From: tallulah@mail.storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Reporter TR's Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 04:12:13 GMT Organization: iSTAR Internet Incorporated Lines: 243 Message-ID: <5u08v1$ot9$1@news.istar.ca> References: <19970827021701.WAA14150@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts44-03.ott.istar.ca X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <19970827021701.WAA14150@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ronisxenu@aol.com (RonIsXenu) wrote: > CONFIDENTIAL > > REPORTER TRS > <...> >2. No Answer. > >Purpose: To train a PRO to give a 'no answer' to questions he has no >wish to answer directly. > > >Method: To begin with the reporter reading the questions asked LRH by >"The Sun" reporter Victor Chapple --- and the PRO reads LRH's answers. >This is just to accustom him to the idea of 'no answer'. > >Then using different questions, the PRO gives 'no answers'. The trick >is to appear to answer the question by giving generalized statements in >simple terms so that the reporter doesn't realize his question hasn't been >answered. >The PRO should be completely causative over the communication and end it with >certainty, so that the reporter gets this and goes on to the next question. This tactic is most kindly described as "optimistic." Any reporter worth his or her salt knows when to use the phrase "I'll repeat the question." And this technique leaves the distressing possibility of a "Scientology spokesperson refuses to deny " headline. >3. Non sequitur events. > >PurPose: To enable a PRO to practice getting his "message" across and >tag it on to any current event. Also a preparation for the day when our >PROs will be asked to comment on current events. > >Method: One person has a newspaper in front of him and reads out a >headline (and perhaps a line or two of the story if necessary for the PRO's >understanding of it). Ask the PRO what comment he would like to make on >it. The PRO should comment briefly and lead from this into his message. > >The drill is passed when the PRO can tack a message on to virtually >any event, smoothly and with reality. . Said message wiill, of course, wind up carpeting the cutting room floor (figuratively speaking) when our fearless reporter returns to the office, and reads over notes from the interviewer at their leisure. And don't *ever* try this with a TV reporter. It's hard enough framing your soundbite perfectly without confusing the issue with nonsense replies. >Handling a supressive T.V. Interviewer. > >Purpose: To train a PRO to get his message across in [spi]te of the >'interviewer', in the few short minutes usually [ava]ilable on television. >This is so that ... million people [have] no doubts after the program what >the Scientologist [sta]nds for and what he is against. > >Method: The PRO and interviewer face each other and the [int]erviewer >asks questions. The PRO attaches his message in [var]ying forms to as many >answers as possible. If the inter[vie]wer is SP tsuppressive person] he >must be introverted as in the hat write up, then PRO has his "say". The >interview has been suc[ces]sful when the PRO has got his message across to >his [sat]isfaction. And we've all seen the triumphs of cult PR shills in this regard. Just watch the most recent tabloid TV coverage of the Lisa McPherson case. >Handlinq an SP > >a) By overwhelm. > >Purpose: To train a PRO to be able to establish Ethics [Pre]sence >over an SP reporter if the occasion arises, by such tg]ags as shouting, >banging, pointing, swearing. To do this [com]pletely causatively until the >poor reporter is 'caved in'. > >Method: The reporter and PRO sit across a table facing [one an]other >and the reporter asks SP questions. The PRO [ove]rwhelms without judgement >in answer to the SP question. [An]d He does it with reality, causativeness >and the over[whelm] > >really reaches the reporter. Tr 1 is a part of this [dril]l ... there >is no point saying the words if they don't [rea]ch the other guy. This advice is simply bizarre. Anyone who has ever watched 60 Minutes, or its Canadian equivalent the fifth estate, can recall footage of surly executives lunging at the camera, or roughing up reporters -- it usually doesn't turn out to be a PR Big Win. Apparently the writer of this briefing is also under the misapprehension that a reporter who has been shouted, pointed, sworn and banged at will turn around and write a pro-scientology article. As I said, truly bizarre. >b) BY beinq knowinqly covertly hostile. > > Purpose: To train the PRO to handle an SP reporter by [missing word] >alone without the use of force as in (a). He uses the [missing word] as a >rapier and plunges it at the reporter, so that the trep]orter introverts and >drops the question. > >Method: The PRO and reporter sit across a table and the [rep]orter asks >SP type questions. > >The PRO observes what would be a button in relation to [the] question >asked and throws this back with good TR 1 so tthat] it reaches home. If the >reporter is introverted the [drill] is successful. If the reporter persists >with the same [ques]tion, the PRO should not re-press the same button ... it >[obvi]ously didn't work. He should drop it and use another [button]. If >the PRO cannot think of a snide reply the reporter [shoul]d just say "flunk, >you haven't handled me. Start," or [s]ome such remark ... but should not >tell the PRO what to [do]. When the confusion has come off the PRO will be >able to [h]andle and have a big win. > >The drill is completed when the PRO is willing to create [c]ave in with >an accurate snide remark, question or statement. This is, in my neck of the woods at least, usually faithfully reported as "Mr. McShane was evasive, and refused to answer questions about how long the victim had been ill before a decision to take her to the hospital was made. " To use a purely hypothetical example. >c) BY stalling for time. > >Purpose: To train a PRO to maintain his confront and com[posu]re when >given some SP sensational news by a reporter, of [whic]h he has no prior >knowledge. > >Method: The reporter asks the PRO for his comments on an [illegible >word] situation involving a Scientologist. > >The PRO maintains his ethics presence and duplicates the reporter's >nasty angle to his satisfaction. He then stalls for time and gets the >reporter to wait a few minutes or hours or so (whatever is necessary) while >he checks his facts. > >The drill is passed when the PRO is confident that he could not be taken >off guard by a reporter by being presented by an unknown situation. The oldest trick in the book. I hate to break this to you, but we're on to it. If you don't comment, you risk giving more airtime to someone else's comments -- and 10 to one they're not going to be complimentary. And we're on to that Friday PM stealth press release trick, too. >d) BY handling the reporter infront of YOU (verbal karate). > >Purpose: To train a PRO to handle the reporter in front of him, with >judgement in present time. > 4 > > > >Method: The PRO and the reporter sit across a table facing each other. >The PRO is asked a miscellany of questions. If it is a genuine question, >he can answer it, if possible tacking his message on to the reply. >If the question puts him the least bit at effect, he takes this flow >and turns it towards the reporter with an even greater velocity. He >does this either by a snide remark, question or comment, or by >physical overwhelm, whichever seems the right action to establish >ethics presence. > >He should never allow himself to be put at effect, and should not >tolerate it even for an instant, but immediately attack back. Again, I'm not sure if I'm alone on this one, but I will say with perfect honesty that if I'm attacked by an interview subject, I'm going to dig more deeply. During the interview itself, and aftewards. Reporters are human; we respond better to friendliness than overt hostility. Not to sound like Jiminy Cricket, but the best bet is to be forthright, courteous, and honest -- even a forthright, courteous and honest "No comment"is preferable to this media management by scieno tech. That, and return phonecalls promptly. >The drill is passed when the PRO no longer uses a machine or method to >handle the reporter ... but he is totally there, confident and handling. > Eek. I take back everything I've said. No matter how ineffectual, every one of these techniques is preferable to "using a machine ... to handle the repoter." ("No! Not the woodchipper! It's all off the record, I swear!") A mole in the 4th estate, K