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

151–160 of 261 posts

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#151

Post by illuminate »

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…

"they'll have to decide whether they want to be a trusted brand, or an interesting one."

With sponsored stories to improve the PR of totalitarian cults, they're going to end up neither.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#152

Post by Pitarou »

Write 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.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#153

Post by dsl »

mindslight wrote: post #67
thattallguy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stories 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 tru…

If you want a mindfuck, go to sears.com. Product results include, by default, items from Amazon affiliates. These dinosaurs truly have no clue what parts of their businesses could still have value.

I was trying to find a place that had 30 round magazines in stock before the looming ban, and ironically sears.com was the one retailer that had them in stock (by way of some small mom and pop affiliate).

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#154

Post by illuminate »

brown9-2 wrote: post #120
newbie12 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN should consider banning links to the Atlantic for a year.

Because they took questionable advertising from an organization we don't like? That's a bit much.

You should probably look into the organization's history in censoring the internet.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#155

Post by dm8 »

tnorthcutt wrote: post #143
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?

It'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.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#156

Post by rrrhys »

nthitz wrote: post #115
rrrhys wrote: post #114

Clicking 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…

That's surprising to you? Obvious shills are obvious.

I suppose I was more surprised to find it so easily, rather than surprised it exists.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#157

Post by illuminate »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #141
phaus wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compared to their forced labor camps and harrassment campaigns of their critics, I'd say there are definite better things to focus on than apocryphal (but certainly possible) stories that persuade no one. It may be published in several unauthorized biographies and "vouched for" by a bunch of people who may or may not have even been at the convention, but it might as well be a story overhead in a bar for all it's going to persuade the credulous, who want to believe them with every fiber of their beings.

Logic and fact is needed, not conjecture.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#158

Post by dinkumthinkum »

[deleted] wrote: post #109

[deleted]

I don't know if you want this debate. I'm sure many people are very well versed in all the nonsense that resides in the content of Scientology. No one is spreading hate; people are upset about supposedly objective news organization lending it's brand to prop up a pariah of society, namely Scientology. As well, comparing views such as those probably held by many at HN that essentially state that million year contracts with the Sea Org, the story of Xenu, the notion of thetans, or proclamations from David Miscavige that "arbitraries are cancelled" are COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS to being like racism is just hard to take seriously. If you are stuck in some kind of rut of Scientology, please try to get out.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#159

Post by [deleted] »

sk5t wrote: post #116
[deleted] wrote: post #109

[deleted]

So, 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, s…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN