar is and isn't? Is that some kind of Fleet Street thing?
-
1. How is pseudohellenism pretentious? It means exactly what it is and there's no other word for it.
2. I'm not across the pond, but here in America most of us know that, since *one of the words comes from the other* that they are effectively the same thing. Yes, I said effectively. Because there's nothing inherently genuine in the term "apology". The only difference in your definitions is a nuance you yourself inserted.
3. I'm not missing it. It's just not there. She discusses the criticisms; what more do you want? Clearly you're looking for more criticism than usual because the article is about a Scientology-related group, and because, to you, Scientologists are necessarily "up to" something. Please explain why we are to make a special case for certain "religions" in what is *supposed* to be a fair media.
4. My source is that I am looking at it and it is a) not part of the article and b) not even composed by the same damn person.
Lord. I'm not even disagreeing with you in spirit, I think you just decided to pick apart something that didn't deserve to be picked apart.
