The Washington Post reported this week that three highly respected investigative journalists—one of whom is a longtime good friend—were hired by the Church of Scientology to review stories published in the St. Petersburg Times.  The newspaper has long been a thorn in the side of the cult-like church, even winning a Pulitizer three decades ago for its Scientology exposés. My knee-jerk reaction was to trash the three reporters for acting as hired guns on behalf of the controversial organization.

But contempt before investigation is an inherent danger of journalism among reporters, who are under the influence of toxic cynicism. And I was falling into the that trap, even though my knowledge of  Scientology is only slightly above zilch. I’ve read stories about the weirdness of the so-called religion and some of its worshipers, or what ever the hell they are called. Listening to Tom Cruise babble about Scientology is enough to re-enforce my sense of bafflement abut what the church stands for. 

“A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.”

That is the goal of the church as outlined by L. Ron Hubbard—science fiction author and founder of Scientology. Obviously, the movement has failed to achieve its aims. Instead, it has been at the center of controversy for years. Scientology was stripped of its “church’” designation by the Internal Revenue Service, but still qualifies as a tax exempt not-for-profit organization. Over the years, it has been target of criminal investigations, members have been convicted of illegal activities, scores of lawsuits have been litigated, and reporters and critics claim to have been harrassed and threatened by Scientologists.

Based on past history, my negative reaction to top journalists cashing Scientology pay checks in advance of an investigation of the St. Petersburg Times stories is understandable. How could they? A stupid question since I haven’t a clue about the substance, quality and reliability of the newspaper’s exposés. The team hired by Scientology may have ascertained that the stories completely accurate. If so, the corroboration may never see the light of day. My understanding is the review has been completed and turned over to the church, which has no obligation to make it public.

Two veteran reporters—Pulitizer Prize winner, Russell Carollo, and former 60 Minutes producer, Christopher Szechenyi, an Emmy-winner—conducted the study. My longtime friend, Steve Weinberg, was hired by Carollo and Szechenyi to edit the final report. He is a prize-winning author and the former Executive Director of the 3000 member professional organization,  Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE). As a matter of personal disclosure, I was a member of IRE’s Board of Directors several years ago. And I have a great deal of respect for Steve and his judgment. 

Having said that, let me add a couple of words about the propriety of  mainstream journalists working for organizations of ill repute. Why not?  Investigative reporters frequently enter into unholy alliances. My close relationship with notorious drug smuggler Barry Seal is still being criticized more than two decades after his assassination by a Colombian hit team. Despite the criticism, I’m confident that I maintained my journalistic integrity in dealings with Seal, as well as with scoundrel sources in other stories I reported.

What is wrong with targets of investigations hiring journalists to vet the reporting of other newsmen? Nothing. At least as far as I’m concerned.  The news media is not, and should not, be exempt from scrutiny. Any story that can’t stand up under intense examination should never be reported in print or on television in the first place. 

During 30 years of digging dirt, the truth and accuracy of many of my stories were challenged by targets of the exposés, in lawsuits and by a lot of people with axes to grind. Fortunately, I never lost a libel case. Nor did I have to retract any allegations made in my stories. This is not a claim of perfection. In retrospect, my spin on some stories could have been different. But that is more a reflection of my changing attitudes toward certain types of non-criminal misconduct. Everybody makes bad decisions.

Investigative reporting is an imperfect craft. Mistakes happen.And errors should be immediately corrected. Much of my book, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is devoted to exposing egregious inaccuracies that were never corrected by mainstream news organizations like the New York Times, Washington Post and CBS News. 

The St. Petersburg Times refused to cooperate with the reporters scrutinizing its Scientology stories. Editors claim the study will be used to discredit the newspaper. Executive Editor Neil Brown is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, “Candidly, I was surprised and disappointed that journalists who I understand to have an extensive background in investigative reporting would think it’s appropriate to ask me or our news organization to talk about (our) reporting while (a) it’s ongoing, and (b) while they’re being paid to ask these questions by the very subjects of our reporting.” 

If there is ongoing reporting of a confidential nature, I can understand Brown’s objection. But if previously published stories are accurate, they should be fair game for scrutiny, regardless of who is paying the freight. Supposedly, there is a safeguard that prohibits the Church of Scientology from quoting the study out of context. Steve Weinberg says the contract requires the church publish the study in full, if it decides to make it public at all. 

So what’s the big deal about paying Weinberg, et al? Fox News pays pundits big bucks to tell lies. It’s okay with me if bona fide reporters are paid to tell the truth. And I hope the truth is that the St. Petersburg Times has kicked ass in an honorable fashion.