Dealing with John Sweeney in London 2007
L. Ron Hubbard, founder of scientology and sole source of valid information on earth, declared the media to be “Merchants of Chaos” and proclaimed in his “Press Policies” directive: “The reporter who comes to you, all smiles and withholds, ‘wanting a story,’ has an AMA instigated release in his pocket. He is there to trick you into supporting his preconceived story. … The only ways to handle him are to eject him or to give him a story he thinks is a story.” And in another reference (PTS Sections, Personnel and Execs), he declared: “There are no good reporters. There are no good government or SP group agents. The longer you try to be nice the worse off you will be. And the sooner one learns this the happier he will be.”
As the international spokesperson for scientology over the span of twenty or so years, I dealt with many different media and reporters. The incident above with John Sweeney in the Tottenham Court Road Test Center of the London Org was my last. Over the years I had been on the Today Show, Anderson Cooper and dozens of other TV shows, I had been interviewed by the NY Times, LA Times, SP Times and numerous other print media. I had been trained and drilled on Hubbard policies on dealing with reporters, had watched his interview with Tony Hitchman over and over (“this is how it’s done” — but softball questions from a scientology “reporter” weren’t very instructive). I did regular scientology TR’s as part of daily life preparing for media appearances.
But the real nitty-gritty on how to deal with reporters was learned through the “Reporter TR’s.” This was issued by Sheila Gaiman based on the “successful actions” of David Gaiman, the head of GO PR for many years. Scientology will claim that this is not a valid reference and was canceled. All one has to do is watch me (or Tommy Davis or Heber or any other scientology spokesperson) doing exactly what is laid out in these drills to know that this is PRECISELY what scientology media handlers are trained to do. In fact, if you have ever watched the clip of me with Sweeney pictured above I am doing exactly what is laid out in the drill to “never allow himself to be put at effect, and should not tolerate it even for an instant, but immediately attack back.”
I have highlighted some of the most outrageous things in this reference below:
BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN
10 DECEMBER 1969
REISSUED AS BTB 21 JUNE 1975
PRO COURSE
Not for distribution.
CONFIDENTIAL
REPORTER TRs
1. Answering non-loaded questions
Purpose:
To train a PRO to answer such questions with confidence and simplicity as are often asked by reporters. E.g., what is Scientology? What’s Clear, OT? How does an E-Meter work?
Method:
The PRO and ‘reporter’ sit across a table facing each other.
The ‘reporter’ asks the questions and the PRO must answer, without a long communication lag, and in a way which readily communicates to the reporter. The drill is coached as in the TRs.
The drill is passed when the PRO is confident he can answer the basic questions asked about Scientology.
2. No Answer
Purpose:
To train a PRO to give a ‘no answer’ to questions he has no wish to answer directly.
Method:
To begin with, the reporter reads the questions asked him by ‘The Sun’ reporter Victor Chapple—and the PRO reads LRH’s answers. This is just to accustom him to the idea of ‘no answer.’
Then using different questions, the PRO gives ‘no answers’.
The trick is to appear to answer the question by giving generalized statements in simple terms so that the reporter doesn’t realize his question hasn’t been answered.
The PRO should be completely causative over the conversation and end it with certainty, so that the reporter gets the idea, goes on to the next question.
3. Non-sequitur events
Purpose:
To enable a PRO to practice getting his ‘message’ across and tag it on to any current event.
Also in preparation for the day when our PROs will be asked to comment on current events.
Method:
One person has a newspaper in front of him and reads out a headline (and perhaps a line or two of the story if necessary, for the PRO’s understanding of it).
Ask the PRO what comment he would like to make on it.
The PRO should comment briefly and lead from that into his message.
The drill is passed when the PRO can take a message on to virtually any event, smoothly and with reality.
4. Handling a suppressive TV Interview
Purpose:
To train a PRO to get his message across in spite of the “interviewer”, in the few short minutes usually available on television. This is so that millions of people have no doubts after the programme what the Scientologist stands for and what he is against.
Method:
The PRO and interviewer face each other and the interviewer asks questions.
The PRO establishes his message in varying forms to as many answers as possible.
If the interviewer SP gets he has been interviewed as in the past, write up, and when the PRO has his “say”. The interview has been successful when the PRO has got his message across to his satisfaction.
5. Handling an SP
a. By overwhelm
Purpose:
To train a PRO to be able to establish ethics presence over an SP reporter if the occasion arises; by such things as shouting, barging points, swearing. To do this completely causatively until the poor reporter is “caved in.”
Method:
The reporter and PRO sit across a table, facing each other and the reporter asks SP questions.
The PRO overwhelms without judgment in answer to the SP question until he does it with reality, causativeness, and the overwhelm easily reduces the reporter.
