Landmark Education - Right of Reply - France 3

Landmark Education - Right of Reply - France 3

What follows was written in reply to the France 3 programme Pièces à Conviction broadcast on 24 May 2004:

We consider your programme on Landmark Education, and the declarations and representations made about our company, extremely regrettable. A great number of these declarations, notably the most serious ones, were inaccurate, and in many cases they were tendentious and devoid of any foundation. We are sending you this communication to re-establish the truth of the facts and to supply accurate general information about our company. We thank you in advance for being good enough to read it as we have prepared it, without making modifications to it, and without adopting a negative tone or adding special effects. Landmark Education is an international company with an educational vocation, created thirteen years ago, specialising in training and personal development. Its programmes are available in more than 20 countries in the world. Without its knowledge, Landmark Education was placed on the cult list of the French parliamentary report. It received no prior notification and made this discovery after the fact. The government never made contact with Landmark Education, and did not give it the possibility of explaining itself or refuting these allegations. When Landmark Education got in touch with the government, it was told that it could never be struck off this List because the parliamentary Commission that had compiled it no longer existed. Because the Commission was abolished, this problem persists to this day. In reality, Landmark Education is not a cult. Its programmes are not of a psychological nature, and the many experts from all over the world who have taken part in them have declared them risk-free and useful. And we would even add that, beyond this risk-free character, a great number of professionals recognise the value these programmes represent. Landmark Education’s programmes offer their participants new tools allowing them to bring about important changes in their lives, in terms of effectiveness, quality of relationships, communication or productivity. Seeing the way France 3 made this programme, it is clear that it never had the intention of presenting a fair and objective report on Landmark Education. France 3 violated the personal rights of the individuals filmed without their knowledge with the aid of hidden cameras. France 3 ignored a whole series of pieces of information coming from recognised experts, as well as from other people testifying to the absence of risks and to the advantages of Landmark Education’s programmes, and this despite the fact that this information had been supplied to it. Furthermore, France 3 chose not to include the favourable comments gathered from the Landmark Education clients it interviewed. Landmark Education gave France 3 every opportunity to speak with a leader of the Landmark Forum, as well as with many of the company’s clients. In exchange for its full cooperation, France 3 promised Landmark Education to include in the programme a simple and unmodified declaration emanating from the company, and to make an objective report. France 3 took advantage of Landmark Education’s full cooperation, but did not keep all its promises. France 3 did not present viewers with honest and professional journalistic work. The programme asserted that Landmark Education’s programmes are harmful, and showed a woman who claimed to have been the victim of verbal aggression during a seminar. However, after seeing the programme, the woman in question made the following declaration: “My face is hidden, but my voice is not masked. I feel betrayed by this journalist, who did not respect the confidentiality required in this programme. And furthermore, by showing only part of the conversation, he draws conclusions that make me feel manipulated. From that conversation, which I admit was difficult, I derived a considerable benefit. It allowed me to live better and to have a better relationship with my daughter. And I owe that to the conversation we had during the Landmark Forum.” The reality is that the woman who appears in that sequence, like many other participants, publicly acknowledged that she had had a positive and valuable experience. It was insinuated that Landmark Education was earning large sums of money on the backs of the people who work for the company in France, and furthermore that Landmark Education was not declaring all the income it received in France. The journalist estimated its receipts at 1.5 million euros per year. This is pure invention. Landmark Education’s income in France has not exceeded 590,000 euros per year, and the company has operated at a loss for the last three years. Moreover, Landmark Education has declared, and continues to declare, all its income to the French government. Landmark Education does not employ volunteers. In fact, fewer than 2% of its clients take part in what we call the Assisting Program. This leadership programme gives free access to courses and seminars and develops the participants’ aptitudes in matters of leadership, capacity to contribute, and management. These