
The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments - coloneltcb
http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/2013/01/david-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-/266958/
======
kevinalexbrown
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 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.

~~~
cs702
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....](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.html)
\-- which, if true, means they didn't actually need to do this!

~~~
lazugod
> The Atlantic supposedly became profitable couple of years ago

Things change fast.

~~~
robotresearcher
Things change quickly.

[This message from the Adverb Defence League]

~~~
cead_ite
“Fast” has been used as an adverb since at least Old English…

<http://i.imgur.com/GuFFX.png>

~~~
robotresearcher
Things have changed, gradually.

------
paul_milovanov
Please consider writing a letter to the Editor (at this url:
<http://www.theatlantic.com/contact/>). Here's what I wrote:

Hello,

I've been very disappointed by Atlantic's decision to run the Scientology
promo article under sponsored content
([http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/201...](http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/2013/01/david-
miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-/266958/)).

Despite the small label on top saying "Sponsored content" and a banner at the
very bottom, which needs to be scrolled down to to be seen, I didn't feel that
it had been immediately obvious that the content had been paid for and had not
met the exacting standards of the Atlantic's editorial team. In fact, I had
only realized that it was sponsored content once I scrolled down to the banner
"sponsored by the Church of Scientology" at the very bottom.

I am afraid that continued publication of such sponsored content, especially
in a subtly deceptive way like this, will invariably end up cheapening
Atlantic's brand and marring your journalistic reputation. While I understand
that running a magazine in the internet era is hard and subscriber revenue
constitutes a smaller part of the total, I feel that the fact that this
content is paid-for had absolutely not been made explicit enough and, as a
subscriber, I feel that such blatant hijacking of Atlantic's identity betrays
the trust of your readers and violates your journalistic duty to inform and
enlighten.

Best regards,

Paul Milovanov

~~~
contingencies
A friend of mine just became an associate editor at the Atlantic. He's a good
guy, rational and open minded, I sent him this URL and the story URL. I'll be
interested to see what he comes back with on the issue privately.

~~~
zx80
You know, it's entirely possible for something like that to have happened as a
result of a poorly thought out advertising initiative without any ill intent
on the part of the overwhelming majority of employees of Atlantic. While the
editorial office and the executives of Atlantic should really know better than
this, I'm not necessarily willing to jump to conclusions based on this single
incident, which, moreover, appears to have caused them to reconsider their
sponsored content policies.

I do like the idea of assuming incompetence (or negligence) before malice,
and, well, clearly someone hasn't done their job to allow this to happen, but
that's probably the extent of what happened.

~~~
wnight
Why does everyone jump out of the woodwork to say this? Even if this was an
accident, which I doubt, it's still gross incompetency. This wasn't caught
inside the institution. Who knows what other complete lies they'll publish
next?

This is an accident like photoshopping images. And worse, they let the
criminals / cultists moderate the comments. This further hurts subscribers who
would use the forums to discuss the validity of the content.

The scientology organization has killed those they disagreed with in recent
history and church doctrine still specifically allows a number of horrible
actions, many ultimately fatal. They're a terrorist organization.

Subscribers should be looking into legal options. They literally paid for
spam, from a hate group.

------
tokenadult
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, and tell them why I no longer
recommend their publication. I will read The Atlantic from time to time based
on recommendations from other readers I trust, but I will not put my own trust
on the line to support their business anymore.

AFTER EDIT: For those of you who need to detox after seeing a Scientology puff
piece on the Atlantic website, I recommend the Village Voice website, which
has an extensive set of articles

<http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/scientology/>

in a humorous but fact-checked manner on the inside story of Scientology.

~~~
newbie12
HN should consider banning links to the Atlantic for a year.

~~~
brown9-2
Because they took questionable advertising from an organization we don't like?
That's a bit much.

~~~
voltagex_
I'd go further. They're a dangerous, internet-hating cult.

~~~
illuminate
And a literal terrorist organization.

