Panorama and John Sweeney did a great job

But I think this was not about the word "cult" alone... The BBC forgot to mention some very important "details", imnsho. (imnsho = In My Not So Humble Opinion - Ndlr)

First of all, let's note --for the record-- that Tony Davis is heard and seen to be saying: "John, I already answered this too ... I told you it's... None of us know what you're talking about. It's like ... Looney. It's Wierd... Makes you look wierd..."

That is in the BBC Panorama broadcast, right after John Sweeney had asked some "celebrities" about the story of Xenu, as told by others... All these "celebrities" apparently denied *any knowledge* of the story. They obviously followed the instructions of Tony Davis, who had arranged the interviews in the first place.

What is even more strange is that the "church" of $cientology itself has claimed actual "copyrights" to the Xenu story in court. And at the same time it has also claimed that nobody (less than 25'000 people, according to their lawyer at the time) on this planet knew about it.

Also, according to its legal claims, there are only seven places where this story is kept, and access to each of these seven locations is secured by means of "magnetic cards".

The fact that these "celebrities" were apparently also not aware of those particular facts about their own "religion", makes them look even more "wierd". Like advocating a "religion" you really don't know anything about is good for your "image"...

So, in conclusion, we might say that it is not the Xenu story itself that makes those "celebrities" look stupid. It is the denial of it's existance (upon the apparent insistance of Tommy Davis) that will do the damage.

Detective on trail of TV pair (Daily Telegraph - November 20, 1997)

Scientology has fought many battles to keep its secrets off the web, now they are using it to attack my investigation into them.

This film was first aired on this site and on BBC One on May 14 2007.

Row over Scientology video

If you are interested in becoming a TV journalist, it is a fine example of how not to do it. I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine ... it makes me cringe

L Ron Hubbard wrote the founding texts of Scientology

John Sweeney spent many weeks investigating Scientology

Les scientologues veulent l'oblitération totale de la psychiatrie...

Si ça vous tente de faire du journalisme, voilà donc une mauvaise méthode. Je donne l'impression d'être une tomate en train d'exploser, je hurle comme un réacteur. J'en ramperais !

A Journalist at Panorama, the BBC's flagship current affairs series, has been reprimanded for losing his temper and screaming with rage during the making of an investigation into the Church of Scientology.

John Sweeney has apologised for the outburst against a scientologist which was filmed and then put on the video-sharing website YouTube, prompting criticism of the corporation. The BBC held an internal inquiry but said Sweeney had not breached any guidelines.

The incident is one of the first examples of 'video ambushing', where organisations being investigated turn the camera on the film makers. The Church of Scientology, whose members include the Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, shadowed the Panorama team in America with its own camera crew. It has made a 'counter documentary', attacking Sweeney's methods, and distributed 100,000 DVDs to MPs, civil servants, religious groups, media organisations and business leaders.

Panorama has responded by posting a YouTube clip of its own in which leading scientologist Tom Davis, a friend of Cruise and son of the film actress Anne Archer, also a scientologist, is seen losing his temper at Sweeney's use of the words 'sinister cult' and storming away mid-interview with the reporter in hot pursuit. In a separate clash Archer, an Oscar nominee for her role as Michael Douglas's wife in Fatal Attraction, is understood to have snapped when Sweeney asked if she could have been brainwashed. The Church has withdrawn consent for the BBC to use the footage and Panorama is being hastily re-edited for broadcast tomorrow, but will still include the Sweeney outburst.

Journalists in all media are facing greater scrutiny than ever from bloggers and independent film makers armed for a video ambush. Michael Moore, an award winner for documentaries including Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, is himself the subject of a website, Moorewatch, a book, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, and a forthcoming film, Manufacturing Dissent, which examines his methods. Dan Rather, the veteran US news anchorman, was forced to retire after blogs showed that a CBS report questioning President Bush's National Guard service had been based on forged documents, and Reuters sacked a photographer exposed by bloggers as having doctored a picture.

Sweeney lost his temper while visiting the Church of Scientology's exhibition, 'Psychiatry: Industry of Death', which uses graphic images to attack psychiatry. Sweeney said that, having dogged him for six days, Davis accused him of giving an easy ride to one of his interviewees, a critic of Scientology, even though he had not heard the full interview. It was then that Sweeney, his face contorted with anger and his finger jabbing, began yelling at the top of his voice: 'You were not there at the beginning of the interview! You were not there! You did not hear or record all the interview!'

