24 ms·
The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
- randall 14y agoTalk about sell out.
- coloneltcb 14y agoA sample of moderator approved comments: Seems like David Miscavige and Scientology are on a roll. Also it appears the media have been missing the real story. I hadn't realized there were so many new churches opened this past year. Great report!
- ryguytilidie 14y agoFinally the true story of scientology is being told!
- woodchuck64 14y agoAn insidious evil, thought defeated, but quietly gathering strength.
- illuminate 14y agoRight, they're still sitting on a LOT of real estate tax-free. They can weather 4chan's disrespect and bide their time until say, loyalist Will Smith decides to "come out" in their favor, gaining a ton of new celeb-obsessed converts.
- neumann_alfred 14y agoThe true story of scientology has already been told. A mediocre sci-fi author realized he could make a lot of money by inventing a bullshit story [1] and then proceeded to recruit a bunch of brownshirts [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055604 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055604 And frankly, I think it's high time to kick them the fuck out of Berlin, at the very least. We tried radiating the cancer; it's time to reach for the scalpel.
- pekk 14y agoI don't disagree, but it is socially unacceptable to say such things about thugs in other religions, just Scientology - and they may be freely promoted in the press with equal quantities of distortion - this bothers me a great deal.
- neumann_alfred 14y agoit is socially unacceptable to say such things about thugs in other religions It is? I didn't get that memo. To me it's socially unacceptable not to. People just ought to realize that being free-thinking, and in parts actually intelligent people gives them so much more power and so much more agility. Just look at scientology, look at their messiah, look at Tom Cruise.. they aren't that bright. They're bottom-feeding, they are preying on weak and/or vulnerable people. What gets me about Scientology is how stupid it is, how obvious, and how white middle-class. It's hard to accept it was taken seriously for a second decades ago, but that they are expanding? It's like Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor, sometimes I really really wonder what kind of planet I'm on. Maybe the idea is to make it all so crazy and horrible that people will cling to any story? I mean, let's just assume scientology was 100% true and correct: why has nobody successfully achieved their god status yet? They're just recruiting, never arriving, besides being super selfish assholes(oh yeah, those "body thetans", deported and mass killed people.. they are causing problems, let's get "rid of them"... just wow) on that never-ending way . And yes, you could say exactly that about many other religions as well, and certainly Christianity and Islam; but that isn't reason to criticize any individual one less, the opposite is true. I say lean into it. It can be ugly, or even scary, but I believe appeasement would have scarier results.
- sk5t 14y agoHaven't you noticed the relentless pounding the Catholic church has been taking for years and years now? Or listen to Penn Jillette's or Louis CK's remarks on Mormonism, or a great deal of George Carlin's material... many religions prey on the powerless, but we are offended by the efficiency with which Scientology drains its' adherents bank accounts and their will.
- coloneltcb 14y agoUPDATE: Mat Mullen, Disqus employee got a comment past the moderator (maybe he knows someone): This is the weirdest thing I've ever read on the Atlantic. You're actually letting the Church of Scientology sponsor content on your website?
- jacalata 14y agoif you go watch the 'upvote' count on his comment, it is flickering rapidly, up two, down one, up one, down two - fascinating.
- coloneltcb 14y agoSurely Scientology's army of Astro-turfers are working overtime tonight
- joezydeco 14y agoAnd Reddit is probably on the case as well...
- a_bonobo 14y agoHN seems to be much more active on this topic, if you check Reddit's posted links here, some links, few votes, few comments yet: http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fsponsored%2Fscientology%2Farchive%2F2013%2F01%2Fdavid-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-%2F266958%2F http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlanti...
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoGood then, It's not just me.
- irollboozers 14y agoI think any forum with upvote/downvote needs to have this, so cool to watch.
- 14y ago
- jerrya 14y agoI keep looking to see the April Fools disclaimer or any indication this is a joke, but I am not seeing it. Perhaps I am a victim of Poe's law.
- brown9-2 14y agoThere is going to be a lesson here over the next few days about how some advertising decisions can ruin a brand.
- clinth 14y agoSingle data point: I've been on the fence for cancelling them, but I'm calling them to do so tomorrow.
- tpowell 14y agoThis is TERRIBLE. I really like The Atlantic, but this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. An ExxonMobile/BP ad or something would draw ire, but this feels like a wholesale sellout of their credibility, not to mention sanity.
- brown9-2 14y agoMaybe this is just a brilliant move by someone at The Atlantic who wanted to demonstrate how bad of an idea sponsored content can be?
- MartinCron 14y agoI wouldn't burn down my house to demonstrate how dangerous it is to store kerosene in the garage.