aptitudes directly help these people to improve their effectiveness in the professional activities they exercise alongside their training at Landmark Education, as well as in their personal relationships and other domains of their lives. Assertions were made on the subject of a tragic suicide and a homicide, attempting to implicate Landmark Education. In the case of the suicide, it took place 7 months after the person had taken part in a programme, and it is well known that this person was under the pressure of considerable stress - which had no connection with Landmark Education. In the case of the homicide, it is admitted that the person responsible suffered from imbalances well before taking the courses. Although Landmark Education feels compassion for these two people, it is in no way responsible for their acts, and these two tragic accidents cannot be attached to our company. Mental-health professionals respected throughout the world have taken part in Landmark Education programmes and observed them. They have found them risk-free and effective. Like other institutions with an educational vocation, Landmark Education has developed, with the help of health professionals, an effective and responsible selection process to ensure that all the people who take part in its programmes are of sound mental balance. To answer these unfounded accusations, Landmark Education cites the experts from all over the world who have studied its programmes and issued the following conclusions: Dr Norbert Nedopil, head of the department of forensic psychiatry at the University of Munich, carried out a study on Landmark Education in 1996 and declared that he “could discern no form of behaviour that would liken the Landmark Forum to a so-called [psycho] cult. On the strength of empirical research, one can say that to a very large extent, Landmark Education presents no risk to the health, free will and legal integrity of its participants.” Dr Nedopil added furthermore: “There is no evidence indicating that the Landmark Forum can cause any harm whatsoever.” Dr Raymond Fowler, Ph.D, retired President of the American Psychological Association, declared in a report reflecting his own opinion: “In my opinion, the Landmark Forum is neither a cult, nor anything comparable to a cult, and I do not see how a reasonable and responsible person could say the contrary. I observed nothing at the Landmark Forum I attended to suggest that it could be harmful to the participants.” As for the fact that the French government placed Landmark Education on the cult list, Dr Fowler declared: “In my capacity as an expert in this field, I am certain that once the French government has the opportunity to examine this question more closely, it will conclude that Landmark Education was wrongly placed on the cult list.” Even as Landmark Education strives to dispel the confusion reigning around its seminars in France, the company enjoys an excellent reputation in most regions of the world. In fact: “In 2002, HR.com/James MacNeil ranked Landmark Education among the top providers of leadership and training programmes in the world.” Landmark Education carries out a constant re-evaluation of its programmes to guarantee its clients’ satisfaction. As an international company, it is committed to understanding and respecting the different legislations and commercial practices of the countries where it operates. The declarations made in the programme are a deliberate attempt to destroy the credibility of Landmark Education and of the more than 8,500 people who have taken part in the Landmark Forum in France. Contrary to what the programme claims, the surveys show that 94% of Landmark Education’s clients say that “the Landmark Forum made a profound and lasting difference in their lives.” 26 May 2004 DISLOYAL TACTICS AND AN INACCURATE ACCOUNT DISCREDIT LANDMARK EDUCATION

FRANCE 3 REFUSES TO INCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS PROVING THAT LANDMARK IS EFFECTIVE AND CARRIES NO RISK. PARIS, 26 May 2004 - The broadcast of the France 3 programme Pièces à Conviction on 24 May constituted a disloyal attack against Landmark Education, an international training and development company offering personal-development seminars in 60 offices spread across 21 countries. France 3 acted irresponsibly and in contempt of the accepted norms of television by using tactics such as lying and manipulation, as well as illegally obtained material. This is a flagrant case of abuse of the public’s trust. The programme adopted a sensationalist point of view, distorted the facts and gave false information, evidently in the hope of driving up its ratings for the first prime-time broadcast of Pièces à Conviction. The editor-in-chief of Pièces à Conviction, Pascal Richard, made the following remarks, which were quoted in the press: “The result is the only thing that counts”, and according to the people interviewed, the programme for which he is responsible refused to give the floor to many participants in the Landmark Forum who had only positive things to say about our company. Landmark Education supplied Pascal Richard and his team with a great deal of information, and answered all the