TR 1 is a part of this drill: there is no point saying the words if they don’t reach the other guy.
b. By being knowingly covertly hostile
Purpose:
To train the PRO to handle an SP reporter by words and without the use of force as in (a).
He uses the tone of anger and implies it is at the reporter, so that the reporter introverts and drops the question.
Method:
The PRO and reporter sit across a table and the reporter asks SP type questions.
The PRO observes what would be a button in relation to the question asked and throws this back with good TR 1 so the reporter caves in. If the reporter is introverted the TR is successful.
If the reporter persists with the same question the PRO should not re-press the same button: it obviously didn’t work.
He should drop it and use another one.
If the PRO cannot think of a snide reply the reporter could just say “Junk: you haven’t handled me. Start.” or some such remark. but should not tell the PRO what to say. When the confusion has come off the PRO will be able to handle and have a big win.
The drill is completed when the PRO is willing to create – cave in with an accurate snide remark, question or statement.
c. By stalling for time
Purpose:
To train a PRO to maintain his confront and composure when given some SP sensational news by a reporter, of which he has no prior knowledge.
Method:
The reporter asks the PRO for his comments on an entheta situation involving Scientologists.
The PRO maintains his ethics presence and duplicates the reporter’s nasty angle to his satisfaction.
He then stalls for time and gets the reporter to wait a few minutes or hours or so (whatever is necessary) while he checks his facts.
The drill is passed when the PRO is confident that he could not be taken off guard by a reporter by being presented by an unknown situation.
d. By handling the reporter in front of you (verbal karate)
Purpose:
To train a PRO to handle the reporter in front of him without judgment, to present time.
Method:
The PRO and the reporter sit across a table facing each other.
The PRO is asked a miscellany of questions.
If it is a specific question, he can answer it, if possible tacking his message on to the reply.
If the question puts him a little bit off guard, he takes this flow and turns it towards the reporter with an even greater velocity. He does this with a snide retort, wisecrack, question or comment, or by physical overwhelm; whichever seems the right action to establish ethics presence.
He should never allow himself to be put at effect, and should not tolerate it even for an instant, but immediately attack back.
The drill is passed when the PRO no longer uses an attack-line or retorts to handle the reporter – but he is totally there, confident and handling.
Comment:
If your student experiences difficulty on these TRs one of two things are awry: Scientology TRs 0 – IV are not flat or b) he slipped through a previous Reporter TR without weakness or button on him being found and flattened.
History:
These drills have been evolved by PRO WW to train anyone on a gradient scale to handle any situation a reporter could pose.
They are based on the HCO PL 3.2.69 Public Image which states: “Don’t defend Scn, attack bad conditions and bad hats!”
By Sheila Gaiman
PRWW
From the hat write up of
David Gaiman
PR Chief WW
Reissued as BTB by
Flag Mission 1234 I/C
C/O Andrea Lewis
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
And then there is the infamous TR-L[ie]– “To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.”
Just watch the infamous Tommy Davis interview (“there is no such thing as disconnection”) to see this in action:
It is amusing to note that Hubbard only did one TV interview (the staged Hitchman “interview” does not count) which was an utter disaster. Granada TV tracked him down and he was interviewed in his office on the Apollo in 1968. This is where he claimed he had “no second wife” along with a host of other lies, no-answers and misdirections:
Similarly, David Miscavige gave one live TV interview to Ted Koppel and it too was a disaster:
Scientology fears, and therefore despises, the press. Unfortunately, they have convinced too many in the media to fear them.
If only there could be a second Miscavige interview, but he will probably never even be photographed again by the mainstream media. All we’ll get is blurry long distance video shot by critics through the bushes at Ideal Org openings.
“I recall his eyes, the wary, light-blue eyes that I somehow associate with the gunmen of the old West, watching me sharply as he talked as if to see how much I believed. Not much.”
Jack Williamson
Had a 3/4 longer post but the ‘back’ tag to correct my e-mail address didn’t take me back, just dumped everything.
It’s sad/hilarious that modern politicians use the same tactics, often not as well drilled or refined.
Ultimately a lot of the technology of propaganda has remained the same for decades.
I wish at certain points in our schooling (at whatever point our minds are developed enough to understand and retain the knowledge) we could be taught a basic course on propaganda and as we age get a refresher with the information expanded on, so that by the time we graduate high school we are able to easily spot the most common seven propaganda techniques as easily as we can recall the days of the week.
It would make the jobs of politicians much more difficult.
After listening to the Koppel interview, I had to look at the opposition to the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956. It provided mental health care for Alaska and set aside land trusts to pay for the costs. Opposition began when a small “anti communist” group noted that Alaska was very close to Siberia and began to to argue that it was part of a plan to establish UN concentration camps.