- cskau 14y agoBut would you burn down your office?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- citricsquid 14y agoThe Atlantic editorial team is not involved in the creation of this content. I imagine the editorial team are currently drinking a shit ton of whiskey praying that nobody associates them with this.
- gnu8 14y agoI love how they captured the confetti in mid-air in each and every photograph. There's nothing scientology does that isn't choreographed and there's nothing scientology does that isn't bullshit.
- derleth 14y agoThis again? Every so often, the Church of Scientology goes up against the Internet. Every so often, the Church of Scientology gets its ass handed to it. This has been going on since 'the Internet' meant 'Usenet' for most people on the Internet. Heh. Maybe this time will be especially amusing.
- DanBC2 14y ago> Every so often, the Church of Scientology gets its ass handed to it. They get a few wins too. (http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html)
- btilly 14y agoThat one frustrated me. I was teaching a class and told everyone about that service as a way to send me anonymous feedback. Then someone tried, and found that the service had been shut down. :-(
- illuminate 14y ago"Every so often, the Church of Scientology goes up against the Internet. Every so often, the Church of Scientology gets its ass handed to it." These are not equal. They never get anything more than slaps on their wrist, and they employ enough lawyers and politicians to "every so often" make us all less free.
- thejosh 14y ago>Sponsor Content is created by The Atlantic’s Promotions Department in partnership with our advertisers. The Atlantic editorial team is not involved in the creation of this content. Email advertising@theatlantic.com to learn more. So if the Taliban wanted to pay for content they would be fine with that too.
- SG- 14y agoThat industry is getting rather desperate for money these days.
- mh- 14y agoJournalism, that is.
- pekk 14y agoThe Taliban doesn't have the resources. Qatar did have the resources to build al Jazeera, which is much in demand. I suppose the problem is that the Atlantic has rented itself out rather than being owned lock, stock and barrel.
- scrumper 14y ago> The Taliban doesn't have the resources. Qatar did have the resources to build al Jazeera, which is much in demand. Are you really likening the owners of Al Jazeera and the state of Qatar with the Taliban? Please tell me I've missed something.
- illuminate 14y agoAl Jazeera sounds so ~foreign~, obviously in cahoots.
- thattallguy 14y agoStories like this destroy the one major advantage established media, such as the Atlantic, has over new media. A trusted brand. These types of ads (branded content, in feed ads or social ads, whatever we're going to call them) are just another step in the battle to outwit a readers BS detection system. If I can easily tune out flashing banner ads, I can easily scan pass sponsored posts. Not worth blowing valuable trust on a short term gain is it?
- Steko 14y agoIn next year's recap they can talk about the big recruiting breakthroughs they made by writing enormous checks to struggling media outfits which allowed them to trick readers into thinking puff pieces were real content.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoSomeone ought to write an adblock-like extension that incorporates jwz's HERP DERP filter to arbitrary URLs, starting with http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/* http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/*
- SG- 14y agoI'm not quite sure if it's 'sellout' or if it's just the church having key people at The Atlantic to make this happen, sort of like how the church had infiltrated key government organizations around the world.
- swang 14y agoSo they're essentially letting Scientology use The Atlantic's "brand" to trick people into reading this? (Yes, I know it says Sponsored Post) This, on top of http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108929 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108929 and http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/06/13/reddit-bans-the-atlantic-businessweek-in-anti-spam-crusade/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/06/13/reddit-... makes me pretty weary of trusting anything I read on TheAtlantic ever again
- ryguytilidie 14y agoYep, will never read anything from the atlantic again, just added it to my host file.
- sxcurry 14y agoThanks for the idea - just added here as well.
- biot 14y agoFor anyone else who wants to do this too: theatlantic.com 38.118.71.170 </tongue in cheek>
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoIsn't that a bit much?
- bicknergseng 14y agoThe human tendency to overreact should never be underestimated. The baby and bathwater idiom is not used often enough.
- voltagex_ 14y agoWith Scientology's history? Hardly.
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
- riffraff 14y agoI understand that this is "sponsoderd content" AKA an ad. I have seen "sponsored pages" in newspapers for many years about a lot of crap, is there a reason to consider this one worse than the average? (Yes, scientology is evil but they are not forbidden from making ads I reckon?) edit: the "sponsored" bit is right on top of the page, as it is in dead-tree-form newspapers too.
- cheald 14y agoWhen you run sponsored content, you're tying your brand to the brand of the advertiser who you are promoting. This usually isn't a problem, since most outfits will choose to run advertising deals with well-respected brands, and both brands become stronger (and wealthier) because of the association. In this case, I can't imagine any outcome except for significant brand damage to The Atlantic. They had better have been cut an absolutely toe-curlingly-large check, because I expect they're going to pay for this in credibility loss pretty heavily.