The response of YouTube users has been damning. One said yesterday: 'I for one feel confident and glad that I am paying good money for this psycho to remain on television! Is this really what English TV has degraded itself to?' Another wrote: 'Surely this is a joke right? How can a mentally unbalanced man like this be a BBC reporter? This kinda makes you wonder if he is not dreaming up what he reports or if TV actually reports truth! Man I'm done with the BBC.'

Sweeney, a former Observer journalist, admits he went too far. 'I am hugely embarrassed,' he said. 'I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine and every time I see it it makes me cringe. The moment it happened I said sorry. I let the side down and the BBC down and I am ashamed. But I felt I was being brainwashed and if people see the full clip I think they will have more sympathy with me'

The journalist has been disciplined after an internal investigation. 'I've been arse-kicked but I haven't been fired,' he added. 'I feel mortified. There is no one on this planet more irritated then me. Fool, Sweeney, fool. It was like an animal reaction to a series of images and pressures. I felt they were trying to control my mind. I can't wait to get back to Zimbabwe: hiding in the backs of cars from Robert Mugabe's goons is a damn sight easier.'

It is not the first time the Church of Scientology has been accused of riling opponents by 'bull baiting', a technique in which members are taught to remain calm even under extreme provocation. Mike Rinder, a spokesman for the Church, said: 'I guess you could say we John Sweeneyed John Sweeney. The licence fee payers in Britain are entitled to see what goes on behind the scenes. It's about time documentary makers are held accountable.'

Sweeney has won awards for investigating miscarriages of justice against mothers of cot death victims and has reported on human rights abuses in Chechnya, Kosovo and Algeria. He has said that 'one recipe for investigative journalism is to find the largest crocodile in the pond and give it a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and see what happens next'. This time, the crocodile bit back.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology said: 'The BBC Broadcast Codes are a sensible set of guidelines that, if followed, would result in a fair and accurate report with every piece. We documented 154 violations of these guidelines by Sweeney and his team and have presented those, with evidence, to BBC executives.'

But Sandy Smith, editor of Panorama, responded: 'The head of current affairs, George Entwistle, has viewed all footage complained of and, with the exception of the point when Sweeney shouts, he found nothing that stood outside BBC guidelines.'

A BBC spokeswoman added: 'When viewers watch the programme on Monday they will see the full story and the background to this particular incident. While John Sweeney's behaviour at one point in the filming is clearly inappropriate, he has apologised. The BBC is, however, happy that taken as a whole the filming was carried out properly and fairly.'

Hot under the celebrity collar

Peaches Geldof and Ingrid Tarrant

During filming of the ITV2 show Deadline, Peaches Geldof, teenage daughter of Bob Geldof and the late Paula Yates, became furious as Ingrid Tarrant attempted to photograph her. In the clip, leaked to the video-sharing website YouTube, Tarrant tries to persuade her to pose by saying: 'I knew your mum'. The incensed Geldof replies: 'That's really rude of you to say that. You've lost all of your dignity, Ingrid.'

David Hasselhoff and his daughter, Taylor Ann

The ex-Baywatch actor was temporarily banned from seeing his daughters after a videotape on the web showed him slumped drunkenly on the floor as his daughter, Taylor Ann, begged him to stop drinking. He said later:' I have learnt from it.'

David O Russell and Lily Tomlin

Russell, director of the 2004 film I Heart Huckabees, is seen responding to criticism from actress Lily Tomlin by exploding with anger, calling her a 'b****' and a 'f---ing c---'. This became a sensation on YouTube. Tomlin said: 'I love David. There was a lot of pressure in making the movie.'

The Heaven and Earth Show with Gloria Hunniford

BBC 1 (TV), 13 May 2007

The editor of Panorama says (see my previous post) that although his team suffered "borderline harassment" while making their film about Scientology, other documentary makers have had it worse. Here's one example of what he's referring to.

It teaches that humans are immortal spiritual beings known as "Thetans" and that traumatic events in past lives have created negative images in the mind called "Engrams". Scientologists use a form of counselling they call "Auditing". It involves a device called an "E-meter", designed to measure responses in the skin.

They claim that auditing helps people become more spiritually aware. In order to progress in the church, Scientologists must take a series of self-improvement courses and work to achieve a state described as "Clear", where all negative memories have been erased from the mind.

We had hoped to have a representative of the Church of Scientology with us in the studio this morning live, but they've declined to be here, and in one letter to us, suggest that this edition of Panorama was "born out of a bigoted attitude to smear and make fun of our religion."

