Leah Remini is a well-known TV actress whose family joined the Church of Scientology when she was growing up. In 2013, she was expelled from the Church after a number of incidents where she questioned the ethics of top church leader David Miscavige and other high-ranking members including Tom Cruise. In 2015 she released a memoir detailing her experience within the Church, sharing stories of manipulation and abuse. Audiences and critics were receptive to her book, and in 2016 she released a documentary series entitled “Scientology and the Aftermath” on A&E. The show’s premiere gained 2.1 million viewers and continued gaining momentum. Meanwhile, the Church of Scientology issued an interesting response.
The Church published a scathing statement, criticizing Remini’s actions, ideology, and character. “Ms. Remini is showing herself to be a spoiled entitled diva who still obsessively complains,” they said. They continued to detail how she has mischaracterized the Church in an attempt to manipulate her public audience. Along with this statement, the Church published a website with articles and videos offering additional arguments against Remini, which they continued to add to until her series ended in 2019. On their main page, they’ve outlined the violence incited by antagonists to the church, who cite the series as their inspiration, including a tragic stabbing in Australia. Remini’s team hasn’t offered vocal responses to these incidents.
analysis
This scenario is an example of disastrous public relations. In many ways, it more closely resembles a petty argument between family members. The Church of Scientology has long been the subject of scrutiny. This case is fascinating due to the aggressive tactics of both parties. Remini’s documentary made no attempt to paint Scientology in a positive light, making no claim of objectivity or unbias. This is far from ideal, but the Church’s response is especially disappointing. They had the opportunity to offer a straightforward statement defending their beliefs and practices and to depict their professionalism and kindness. Instead, their attack condemning Remini reflected poorly on them, gaining support only from those within the organization, and aligning with the behavior Remini described.
There’s wisdom in Remini’s decision to largely ignore the backlash from the Church. She continues to speak vocally about the organization, without responding directly to their accusations. Given the Church’s active campaign against her, if she were to respond directly it would likely grow into a neverending argument. I don’t know that I condone all of Remini’s public relations decisions, but the public’s response to her message compared with that of the Church shows that decorum and decency go a long way in building lasting credibility.