- a_bonobo 14y agoThey are allowed to run ads, but media should allow ads based on ethical decisions - lots of countries treat Scientology as a criminal organization (Germany: "It views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution" Source [1], another example from Belgium: [2] ) Running a sponsored article for Scientology is, to me, akin to running an article about the great employment opportunities at Mexico's Zetas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/belgium-prosecutes-scientology-extortion-fraud_n_2375823.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/belgium-prosecutes-...
- alecperkins 14y agoThere are "stories" to the right that are really pro-Scientology ads, but not marked as "advertisement". The whole thing feels slimy, not even considering the subject.
- ohjeez 14y agoIn newspapers and magazines, sponsored content is very clearly labeled (which arguably this is) and made to look _different_. For example, most magazines require advertorial to be in a different typeface and font size, so that readers have a sense that it's somehow "different." The difficulty here is that, unlike a magazine in which you're flipping pages, you probably only saw _this_ page and thus have no sense about whether it "looks different."
- mcantelon 14y agoCNN does this too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-busi...
- 3327 14y agowasn't The Atlantic a reputable magazine?
- thoughtsimple 14y agoApparently not. Sad.
- atarighat 14y agoDisappointing...
- politician 14y agoWasn't The Atlantic blacklisted from Reddit a while back for spamming links? [1] So, they're not exactly known for being 'white knights'. In fact, I'm a little surprised that the greater HN community didn't remember this episode. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/reddit-bans-atlantic-businessweek-major-anti-spam-move-826870 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/reddit-bans-atla...
- homosaur 14y agoThis is disgusting and unethical. I didn't notice the "sponsor content" bar at the top and had to go all the way to the bottom to see the disclaimer.
- mikedmiked 14y agoThe current top comment by Matt Mullen is being upvoted at a rate of about 3 votes/second! He appears to work at discus - did he use admin powers to comment on the article? edit: "Tom Cruise • a few seconds ago I paid you for this?! Thats not nearly enough confetti"
- homosaur 14y agoBy the way, can anyone even document the validity of this COS bullcrap? From what I understand they are either barely growing or shrinking from their peak.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoCheck out the Village Voice, they have a lot of coverage of this. Scientology is a blip, their propaganda would have you believe that is growing at an enormous rate but that could not be further from the truth, at least in the reality based community.
- fchollet 14y agoThe comments are quite amusing. The "church" is apparently sending its minions en masse to post mindless applaud.
- jerrya 14y agoHere is a similar piece of content, from GE, makers of nuclear weapons and microwave ovens and former owners of NBC (now Kabletown) http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/ideas-roundtable-working/archive/2012/08/improving-the-nations-health-with-more-efficient-healthcare/260194/ http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/ideas-roundtable-workin...
- cheald 14y agoYeah, but here's literally what you see as soon as you open that story (with adblock off): http://cl.ly/image/0W1d2f3P0L25 http://cl.ly/image/0W1d2f3P0L25 That's pretty darn clear that it's a sponsored piece of content.
- csours 14y agoLarge parts of it even use GE's font, making it even more clear.
- ghshephard 14y agoBizarrely, it isn't even written very well. It's basically: Scientology Opened 12 new offices/churches. Followed by 12 pictures, all pretty much staged the same way, with blanket text following each picture written the following way: City, State: Date David Miscavige dedicated the new Church of Scientology (City) in ceremonies attend by (nnn) Scientolgists, their guests and city and state dignitaries. The Church building, which used to be (XXX) is located near (YYY) The entire "Sponsored Content" feels like it was programmatically generated. I'd expect better out of a high-school english student.
- marshray 14y agoDon't underestimate their marketing skills. They know exactly what they want out of their piece on The Atlantic.