questions put to it. We worked diligently with France 3 and its reporters so that a fair and objective documentary could be made. Founded in 1991, Landmark Education is an international training and development company. It was recently ranked “among the best providers of leadership and training programmes in the world” by HR.com/James McNeil. Landmark is an employee-owned company that offers educational and professional-development programmes in the fields of professional success, communication and productivity. Landmark Education’s activities are the product of thorough research into the effectiveness of individuals and organisations and into communication. Landmark Education uses a cutting-edge educational method to help its clients produce notable results and to improve the quality of their lives. Landmark Education agreed to cooperate fully with France 3 and, having received the assurance that the programme would be objective, gave the channel the right to film, to conduct interviews and to have access to all its information, on condition, however, of protecting its clients’ confidentiality. But France 3 did not keep its word. For example, a round-table discussion was organised in its studio. The only person invited to speak well of Landmark suddenly found herself set upon by a group of interlocutors speaking ill of it. That says much about the tone and approach adopted in the France 3 report. Furthermore, France 3 used confidential content filmed without our knowledge by a reporter who falsified his references and filmed these images in violation of the agreement he had signed regarding the protection of the confidentiality of the seminar participants. “The rights of all the people who took part in the seminar were violated by this reporter and this television channel,” declared Art Schreiber, Landmark Education’s lawyer. France 3 secretly filmed an interaction between Alain Roth and a participant during the Landmark Forum and showed that conversation out of its context. In that scene, the participant seems to be verbally attacked by Alain Roth. In reality, that person subsequently declared in public that she had had a very positive experience and has continued to this day to take part in Landmark Education’s programmes. France 3 also implied that Landmark Education was earning large sums of money by having recourse to volunteers in France. In fact, Landmark loses money every year in France, but keeps its centre open for its participants. France 3 estimated Landmark Education’s receipts at nearly 1.5 million euros per year, whereas in reality they do not exceed 590,000 euros per year. Although Landmark Education is manifestly not a cult, the experts recognise that even cults have fundamental rights, which were not respected in this case. Unfortunately, considering that the fines to be paid for a violation of the media’s code of ethics are minimal, France 3 decided that it was better for its ratings to pay these symbolic fines than to offer the public the fair and objective report it was entitled to expect. The declarations made in the programme are a deliberate attempt to destroy the credibility of Landmark Education and of the roughly 750,000 people who have taken part in the Landmark Forum. Contrary to what the programme claims, the surveys show that 94% of Landmark Education’s clients say that “the Landmark Forum made a profound and lasting difference in their lives.” Jean-Claude Sabatier, a former elected official of Paris, took part in Landmark Education programmes in February and March 2004. He declared: “During the whole time I followed these programmes, I never had the experience of being part of a cult. At no moment did I think I could not leave the room. What is more, I asked Landmark not to call me, and my request was respected to the letter. I never brought guests, and I was never pressured to do so. I do not support France 3’s views.” France 3 knew perfectly well that Landmark Education had received no prior notification of its inclusion on the cult List of the French parliamentary report, and that no tangible proof had been supplied to justify that decision. The government’s regulatory provisions nevertheless stipulate that an organisation must be informed that it is targeted by this measure, so that it can respond to the allegations. Landmark Education attempted to discuss with the French government, but was informed that it could not be struck off the List because the Commission that had produced it had been dissolved and no longer existed at present. To answer these unfounded accusations, Landmark Education therefore turns to eminent experts from all over the world, whom France 3 chose not to consult, and who have studied its programmes. Here are their conclusions: Dr Norbert Nedopil, head of the Department of Forensic Psychiatry at the University of Munich, carried out a study on Landmark Education in 1996 and declared that he “could discern no form of behaviour that would liken the Landmark Forum to a so-called [psycho] cult. Relying on empirical evidence, one can say that to a very large extent, Landmark presents no risk to the health, free will and legal integrity of its participants.” Dr Nedopil added