The Manipulative Media Techniques that Restrict Spiritual Freedom
by David Garner, Waking Times
The use of propaganda and negative framing techniques is rampant in both print and broadcast media. These techniques are used to portray alternative spirituality in a negative light, manipulating mass media consumers to fear and despise new religious movements as a criminal evil to be avoided at all costs. This article examines the framing techniques used to harm spirituality.
When we turn on the news, open a paper or watch our favourite current affairs show, we might expect to be informed, not manipulated. What many may not consider or realise, however, is just how biased and sensationalist these forms of media can be, and how much they can influence our world view.
This is true in the media’s coverage of many aspects of society. Public figures are defamed on a regular basis, with the media knowing on probability that they will not be sued for every falsity or unsubstantiated allegation they publish. When people or groups are exonerated, the media is unlikely or reluctant to print a retraction, or to give it the same level coverage, as positive news is just not “newsworthy” enough to entertain its consumers. Sensationalism and negative coverage breeds curiosity, engages and unites consumers around social norms and orthodoxy and attracts advertisers.
In such a media environment, alternative spirituality is an easy target. It has been targeted and tarnished in the public mind through years of exposure to anti-cult rhetoric in the media following high profile tragedies at WACO and Jonestown. Alternative spirituality is almost always framed in a negative light, with the very idea of it deliberately conflated with controversy and associated with the very small minority of unconnected groups which have committed criminal acts. While the majority of the public have no experience with small spiritual groups, their curiosity is easily evoked by the lurid stories of “brainwashing”, “mind control”, broken families and alleged sexual transgression which the media often lead with when covering so-called “deviant” spiritual minorities.
What the viewing public is likely unaware of is just how complicit the media is, in league with the anti-cult movement, in creating these stereotypes in the first place. Once created they have been perpetuated by continuously highlighting the strange or criminal behaviour of a tiny percentage of new religious movements while ignoring those who integrate well with society.
How the Media uses Propaganda and Framing Techniques to Paint a Negative Picture of Alternative Spirituality
The angle or perspective that a journalist takes when covering a story is powerful. It shapes the viewers interpretation or understanding of news events and future choices they may make regarding the subject matter. This angle or perspective is known as “framing” and its study is known as “framing theory”.
An example of framing discussed by linguistics expert Dawn Archer is the possibility of a newspaper leading an article with the headline: “Drinking tea doubles risk of cancer”. This might put you off drinking tea – unless you dig deeper and realise the information this is based on only shows that the risk of developing cancer from drinking tea is 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000.
Framing devices often rely on negative emotions and seek to intensify a readers emotional disposition towards a particular aspect of society. When reporting on alternative spiritual groups, journalists primarily use the emotionally-laden and pejorative word “cult” or “sect”(“sect” has the same connotations as “cult” in some European countries) to stimulate negative sentiment towards a group. As stated by Michael Otterson, head of public affairs forThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
“Once labeled as a cult, there is not much need to explain all of the baggage that comes with it – the implicit ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy that play perfectly into the kind of rigid stereotypes beloved of the ignorant and bigoted.”
The use of framing devices serves a number of purposes. Framing simplifies a story into a black and white dualism. In regards to spirituality religious scholar Bernard Dohertyexplains that we are often presented with a “strong dualism between good (victims) and evil (cultists)”. This makes the concept of the article easier to understand for a public who may have no direct experience of alternative spirituality and predisposes the audience to align themselves with the victims and view new religious movements (NRMs) negatively.
Framing also helps with narrative structure. As a result of more than 30 years of repetition of “evil cult” stories in the media the public are familiar with the general accusations towards NRMs of alleged brainwashing, mind control, family breaking, and financial, physical or sexual exploitation. Analysing a series of NRM “cult” accusations in various print and visual media shows that the majority of stories all follow this trajectory despite often lacking evidence to support the allegations.
Framing a group as a “cult” places a story in a wider cultural context rich in negative connotations, associations and appraisals. All that is required then to write a story about an alternative spiritual group is to suggest the possibility that they may be a cult and to associate them with previous examples of alleged deviance. In this way, journalists are able to take shortcuts in their writing process, as investigative journalism and fact checking are less important if you are simply creating a story based on allegations, which can be slotted easily into a pre-existing narrative, rather than fact.