- paul_milovanov 14y agoPlease consider writing a letter to the Editor (at this url: http://www.theatlantic.com/contact/ http://www.theatlantic.com/contact/). Here's what I wrote: Hello, I've been very disappointed by Atlantic's decision to run the Scientology promo article under sponsored content (http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/2013/01/david-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-/266958/ http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/201...). Despite the small label on top saying "Sponsored content" and a banner at the very bottom, which needs to be scrolled down to to be seen, I didn't feel that it had been immediately obvious that the content had been paid for and had not met the exacting standards of the Atlantic's editorial team. In fact, I had only realized that it was sponsored content once I scrolled down to the banner "sponsored by the Church of Scientology" at the very bottom. I am afraid that continued publication of such sponsored content, especially in a subtly deceptive way like this, will invariably end up cheapening Atlantic's brand and marring your journalistic reputation. While I understand that running a magazine in the internet era is hard and subscriber revenue constitutes a smaller part of the total, I feel that the fact that this content is paid-for had absolutely not been made explicit enough and, as a subscriber, I feel that such blatant hijacking of Atlantic's identity betrays the trust of your readers and violates your journalistic duty to inform and enlighten. Best regards, Paul Milovanov
- emil10001 14y agoI had the same thought, here's what I wrote: I just saw this article on your site: http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/2013/01/david-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-/266958/ http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/201... It is a sponsored piece, which it does state, though I may not have noticed it if it had not been pointed out to me. It makes me very uncomfortable about continuing to pay for a subscription to your magazine. As such, I have cancelled my subscription. The reason that this makes me so uncomfortable is that it steps outside the boundaries of traditional advertising, and steps into the role of your content. This is not so dis-similar to television shows that are chock-full of product placement, but I think that this goes even a bit further than that. This would be content that has no value at all, except for selling a certain brand beer, parading itself as a television show, dressed in the corporate logo. That is what this is, content of no value, parading itself in the Atlantic brand. I don't appreciate this. And, I certainly don't appreciate fluff pieces that bolster organizations like Scientology coming from a company that I pay to deliver me the news. By intertwining your content with paid-for commercial interests, I simply can no longer trust that the things that I read from you will be those of journalistic integrity. Thank you, and goodbye. -John
- arjn 14y agoFunny how the pictures all look and feel so similar.
- mherdeg 14y agoThere is a lesson to be learned here about using third-party vendors in sensitive parts of your business. IF you're a news outlet and you're going to let people publish "sponsored stories" and promise them the ability to moderate comments, AND you use a third-party add-on from a comments vendor, THEN you should not be surprised when an employee of that third-party company is allowed to leave whatever comments they like — no matter what your agreement with your client says. Of course, I'm not sure that if you're a news outlet it's a good idea to let people publish sponsored quasi-news content. Newspapers have been pushing the envelope on this in the last couple of decades — remember in 1999 the LA Times upset their own staff's sense of balance when they printed a 168-page supplement on the Staples Center and split ad revenue 50/50 with the Center (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec99/la_times_12-16.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec99/la_times_12-...). But if you're gonna do this, you've really got to do it right!
- BklynJay 14y agoThe scariest part - from the article, elected government officials lend credibility: The Church of Scientology opened its new National Affairs Office in Washington, D.C., in a ceremony led by David Miscavige. Joining him in this dedication were Members of U.S. Congress Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Danny Davis (D-IL); as well as Liz Gibson, Senior Program Manager, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoThat's what a nice, fat campaign contribution will due for you. :(
- saryant 14y agoI can't speak to the others but I live just outside Jackson-Lee's district. That woman is certifiably insane with or without appearing at a Scientology event. She thinks Neil Armstrong went to Mars and that Venezuela is a friendly nation. She'll do anything to get on camera—I doubt she can even spell "Scientology."
- kerno 14y agoWhere's the line with "sponsored content"? Does anyone have some examples of where it has been done well? Can it be done well?
- samsolomon 14y agoOften Mashable has How To articles that are sponsored, but the content is generally neutral.
- smoyer 14y agoWow ... 12 new buildings! It must really pay to start a religion and I guess in addition to emptying my congregant's pockets, there are some nice tax breaks for both the 503c and the reverends. Can I interest anyone in an investment? I'll start the church of fleeciology and will take the first 12 people to wire one meeeeellion dollars into my Cayman Islands account as my board of trustees. Your share of the earnings will be 6%. Our chuches won't have steeples, but there are plenty of sheeples that we can turn into paupers. There's no end to what a charismatic speaker can earn in today's market, so be the first to sign up now!
- Yver 14y agoAnd if a pro-Scientology adverticle wasn't enough, every page has at the top "A Wonderful New Book About Scientology, By a Wonderful WriterJeffrey Goldberg". I'm sure this other article is totally not related to the sponsored content.
- shrivats 14y agoThis appears to be a sarcastic response by Goldberg to the presence of the advertorial. The book he's talking about is quite critical of Scientology.
- p3nt3ll3r 14y agoVERY poor choice. You would have to blind, deaf, and in coma to know this would not cause some type of backlash. I too enjoyed their content - unfortunately now have to reconsider before reading.
- mattyohe 14y agoGood to see Jeffrey Goldberg biting the hand that feeds him: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonderful-new-book-about-scientology-by-a-wonderful-writer/267178/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonder...
- strandbergio 14y agoYeah, but read the content of what is actually up on the site. It's patently transparent bullshit. "All we do is open buildings! Everything is wonderful in out world! Banner year!" It makes the church look even MORE cultish. The motives are obvious: they're getting hit thanks to the new Lawrence Wright book, so they respond with this utterly idiotic pap. It's amazing that to me that they think ANYONE would actually buy this as a real article. I imagine the Atlantic thought the same. They're providing the noose for Scientology to hang itself. It's not journalism, per say, but there is a truth revealed by this article that is WAY beyond what the church wanted and The Atlantic provided the forum.