Sandy Smith is the editor of Panorama and he's in our London studio. Thanks for joining us, Sandy. That's a pretty severe accusation, actually, from the Scientologists.

Sandy Smith: Yeah, good morning Gloria. It's a shame they're not here to make that allegation themselves.

The reason why we looked at the Church of Scientology is, there's a bit of a conundrum here. This is an organisation that judges in the past have severely criticised as you've already said. The Superior Court judge in the States described its founder as "almost a pathological liar".

For an organisation that wants to be seen on a level with traditional religions, that's a real problem and really, as the Church opened a brand new multi-million pound centre in the City of London it seemed to be a good opportunity for us to say, "Is this an organisation which is breaking with its past, which is dealing with its past in a mature way, and perhaps saying 'Yes, we're only 55 years old, perhaps we made mistakes. Perhaps in our dealings with former members who criticised that we regret, and we are going to move forward to a different level' or 'are we going to stand by what we've always said, and stick to that line'," as it were.

We set out to investigate what their strategy was as they increasingly try to move into the mainstream. So I would say that we came at it with an open mind.

GH: In hindsight, though, don't you think the way events have turned out, because I'm reading from... Actually, nearly all the papers feature it. For example, the Mail on Sunday: "Travolta's attack on BBC man in Scientology expose", accusing the BBC of bias. Then there's The Times: "Scientologists to BBC: What planet are you on?" Again, accusations of complete bias.

So, do you now feel it was the right way to approach it ?

SS: I think it was the right way to approach it. I think it should be said that I'm not aware of any journalist who has done any serious investigation into Scn who hasn't been confronted with this kind of response. It's pretty standard.

We did go into it with an open mind. We went to see Scientology at their headquarters in East Grinstead. Over two days of video presentations and discussions from them. They did offer us access to people and their buildings but on conditions that we didn't find acceptable.

They didn't want anyone in the programme to call them a 'cult'. They didn't want us to interview anyone anonymously and they didn't want what they called "attackers" or former members who have criticised them, taken them to court or perhaps written about them. Now, if you want a video news release about L. Ron Hubbard or about any of their activities, they are available online or from any of their mini-outlets worldwide. Panorama is not a vanity publisher and, like any other broadcaster worthy of its name, wanted to do the programme on its own terms.

GH: On the other hand you have ended up on YouTube. The Scientologists have released a piece of film of your programme, of John Sweeney "losing it", of ranting and in fact they accuse you of missing out or breaching the BBC guidelines 157 times.

Now in order to understand the clip I'm going to show you, what kind of pressure were you under when you were making the documentary in America?

SS: When the team flew to the States, their every step was dogged by the man that John Sweeney is speaking to in the clip you're going to see: Tommy Davis. The team were followed. Representatives of Mr. Davis turned up at their hotel at midnight to harangue them for interviewing critics.

They were interviewing one crfitic at one point when Mr. Davis turned up in a car, sprinted across the car park and brandished the criminal record of the interviewee that John was talking to, shouting into the camera that he was a "pervert".

So, very quickly the journalistic process turned into a bit of a confrontation between these two high-spirited and passionate people; John, who, as you've seen in the clip before, believes he has the right to investigate anything that he likes, and Mr. Davis, who's a passionate defender of his religion. One of the problems, if you like, is that it quickly dominates proceedings.

Just before the clip you're going to show people, John was taken to an exhibition called "The Industry of Death" which is the Scientologists' attack of psychiatry. They work for the global obliteration of psychiatry which is something they equate with Nazism. John had been told that psychiatrists were responsible for the Holocaust. He'd been shown extraordinary images of people apparently being tortured and badly treated in many ways. This had gone on for 90 minutes.

Mr. Davis then turned on John and criticised him again for interviewing this man that they called a pervert, and John kind of lost it, and you can see that.

GH: Let's have a look at the film, so we can see exactly what we're talking about.

John Sweeney (in YouTube clip): YOU WERE NOT THERE FOR THE BEGINNNING OF THAT INTERVIEW. YOU WERE NOT THERE. YOU DID NOT HEAR OR RECORD ALL THE INTERVIEW. [quiet voice] Do you understand? Do you understand? [end of quiet bit] YOU ARE QUOTING THE SECOND HALF OF THE INTERVIEW, NOT THE FIRST HALF. YOU CANNOT [end of clip]

GH: I think, one can fairly say, not the normal reaction of a reporter.

SS: Absolutely, John deeply regrets that. He feels he was lured into that situation. It's a trap he fell straight into. He apologised and the BBC don't condone his behaviour. I think her feels a fool. As I say, we don't condone that.

