Fox News and the Going Clear expose' Expose'?

Expose' typed twice is not a typo.
I watched "Going Clear: Scientology And The Prison Of Belief" tonight and for those who haven't, I urge you to check it out.
It's an excellent expose' of one of the most awful cults out there.

I do not watch Fox News OR CNN on a regular basis due to my mistrust of MSM. Although, I am aware of the anti-Fox views here in ATS, this is the first time I've actually criticized their work on this site or anywhere. I've never joined in the rally against them before.

However, with the new knowledge that Greta Van Susteren as one of the captives of Scientology, I can tell you there's no way I'm ever going to give Fox a chance anymore.

Now Fox has produced both and article and a video in conjunction with the expose'. My thread is regarding the video, which is a piece presented by Megyn Kelly and features an interview with Mike Rinder.

Pay close attention to the things she says and does in the interview.


To me, while she does appear to report the story with accuracy, there are aspects that deeply bother me about her delivery and choice of words when presenting the interview:

1. She uses the words allegedly frequently. - This could just be a way to protect the news agency from litigation, fair enough.

2. The preview they show is the beginning of the documentary, but holds many phrases that could be perceived as positive toward the church. - There are many parts of the expose' they could have shown that would have demonstrated the evidence presented against Scientology much more accurately.

3. There are subtle, some VERY subtle facial expressions and tones used in her presentation that could be considered contrasting to the things she says. Examples: She stumbles on "a Pulitzer Prize winner almost contentiously. She looks downward when Mike begins speaking signifying disinterest. She calls him Mark just after stating the date of the film's debut when she called him Mike shortly before.

4. When Mike's headshot is made fullscreen, his words are: "believe they have the answers to everything. That your very future depends upon your activities and commitment to Scientology and remaining a dedicated and committed member of the church" When he continues with separation resulting in dire consequences, the camera goes back to dual view and Megyn shortly interrupts him and apologizes for the previous misnomer of calling him "Mark".

At this point the interview proceeds in a proper way, she states many of the allegations of the film and allows him to speak normally about it. She makes some comments that make me question my questioning of this by appearing sincerely interested in exposing the corruption. and THEN..

5. When referring to the litigious nature of the church, she reads directly from a very scathing anti-Mike Rinder letter supposedly made by a "recent commenter" and finishes with a pretentious look of "What about that you jerk?"
Now, as an aside, the letter bears some accuracy as Rinder did most certainly lie for the church for years and while I commend what he's doing, I believe he has a ways to go before his previous bad deeds should be overlooked. However, throwing that particular accusation in his face in the way that she did doesn't come off to me as very objective in the context of the interview.

6. Now Mike is answering to the comment. When he gets to the words of: "become a bigot and a propagandist." once again, he's given a full shot of the camera that's pulled back shortly after he puts out the name of Lawrence Wright.

7. Another full interruption during his defense with a claim of being up against a hard break. And her final question is: "Tell us why, we should care?", a question that she answered already herself while during the "good part of the interview" when she was stating the accusations and illegality of them.

8. Her finish, again after interrupting, is a statement that :the church denies the allegations in the film but the film is shocking."

Now, maybe this is a fairer news piece than what I'm making it out to be. Maybe stumbling and interrupting is common for her interviews. I've honestly never watched her before. Maybe I'm just over-thinking this.

I have to say this feels very wrong to me. It's as though this particular editorial was made not only to make somewhat light of the documentary's claims but made specifically to re-edit to be shown to members of the congregation as a VERY different journalism piece. Perhaps, the edited piece would be custom made for Greta herself...

Just how much of a hold does Scientology have over Fox News? Greta IS considered one of the "top 100 most powerful women in the world". Top 100 is pretty damn high in a world of 3.6 billion women. Even with the necessary and good protection of religious affiliation in regards to the workplace, I find it mighty peculiar that a major news network would find someone with ties to such a horrible and bizarre albeit, powerful organization to hold such a position there. Are any of you aware of additional Scientology ties within the network?

I ask you to refrain from diluting this post into a "which network sucks more" thread as I've seen elsewhere in the forum and instead please give input to whether you agree with how much this report smells or if I'm just making too much out of it.
If Fox has a hidden supporting agenda towards Scientology, that's a big and scary thing that deserves further exploration.

a reply to: gottaknow

Perhaps this thread is an over-exposure of the exposed exposure?