- illuminate 14y agoThen why are they deleting any negative comments? If they're trying to distance themselves from the North Korea-level bullshit they're publishing for cash, the best way to strike back would be to allow users to respond without being silenced in the name of their advertisers.
- csours 14y agoIt looks like a Disney religion, really. Look at the balloons at the Tel Aviv opening. Look at the cute bow they have on each of the churches! I wonder if they have rides...
- illuminate 14y agoThe "super power" orgs have beautiful shells but rotten, partially constructed or otherwise unoccupied interiors.
- shrikant 14y agoOh the irony. In July 2012, "CNN's Effusive Coverage of Kazakhstan Is Quietly Sponsored by Its Subject" - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/cnns-effusive-coverage-of-kazakhstan-is-quietly-sponsored-by-its-subject/260149/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/cnn... Edit: looks like their Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/ http://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/) is attempting some damage control by tweeting about a "the truth about Scientology" book. Heh.
- ohjeez 14y agoI'm guessing that it's how the editors are fighting back. Remember, the sponsored content is managed by the sales team. Editorial has no input or control over that. Just think how those reporters feel.
- marshray 14y agoSo white supremacists or the Taliban (or even... Wikileaks!) could buy placement in The Atlantic and the paper's owners would have no problem with that?
- rdl 14y agoThis doesn't seem worth the brand damage it causes. I actually love the Economist "special advertising sections" about countries ("Mongolia: Open for Business", etc.). Those are clearly identified and also not damaging. Maybe Mongolia isn't worthy of 16-32 pages in the Economist on its own, but the content they do publish about it tends to be at least somewhat legitimate. Not sure if that's even possible to do about Scientology.
- saryant 14y agoIt helps when it's a topic that basically nobody is getting up in arms about, like Mongolia.
- contingencies 14y agoI read a whole issue like that on Libya on a trans-Atlantic (no pun intended) flight for a Christmas party in London. Couldn't decide where to go for the break, so figured I'd hit Libya, but it was too opaque trying to sort out how to acquire a visa, so I went to Tunisia instead. Then the revolution and the whole Arab Spring kicked off, hah!
- rdl 14y agoI almost went to North Africa and the Middle East in September, 2001, just because it would have been a fun and obscure trip (probably would have skipped Libya, but Tunisia/etc. for classical reasons).
- lmm 14y agoA friend of mine went six weeks after it all kicked off, said he really enjoyed it and never felt in danger.
- rdl 14y agoYeah, I knew people who were in Saudi during it. I would have felt safer as an American in most of those countries than as an Arab in the US, immediately post-9/11. I think there was a news article about some westerners in Yemen post-9/11; the people they were with were quite kind. It still would have sucked for travel, and would have been pretty scary.
- aj700 14y agoDoes this mean that The Atlantic is not a CIA front, or does it mean that it is? Semi-in-jest.
- aj700 14y agoContra the best article they ever ran... what's next? Why diamonds actually are scarce and valuable, sponsored by deBeers. ??!!
- illuminate 14y agoAmusing considering that one of their greatest articles (to my recollection) was http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
- scottshea 14y agoHarriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., John Greenleaf Whittier and James Russell Lowell all just retroactively disavowed any connection to The Atlantic.
- kevinalexbrown 14y agoWithout delving into the specifics of Scientology, I am reminded of a grellas quotation: "The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation." This applies to some journalistic endeavors as well. In some cases, I seek out the thoughts of those whose facts are unreliable, because their opinions are interesting or novel. But just as often, I seek out long-form, descriptive pieces to learn what reliable people believe is true. I cannot validate every aspect of the outside world, so I trust others to do this. When they are frequently right, like Nate Silver, say, I trust them more. When they lend their brand to more bizarre groups, I trust them less, not because the sponsored link itself changes the truth of the rest of the articles, but because it signals a lack of judgment that might have a common source with many other important and difficult decisions a magazine or newspaper must make. For instance, when I read the Economist, I feel rather confident in their facts. They have a particular fiscally conservative slant, but in general they have proven to be realistic and relevant. They might not espouse particularly novel solutions, but they lay a solid framework for further thought. As it is, The Atlantic is reasonably trusted. That's almost surely the reason Scientology would like to place a sponsored story there, in addition to, or in lieu of, more popular outlets. In the coming transformation of journalism, institutions like The Atlantic, or newer upstarts like Svbtle, will have to consider sponsored posts and similar "brand-lending." When they do, they'll have to decide whether they want to be a trusted brand, or an interesting one.