I think you have to see the whole film on Monday to understand the whole circumstances and the context.

GH: Talking about the people you interviewed, could you be accused of being very selective in the people you chose for the documentary, because in any society you find people who are disgruntled. So what was that process like?

SS: One of the problems was that that big missing voice in any documentary or article about Scientology is the voice of the ordinary Scientologist. I regret that we've not been able to talk to ordinary Scientologists in that way. We tried to, but everything in our dealings with them has an element of control. We were told that they had that in hand.

We were invited to what they call a Celebrity Centre, which is a specific part of their religion which is devoted to celebrities, that they put great store on. I think what they would say is that their philosophy enables you to succeed in showbiz or sport; enables you to achieve your full potential.

They put great store by celebrities, so we were invited to meet Anne Archer, Kristie Alley and a number of other people who are, perhaps, more well known in the States. They were persuasive about what Scientology means for them. They were convincing and were important to us to balance the other voices in the film.

John would then go on to say "Some people would say this is a cult. Some people would say there is brainwashing involved." Again, they dealt with that perfectly well. It's a standard question for Scientologists and Kirstie Alley in particular was...

GH: But I understand that you've had to cut those because they've withdrawn their consent.

SS: Extraordinarily for an organisation which claims that it doesn't get a fair press, we had lawyers' letters saying that all the people we interviewed no longer want their contributions to be included. Together with the absence of the Scientology spokesman today makes it hard for them to paint themselves as the victims of the piece.

GH: Just very briefly, Sandy, because I am running out of time... With hind analysis with all this uproar that's been going on - the papers are full of it, which is going to guarantee you good viewing figures tomorrow night - have you changed your mind about the accusations, you know, years ago, as to what Scientology does today?

SS: I don't think we fullly answer that question. I think until there's an open relationship between people in the Church of Scientology and the media, perhaps with different personnel. I would recommend that they change their PR strategy. But I think we don't actually answer that question.

What we show is that if you do try and ask questions, if you do talk to critics and try and weigh up the pro's and con's of this organisation, you are subjected to... I would say borderline harassment. What we've suffered is a lot less than what other productions, other reporters have suffered in the past.

It shows an organisation which isn't comfortable with itself, isn't comfortable with criticism and I think it extremely defensive. I wouldn't go so far as to say "paranoid" as the judge said, but I think it's extremely defensive.

GH: I'll certainly be watching tomorrow night. Thank you very much for joining us this Sunday morning.

Detective on trail of TV pair

Daily Telegraph, Thursday, November 20 1997, page 14

The maker of a programme on Scientology says he has been the victim of 'subtle harassment'. TOM UTTLEY reports.

An american private detective, hired by attorneys acting for the Church of Scientology, has approached friends and relations of the makers of a British television biography of the Church's founder, visiting home addresses discovered by trickery.

He has then spread allegations that the film-makers may be implicated in an international conspiracy of extortion and money-laundering.

Simon Berthon, the executive producer ot the film about L. Ron Hubbard, shown in the Secret Lives series on Channel 4 last night, condemned the detective's activities yesterday as a "peculiar and subtle form of harassment".

He said the Scientologists' agents had somehow managed to establish which telephone numbers he and the film's producer-director, Jill Robinson, had recently rung on their private lines.

Those numbers had then been rung by a woman claiming to be conducting a survey of television-viewing habits. The woman promised a year's free magazine subscription to those who took part in the survey- thereby tricking the film makers' contacts into revealing their addresses. Soon afterwards, the detective, Eugene M Ingram, of Los Angeles, arrived on the friends' doorsteps, saying he was inquiring about Mr Berthon and Ms Robinson in connection with an international conspiracy of extortion and money-laundering.

Mr Berthon said that the allegations appeared to have sprung from a payment of ?2,000 that his company had made for access to an archive of material on the Scientologists.

Ms Robinson, 45, said yesterday that about eight of her friends and associates in England, including her parents and hairdresser, had been visited by Mr Ingram. Four of those had earlier received telephone calls from a woman claiming to to conducting a survey of television viewing habits.

She said that she and her crew has also been followed by detectives in the United States, Canada and England, ever since they started making the film last June.

"It's a bit spooky," she said. "I just don't see what it is they hope to achieve, except they seek to intimidate me."

Mr Berthon said that when friends began to complain that they had been visited by Mr Ingram, he checked with 12 friends and relations whom he had recently telephoned from home.