You sure you don't have an ax to grind with Fox News in other areas? This thread is typical of those that come on ATS to complain about Fox New's "lies and hate," but never give any substantive evidence and completely ignore the leanings and misadventures of most other news agencies not to mention the current administration.

a reply to: Aliensun
Again, I don't have a preference of ANY mainstream media network and tend to mistrust them all. Most real news gravitates here anyway and Google has many options for obtaining info. If CNN had made this video and Greta was with them, then they would have been the subject instead. If CNN has a powerful Scientology tie then that too, should be known. I'm Libertarian in my political leanings.

I would not have posted this without my recent learning that Greta was in Scientology. To be almost embarrassingly honest, I had no idea which network she even worked for prior to today. I just knew she was a high level journalist and actually, kinda liked her. This video is the sole reason for my posting and I honestly believe there's something worth examining here.

I just found it amusing fox attacking faith when they complain about Christianity under attack all the time. Being an athiest I believe in Scientology just as much as Christianity and Islam, as in I don't believe in any of it

a reply to: woodwardjnr
I'm also an atheist.
As far as where I get my news from, it's Google and ATS primarily. If I see an article on Google that piques my interest and the report happens to be on CNN I'll click on it. If it happens to be on Fox, I'll click on it. And then I'll check out what other networks say, come here, verify, etc. I will choose any other sources than either of them though.
The only time I see actual television news is when I'm at someone else's house. That's how I originally saw Greta and was respectfully impressed with her being a high level journalist even though her appearance is clearly not the sort a network would prefer to be in front of the camera.

It went just like this:

A. Watch documentary.
B. Be sickened with the new information I received from said documentary. I have read much about Scientology before, but the film had a lot more to say.
C. Comb internet for responses and replies to the documentary.
D. Be sad that Travolta is still being such a putz about it.
E. Read list of notable Scientologists.
F. Note Greta is among them.
G. Look up Greta. Realize she's a big dawg at an even bigger media network. I thought she was smaller time.
H. Look for video how Fox responds to documentary to see if she is being more rational about the video and maybe vocal about it.
I. Find and watch above video. Find it odd.
J. Watch several more times. Come to chilling conclusion.
K. Write this very post.

And now at this time, the responses are not yet related to my post, but instead appear to be directed at my allegiance and missing the point entirely. I appreciate all responses, but try to look at this objectively.

a reply to: gottaknow

You are basically describing the typical posture of most interviewers toward interviewees they aren't sure they fully agree with for one reason or another.

Just watch anyone on MSNBC "interview" someone they perceive as holding right wing views.

a reply to: gottaknow

Look, I'm skeptical about Scientology. It was made up by a science fiction writer and believes in an alien being called Xenu, but that in and of itself doesn't mean that Scientology is inherently harmful to its followers, only misguided.

What makes me deeply skeptical of Scientology is that it seems to be completely pay to play in that you have to pay, and pay an awful lot, in order to ever get close to what it calls "salvation." There are also other allegations about it, but they could be nothing more than the same types of allegations you get about any religion.

However, I am also skeptical about modern documentaries, too. There are an increasing number who employ docugandas. Look at Michael Moore's work for some good examples. Employ the facts, but use them extremely selectively and presented in a way to make your opinion look the best. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth is another good example. The UK decided that it could only be used in the classroom of teachers also taught about the 11 mistakes/untruths in it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm all for being skeptical. However, the documentary closely follows many of the varied articles I've read regarding Scientology and they are far more insidious than the nutty pay to play common consensus of them is. By all means, learn more about them. The video is filled with high level members in it that have left and stands to make the strongest case against the "religion" yet to date.

Do watch it. It's a beautiful production on top of the fascinating and dreadful truth about Scientology.

Editing to add: Don't let what MM did to documentaries hurt you like that. He's a horrible individual.

Lawrence Wright is the author and adapted his book for the docu. He is very reputable. The first book of his I read was The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which exposed LOTS of stuff about radical Muslims and what has become a global terror.

Megyn Kelly is a dimwit.