- snogglethorpe 14y agoIndeed ... and once lost, trust is very hard to regain. I subscribed to the Economist through most of the '90s, but did not renew my subscription following a rather blithe editorial saying Bill Clinton should resign. I still have a measure of respect for them on non-controversial topics—they're very good at explaining technical details in a simple way, for instance—but my faith in their judgment is gone.
- fludlight 14y agoI used to hold the Economist in similar high regard in the early 2000's. In 2004 they hired a new editor-in-chief and the quality of their articles began to suffer immediately. Their perceived thoughtfulness (as a function of independence and novelty, at least in my mind) took an abrupt turn for the worse right after the resignation of a single man. I can't remember the name of the editor, but I can remember lamenting his resignation to my friends.
- dmschulman 14y agoHow convenient that this Tampa Bay Times article highlighting the FBI's investigation into the cult just came out yesterday: http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1270036.ece http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1270036.ece I don't think this sponsored content is a smear on The Atlantic so much so as it is a smear on the sad state of journalism as a whole and the ever increasing lengths to which news orgs will go to finance their operations these days.
- tokenadult 14y agoI have been one of the biggest submitters of Atlantic links to HN in the past year (and, no, The Atlantic doesn't pay me to post links) and I will now cease submitting Atlantic links. I used to submit a lot of Atlantic links to my Facebook wall too, also never, ever being paid to do so, and I will cease posting Atlantic links there too. And I think I had better write to the editors of The Atlantic, like James Fallows, and tell them why I no longer recommend their publication. I will read The Atlantic from time to time based on recommendations from other readers I trust, but I will not put my own trust on the line to support their business anymore. AFTER EDIT: For those of you who need to detox after seeing a Scientology puff piece on the Atlantic website, I recommend the Village Voice website, which has an extensive set of articles http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/scientology/ http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/scientology/ in a humorous but fact-checked manner on the inside story of Scientology.
- newbie12 14y agoHN should consider banning links to the Atlantic for a year.
- brown9-2 14y agoBecause they took questionable advertising from an organization we don't like? That's a bit much.
- illuminate 14y agoYou should probably look into the organization's history in censoring the internet.
- voltagex_ 14y agoI'd go further. They're a dangerous, internet-hating cult.
- illuminate 14y agoAnd a literal terrorist organization.
- peripetylabs 14y agoThis practice is probably not limited to The Atlantic. Reportedly CNN has published content that was "sponsored" by autocratic governments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-busi...
- socalnate1 14y agoThis was enough to get me to cancel my print subscription, which is really the best way to show my disgust over this.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sk5t 14y agoSo, you're saying Scientology doesn't drain its devotees' bank accounts, filling their heads with the work of a third-rate sci-fi writer--one who invented a bunch of dreck with the announced purpose of ginning up a religion for his own financial enrichment? That the CoS doesn't alienate its more vulnerable members from their friends and families? I am challenged to think of a more pernicious organization. Who else, save perhaps a handful of other religions, preys on the weak and gullible to such an extent while enjoying great tax advantages?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- marshray 14y agoThough plenty has been said elsewhere about the content of Scientology's beliefs and books, the post you're replying to said nothing about it. If you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction or post some other canned response, you could at least try to make it a little bit relevant. EDIT: Wait a minute...it seems that was a top-level comment. Were you even replying at all?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoI think there is probably something wrong with the mere fact that Scientology exists. :)
- marshray 14y agoIf Scientology did not exist, Scientologists would be forced to invent it.
- merraksh 14y agoThe side bar shows a link to an article by Jeffrey Goldberg, "A Wonderful New Book About Scientology, By a Wonderful Writer", about a book by L. Wright. Not sure if this goes with or against the post, as the Amazon description of the book seems rather positively inclined toward Scientology. I haven't read the book though. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonderful-new-book-about-scientology-by-a-wonderful-writer/267178/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonder...
- rrrhys 14y agoClicking on the usernames of the pro-scientology comments surprisingly yields other generic positive comments on pro-scientology articles: adamcroft croft posted a comment in David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year · 5 hours ago Nice pictures. So festive and grand. Scientology does so much good in the realm of drug and human rights education and it is only right that more places be reached and more people be helped. People need to know that illegal drugs are not worth it and that we should fight for each and every individual's human rights. adamcroft croft posted a comment in Is Scientology Trying to Take Over Self-Publishing? · a year ago I've read about this facility, and it's quite impressive. Technology in the 21st century progresses so rapidly that it's mind boggling. Not only do we have the power to virtually publish infinitely, even print publishing has gone to a whole new different level. Having worked in the publishing industry, I certainly realize what a big deal this is. adamcroft croft posted a comment in Facing Difficulties in Life? Scientology Has an iPad App For That · a year ago Thanks Portia for providing the information. adamcroft croft posted a comment in Facing Difficulties in Life? Scientology Has an iPad App For That · a year ago The app actually looks pretty promising. It's free, and seems to be more useful than the books I find on the self-help section in the bookstore. I've always been curious about Scientology, and this is an easy way to find out more about it.
