
The Atlantic suspends the Scientology advertorial - mmastrac
http://m.theatlantic.com/misc/notice/
======
Sanddancer
This was a much more telling article than the culties would ever want to
admit. Read it. Carefully. Notice how they ever talk about buildings, and
never people. Were this legitimate growth, we'd see much more information on
the numbers, and of the people, filling these rooms. We'd see them announcing
from the rooftops the number of "clears" they've made over the past five
years. Instead, it's the same old story, of hollow husks of buildings
constructed. of Miscavige in photo after photo looking exactly the same.

The deletion of critical comments was equally telling of how desperate The
Atlantic was in making sure the church got their squeaky image. From the story
being told, giving the sales department editorial control over these comments
is just wrong headed and asinine. Which leads to the scarier question --
exactly how high up the chain was this decision made? Forcing community
content moderators to eschew their standards in order to make a few bucks
makes me question any desire to read the Atlantic in the future, regardless of
if they pulled the content or not.

~~~
temphn
What is bizarre is this: how are they getting the money to build all these
huge, fancy buildings and hold these kinds of ceremonies? This must be
hundreds of millions of dollars. And they aren't all in podunk towns; one was
even in Israel.

Are they that good at wringing money out of people? Wow.

~~~
corporalagumbo
I'm pretty sure the whole "religion" is designed as a machine to extract the
maximum possible amount of money from psychologically vulnerable people.
Basically it's like an RPG - you level up slowly, paying gradually more as you
move up the stages. The level of craziness starts off low then climbs in step
as you effectively prove at each step that you are credulous enough to swallow
the next stage up. So they don't tell you about the alien spirits reborn in
volcanoes until they are well and truly sure you will fall for it (and the
accompanying multi-thousand dollar tomes of gold-lettered L. Ron Hubbard-
penned secret ultimate final truth (oops - ultimate until the next stage!))
And there are all sorts of ways in which doing the right thing and supporting
your new friends involves parting with lots of money - for doing so of course
you are congratulated and told you are wonderful by your new best friends.

~~~
ceejayoz
> I'm pretty sure the whole "religion" is designed as a machine to extract the
> maximum possible amount of money from psychologically vulnerable people.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money)

~~~
jwdunne
I know the BBC have had some bad press lately with the child sex abuse
scandal, making them not-so-angelic, but I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe
the BBC would organise a protest anywhere. It'd probably illegal for them to
do do, but I'm not 100% on that.

The BBC is funded by us, UK residents, and if we own a television that allows
us to watch TV as its aired then we are forced to pay a fee by law. I would
find it a total misappropriation of funds if they were to organise any kind of
protest and I would insulted if they were to assume my allegiance like that -
I'm sure MANY would feel the same.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support Scientology and I think they're a very
shady organisation but I pay the BBC for television, not to organise protests.

~~~
ceejayoz
... what are you responding to?

I linked to the part where multiple people report Hubbard said religion is a
good way to make money. The only mention of the BBC and protests is
Scientology making wild claims about the BBC.

~~~
jwdunne
Apologies, I forgot to mention that's what I was referring to.

I'm using my phone and it doesn't play ball with URI fragments and Wikipedia.
I must have clicked your link to read, was thrown to the beginning and caught
the stuff about the BBC. I felt compelled to comment about it because of how
ridiculous it is.

Everything about scientology to me is ridiculous really. From the founder's
intentions and previous occupation as a sci-fi writer to the fact people are
prepared to go militant over it.

------
sk5t
The really confounding thing here was the shaping/censoring on the comments...
Want to post something that looks like an article with a comment area to boot?
A responsible publication must then at least allow a healthy discourse, so
that readers who don't spot the advertisement can find a little enlightenment.
Alternately they may have, in good conscience, permitted no user feedback at
all; put "Comments on sponsored content are unavailable" at the bottom. Good
enough.

The illusion of an article plus a sham of heavily censored comments went
beyond the pale.

~~~
corporalagumbo
The guys from Scientology's PR department requested moderated comments with (I
suppose) overtly negative comments removed. As they were paying for the
content to be run, they were free to request any terms and conditions that
they desired. The Atlantic was free to accept or refuse the terms and
conditions and in this instance chose to accept them.

For what it's worth I found it interesting to hear comments from people outing
themselves as enthusiastic Scientologists. First time I've come across that on
the web.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _I found it interesting to hear comments from people outing themselves as
> enthusiastic Scientologists._

I didn't read any of the comments; were they actual people you'd heard of
before, or random scientologists for whom the association was already
moderately public, or total sock puppets?