moreover: “There is no evidence indicating that the Landmark Forum is harmful.” Dr Raymond Fowler, Ph.D, retired Director of the American Psychological Association, declared in a report reflecting his own opinion: “In my opinion, the Landmark Forum is neither a cult nor anything comparable to a cult, and I do not see how a reasonable and responsible person could say the contrary. I saw nothing at the Landmark Forum in which I took part that could harm the participants. In my capacity as an expert in this field, I am certain that once the French government has the opportunity to examine this question more closely, it will conclude that Landmark Education was wrongly included on the cult list.” Dr Jean-Marie Abgrall, the principal expert on the cults in France, declared, concerning the ten elements identified by the parliamentary Commission as constitutive of a cult: “None of the six major elements relating to the cults applies to Landmark Education.” As for the four remaining elements, Dr Abgrall remarked that they are “minor characteristics which could equally be found in many conventional organisations.” Landmark Education will vigorously contest the unjustified allegations and disloyal practices of France 3 and Pièces à Conviction, in the name of the company itself and to protect its many clients throughout the world. In the interest of fairness, Landmark Education once again asks the French government to give it the possibility of being heard, in order to supply the proof that it was placed on the cult List in error. Source: http://www.landmarkeducation.fr/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551

Comment on the France 3 forum, about the programme on Landmark Education And what if it were not a cult? Posted on 26-05-2004 at 11:50:39 And the television, can’t you see it’s manipulating you? With shock images, carefully edited, hand-picked guests, a skilful mixture that includes dramatic news items with nothing to prove their connection to the course in question! Media specialists now know that the more natural and amateur the images look, the more impact they have. A stolen image, with a little camera, now that looks true as true can be… Where are the witnesses, on Landmark’s side, to bring, perhaps, another point of view? Except that poor girl who breaks down, and who is, as if by chance, the only Landmark Education witness kept in the edit? Because people close to the event told me of several former clients interviewed for the programme who were positive about Landmark. Their testimonies are not in the programme. A participant in this France 3 forum explains that she is afraid of being manipulated. It is true that there is a real paranoia, in the media, about the shrinks, the coaches, the gurus who brainwash you. An amalgam is also immediately made with another subject of fantasies, the cults. What a windfall for the programme: two sellable subjects at once! A bit of bloody news items, and accusations tossed in the air to attach them to the subject, and there’s a hit story. But who explained the modern and scientific methods of psychology (Transactional Analysis, NLP, etc.) on which the Forum rests, like hundreds of personal-development courses? Above all, who verified, and that would be real journalism, on what criteria the original accusation of being a cult was founded? Now, from what I have seen, 90% of the THOUSANDS of clients of the Landmark Education course are satisfied after their course. It lasts 3 days. They leave it free as air: they are not prisoners of a cult. They are even enthusiastic, since their close friends and relatives often sign up too, and freely. And they have never felt the sensation of being in a cult. And they know the experience from the inside, they are well placed to know what they have lived through. It’s not a TV programme, it’s their experience and their life! And there are perhaps a THOUSAND of them a year in France, and that for more than 10 years! and they were not given the floor! and they feel defamed, because the people around them look at them saying they learned on television that they belong to a cult! and the people around them believe it hard as iron, since they saw it on television! And in a terribly effective and credible programme! and these participants, who, like me, are very independent-minded and followers of no movement, feel soiled by an unanswerable media manipulation! You are right to be afraid of being manipulated! But this programme was like a trial judged in advance, and if you didn’t see that, it’s because this manipulation was very, very effective! Ask the media for a real, objective in-depth enquiry, with testimonies from both sides. With an impartial presentation of the course, and not 2 extracts of a few seconds, out of context. Ask for an enquiry into the cult designation, for there is perhaps an unqualified civil servant who filled in a cult file, without competence on the subject of personal-development courses. A civil servant to question is perhaps that one too, at the origin of what is an injustice and a quasi-judicial error for 90% of the people who took part in the Forum. http://forums.france3.fr/france3/pac/Et-etait-secte-sujet-158-1.htm