- nthitz 14y agoThat's surprising to you? Obvious shills are obvious.
- rrrhys 14y agoI suppose I was more surprised to find it so easily, rather than surprised it exists.
- illuminate 14y ago"I suppose I was more surprised to find it so easily, rather than surprised it exists." Scientology is like a religious 419 scam, they target the sort of idiots who wouldn't check this and take the endorsement from random internet persons at their word, not guessing that the comments were coming from COS HQ.
- brownbat 14y agoThis is why I'm sad that Google's Sidewiki failed. You can have free and robust comments moderated by the author or publisher, it works most of the time. But why not just carry our commenting services with us, independent of content? (Or is that basically what we're doing now?)
- veidr 14y agoLooks like The Atlantic realized it had lost its marbles, and pulled this? I now get a 404, not only from the HN link, but also from the link on their site which still has the thumbnail of this propaganda piece: http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology (If anybody has a cache, I'm mildly curious to see it...)
- skeletonjelly 14y agoWorks for me. Try Google's cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fsponsored%2Fscientology%2Farchive%2F2013%2F01%2Fdavid-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-%2F266958%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fsponsored%2Fscientology%2Farchive%2F2013%2F01%2Fdavid-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-%2F266958%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.451.1802.0.2274.7.7.0.0.0.0.230.1067.0j1j4.5.0.les%3B..0.2...1c.1.yOP5Y4SqtFc&pbx=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&safe=...
- eblade 14y agoIt is suspended now. > We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.
- illuminate 14y ago"Temporarily", what absolute bootlicks they are. Gives them the opportunity to re-up the article once the internet forgets.
- asdfaoeu 14y ago> We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads. looks like you're right
- veidr 14y agoYou can still see the meat of the article via skeletonjelly's google cache link, but I gather the fun was in the comments. The 'article' reads like a typical cult/church promotional flyer...
- bmmayer1 14y agoThis is disgusting.
- leoh 14y agoVery unethical and unprofessional of The Atlantic
- dm8 14y agoDisclaimer: I run startup that helps publishers to create these types of sponsored stories. Sponsored stories are much better way to monetize content, especially for journalism industry. However, the issue is publishers should control what type of 'ads' should go live since they know their audience best. Editors should be in control of these type of ads rather than sales people. "Content Marketing" is relatively new in digital realm and I hope these type of mishaps will be avoided as industry matures.
- tnorthcutt 14y agostartup that helps publishers to create these types of sponsored stories. What does that mean, in practice? Are publishers not capable of running an article by themselves and adding a "Sponsored Content" banner/notice at the top?
- dm8 14y agoIt's not that simple. There are lot of pieces. Feel free to send me an email (in my profile page). I don't want to sidetrack current topic.
- illuminate 14y agoThey apparently don't do it convincingly enough.
- contingencies 14y agoWhat you are doing is basically deriving monetary benefit from the considered act of deliberately manipulating people's views on behalf of corporate interests. That is not only morally wrong, but it is disgusting that you attempt to justify it as completely normal and right through allusion to 'monetization'. (Telling example - monetization of hatred: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf)
- dm8 14y ago> What you are doing is basically deriving monetary benefit from the considered act of deliberately manipulating people's views on behalf of corporate interests. No way. Even we are users too. We have family members who are not as tech savvy as us. We are not doing anything deliberately. In fact, if we are deceiving users then it won't be advertising. We are equally concerned of maintaining sanctity of advertising. We (as a startup) don't work with news websites. But we strongly believe ads should be clearly marked as "advertising". Even people were concerned about Google's sponsored results (adwords). But it worked fine. Mark Suster wrote excellent blogpost on this topic - http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/22/the-case-for-in-stream-advertising/ http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/22/the-case-for-i...
- mbubb 14y agoWow - did not know it had come to this. OT but I felt like Frontline 'softballed' the piece on Michelle Rhee the other day. Not that I disagreed with the piece just left feeling that I did not get a critique - which is what I am used to from them.
- tnorthcutt 14y agoI've asked PG to ban/delete links to theatlantic.com: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5058360 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5058360
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoI think this is just way overreaction. I'm not happy about it and think the Atlantic should revise their policies but I don't think we should ban all links because of this. It's basically just an advertisement that has been allowed to parade itself as an article; nevertheless it does not take very long to realize it is a sponsored article.