~~~
corporalagumbo
The second.

------
joeguilmette
I guess everyone can stop hyperventilating.

I subscribe to The Atlantic's Kindle version for (a shockingly cheap) $3 a
month. Maybe it's $2? I don't know. I have also subscribed to The New Yorker
but always had trouble finishing an issue. Most of the material just didn't
resonate with me.

The Atlantic, however, is everything I could want in a rag. I love it, and I'm
happy to see them suspend this piece of ill-thought out advertising...

~~~
fusiongyro
I have never finished an issue of the New Yorker before another issue comes
out, but the two or three articles I do read tend to be amazing. It's
definitely worth the steep price of admission.

I subscribed to the Atlantic recently (and won't be canceling, since they
retracted the Scientology ad) and have to say that I get as much or more from
their web articles as I do the print edition. I guess there's less guilt now
though.

~~~
greenyoda
They haven't quite retracted it yet: " _We have temporarily suspended this
advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor
content and subsequent comment threads._ "

~~~
swdunlop
That's probably because they are still trying to figure out if Scientology can
sue them for breach of contract. Org lawyers are less stable than old
dynamite.

------
jerrya
I don't understand the "sponsored" content gambit, but I do recall reading
various print magazines that had bundled content inside of them that looked
very much like "real" articles but were basically sponsored ads. But I don't
understand it. I would think that any ad that looks like your material
fundamentally is misleading your readers by conflating your brand, your
mission, your reputation with its own.

So I don't understand sponsored content, and I certainly don't understand
making it look like regular, non-sponsored content.

Going further, the notion of allowing moderated and only favorable comments on
your sponsored content is even more deceptive. Hey, but maybe not. Maybe more
deceptive would be having the sponsored content that looks like your own
material and then allowing all comments which might give even more credence to
the mistaken impression the sponsored content is not sponsored.

So whatever, if the Atlantic wants to flush its reputation down, and that of
James Fallows and so many other writers, hey, free country, free speech, there
really is nothing to complain about.

So in that sense, what I find more dubious is this. The Atlantic taking
sponsored content from GE, but refusing to take sponsored content from
Scientology.

In what real, legal, sense, provable by things on the book, is Scientology
different from GE that makes it okay for The Atlantic to take money from GE
and not Scientology?

The FBI is conducting its first investigation into Scientology in 30 years,
but apart from stories, in a sense doesn't that confirm Scientology basically
runs as a legal business? And in the sense the US Government seems to
recognize Scientology as a religion, why is it okay for The Atlantic to refuse
content from Scientology?
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Recognition_as_a_re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Recognition_as_a_religion))
Would it so easily refuse content from Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or
Islamic organizations? (How many investigations of GE has the FBI performed in
the past 30 years?)

Again, The Atlantic is responsible for their own content, I have no idea why
they do this sponsored content in the first place, if they want to flush Ta-
Nehisi Coates reputation down the toilet that's their right, maybe with Andrew
Sullivan branching out they have much more limited dollars, but, ...

Hey I think they just compounded their initial stupid decision on sponsored
content by caving to whomeever. I think they now look worse, not better. I
think their response needs to be along the lines of no more sponsored content,
or an explanation of what makes Scientology different.

All that said, to hell with Scientology.

~~~
fusiongyro
Businesses such as the Atlantic are not obliged to take advertising from all
comers. Showing up with your $50 or whatever does not guarantee you equal time
in anybody's magazine. In fact, even if it did it would be ill-advised, if the
brands are contradictory; you don't expect to see a Walmart ad in the New
Yorker yet I'm sure Walmart can afford to run them there, likewise you don't
see Louis Vuitton ads in PC Magazine. Both parties in the advertising
relationship are free to choose and refuse each other, like any other
contractual arrangement between people or corporations. This isn't a first-
amendment issue.

~~~
mediumdeviation
I'd agree, except there have been cases like this:

> The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the
> rejected ad was “not only protected speech — it is core political speech,”
> [...] As such, the judge held, the ad “is afforded the highest level of
> protection under the First Amendment.”

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/nyregion/mta-violated-
righ...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/nyregion/mta-violated-rights-of-
pro-israel-group-judge-says.html)

Here's one of the ads: <http://i.imgur.com/iY0bx.jpg>

~~~
martingordon
The difference is that The Atlantic is a private company. They aren't
obligated to uphold the First Amendment. The MTA is a pseudo-government entity
(a New York state public-benefit corporation[1], to be exact) and is
(apparently) subject to the First Amendment.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_public_benefit_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_public_benefit_corporations)