------
swang
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-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/06/13/reddit-
bans-the-atlantic-businessweek-in-anti-spam-crusade/) makes me pretty weary of
trusting anything I read on TheAtlantic ever again

~~~
sentiental
I fear what will happen when the market for pure misinformation is fully
realized. When it can be delivered as seamlessly as the real thing, the
opportunity for profit is massive. The Atlantic is an example of media
engineering for profit that fails to trick us -- but it is much closer than
sponsored content has been in the past and certainly more effective at getting
me to consume it than a regular ad.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but one thing the future holds for us is more of
this. Except it will take place in scientific literature, respected
publications, maybe in our own homes and (purposefully or not) by the people
we know and trust. We'll need a factcheck.org for regular news.

"Sponsor post" is probably as good as we will ever get from The Atlantic.

~~~
westicle
For a (hopefully) fictional example of how this could already be happening
without our knowledge, check out the film "The Joneses". Pretty entertaining
film too.

~~~
hipsters_unite
I don't know. Although we are talking tail end of the 90s, there's passing
reference in No Logo/The Shock Doctrine (forget which, but think the former)
by Naomi Klein to lifestyle marketers that would follow a couple of people in
their target demo around without their knowledge.

------
thejosh
>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.

~~~
thattallguy
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 trust on a short term gain is it?

~~~
mindslight
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.

~~~
ChrisClark
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.

~~~
GauntletWizard
But, much like Kris Kringle recommending Woolworths to Macy's customers in
"Miracle on 34th Street", getting you the item you want elsewhere doesn't lose
Sears a customer - It makes certain they'll check Sears first in the future.

------
coloneltcb
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?

~~~
jacalata
if you go watch the 'upvote' count on his comment, it is flickering rapidly,
up two, down one, up one, down two - fascinating.

~~~
Blahah
Now his comment seems to have gone...

~~~
illuminate
Hrm, I'll be fascinated to know whether there's a COS employee of the Atlantic
or whether they give moderator accounts to their advertisers, HuffPo-style.

------
citricsquid

        The Atlantic editorial team is not involved in the creation of this content.
    

I imagine the editorial team are currently drinking a shit ton of whiskey
praying that nobody associates them with this.

~~~
smoyer
Haha ... I think you're probably correct, but I'll bet the writers who show up
in the sidebar on the right need something a little stronger.

~~~
anthonyb
They're just people who've written articles for the site, not that specific
article.

------
BklynJay
The scariest part - from the article, elected government officials lend
credibility:

The Church of Scientology opened its new National Affairs Office in
Washington, D.C., in a ceremony led by David Miscavige. Joining him in this
dedication were Members of U.S. Congress Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Sheila
Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Danny Davis (D-IL); as well as Liz Gibson, Senior
Program Manager, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

~~~
saryant
I can't speak to the others but I live just outside Jackson-Lee's district.
That woman is certifiably insane with or without appearing at a Scientology
event. She thinks Neil Armstrong went to Mars and that Venezuela is a friendly
nation.

She'll do anything to get on camera—I doubt she can even _spell_
"Scientology."

------
shrikant
Oh 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...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/cnns-
effusive-coverage-of-kazakhstan-is-quietly-sponsored-by-its-subject/260149/)

 _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.

~~~
ohjeez
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.

~~~
marshray
So white supremacists or the Taliban (or even... Wikileaks!) could buy
placement in _The Atlantic_ and the paper's owners would have no problem with
that?

------
brown9-2
There is going to be a lesson here over the next few days about how some
advertising decisions can ruin a brand.

~~~
tpowell
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.

~~~
brown9-2
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?

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

~~~
cskau
But would you burn down your office?

------
rdl
This doesn't seem worth the brand damage it causes.

I actually love the Economist "special advertising sections" about countries
("Mongolia: Open for Business", etc.). Those are clearly identified and also
not damaging. Maybe Mongolia isn't worthy of 16-32 pages in the Economist on
its own, but the content they do publish about it tends to be at least
somewhat legitimate. Not sure if that's even possible to do about Scientology.

~~~
contingencies
I read a whole issue like that on Libya on a trans-Atlantic (no pun intended)
flight for a Christmas party in London. Couldn't decide where to go for the
break, so figured I'd hit Libya, but it was too opaque trying to sort out how
to acquire a visa, so I went to Tunisia instead. Then the revolution and the
whole Arab Spring kicked off, hah!

