121–130 of 261 posts
http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology
(If anybody has a cache, I'm mildly curious to see it...)
Without 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 believ…
What doesn't make sense to me is that The Atlantic supposedly became profitable a couple of years ago -- see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.... -- which, if true, means they didn't actually need to do this!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 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 [2] 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'…
I 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.
I 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.
In 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…
Please consider writing a letter to the Editor (at this url: 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/201... ). Despite the small label on top saying "Sponsored content" and a banner at the very bottom, which needs to be sc…
I just saw this article on your site: 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
Without 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 believ…
Bizarrely, 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 buil…
So 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 and http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/06/13/reddit-... makes me pretty weary of trusting anything I read on TheAtlantic ever again
You have to wonder what it says about a group that they aren't afraid that their potential converts would find it weird that they need to pay for people to say how awesome they are. Edit: fixed typo
This 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…