Hubbard himself asserted that it was a plot by “less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains, and they are, oddly enough, directors in all the mental health groups in the world which have sprung up.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Mental_Health_Enabling_Act
In many ways the opposition was a precursor to QAnon and the racist antisemitisic conspiracy claims of the extreme right that are with us today. It was interesting to see how proud Miscavige was of Scientology’s (relatively small) role in it.
This is a hard work for a monday morning!
Think, it’s allready done at friday.
(and I smile wide)
Dear Mike Rinder, in this context I have a topic suggestion for you:
Scientology, when the interview of Pulitzer Prize-suspect investigative journalist Tony Hitchman was released on DVD, edited out some passages and even changed a passage at the beginning (including a presumably computer-generated / sampled voice of Hubbard):
In response to the first question, Hubbard replies in the original “Well, Mr. Hitchman …”
In the edited version, however, it says: “Well, it’s very interesting …”
I suspect that for certain reasons no one should be prompted to google Tony Hitchman. The sentence “Thank you, Mr. Hitchman.” is also cut out at the end.
The question about the costs of Scientology was also cut, as was the reference to Archbishop Ottoberry, who supposedly uses Scientology in “most of his sermons”.
(A transcript of the original version can be found here:
https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/scientology/l-ron-hubbard-gives-an-introduction-to-scientology-in-1966-interview/)
Why don’t you look into this issue, I have never read anything about it on a site critical of Scientology.
Best wishes from Germany and all the best to you!
If you think about it, this isn’t much different than how politicians, celebrities, and various spokespeople handle the media. It’s been their SOP for as long as I can remember.
That’s what came to mind while I was reading it. In the main, that’s exactly what politicians and corporate representatives do.
Yes, its true. I listen to these interviews and want to reach into the TV or radio or whatever and get these interviewers by the neck! My mind yells at them, “You did NOT get an answer to that question, ask it again!” But do they do that? No. Seemingly they’re oblivious to having been fluffed off and serenely go on to the next question. Almost NEVER do they nail the interviewEE and make him or her answer the actual question. It could be done nicely and politely. One need not be rude. You ask a question, you get fluff that sound like an answer but isn’t, so you say something like, “Yes, that’s interesting, thanks, and good to know, etc., but what I really need to know is____________________and then you ask the question again, possibly rephrased, still friendly, not threatening or bullying, but asking the question, until it gets F**KING answered!!!!! It can be done. I’ve seen it done very smoothly.
Aqua sez” “You did NOT get an answer to that question, ask it again!” But do they do that? No.
Scientology has the answer for that Aqua. The Comm Course. Specifically TR-1!!! If you were to reg these errant interviewers, you would be able to receive a nice fat FSM commission and feel good about getting someone onto The Bridge to Total Freedom!!!
LOL. Ms. B, you’re just going to hate this.
Way back in the day, I did the Comm Course, and in the beginning it was torture, but somehow I got thru it, and it literally changed my life and my income shot way up. You see, my income is 90% dependent upon workable communication. Maybe even higher. What I learned on that course and to this day apply for work and in all my relationships and interactions continues to be quite helpful to me. So I give Hubbard that. The Comm Course, and later, the Pro TRs course, and then after that, the Key To Life Course, made huge differences in my personal happiness and my income.
See? I told you you’d hate it 🙂
Now, if you’re still reading, and haven’t by now given up in disgust, here’s what you won’t hate:
In all my years as a Public Scientologist (they never managed to get me on staff although I came very close to signing twice) I never ONCE got ANYONE into Scientology. Not one single person, in, oh…25 years. I would have LIKED to have gotten people I knew to do the Comm Course and a few other courses that had helped me. But I couldn’t bring myself to “disseminate” because the thought of them being regged and hounded and continually nagged for money, the thought of subjecting anyone I knew or even mildly cared for to the insanity of the Birthday Game was just…well, I couldn’t do it. I WOULDN’T do it. Ergo, as much as I liked and benefitted from the courses and my auditing, I could not, would not, bring anyone in. I figured that I could handle the nuttiness of the continual phone calls, the continual regging for money or to join staff, etc., etc., but I didn’t think anyone I knew would have been able to handle it. Truth.
Also allow me to add: As a public who was at no time staff, the treatment I got was far better than staff received, and my ignorance of the dark side of Scientology was considerable and lasted for nearly 22 years until I found out a lot and decided to go UTR and leave – that took 3 years.
Great reply Aqua. I hate nothing about it. I will reluctantly admit that I too mostly enjoyed the Comm Course. I was shy, insecure and introverted way back then, so it seemed to help a bit with all that. I can’t say it did a damn thing for my income though. I just worked hard to get what I wanted and still do. I’m still a bit shy and I’ve learned to embrace my introversion and actually enjoy it.