~~~
rdl
I almost went to North Africa and the Middle East in September, 2001, just
because it would have been a fun and obscure trip (probably would have skipped
Libya, but Tunisia/etc. for classical reasons).

~~~
lmm
A friend of mine went six weeks after it all kicked off, said he really
enjoyed it and never felt in danger.

~~~
rdl
Yeah, I knew people who were in Saudi during it. I would have felt safer as an
American in most of those countries than as an Arab in the US, immediately
post-9/11. I think there was a news article about some westerners in Yemen
post-9/11; the people they were with were quite kind.

It still would have sucked for travel, and would have been pretty scary.

------
rrrhys
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 be helped. People need
to know that illegal drugs are not worth it and that we should fight for each
and every individual's human rights.

adamcroft croft posted a comment in Is Scientology Trying to Take Over Self-
Publishing? · a year ago I've read about this facility, and it's quite
impressive. Technology in the 21st century progresses so rapidly that it's
mind boggling. Not only do we have the power to virtually publish infinitely,
even print publishing has gone to a whole new different level. Having worked
in the publishing industry, I certainly realize what a big deal this is.

adamcroft croft posted a comment in Facing Difficulties in Life? Scientology
Has an iPad App For That · a year ago Thanks Portia for providing the
information.

adamcroft croft posted a comment in Facing Difficulties in Life? Scientology
Has an iPad App For That · a year ago The app actually looks pretty promising.
It's free, and seems to be more useful than the books I find on the self-help
section in the bookstore. I've always been curious about Scientology, and this
is an easy way to find out more about it.

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

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

Scientology is like a religious 419 scam, they target the sort of idiots who
wouldn't check this and take the endorsement from random internet persons at
their word, not guessing that the comments were coming from COS HQ.

------
jerrya
Here is a similar piece of content, from GE, makers of nuclear weapons and
microwave ovens and former owners of NBC (now Kabletown)

[http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/ideas-roundtable-
workin...](http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/ideas-roundtable-
working/archive/2012/08/improving-the-nations-health-with-more-efficient-
healthcare/260194/)

~~~
cheald
Yeah, but here's literally what you see as soon as you open that story (with
adblock off):

<http://cl.ly/image/0W1d2f3P0L25>

That's pretty darn clear that it's a sponsored piece of content.

~~~
csours
Large parts of it even use GE's font, making it even more clear.

------
nod
The story has been replaced with: "We have temporarily suspended this
advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor
content and subsequent comment threads."

There you go, one demonstrable example where complaining on the internet
actually had an impact.

------
riffraff
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.

~~~
ohjeez
In newspapers and magazines, sponsored content is very clearly labeled (which
arguably this is) and made to look _different_. For example, most magazines
require advertorial to be in a different typeface and font size, so that
readers have a sense that it's somehow "different." The difficulty here is
that, unlike a magazine in which you're flipping pages, you probably only saw
_this_ page and thus have no sense about whether it "looks different."

~~~
tedunangst
Then again, the only reason I saw this page is because we decided it needs to
be on the top of HN. It's like the bizarro Streisand effect.

~~~
alecdbrooks
There is a Streisand effect-like phenomenon when notorious publicity-seekers
become famous due to widespread criticism. The attention, negative or not, is
exactly what they want. The biggest example is probably the Westboro Baptist
Church.

------
mikedmiked
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"

~~~
anthonyb
The other interesting thing is that it seems to have -1 downvotes. Hax? Or a
javascript bug?

~~~
ohjeez
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.

~~~
Steko
Looks like the comment moderator went on break.

------
scottshea
Harriet 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.

------
homosaur
This is disgusting and unethical. I didn't notice the "sponsor content" bar at
the top and had to go all the way to the bottom to see the disclaimer.

------
pavel_lishin
Someone ought to write an adblock-like extension that incorporates jwz's HERP
DERP filter to arbitrary URLs, starting with
<http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/*>

------
dmschulman
How 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.

------
mherdeg
There is a lesson to be learned here about using third-party vendors in
sensitive parts of your business.

