Agreed. Although it's often true when you are an established celebrity and can alter the narrative.
Many years ago, both my parents were deeply involved in the cult I have often talked about. They came in about ten years after me, and they remained IN IT, until their death. While I have many bad things to say about it, their experience was vastly different - probably due to age. I think it's likely that no one feels the need to manipulate, guilt or harass an older established elderly couple. They became the beloved grandparents of everyone in the church, and I totally credit that church for bringing stability and - dare I say - happiness to a couple that may have been doomed.
One year, a local paper did a long article on that church - and their main sources were disgruntled ex-members. And I use disgruntled as a euphemism - these were - and one in particular - the kind of people you would probably dislike upon first meeting. They are THAT argumentative and hard to get along with.
And one of them said things about my Dad which - when I read them - I thought - is he talking about my Dad? This is crap. I've known him all my life - I've spent years trying to be just like him - and the man he's describing I wouldn't find in the darkest prison or mental institution. I could only read so much before it was apparent that this guy had pinned his grievances on probably the one person who tried harder than anyone else, to help him. I KNEW this church - I knew good people, but I also knew that had limits to how much crap they'd endure. And my Dad was an idealist, like me. He believed NO ONE was irredeemable.
I also noticed that the writer of the article made no effort to corroborate the rantings of some of these. I mean, even in regular hit pieces on my church, I would see that despite the anti-church bias that was there, there'd be SOME TOKEN effort to get a statement. Nope.
Ever since then - well, I generally detest "journalists" as people who want to SELL news, not investigate it or report it.