"Out of 12 calls made, I have discovered that nine have been telephoned by a woman offering a free magazine if they take part in a TV viewing-habit survey and give their name and address. Three of those nine had subsequently been visited by Mr Ingram.

"This is well beyond coincidence," said Mr Berthon.

Among them was a friend and neighbour, Charlotte Joll, whom he had telephoned recently to accept a children's-party invitation for his daughter. She said: "Last Friday afternoon a man rang on the doorbell showing me his private investigator's licence and then asked me if I knew someone he was trying to get in touch with.

"He showed me three photographs of a man I had never seen before and said this guy was wanted for some kind of offence to do with getting money fraudulently. I had no idea what it was about. Then he mentioned Simon Berthon's name. Did I know him? I said "Yes, our children are friends." I then remembered that our au pair had told me a couple of days earlier that she had been rung by someone purporting to be doing research on our television viewing habits, offering her a year's free subscription to her favourite magazine and asking for our address."

Miss Joll said that Mr Ingram had not mentioned the Scientologists.

Another of Mr Berthon's friends who was asked to take part in a telephone survey was Dorothy Byrne, the editor of ITV's The Big Story.

She said that Mr Ingram had telephoned her at her office at 20-20 Vision, saying that he was a private detective investigating extortion, and asking for information about Mr Berthon and Ms Robinson.

"I told him that Simon was one of the most highly regarded people in television. I also told him that in Britain we don't really approve of private detectives hanging around outside people's houses.

"Then on Friday I recieved a phone call from a woman saying that she was doing a survey of TV viewing habits. I told her I didn't want to answer her questions. She said she represented as organisation called Clark TV which makes TV programmes. I thought it was peculiar that they would be doing surveys of viewing habits."

Bernard Clark, chief executive of Clark TV Productions, said yesterday that his company never conducted surveys of that sort. "There is no way we would ever do TV viewing surveys," he said. "They have made a mistake by using our name."

Another friend of Mr Berthon's who preferred not to be named, said the family au pair had received a telephone call last Thursday from a woman telling a "cock-and-bull story about a survey". The au pair had been promised a free magazine subscription and had given her address.

On Sunday Mr Berthon's friend answered the door to a man who said he was a private detective, trying to find a man who had put money into a laundering account.

He showed her a photograph of Mr Berthon getting into his car and asked if she knew him. He then said that Mr Berthon had put the money into the "laundering account" and that this was an offence.

The friend said: "I said I was surprised to hear that because he was an upright citizen with a good reputation. He did not mention the Scientologists once.

"I thought 'how the hell did he get my number ?' Then we worked backwards.

"The thing that worries me is how they can get particulars of the numbers Simon had rung."

Asked about these facts this week, the Church of Scientology said: "It sounds very intriguing. It sounds bizarre."

Graeme Wilson, public affairs director of the Church in the United Kingdom, said that Mr Ingram had been hired by an American attorney, Elliot J Abelson of Los Angeles, which acted for the Church. He faxed to The Daily Telegraph a latter from Mr Abelson to D J Freeman, Mr Berthon's solicitor, replying to a complaint [word missing, possibly "statement"] made by Mr Berthon and dismissing all allegations against Mr Ingram's conduct as false.

In it, Mr Abelson said that he had hired Mr Ingram to investigate international conspirators who were trying to extort money from Churches of Scientology with help from the media.

Mr Berthon and Ms Robinson had been in touch with some of these people, said Mr Abelson. "Consequently I have retained Mr Ingram, as part of his investigatory duties, to determine whether individuals including Ms Robinson and her producer Simon Berthon are knowingly acting in furtherance of the intentions of the suspected conspirators."

Mr Abelson said in the letter: "Mr Ingram is pursuing his investigation candidly and openly in direct contrast to Ms Robinson's inquiries in the United States. Any complaints about his activities in this regard from your clients are rejected."

For the Church, Mr Wilson said that in preparing the documentary, Mr Berthon's 3MB Television had made no attempt to contact either the Church of Scientology or Mr Hubbard's authorised biographer.

Instead, Ms Robinson had travelled across America interviewing the "worst possible detractors she could dredge up."

Mr Ingram could not be reached last night.

In 1984 a British High Court Judge attacked the Church of Scientology as "corrupt, sinister and dangerous."

"It is sinister," said Mr Justice Latey, "because it indulges in sinister practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestioningly and to those outside who criticise or oppose it." Mr Hubbard died in 1986.