IF you're a news outlet and you're going to let people publish "sponsored
stories" and promise them the ability to moderate comments, AND you use a
third-party add-on from a comments vendor, THEN you should not be surprised
when an employee of that third-party company is allowed to leave whatever
comments they like — no matter what your agreement with your client says.

Of course, I'm not sure that if you're a news outlet it's a good idea to let
people publish sponsored quasi-news content. Newspapers have been pushing the
envelope on this in the last couple of decades — remember in 1999 the LA Times
upset their own staff's sense of balance when they printed a 168-page
supplement on the Staples Center and split ad revenue 50/50 with the Center
([http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-
dec99/la_times_12-...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-
dec99/la_times_12-16.html)).

But if you're gonna do this, you've really got to do it right!

------
veidr
Looks 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...)

~~~
asdfaoeu
> We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of
> our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.

looks like you're right

~~~
veidr
You can still see the meat of the article via skeletonjelly's google cache
link, but I gather the fun was in the comments. The 'article' reads like a
typical cult/church promotional flyer...

------
gnu8
I love how they captured the confetti in mid-air in each and every photograph.
There's nothing scientology does that isn't choreographed and there's nothing
scientology does that isn't bullshit.

------
jerrya
I keep looking to see the April Fools disclaimer or any indication this is a
joke, but I am not seeing it.

Perhaps I am a victim of Poe's law.

------
strandbergio
Yeah, but read the content of what is actually up on the site. It's patently
transparent bullshit. "All we do is open buildings! Everything is wonderful in
out world! Banner year!" It makes the church look even MORE cultish. The
motives are obvious: they're getting hit thanks to the new Lawrence Wright
book, so they respond with this utterly idiotic pap. It's amazing that to me
that they think ANYONE would actually buy this as a real article. I imagine
the Atlantic thought the same. They're providing the noose for Scientology to
hang itself. It's not journalism, per say, but there is a truth revealed by
this article that is WAY beyond what the church wanted and The Atlantic
provided the forum.

~~~
illuminate
Then why are they deleting any negative comments? If they're trying to
distance themselves from the North Korea-level bullshit they're publishing for
cash, the best way to strike back would be to allow users to respond without
being silenced in the name of their advertisers.

------
brownbat
This is why I'm sad that Google's Sidewiki failed.

You can have free and robust comments moderated by the author or publisher, it
works _most of the time._

But why not just carry our commenting services with us, independent of
content?

(Or is that basically what we're doing now?)

------
Steko
In next year's recap they can talk about the big recruiting breakthroughs they
made by writing enormous checks to struggling media outfits which allowed them
to trick readers into thinking puff pieces were real content.

------
smoyer
Wow ... 12 new buildings!

It must really pay to start a religion and I guess in addition to emptying my
congregant's pockets, there are some nice tax breaks for both the 503c and the
reverends.

Can I interest anyone in an investment? I'll start the church of fleeciology
and will take the first 12 people to wire one meeeeellion dollars into my
Cayman Islands account as my board of trustees. Your share of the earnings
will be 6%.

Our chuches won't have steeples, but there are plenty of sheeples that we can
turn into paupers. There's no end to what a charismatic speaker can earn in
today's market, so be the first to sign up now!

------
coloneltcb
A sample of moderator approved comments:

Seems like David Miscavige and Scientology are on a roll. Also it appears the
media have been missing the real story.

I hadn't realized there were so many new churches opened this past year. Great
report!

~~~
ryguytilidie
Finally the true story of scientology is being told!

~~~
neumann_alfred
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's time to reach for the
scalpel.

~~~
pekk
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.

~~~
sk5t
Haven't you noticed the relentless pounding the Catholic church has been
taking for years and years now? Or listen to Penn Jillette's or Louis CK's
remarks on Mormonism, or a great deal of George Carlin's material... many
religions prey on the powerless, but we are offended by the efficiency with
which Scientology drains its' adherents bank accounts and their will.

~~~
TillE
There's also no shortage of criticism for Islamic fundamentalism / Sharia law.

People generally don't have much patience for rhetoric that calls all
religious belief evil, but specific accurate criticism usually has a place in
public discourse.