I also liked the HQS Course for the most part, except for the dissemination drills. I too never brought anyone into the cult. Well, one girlfriend sort of, but she didn’t last long with me or with them. She only got in to try and make me happy. I hope she’s doing well.
I didn’t do the Key to Life Course because it wasn’t offered when I was in.
After these two courses, things mostly went down hill including a short stint on mission staff. What a disaster that was.
As for the auditing, despite piles of “confessional folders” it was pretty much a giant nothing burger for me. I did the grades and some dianetics. Grade IV was the best for some reason I can’t even remember. Mostly the auditing just kept getting worse and worse. I guess I was a no-case gain, dog pc. But, I would bet that there was no one out there that wanted results more than me, the auditing just didn’t do it. Maybe I was just being a bit too honest with myself. I was never going to cough up and engram to run if there wasn’t one there to run. And there wasn’t. Fortunately for me that kept me off the mind fuck of the OT levels. When I finally woke up and blew that pop stand everything has just gotten better and better. Mostly as a result of practicing meditation and accepting life as it is, not what I want it to be. Take good care my friend…
Ms. B, you’re adorable. I love your honesty and how you just put what is/was your truth out there; it is what it is, it was what it was. I admire people with the courage to do that. Understood on all you’ve said, and for whatever its worth, look, I’m not a betting person, but I would bet SERIOUS money that you are not nor where you EVER a “no-case gain, dog PC”. I don’t know what happened with your auditing and I never got auditor trained myself but you were sincere, you wanted results, you were there because you wanted to be there, no one was forcing you…I’d bet money that someone fucked up somewhere. Preclears being audited are in an extremely susceptible and vulnerable state. In order for the auditing to be effective they must be completely honest and there must be total trust of the auditor. Auditing someone is a huge responsibility. You can really fuck someone up if its not done properly which means with expertise on the meter AND – far more important – gentleness and respect and patience and caring. No kidding. Without these qualities coming FROM the auditor TO the PC, to make the PC feel TOTALLY secure and liked and cared for, the PC will make NO gains. The processes won’t work. Again, I don’t know what happened but I DO know that done wrong, auditing can and does make someone WORSE. It didn’t happen to me but I cringe reading some of the auditing stories on the internet – how roughly the PC was treated, or pushed to have some sort of “cognition” that he or she really wasn’t experiencing…I cringe when I read stuff like this, because I recall how utterly vulnerable I was, how susceptible I was, susceptible to as little as a raised eyebrow from my auditor…if its going to work, the PC must completely let down his or her guard so as to get at the actual truth, and the auditor must totally be WITH that PC, so that the PC feels totally safe, and must proceed at the PC’s own pace, not at the auditor’s pace. or at a pace needed for some Thursday at 2PM Birthday Game statistic …I was fortunate, extremely fortunate, the little auditing I received was very good and helped me (I’m only ARC SW Release). I can only say that if my auditors had been different, not caring, etc., , I would have experienced great losses and…well, grief, actually. Hugs to you my friend.
I loved watching the Koppel interview…talk about someone looking and sounding unhinged. Koppel was good at what he did. Most people don’t realize that TV ‘journalists’ have an ear piece where their producer is talking to them constantly. To do this type of interview with the producer in one ear and an unhinged crazy man in front of you and to try a make the conversation look ‘amiable’. Genius piece of television. There’s one place where Miscavige is raving and Koppel has to cut to commercial and when he looks into the camera for the break I swear you can see the mirth in his eyes. The ‘I’m setting across from a madman’ look.
The only thing I wish that Koppel had more time for was getting into the Sea Org slavery. They just barely touched on the Sea Org and Miscavige went on a tangent about Hubbard not running from anyone…he just wanted a flotilla of ships to what??? Relive his days in the military and this time be the big man instead of being a nobody. Ships that barely stayed together. Ships that were manned by Sea Orgers who were told they knew how to do the job they were posted to they just had to remember the past life where they had the job and do it that way. Recipe for total misery and disaster.
One thing is certain. If you look at Miscaviges mannerisms and watch Cruise during his unhinged Medal of ‘ Valor’ video they are just alike. I don’t know if Cruise copied Miscavige or vice versa. Some of you that knew them both would have to answer that one.
Siberia USA…f-ing awesome television. I have to give it to Koppel for keeping a straight face.
I love the tape of Hubbard when he says he never had a second wife, but he says he’s been married twice! Um, if you’ve been married twice you most definitely have, at least, a second wife. But of course, he also had a third wife.
L. Ron Hubbard.
The 20th century Joseph Smith.