26 Page New Yorker article about Paul Haggis and scientology Possible FBI investigation

FBI IN PROBE OVER TOM CRUISE ‘CHILD SLAVES’
Daily Star (UK). by Mike Parker. 27th Feb 2011
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/178720

I love a story with Legs.

But I was unsure in this quote...

...was a repeat of the New Yorker article or a separate confirmation from the British paper.

Either way, it's a story with legs.

Waiting for scientology baaaawing that they don't hire underage kids any more for the Sea Org.

Scientology claims that children have not been allowed to join the Sea Org for more than 20 years.

Of course, that is a bald faced lie, and easily disproved with readily available US government dox:

Scientology insider details 'nightmare' childhood

THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH A SHOT.
_____________

I’m sorry, but we don’t disclose this sort of information.
Best, -

On 3/6/11 9:42 PM, - wrote:

Resending as no response received.

Please advise,

From: -
To: @newyorker.com
Subject: RE: via contact us form
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 02:12:25 +0000

I am part of the movement known as Project Chanology.

The article in question was considered a huge win by us, as another well delivered blow to the Cult of Scientology.

The information is more out of personal curiosity however any data you release to me would be put into the public domain:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/thre...scientology-possible-fbi-investigation.65649/

I hope that answers your question, I look forward to your response and do understand if you are unable or reluctant to provide what I have asked for.

Regards,
Anonymous

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:34:45 -0500
Subject: Re: via contact us form
From: @newyorker.com
To: -

Message body May I ask what this information is for?

On 3/2/11 1:48 AM,- wrote:

You've received the following feedback:

Message : Hello, Could you please advise how many views your recent article on Paul Haggis has received and any other stats you are able to provide. Brgds,

The Guardian newspaper republished an abridged verision of Lawrence Wright's New Yorker article (Original Title: "The Apostate").....
(appeared in print in the saturday edition's "Weekend" magazine supplement, covering 9 pages and retitled as follows)

What happens when you try to leave the Church of Scientology?
The Guardian (UK). 23rd April 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/23/try-to-leave-church-scientology-lawrence-wright

Happy Easter to you, David Miscavige, you dumb Hubbard-fucking sack of midget shit.

Nice. I have a feeling that article is only the beginning

^ David Miscavige: bell end.
Oh, so this is a syndication of the New Yorker article? Kewl.

I need to find my doc comparison utility and see if there are any differences between the original article and the UK republished one. You know, what with various UK newsmedia legal department's unwarranted fear of our libel laws. I couldn't imagine Lawrence Wright being so desperate to allow edits but you never know.

edit: I am lazy. It's an abridged version.

And now the Guardian-republished New Yorker article bounces right back over the atlantic again and lands at the San Francisco Sentinel:
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=121503

LOL. Sue me in England!

I read every word of the Lawrence Wright piece in The New Yorker, twice. Today, I just noted the Guardian re-publish, and I slowly scrolled throught it. I got the impression that it was shorter than the original, but of course, I may be way wrong.

You're right, it is definitely an abridged version in the UK Guardian.
Word count:-
24,579 (Original New Yorker version)
6,932 (Guardian UK, abridged version)

How goes it for the San Francisco Sentinel?

They are picking it up from the Guardian, so it is the same.

[There are still 37 occurences of the word "Miscavige"]

Gotcha! Thank you!

The original is a long slog of a read.

My sense of it is that unless people have been directly exposed to $cientology, and/or the people that practice it, the length of the original article might be overwhelming to many. Unless of course they are fascinated with five star journalism, regardless of the subject.

So I don't have a problem with the shorter form. It will be easier to read that way, for many people.

I note that the Guardian also put it onto newsprint and sold it! The word gets around, doesn't it?

Are any of the British publications saying anything about the Simon Wisenthal event honoring Tom Crooze?
if not, they should make a stink and send these articles to the SWC.

I just set up a Google Alert for "Simon Wiesenthal Centre." I'll let you know if anything of significance shows up.