Scientology I don't know much about yet, so I'm wondering, was the docu on the internet? I don't get HBO, but I've been wanting to see it.

As for Greta, never heard of her.....

I have some catching up to do, I guess. Thanks for the expose' on the expose'.

Great OP, OP. * and Flag for breaking it down, making your points and openness to discuss them

I haven't seen the doco yet as I don't really give a # about them but your observations about a media-outlet discussing it doesn't surprise me.
MSM isn't meant to inform, educate or enlighten.
MSM is meant to indoctrinate, persuade and recruit

a reply to: gottaknow

Don't apologize for exploring your intuition and reserving judgement. There will be 100 voices trying to get you to lock in a judgement. Take your time. None of the 100 voices are truly pursuing your interests. Few people
have the presence to look at a media presentation and imagine how the edits can be re-ordered and re-purposed. I commend you for that.

Scientology is a mature meme. It seeks to take 100% of free will, so it's a religion. It's dangerous. Operatives are devoted and biased to action. It's this sort of rigid authoritarian belief structure that fascists love to exploit. Transparency is the key to taking down this beast.

Thank you for your responses. If I didn't feel strongly about this particular topic I wouldn't write such a post as I not only understand the great deal of spin put forth by the MSM, but am also fully aware of the camp fights I've seen on this site that I just stay the hell away from because I believe them all to be corrupt on some level.

The full documentary is indeed widely available on the internet, but I think it's against ATS policy for me to directly link to a sharing site. There does not appear to be a YT link that works as it's an HBO production after all but it is easily found.

Learning more about the deceit, corruption and outright crimes of Scientology is definitely worth attention. I would consider it to be a very interesting and entertaining evening of study if it weren't so sad.

Investigation on whether Scientology holds some level of control or puppetry over a major network regardless of which network that is, is worth pursuing as it would be a most valid and important discovery toward this site's goal to Deny Ignorance. If this organization with it's twisted views and agenda is wielding the power of delivering news to the masses, that is a problem. Just knowing that Greta is under the incredible grip of control of this cult and brandishing her reputable power is enough for me to be highly suspicious and downright fearful.

Still learning. Still searching.

Some articles that I'm finding relate to this:

Tensions arise at CPAC over Scientology

“Greta Van Susteren’s husband pulled me close to his face and said, ‘Nice bull# article about Scientology. Get out of here.’ #CPAC2015″ – Washington Examiner‘s Eddie Scarry referring to D.C. attorney John Coale. In a later tweet, Scarry explained, “For the record (or ‘On the Record’) I haven’t and don’t write about Scientology. But maybe this explains it.” He links to an op-ed by Joe Nocera (BuzzFeed Kate Nocera‘s father) in the NYT on Scientology’s “chilling effect.”

The chilling effect article

Scientology, Greta van Susteren and John Coale

And in that one, I discovered she used to be on CNN before going to Fox. This doubles my insistence that it doesn't matter where she's at.

Thankfully, Rupert Murdock finds Scientology to be a weird cult. Small relief there.
Of course, it seems he has plenty of scandals involved with his name.

An interesting Huffington Post article that highlights some of her husband(Lawyer for Scientology) John P. Coule's behind-the-scenes political shenanigans.

There are some interesting comments on this ex-Scientologist forum post regarding Greta but the most important one states "She most likely has to report her every move to OSA" which is a very key point to consider.
The Scientology system in general makes a very big deal out of providing full disclosure to the leaders. Is that something you want a major news journalist doing?

And nowhere can I find any response from Greta regarding her own views on the documentary. She's a major reporter. There's no way she can't be familiar with this. I think someone needs to interview the journalist at this point.

The Scientology organization charges an extreme amount for its services, and those weird counter-productive harassment tactics, those are my main complaint about it. As for charging extreme amounts of money, so do doctors, hospitals, the mental health profession, and your local car mechanic. The harassments? Just odd, as if nobody involved in them has studied public relations and just how not to be a Richard.