------
SG-
I'm not quite sure if it's 'sellout' or if it's just the church having key
people at The Atlantic to make this happen, sort of like how the church had
infiltrated key government organizations around the world.

------
contingencies
Retraction: <http://imgur.com/5yVvT>

"Statement from The Atlantic

Regarding an advertisement from the Church of Scientology that appeared on
TheAtlantic.com on January 14:

We screwed up. It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but
it has — to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We
now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to
update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It's
safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running
this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw
the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and
enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but
acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we're
working very hard to put things right."

------
fchollet
The comments are quite amusing. The "church" is apparently sending its minions
en masse to post mindless applaud.

------
peripetylabs
This practice is probably not limited to The Atlantic. Reportedly CNN has
published content that was "sponsored" by autocratic governments:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-
busi...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-
state-sponsored-news)

------
mattyohe
Good to see Jeffrey Goldberg biting the hand that feeds him:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonder...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonderful-
new-book-about-scientology-by-a-wonderful-writer/267178/)

------
flexxaeon
Interesting.... in the last minute I (coincidentally) watched as they pulled
down the page and replaced it with:

 _We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of
our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads_

------
Yver
And if a pro-Scientology adverticle wasn't enough, every page has at the top
"A Wonderful New Book About Scientology, By a Wonderful WriterJeffrey
Goldberg". I'm sure this other article is totally not related to the sponsored
content.

~~~
shrivats
This appears to be a sarcastic response by Goldberg to the presence of the
advertorial. The book he's talking about is quite critical of Scientology.

------
minimaxir
The post has been removed: _We have temporarily suspended this advertising
campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and
subsequent comment threads._

"Subsequent comment threads"? You don't say.

~~~
transitionality
They're most likely talking about the article's own comment thread, as opposed
to discussion across the web.

------
merraksh
The side bar shows a link to an article by Jeffrey Goldberg, "A Wonderful New
Book About Scientology, By a Wonderful Writer", about a book by L. Wright. Not
sure if this goes with or against the post, as the Amazon description of the
book seems rather positively inclined toward Scientology. I haven't read the
book though.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonder...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/a-wonderful-
new-book-about-scientology-by-a-wonderful-writer/267178/)

------
ghshephard
Bizarrely, it isn't even written very well. It's basically:

 _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.

~~~
marshray
Don't underestimate their marketing skills. They know exactly what they want
out of their piece on _The Atlantic_.

------
dm8
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 in digital realm and I hope these type of mishaps will be
avoided as industry matures.

~~~
tnorthcutt
_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?

~~~
dm8
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.

------
ajaymehta
I haven't read all these comments, but this could not be a big deal at all.

We had a "sponsored" story written about FamilyLeaf for The Atlantic:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/bank-of-
america/archive...](http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/bank-of-
america/archive/2012/11/your-familys-private-social-network/264901)

I'm pretty sure the author was just a freelance writer that BofA was
sponsoring to write about startups, and we didn't pay a cent or do anything
weird to get the piece.

------
mcantelon
CNN does this too.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-
busi...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-
state-sponsored-news)

------
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.

------
javert
The Atlantic has had a consistent subjectivist and egalitarian-nihilist bias,
to the point that I don't read them unless I want to debate and argue and
grind my teeth.

So, this isn't as far out of character as everyone else seems to think.

I don't understand the connection between Scientology and the other stuff I
mentioned, but even before this, it could not be said that this publication
had integrity or practiced honesty.

------
sandofsky
The most interesting part of the story, to me, is that none of the links have
rel="nofollow." I wonder how much of this is motivated by SEO.

~~~
joshschreuder
I would think it's pretty common that news sites don't nofollow links (indeed,
a quick scan of some other Atlantic pages says they don't).

