Where's the line with "sponsored content"? Does anyone have some examples of where it has been done well? Can it be done well?
Often Mashable has How To articles that are sponsored, but the content is generally neutral.
The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
91–100 of 261 posts
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#92Earlier 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.
it is socially unacceptable to say such things about thugs in other religions
It is? I didn't get that memo. To me it's socially unacceptable not to. People just ought to realize that being free-thinking, and in parts actually intelligent people gives them so much more power and so much more agility. Just look at scientology, look at their messiah, look at Tom Cruise.. they aren't that bright. They're bottom-feeding, they are preying on weak and/or vulnerable people.
What gets me about Scientology is how stupid it is, how obvious, and how white middle-class. It's hard to accept it was taken seriously for a second decades ago, but that they are expanding? It's like Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor, sometimes I really really wonder what kind of planet I'm on.
Maybe the idea is to make it all so crazy and horrible that people will cling to any story? I mean, let's just assume scientology was 100% true and correct: why has nobody successfully achieved their god status yet? They're just recruiting, never arriving, besides being super selfish assholes(oh yeah, those "body thetans", deported and mass killed people.. they are causing problems, let's get "rid of them"... just wow) on that never-ending way .
And yes, you could say exactly that about many other religions as well, and certainly Christianity and Islam; but that isn't reason to criticize any individual one less, the opposite is true. I say lean into it. It can be ugly, or even scary, but I believe appeasement would have scarier results.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#93Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., John Greenleaf Whittier and James Russell Lowell all just retroactively disavowed any connection to The Atlantic.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#94The 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"
The other interesting thing is that it seems to have -1 downvotes. Hax? Or a javascript bug?
Someone is trying to delete downvotes as fast as they can, except more votes are arriving even faster. Stare at the counter for a few minutes, and you'll see the vote count go up and down.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#95Without 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 believe is true. I cannot validate every aspect of the outside world, so I trust others to do this. When they are frequently right, like Nate Silver, say, I trust them more. When they lend their brand to more bizarre groups, I trust them less, not because the sponsored link itself changes the truth of the rest of the articles, but because it signals a lack of judgment that might have a common source with many other important and difficult decisions a magazine or newspaper must make.
For instance, when I read the Economist, I feel rather confident in their facts. They have a particular fiscally conservative slant, but in general they have proven to be realistic and relevant. They might not espouse particularly novel solutions, but they lay a solid framework for further thought. As it is, The Atlantic is reasonably trusted. That's almost surely the reason Scientology would like to place a sponsored story there, in addition to, or in lieu of, more popular outlets.
In the coming transformation of journalism, institutions like The Atlantic, or newer upstarts like Svbtle, will have to consider sponsored posts and similar "brand-lending." When they do, they'll have to decide whether they want to be a trusted brand, or an interesting one.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#96Oh the irony. In July 2012, " CNN's Effusive Coverage of Kazakhstan Is Quietly Sponsored by Its Subject " - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/cnn... Edit : looks like their Twitter feed ( http://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/ ) is attempting some damage control by tweeting about a "the truth about Scientology" book. Heh.
I'm guessing that it's how the editors are fighting back. Remember, the sponsored content is managed by the sales team. Editorial has no input or control over that. Just think how those reporters feel.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#97By the way, can anyone even document the validity of this COS bullcrap? From what I understand they are either barely growing or shrinking from their peak.
Check out the Village Voice, they have a lot of coverage of this. Scientology is a blip, their propaganda would have you believe that is growing at an enormous rate but that could not be further from the truth, at least in the reality based community.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#98Earlier 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.
So they are sending customers to their competitor just because they want to make a few dollars?
Losing a customer must cost them more than the affiliate payment they get.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#99I 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.
There are "stories" to the right that are really pro-Scientology ads, but not marked as "advertisement". The whole thing feels slimy, not even considering the subject.
Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments
#100How convenient that this Tampa Bay Times article highlighting the FBI's investigation into the cult just came out yesterday:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1270036.ece
I don't think this sponsored content is a smear on The Atlantic so much so as it is a smear on the sad state of journalism as a whole and the ever increasing lengths to which news orgs will go to finance their operations these days.