------
iProject
Even before this suspension there was recent evidence that _in non-
advertorials_ The Atlantic was willing to call out Scientology. Googling
"scientology site:theatlantic.com" yields, for example:

[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/) (dated Jan 14, 2013.
Weirdly _un_ critical, simple praise for a book on Scientology)

July 2012 The Atlantic: "Psychiatry vs. Scientology":

[http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/scientolog...](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/scientology-
vs-psychiatry-a-case-study/259279/)

~~~
hudibras
"dated Jan 14, 2013. Weirdly uncritical, simple praise for a book on
Scientology"

Jeffrey Goldberg posted that in response to or in protest of the advertorial.

------
mhuffman
I understand the commercial need to make money, but if you have to trade your
credibility in for the cash, it is probably a sign that your business model is
over. Time to close the doors, or find a realistic method of finance.

~~~
nonamegiven
Entertainment Tonight is still on TV.

The Atlantic used to make money by being reputable and engaging.

They could easily decide to make money by making money. I'd miss them, but one
day someone will say "The Atlantic is still on the web" in response to a
similar comment.

------
mxxx
It's interesting to see everybody up in arms about how The Atlantic have
"crossed the line" or "gone too far" because they took cash in exchange for a
blatant advertorial, as though up until yesterday they were a sterling example
of journalistic integrity.

If you do a little googling,
[https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=%22theatlantic.com%2F...](https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=%22theatlantic.com%2Fsponsored%22+site:theatlantic.com)

you'll see they've been doing it for a while. article after article of
complete self-serving bullshit from whoever's willing to pay.

I suppose the difference here is people really love to hate Scientology (with
good reason, too.)

------
Natsu
Does anyone know what the weird Hebrew (?) writing on those two symbols says?
It seems somewhat out of place, along with the crosses, given that Scientology
is not a Jewish or Christian sect.

~~~
jk4930
"Church of Scientology of Israel"

------
Pitarou
I would like to believe that the responsible adults have now stepped in to
clean up the mess caused by some moron in sales being given too much of a free
hand.

------
pmiller2
I never saw this. Anyone got a pointer to a mirror?

~~~
sikhnerd
Google Cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fsponsored%2Fscientology%2Farchive%2F2013%2F01%2Fdavid-
miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-
year-%2F266958%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fsponsored%2Fscientology%2Farchive%2F2013%2F01%2Fdavid-
miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-
year-%2F266958%2F&sugexp=chrome,mod=16&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Image Mirror (Via Reddit): <http://i.minus.com/iCziY2iQpxWav.jpg>

~~~
a_bonobo
Addendum: That top comment was deleted after a while, too, leaving only the
obviously pro Scientology comments

~~~
pocket
The comment had reached over 630 upvotes (I think) when I saw it. Compared to
at most ~30 for the next most upvoted comment… that little piece of data from
the ads readership might've been enough for the editorial staff to make the
change.

------
blakerson
For those following the numbers, it would appear that traffic from HN is worth
more to The Atlantic than however much Scientology paid.

~~~
cheald
This was much bigger than just HN. Twitter lit up like a Christmas tree on
this issue last night.

------
lancewiggs
Clearly editorial and sales have misalignment. The good news is that pulling
the advertorial shows that the editors are still in charge. The Atlantic would
do well to ensure that it remains that way. Quality content is the only way to
earn respect in the long run.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_pulling the advertorial shows that the editors are still in charge_

What kind of editing is it that would allow this crap to appear for a few
hours? This shows that they didn't expect and couldn't handle the backlash,
but nothing more. Well, maybe that the Disqus censorship hamster wheels were
overheating, too. But unless they come clean and distance themselves from this
in no unclear terms, and ask for forgiveness, they can just go play in traffic
(pun wasn't on purpose but I'm keeping it).

~~~
Pitarou
Maybe it just shows that they gave advertising too much of a free hand? "It's
better to ask forgiveness than permission." and all that.

------
fortunatefein
Would love to do a fact check of the Goldman Sachs sponsored content.

------
hobbyhacker
happy reading:

<http://kspaink.home.xs4all.nl/fishman/home.html>

------
gleenn
One word: Good.

~~~
neumann_alfred
4 words: too little, too late.

~~~
fusiongyro
Too little? Were you hoping for a refund of your $0?

Too late? It was online for all of three hours.