- neumann_alfred 14y agoIt's basically just an advertisement that has been allowed to parade itself as an article Yeah, and since the advertisement is for Scientology, punishment needs to be swift, precise und merciless. You can call a lot of things "just an ad", including NSDAP propaganda.
- Pitarou 14y agoWrite to them and tell them what you think! Here's what I said: ------------- Sir, The Church of Scientology has a well documented history of deceit, manipulation, and ruined lives. The best way to limit the harm they cause is by discrediting them. I was, therefore, extremely disappointed to see that you have lent them some of your credibility. The "Sponsored" tag at the beginning of the article wasn't nearly prominent enough. In future, I hope you will take more care in your dealings with cults and quasi-religious organizations.
- russell 14y agoNewspapers have done this for a long time, but at least they usually put a prominent headline "Advertizing" at the top of the ad.
- mrtron 14y agoStrange they didn't celebrate their Toronto location. https://plus.google.com/117604621668852819090/photos?hl=en https://plus.google.com/117604621668852819090/photos?hl=en I hope this correlates with Canadians not giving them money :)
- appleflaxen 14y agoAaaand they've closed the comments.
- microtherion 14y agoTL;DR: We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We have forged our spirits in the tradition of our ancestors. David Miscavige has our gratitude.
- ajaymehta 14y agoI haven't read all these comments, but this could not be a big deal at all. We had a "sponsored" story written about FamilyLeaf for The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/bank-of-america/archive/2012/11/your-familys-private-social-network/264901 http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/bank-of-america/archive... I'm pretty sure the author was just a freelance writer that BofA was sponsoring to write about startups, and we didn't pay a cent or do anything weird to get the piece.
- sandofsky 14y agoThe most interesting part of the story, to me, is that none of the links have rel="nofollow." I wonder how much of this is motivated by SEO.
- joshschreuder 14y agoI would think it's pretty common that news sites don't nofollow links (indeed, a quick scan of some other Atlantic pages says they don't). If they don't do it normally, why would they do it especially if the point is to advertise Scientology?
- sandofsky 14y agoWithout nofollow, the Atlantic is effectively telling Google that the links in this paid advertisement are as authoritative as their organic links by objective journalists. Deliberate or not, I think it conflicts with Google's feelings about paid link placement.
- marshray 14y agoI liked the part where it said: Under ecclesiastical leader David Miscavige, the Scientology religion expanded more in 2012 than in any 12 months of its 60-year history. EDIT: before downvoting...read it again. :-)
- javert 14y agoThe Atlantic has had a consistent subjectivist and egalitarian-nihilist bias, to the point that I don't read them unless I want to debate and argue and grind my teeth. So, this isn't as far out of character as everyone else seems to think. I don't understand the connection between Scientology and the other stuff I mentioned, but even before this, it could not be said that this publication had integrity or practiced honesty.
- flexxaeon 14y agoInteresting.... in the last minute I (coincidentally) watched as they pulled down the page and replaced it with: We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads
- minimaxir 14y agoThe post has been removed: We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads. "Subsequent comment threads"? You don't say.
- transitionality 14y agoThey're most likely talking about the article's own comment thread, as opposed to discussion across the web.
- dbcooper 14y agoArticle has been pulled and replaced with the following: "We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads."
- bmunro 14y agoThey have removed the article: "We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads."
- malbiniak 14y agoWhile unfortunate they ran the ad in the first place, it's worth noting that it was pulled down within 3 hours.
- timinman 14y agoThis demonstrates that journalism's money problem is not linked to the rise of the Internet, but to credibility.
- nod 14y agoThe story has been replaced with: "We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads." There you go, one demonstrable example where complaining on the internet actually had an impact.
- jpatokal 14y agoMeanwhile, some sponsored content from Boing Boing: http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/dread-cthulhu-leads-his-cult-t.html http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/dread-cthulhu-leads-his-cul...
- louanne 14y agoAtlantic going from sponsored to censored. I sure hope it was some kind of night mod that did that. http://www.scribd.com/doc/120420141/The-Atlantic-14-January-2013-David-Miscavige-Leads-Scientology-to-Milestone-Year http://www.scribd.com/doc/120420141/The-Atlantic-14-January-...
- fortunatefein 14y agoHas anyone seen the Goldman Sachs content? Pretty sad stuff there, as well.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- contingencies 14y agoRetraction: http://imgur.com/5yVvT http://imgur.com/5yVvT "Statement from The Atlantic Regarding an advertisement from the Church of Scientology that appeared on TheAtlantic.com on January 14: We screwed up. It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It's safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we're working very hard to put things right."