My main comment though: on a site which is generally skeptical of what people here call TPTB, isn't anyone just a bit intrigued that mainstream media and the medical profession have been chopping down Scientology since 1954 or so? The thing has lasted as long as it has for a reason, if it was just a science-fiction writer's scam it would have failed within a year or two.

originally posted by: AleisterMy main comment though: on a site which is generally skeptical of what people here call TPTB, isn't anyone just a bit intrigued that mainstream media and the medical profession have been chopping down Scientology since 1954 or so? The thing has lasted as long as it has for a reason, if it was just a science-fiction writer's scam it would have failed within a year or two.

Definitely a point worth considering.
With the overwhelming interest in dismantling the control of the 1% that the members of this site appear to have, putting a stop to a non-profit organization that retains a book value of 1.75 billion (1.5 in real estate) would seem to be worth it. Especially when considering the release of the some 40-50k active members worldwide from the financial burdens involving the organization alone. The Forbes article relates Scientology to a small business in comparison to many company's wealth, but it's vital to keep in mind that some of those members are highly wealthy and prestigious.

The documentary shares how Hubbard transformed his business plan into the mega-moneymaker it is today with Miscavige taking it even further with more and more elaborate pathways orchestrated to drain the followers of their savings.

a reply to: gottaknow
Have YOU seen this documentary? I HAVE. HBO productions have nothing to do with FOXNS. This network is commenting/reporting upon its timely relevance as a news organization (NO OTHERS HAVE). I liked 'Anonymous's take on Scientology and how they pranked it; AS IT WAS EPIC.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I just found it amusing fox attacking faith when they complain about Christianity under attack all the time. Being an athiest I believe in Scientology just as much as Christianity and Islam, as in I don't believe in any of it

Watch the documentary. Scientology IS faith based believed in by sheepiles and was totally made up by a delusional science fiction writer that turned a cult into a 'church' to evade paying taxes period (couldn't escape legal issues). Went to sea as an expatriate (on the run) for years, died hiding in Florida.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Lawrence Wright is the author and adapted his book for the docu. He is very reputable. The first book of his I read was The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which exposed LOTS of stuff about radical Muslims and what has become a global terror.

Megyn Kelly is a dimwit.

A 'LAWYER' Dimwit that hosts a one hour (very popular) news program called "The Kelly Files" on FOXns. You might try taking a look. Are you anchoring a similar program on another network?

a reply to: Aleister

The thing has lasted as long as it has for a reason, if it was just a science-fiction writer's scam it would have failed within a year or two.

In my opinion, Scientology has staying power because it caters to the individual, and the individual never perceives themselves as "there yet". Every session that a PC (Pre Clear) pays for is totally about them and what they want to talk about. They delve into very romantic past lives, and some not so romantic but something else, like brutal or scientific or magical, but constantly massaging the ego.

Dianetics insists that you relive each experience fully, addressing every emotion, sensation and pain associated with it, down three different paths. The first path is personal experience, the second path is watching someone else experience "it" and the third is confronting (or imagining yourself) actually inflicting the experience someone else. The process can be infinite, until one just says;
"Stop! No more! I've had enough of this!"

These experiences are also inexhaustible. What they do is take a list of emotionally charged words, like rape, murder, orgasm....put you on an E-meter, which is like a rough lie detector, and gets "reads" on those words. Then they probe until they get more reads. It doesn't matter if it was just a movie or a book you experienced, down the paths you go!

The problem comes when one DOES feel as though they're "there". That's when Scientology pulls out all its tricks. It won't let you leave without an exit interview, and the exit interview assumes the only reason you want to leave is because of withholds (crimes) against others, yourself or Scientology itself. If they find one "out of ethics", which they will simply because you don't want to go further, or pay more money, then one gets put in various punishment modes.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

A 'LAWYER' Dimwit that hosts a one hour (very popular) news program called "The Kelly Files" on FOXns. You might try taking a look. Are you anchoring a similar program on another network?

I've seen her.
Nope! No Way. I'm not hosting any programs at all, or anchoring them.

She might be a 'LAWYER', but she is the one, IIRC, who said, "Everyone knows Santa is white!" or some drivel similar to that.

And then again, there's "Nancy Grace" on HLN, a lawyer and FORMER DA dimwit, who earns her keep by being as rude and condescending as she can possibly be - to EVERYONE.

Which one is worse? Nancy Grace, for sure. Still - if Megyn is such a brainiac, WHY is she on Fox News?

*cough* sell-outs *cough* *clears throat*