Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 261 posts

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#141

Post by dinkumthinkum »

phaus wrote: post #129
brown9-2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, Hubbard flat out said that he should invent a religion in order to get rich long before he wrote Dianetics, so that tells you something about the typical scientology candidate's capacity for deductive reasoning.

The Church denies that though. Actually, the story surrounding that quote is a little murky but I'm sure it's true. I believe James Randi claims to have heard it. Anyway, followers of Scientology have a lot of other crazy stuff about Hubbard to make them weary of it, yet they persist.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#142

Post by wamatt »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #127
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #95

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…

The other problem with this sort of story is that the sponsors can validate themselves by referencing the major publication in which they have been "featured."

This does appear to be a disturbing trend.

I recall reading articles in the NYT derived from Quora answers.

While it may in the short-term produce increased traffic, it may become harder to maintain quality, as minimally vetted 3rd party contributions grow in number. It makes one wonder, what that effect that will have longterm?

It's also interesting that users on syndicated sites containing user generated content, will now be able to claim they have "written for the New York Times".

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#143

Post by tnorthcutt »

dm8 wrote: post #134

Disclaimer: 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?

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#144

Post by contingencies »

dm8 wrote: post #134

Disclaimer: 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…

What 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)

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#145

Post by [deleted] »

marshray wrote: post #138
[deleted] wrote: post #109

[deleted]

Though 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]

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#146

Post by smacktoward »

smoyer wrote: post #57
coloneltcb wrote: post #4

UPDATE: 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?

His comment is now gone ... it was by far the most up-voted and I'm a bit shocked that Disqus is in collusion with The Atlantic.

"Collusion" seems like overstating the case a little to me. I'd be more shocked if the opposite were true -- if the site publisher wanted to remove a comment, and Disqus, for whatever reason, wouldn't let them. Disqus isn't supposed to be making editorial decisions on their customers' sites; if someone wants to be an idiot and moderate out non-cheerleading comments, it's not Disqus' place to override that decision.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#147

Post by MartinCron »

brown9-2 wrote: post #73
tpowell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 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.

Maybe this is just a brilliant move by someone at The Atlantic who wanted to demonstrate how bad of an idea sponsored content can be?

I wouldn't burn down my house to demonstrate how dangerous it is to store kerosene in the garage.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#148

Post by dhughes »

newbie12 wrote: post #117
tokenadult wrote: post #104

I 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.

reddit did.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#149

Post by illuminate »

cheald wrote: post #87
batgaijin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Atlantic isn't what you think... http://shameproject.com/?s=atlantic&x=0&y=0

This site reads an awful lot like a bunch of left-wing conspiracy nutters. I don't know if it actually is or not, but that's the impression I get after scanning through it a bit. Not exactly a bastion of journalistic neutrality.

There's some anger there, but it calls out shills as it sees it. It's not a "left wing conspiracy" if those being targeted are literally being paid to sell a narrative.
Post reply on HN