Posted in Crime, Film, Front Page, Home Page, Politics - Local, Politics - World, Social Diary, Television | Trackback | del.icio.us | Top Of Page

Avertising Age magazine's Best Media Writing of 2011

AdAge 22nd Dec 2011
http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/media-writing-2011-part/231724/

Hopefully we'll see Lawrence Wright's promised book on this, sometime in 2012.

"While America Slept"

Slideshow of the top ten most popular New Yorker stories of 2011 on their site.
Lawrence Wright's epic article on Paul Haggis and scientology, "The Apostate" is at position 2.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/top-ten-new-yorker-stories-of-2011.html

I'm glad. It was an epic piece of work. And Scientology did not sue, which is amazing.

Perhaps they learned a lesson by the ass kicking they got in their attempts to sue TIME. It's tough to win a libel suit when everything written is true.

I wouldn't say that they got an ass-kicking. It cost them a lot of money, but on the other hand, it cost Time Warner a lot of money to defend the suit and TIME can't just reg their subscribers. It cast a chilling effect over Scientology reporting for over a decade. (Priceless!)

• Hardball: When Scientology goes to court, it likes to play rough -- very rough. January 28, 1998, Lucy Morgan, Special Report, St. Petersburg Times

...and more "best of 2011" lists from other notable media sources which include Lawrence Wright's New Yorker article....

Top of the list at The Atlantic Wire....
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/12/best-things-we-read-2011/46329/

Also at No.1.. The Slate via Longform.org....
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...rticles_of_2011_from_longform_org.single.html
http://bestof2011.longform.org/

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/here_are_the_20_most-read_voice_stories.php
​#12. "Scientology's Cruise Ship as Prison: The Voice Interviews Valeska Paris"
A very big one of Tony Ortega's 234 Scientology posts this year was the one in which he interviewed Valeska Paris, who says she was held for 12 years against her will on Scientology's "floating cathedral and cruise ship" Freewinds. During this time, Tom Cruise was brought aboard the ship by church leader David Miscavige for...not even kidding...his birthday party. 258 people were inspired to comment.

When Scientology does not sue, it's very telling...

The first sign that Scientology has given up on suing was Andrew Morton's book four years ago. Since then, the Big Bad Cult has huffed and puffed, but never sued. Even if that book and the rest since were all factually correct, that's never previously stopped Scientology from suing to disrupt publication.

Perhaps now all the wog lawyers know that the winning move is to call David Miscavige to testify?

Technically, that was TC and Bert Fields who didnt sue. I usually make ^^That statement but say Wikileaks instead... the church as an organization didnt sue Wikileaks. (relatively close time frame too so about the same)

Not really. They haven't been as quick to sue like they were in the 90s and early 2000's .. possibly due to the amount of $$ that had to be used to bring litigation.,, but I suspect they've learned to cool their heels and wait out the media thunderstorm..knowing it would eventually peter out..

I would have to agree that their litigiousness has reached a low point compared to years past. The TIME suit was an object lesson, no doubt.

I really think it's because their position is much less defensible now that it was in the bad old days of 1995, say.

Scientology is no longer a "known unknown".
IOW, (nearly) all your cult secrets are belong to us

"would eventually peter out"
Huh? You're talking past tense there. The media have barely got into full swing yet. They'll be waiting a long time, me thinks.

Well, not to derail, but the Debbie Cook email is a game-changer. I don't think it'll be the Keystone Squibs going after Debbie.

Both TC and CoS made all sorts of legal noises over Morton's book, sadly with some success.

• Scientologists hit back at Kidman blackmail reports January 7, 2008, AAP, Sydney Morning Herald
• Bookshops won't stock Tom's tale January 13, 2008, Angela Cuming, Sydney Morning Herald
• Scientology holds sway in banning Cruise book January 13, 2008, Angela Cuming, The Age

<crickets/>

Paul Haggis had a good Christmas/New Year:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/idUS371096433320111221

And this story included TWO references to the Haggis/Scientology story. Sweet.