If they don't do it normally, why would they do it especially if the point is
to advertise Scientology?

~~~
sandofsky
Without nofollow, the Atlantic is effectively telling Google that the links in
this paid advertisement are as authoritative as their organic links by
objective journalists.

Deliberate or not, I think it conflicts with Google's feelings about paid link
placement.

------
socalnate1
This was enough to get me to cancel my print subscription, which is really the
best way to show my disgust over this.

------
louanne
Atlantic going from sponsored to censored. I sure hope it was some kind of
night mod that did that. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/120420141/The-
Atlantic-14-January-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/120420141/The-
Atlantic-14-January-2013-David-Miscavige-Leads-Scientology-to-Milestone-Year)

------
aj700
Does this mean that The Atlantic is not a CIA front, or does it mean that it
is? Semi-in-jest.

------
mbubb
Wow - did not know it had come to this.

OT but I felt like Frontline 'softballed' the piece on Michelle Rhee the other
day. Not that I disagreed with the piece just left feeling that I did not get
a critique - which is what I am used to from them.

------
mrtron
Strange they didn't celebrate their Toronto location.

<https://plus.google.com/117604621668852819090/photos?hl=en>

I hope this correlates with Canadians not giving them money :)

------
jpatokal
Meanwhile, some sponsored content from Boing Boing:

[http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/dread-cthulhu-leads-his-
cul...](http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/dread-cthulhu-leads-his-cult-t.html)

------
p3nt3ll3r
VERY poor choice. You would have to blind, deaf, and in coma to know this
would not cause some type of backlash. I too enjoyed their content -
unfortunately now have to reconsider before reading.

------
dbcooper
Article has been pulled and replaced with the following:

"We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of
our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads."

------
csours
It looks like a Disney religion, really. Look at the balloons at the Tel Aviv
opening. Look at the cute bow they have on each of the churches! I wonder if
they have rides...

~~~
illuminate
The "super power" orgs have beautiful shells but rotten, partially constructed
or otherwise unoccupied interiors.

------
tnorthcutt
I've asked PG to ban/delete links to theatlantic.com:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5058360>

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I think this is just way overreaction. I'm not happy about it and think the
Atlantic should revise their policies but I don't think we should ban all
links because of this. It's basically just an advertisement that has been
allowed to parade itself as an article; nevertheless it does not take very
long to realize it is a sponsored article.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_It's basically just an advertisement that has been allowed to parade itself
as an article_

Yeah, and since the advertisement is for Scientology, punishment needs to be
swift, precise und merciless. You can call a lot of things "just an ad",
including NSDAP propaganda.

------
microtherion
TL;DR: We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We have
forged our spirits in the tradition of our ancestors. David Miscavige has our
gratitude.

------
bmunro
They have removed the article:

"We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of
our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads."

------
homosaur
By 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.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
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.

------
randall
Talk about sell out.

------
arjn
Funny how the pictures all look and feel so similar.

------
russell
Newspapers have done this for a long time, but at least they usually put a
prominent headline "Advertizing" at the top of the ad.

------
aj700
Contra the best article they ever ran... what's next? Why diamonds actually
are scarce and valuable, sponsored by deBeers. ??!!

~~~
illuminate
Amusing considering that one of their greatest articles (to my recollection)
was [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-
you...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-
tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/)

------
kerno
Where's the line with "sponsored content"? Does anyone have some examples of
where it has been done well? Can it be done well?

~~~
samsolomon
Often Mashable has How To articles that are sponsored, but the content is
generally neutral.

------
timinman
This demonstrates that journalism's money problem is not linked to the rise of
the Internet, but to credibility.

------
malbiniak
While unfortunate they ran the ad in the first place, it's worth noting that
it was pulled down within 3 hours.

------
appleflaxen
Aaaand they've closed the comments.

------
fortunatefein
Has anyone seen the Goldman Sachs content? Pretty sad stuff there, as well.

------
bmmayer1
This is disgusting.

------
marshray
I liked the part where it said:

 _Under ecclesiastical leader David Miscavige, the Scientology religion
expanded more in 2012 than in any 12 months of its 60-year history._

EDIT: before downvoting...read it again. :-)

------
leoh
Very unethical and unprofessional of The Atlantic

------
3327
wasn't The Atlantic a reputable magazine?

~~~
thoughtsimple
Apparently not. Sad.

~~~
atarighat
Disappointing...

------
derleth
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.

~~~
DanBC2
> 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>)

~~~
btilly
That one frustrated me. I was teaching a class and told everyone about that
service as a way to send me anonymous feedback.

Then someone tried, and found that the service had been shut down. :-(