A Home Office spokesman said that he thought it was not a criminal offence to run a bogus telephone survey in order to discover addresses.

"It is deceptive, but I can't see how it could form an offence of deception," he said.

Sidebar: LEGAL MOVES

The Scientologists are considering taking legal action against Channel 4 following last night's highly critical programme on the activities of their founder, L. Ron Hubbard, writes Victoria Combe, Churches Correspondent.

The movement, which has a following of Hollywood stars including John Travolta and Nicole Kidman, has enlisted the services of the libel solicitor, Peter Carter-Ruck & Partners.

The Scientologists claim that that programme, in the Secret Lives series, was "grossly unfair" and amounts to a "character assassination" of L. Ron Hubbard.

Their solicitors have written to the Independent Television Commission attacking the methods used in making the documentary and demanding "immediate intervention".

The Scientology movement is now recognised as a church by the United States tax authorities.

Investigative Reporting in the Public Interest

The Sinking of a Flagship

When Panorama Editor Sandy Smith commissioned his favourite reporter to do a programme on the Church of Scientology, he made a grave error.

John Sweeney, his pit-bull of choice, lacks the dignity and tact required for a story that would, at least on its surface, address the activities and practices of a religion. As Sweeney himself explains, his tactics have nothing to do with intelligent reporting:

"There are three rules in journalism. First, find a crocodile. Two, poke it in the eye with a stick. Three, stand back and report what happens next."

Sweeney teamed up with his aptly named producer, Sarah Mole, who had previously done Sweeney's bidding as an undercover "mole" in a religious organisation for an earlier "Sweeney Investigates" programme. Together, they set about putting together a programme that follows the classic pattern of lazy journalists.

Find a few naysayers on the Internet, interview them for some juicy, if unsubstantiated allegations.
Take the claims that can now be attributed to a source and then repeatedly ask "questions" of your "target" prefaced with "Some people say…."
It's a job made easy when the topic is something people aren't familiar with, but would be merely ridiculous otherwise.

A simple example proves the point: look up an anti-semitic website, interview the people who make the outrageous claims and then seek out Jews to ask each one "some people say you control all the commerce and banking in the world", or "some people say you are the messengers of the devil," or "some people say all Jews are greedy, selfish criminals." Don't bother to look at the practices or activities of the Jews, just fire away with the accusations. Of course, the vast majority of the population seeing this would dismiss it as the most vile sort of propaganda.

Yet, this is precisely what Sweeney and Mole did with the Scientology programme. They did get a reaction. What they didn't get was a story that enlightened anyone.

Click the link at the top of the page to view the special video documentary and decide for yourself. You can also order your own free copy of the documentary on DVD by choosing the link on the left.

Is this the true face of the British Broadcasting Corporation ?

John Sweeney ist außer sich: Sein Gesicht ist rot angelaufen, die Stimme überschlägt sich, sein Finger saust durch die Luft, auf und ab, während er brüllt: "Sie waren nicht dort! Sie haben nicht das ganze Interview gehört!" Diesen Schreihals haben in den vergangen fünf Tagen ein paar hunderttausend Menschen auf YouTube gesehen. Sweeney ist ein höchst angesehener BBC-Fernsehreporter.

Irgendwann im Lauf der vorigen Woche wird die Seite dann mit Inhalt gefüllt: "Als Panorama-Redakteur Sandy Smith seinen Lieblings-Reporter mit einer Sendung über die Scientology-Kirche beauftragte, machte er einen großen Fehler." Als Beleg sieht man ein Video mit der Scientology-Version der Ereignisse. Man kann kostenlos DVDs mit dem brüllenden Sweeney bestellen. Verwiesen wird auf eine Sonderausgabe der Scientology-Zeit- schrift "Freedom", die auf 24 Seiten vermeintliche Fehler der BBC dokumentiert, Journalisten und Vertreter der anglikanischen Kirche zu Wort kommen lässt.

Schritt 3: Für Aufmerksamkeit sorgen

Am 10. Mai stellt dann John Wood, ein 47-jähriges Scientology-Mitglied aus London, wie er selbst im Netz schreibt, die Scientology-Schnittfassung des Sweeney-Wutausbruchs bei YouTube ein. Schon bald kommen passende Kommentare: "Was für ein Spinner", schreibt eine Lisa Karlsson. "Wenn die BBC das mit unseren Gebühren macht, will ich mein Geld zurück!", schreibt ein Frances Stevens. "So ein Mann sollte nicht für die BBC arbeiten", urteilt ein Nutzer namens Vuluner.