While unfortunate they ran the ad in the first place, it's worth noting that it was pulled down within 3 hours.
The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
221–230 of 261 posts
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
> The Atlantic supposedly became profitable couple of years ago Things change fast.
Things change quickly.
[This message from the Adverb Defence League]
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#223Looks 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 (If anybody has a cache, I'm mildly curious to see it...)
It is suspended now.
> We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 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.
> 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.
Al Jazeera sounds so ~foreign~, obviously in cahoots.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#225UPDATE: 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?
interesting, could this be his Disqus employee "privileges" allowing his comment to bypass moderation and if so, how does that bode for websites using Disqus? They control the discussion unless someone at Disqus wants to talk? Although ~~from what I can tell it's a free service, so they can't do much damage by leaving.~~ nevermind, there is a disqus premium service.
how does that bode for websites using Disqus?
That was never a good idea IMHO... If you care about your readers, don't outsource comments. I cannot take websites seriously that are using Disqus (or Facebook, or other such shady, inaccountable stuff) to replace such a vital part of their online operations.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#226Disclaimer: 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…
sorry, but I agree. wholeheartedly immoral. Your doing exactly what corporations on the hill are doing to Congressman. Putting congressman in touch with corporations so that they might write our laws. Thats how I see you.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#227Disclaimer: 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…
startup 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?
They apparently don't do it convincingly enough.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#228I 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…
HN should consider banning links to the Atlantic for a year.
Better yet, reroute them through a 90's website filter such as http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/content.php?theme=3...
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#229Looks 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 (If anybody has a cache, I'm mildly curious to see it...)
It is suspended now. > We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.
"Temporarily", what absolute bootlicks they are.
Gives them the opportunity to re-up the article once the internet forgets.