Framing Techniques Used to Manipulate Us Against Alternative Spiritual Groups
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”― Malcolm X
Many of the framing techniques used to dehumanise alternative spiritual groups are based on propaganda techniques that have been used throughout history to influence the masses. A skilful journalist weaves many of these techniques together in such a way that it appears that there is no manipulation taking place, just reporting of a story’s facts. As we are accustomed to looking at media outlets as sources for truth, and often have no way to personally verify the reality of every statement presented to us on a daily basis by the media, it is easy to take everything we are told at face value. By doing this, however, we are easily deceived, especially when stories intertwine aspects of truth with mistruth and appeal to our emotions to be more convincing.
Sometimes a critical reading of an article is enough to uncover anomalies in a story, such as seeing how headlines can be used in a misleading fashion that does not relate to the story; being on the look out for unproven allegations or complaints that are stated as fact; or observing how groups are often demonised simply through being compared with previous so-called “cults”. It is the manipulation that we can’t see however which can be most dangerous and lead to us being deceived.
Let’s take a look at some of the common techniques used to create aversion throughout society towards alternative spirituality.
Deviance Labelling and Atrocity Stories
One of the quickest ways to turn public favour against a group or its leader is to make them seem less than human by labelling them as deviants and associating them with activities that society deems morally wrong. Professor of Religious Studies Susan Palmer tells us that in France for example it is ‘customary for the French media to refer to leaders of NRMs as “pedophiles”‘ despite lack of evidence.
Another Professor of Religious Studies Lonnie Kliever Due states that the idea of NRMs as ‘highly regimented groups that control the thoughts and actions of their members through a variety of “mind control” techniques’ is firmly entrenched in the public imagination thanks to the “media fixation on the horror stories of former members and the propaganda of anti-cult groups”. These stories often include a pattern of similar allegations including “brainwashing”, “mind-control”, sexual, financial and physical exploitation or the breaking up of families that are frequently parroted staples in anti-cult rhetoric. Labels such as brainwashing or mind-control which have been legally discredited, but are still commonly used in the media, serve multiple purposes. They paint the group leader as a dictator and the adherent as someone with a propensity for being psychologically manipulated. They also provide the apostate (a hostile person who leaves a group and later begins to attack it) with an excuse as to why they may previously have been affiliated with a group they are now attacking so vehemently.
Deviance labelling and atrocity stories also allow more mundane accusations to be made sensational. For instance, unless covering a celebrity, a story of a broken dysfunctional marriage in itself will not be that interesting to the press. However when framed as a broken marriage and abandoned husband whose wife has run off to join a mind controlling “cult” journalists are easily able to create a sordid story that captures the curiosity of a society who are eager for gossip and may congratulate themselves for being clever enough to not get caught up in a similar situation. It doesn’t matter that the allegations can be proven false, or that the newly distraught partner never had cause for concern in the previous years their spouse was attending the same spiritual group: if you label a group as deviant and sell atrocity stories then you will get media attention. In some cases apostates from one group make a name and career for themselves as expert witnesses and go on to apply the same labels to many other groups on call without any direct experience.
Current affairs shows in particular often advertise on their websites for people who want to share their stories on air. It is then easy for anyone with a grudge against an NRM to concoct a story around previous “cult exposés” in order to provide the media with a sensational story that will get broad coverage.
In many cases these depictions breach codes of practice for reporting. An Australian media authority ruled in 2012 that a current affair show had breached the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s Code of Practice because their story was likely to “provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or a group”. The breach was for falsely depicting a Brazilian tribe of Indians as a suicide cult that encouraged the murder of disabled babies. In another case, mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape was defamed by being accused of being in a cult and corrupting youth. Asreported by Quadrant journalist Geoffrey Luck:
It was thirteen years before Supreme Court Judge David Kirby held that the flagship current affairs program had defamed him, rejecting all the ABC’s defences of truth, qualified privilege and fair comment. The settlement amounted to around a million dollars including costs and interest, but could not undo the damage to Macartney-Snape’s reputation.
The Selective Use of Cinematic and Photographic Techniques
Often as part of framing a group or its leader, reporters will rely on the use of cinematic and photographic techniques to portray them as evil. Framing in this respect can include: