TABLOID JOURNALISM

How do they get away with it? More importantly, how can dishonest journalists live with themselves?

The answer is simple. They aren’t looking for the “truth,” they are only interested in a “story.” And in the 21st-century Internet age—where any blogger can post anything he wants, anonymously no less—the so-called mainstream media is more and more pressed to make a buck. And more times than not, today’s talking heads themselves cut their teeth on the Internet fringe.

Case in point: a certain television tabloid host.

He called one month after the local newspaper's trash had run, in an attempt to circle the journalistic wagon for his Florida colleagues whose “exposé” was already being eviscerated—including by other real journalists who were up in arms that any respectable newspaper would “profile” a man they’d refused to interview. (And those real journalists included staff of the local newspaper itself.)

But, like the local paper, the TV tabloid host also possessed a hatred for Scientology and, in particular, then-spokesman Rinder (when he was in the Church). But now, Rinder had jumped on the anti-Scientology bandwagon and was calling the tabloid host to pimp his co-conspirator and fellow perjurer Rathbun. Rinder had reportedly already made a commitment for cash ($250,000 is what’s rumored on the Internet) to another media outlet and his lies were reserved as an “exclusive” to them.

The television host had a plan to cover his tracks:

• Refuse to provide any specifics of allegations made against the Church. In this way, he thought, he could prevent any meaningful response, since the Church would have no details to respond to. Even more, by refusing to give specifics, the subsequent lack of a Church response to the lies he would broadcast could be excused by the tabloid host with a simple “I wasn’t aware of that information.”

• Refuse to accept open access to the Church. That way he could, he thought, get away with presenting an entirely distorted picture of the Church as told by the defrocked apostates who were now his sources.

• Refuse to accept any information from the Church. That way, again, he’d have “plausible deniability” when he broadcast his anti-Scientology propaganda.

Of course, it all backfired on him. His show was a bust; his ratings continued their plummet. And when the Church was finally informed of the specific lies now being made by the tabloid host's “Posse” of perjurers—for the first time on the broadcast itself—the Church had miles of video footage to prove they were liars.

But the television host did something else far more telling—and damning—of media ethics today. For while public distrust of the media is now at an all-time high, that same public doesn’t necessarily know how the media misleads them. All they know is that they are being lied to, if for no other reason than most people are honest and can tell when a story has the stench of a sewer.

So how does this particular tabloid host do it? And what’s in his bag of smoke-and-mirror tricks?

It’s simple. It’s not what he shows on his broadcast; it’s what he doesn’t show:

• The tabloid host was read Rathbun’s confession wherein Rathbun admitted to the criminal misconduct which led to his removal. It was all recorded on videotape by the host as he conducted his interview of Church officials. Not one sentence of that confessional was included in the broadcast.

• The tabloid host was provided the Rathbun admission of criminal perjury and obstruction of justice, by himself, Rinder and DeVocht. Again, his broadcast made no mention of it.

• The tabloid host was provided DeVocht’s confession, wherein DeVocht admits he is a compulsive liar. No mention of it is made in the broadcast.

• The tabloid host was made aware that his sources had been removed for their misconduct—a fact even those sources admitted was true. As noted, such misconduct included Rathbun’s admission of wasted Church funds during his tenure in external affairs; the same again for Rinder; and the same for DeVocht in mismanaged construction projects. The point: These people were removed for a reason; their misconduct was criminal; and the damage was very expensive. The host made no mention of it whatsoever.

• The tabloid host was aware that Rinder had “sold” his story to another media outlet. Again, no mention of it.

• Moreover, the tabloid host interviewed Rinder in proxy, through his current live-in lover, the age of Rinder’s daughter, but presented her tales (as given to her by Rinder) without any mention of her relationship to Rinder. The incestuous connection was apparently “irrelevant” to the host. (Why not at least tell the truth and, as the host says, let the viewer decide?)

• Finally, every statement made by Church officials concerning the affairs of the Church, its growth and its leadership, since the removal and dismissal of the host's sources six years earlier—all of them were omitted from the broadcast.

Fortunately, the Church has the resources to expose the media manipulation the tabloid host engages in.

And that’s the real story of Rathbun, Rinder and DeVocht. They don’t belong
in front of cameras, unless it’s for a mug shot.

But what does it say for a news organization that becomes an apologist for criminals? Perjurers, suborners of perjury, obstructors of justice—criminals? Then again, what does it say about media blithely broadcasting what they are informed is a pack of lies, and doing so even despite the fact those telling the lies are self-admitted criminal perjurers and suborners of perjury? In other words, these are people who had conspired to coerce dozens to corroborate each other’s lies to police—all of which meant the tabloid host was mere putty in their hands by comparison. And the host knew it.

Actually, maybe it doesn’t say much. After all, nobody ever said this particular television tabloid host was a real journalist.

WHAT’S THE REAL STORY?

Anybody can see it for themselves. Just log on to www.scientology.org and what one will see is a dynamic, expanding new religion working to do good, with global humanitarian programs under the banner of Universal Human Rights, Drug Education and Rehabilitation, Global Literacy Programs and a Volunteer Minister relief force, front and center, helping wherever needed.

Now contrast that with a handful of bitter, disgruntled apostates who through dishonesty, malfeasance and hard-core-go-to-jail criminality are no longer allowed to be a part of it.

In a world where press headlines take religions to task when they don’t clean house, the media should applaud a church that does remove miscreant thugs.

That they lie about the leader of the religion (the man who removed them) is no surprise. After all, they had engaged in felonious conduct, for which they should have served jail time. And when that crime was exposed, they allowed the leader of the Church to be targeted for the acts they had committed—all while knowing and keeping it a secret from him that it was they who had committed the crime. That they could then sit there pretending to defend the leader, while professing they’d “take a bullet” for him—well, they were indeed taking a bullet…and shooting it right in his back. So they were well trained for their latest “self-corroborating” media tour. After all, the easiest lie to level against him, and corroborate among themselves, were the very crimes they had committed in teaming up together to physically abuse staff when the investigation was closing in on their secret. Just change the name and go to town. Lying…it was the only thing remaining they knew how to do.

And that’s the real story of Rathbun, Rinder and DeVocht. They don’t belong in front of cameras, unless it’s for a mug shot.