181–190 of 261 posts
>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.
So The Atlantic actually created this content and some nebulous "advertisers" were mere partners?
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…
Judging by this sponsored story, it seems that the people running The Atlantic have already decided to turn this august publication into an "interesting" brand. It's a shame. 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.
Contra the best article they ever ran... what's next? Why diamonds actually are scarce and valuable, sponsored by deBeers. ??!!
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…
A friend of mine just became an associate editor at the Atlantic. He's a good guy, rational and open minded, I sent him this URL and the story URL. I'll be interested to see what he comes back with on the issue privately.
And 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.
Yeah, 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 b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finally the true story of scientology is being told!
An insidious evil, thought defeated, but quietly gathering strength.