41–50 of 261 posts
There is going to be a lesson here over the next few days about how some advertising decisions can ruin a brand.
An ExxonMobile/BP ad or something would draw ire, but this feels like a wholesale sellout of their credibility, not to mention sanity.
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.
Running a sponsored article for Scientology is, to me, akin to running an article about the great employment opportunities at Mexico's Zetas.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/belgium-prosecutes-...
This again? Every so often, the Church of Scientology goes up against the Internet. Every so often, the Church of Scientology gets its ass handed to it. This has been going on since 'the Internet' meant 'Usenet' for most people on the Internet. Heh. Maybe this time will be especially amusing.
> Every so often, the Church of Scientology gets its ass handed to it. They get a few wins too. ( http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html )
Then someone tried, and found that the service had been shut down. :-(
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
Yep, will never read anything from the atlantic again, just added it to my host file.
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?
if you go watch the 'upvote' count on his comment, it is flickering rapidly, up two, down one, up one, down two - fascinating.
>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.
wasn't The Atlantic a reputable magazine?
http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/ideas-roundtable-workin...
The current top comment by Matt Mullen is being upvoted at a rate of about 3 votes/second! He appears to work at discus - did he use admin powers to comment on the article? edit: "Tom Cruise • a few seconds ago I paid you for this?! Thats not nearly enough confetti"
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 building, which used to be (XXX) is located near (YYY)
The entire "Sponsored Content" feels like it was programmatically generated.
I'd expect better out of a high-school english student.