You're going to have to lower that bar if you expect anyone to get over it.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_Were you hoping for a refund of your $0?_

How about an apology? Even just "we are sorry for any confusion we may have
caused", _anything_ to indicate they are remotely aware of the gravity of wtf
they just did?

 _It was online for all of three hours._

During which all negative comments except one were censored, while the votes
spoke very clearly what the silenced majority was thinking. And that thing
shouldn't have been online for even 5 minutes.

They pulled it because of the backlash. That ain't enough. Every slimy scumbag
sociopath understands punishment and eats chalk in response.. so?

 _You're going to have to lower that bar if you expect anyone to get over it._

Right, I totally forgot that everybody, and every body of people I trust and
respect, occasionally slips up and supports Scientology while engaging in
censorship, for "just a few hours". I guess I'll just have to be a hermite now
:( Oh well, I'll take consolation in the fact that Scientology won't get me
either. Nor will any of the complacent, spineless twats who just shrug it off
when an organization which holds so many people hostage in such a cynical way
gets an advertisement by a (former) newspaper. If this shit doesn't make you
angry then you know what, fuck you as well.. as you can see, my bar is even
higher than you thought, hah.

~~~
fusiongyro
How about it's 1 AM in DC? Can't wait until morning for your apology? "I
demand justice—and I have to have it before going to bed!"

I saw the article—there were plenty of negative comments. Not all of them were
overt ("Too bad Shelly Miscavige couldn't attend!") but there were plenty
there, along with huge quantities of downvotes on ambivalent and pro-
Scientology comments. Much like unreported rapes, how accurate can your
statistics on censored comments really be? Did you leave a "fuck you,
Scientology!" comment and it didn't show up? Maybe there are other
explanations we can identify before positing some kind of conspiracy.

Changing behavior because of backlash has to be enough sometimes. Especially
with organizations. Not every person in this country is as acquainted with
Scientology as we are—most Americans think they're just some kind of new age
religion for celebrities and are totally unaware of the kidnapping, abuse,
murder, etc. Not every company can afford to have every decision filter
through every person in the hierarchy to the top before its effects are felt.

~~~
neumann_alfred
Thanks for not taking my anger at this personally, I was being out of line.
But to think that just one gullible person might fall into the clutches of
Scientology because of this, really does bother me. I know they might follow
up on all this with an editorial or something, but I would be surprised if it
was an equally strong criticism of Scientology as the ad and the comments to
it was praise of it. So I don't see the potential damage being undone. Trying
to get away with something like this, to me marks any organization, unless it
expels its elements which lead to those decisions, as utterly poisonous. And
maybe they really cannot learn, maybe we have to play natural selection,
instead of being understanding and patient and whatnot. But still, thanks for
a level-headed reply to a kind of BS post, I'm just not editing it because I
think that's lame; but I regret having it phrased that way, and being so full
of myself when it's not really about me at all.

~~~
fusiongyro
I saw this and thought of you: [http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-
the-taliban-is-a-...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-
is-a-vibrant-and-thriving-po,30910/)

------
spitx
How bad do the finances of a visibly healthy publication have to be, to go
down the path of advertorials?

Are things in print media that chafing?

NYT being bankrolled and drip-fed for survival, by a Mexican billionaire is
one thing.

I was an avid reader of the Atlantic when David Brooks wrote for it. It was a
fine publication back then.

I didn't realize things, lately, had gotten so dire.

This is just appalling.

Why aren't these print guys experimenting with alternate brick-and-mortar
distribution models?

~~~
fusiongyro
When I got an Android device, I discovered they are trying an alternative
distribution model. This company Next Issue sells a subscription for $10/month
that basically entitles you to read any of some ~50 magazines on your tablet.
The thing that really rubbed me the wrong way is that I theoretically get the
New Yorker electronic edition for free since I'm a full subscriber, but I'd
still have to pay an extra $10/month to use the Next Issue app (unlike the New
Yorker app for iPad). They also sell a "premium" subscription for $15/month
that includes the New Yorker and some other "premium" magazines (like Sports
Illustrated). Then I discovered the New Yorker restricts people to devices
with particular resolutions, which my tablet didn't have.

So they're trying to figure it out, in fits and starts, but they seem to be
aiming for Hulu, which doesn't strike me as the best model of success.

~~~
spitx
I, for one, think that print publications have left far too many revenue
streams on the table when the going was good, before the advent of Craigslist
& Google, even before the blogs of today - Huffington Post & the like -
started robbing attention share away from established print outlets.

Print publications were and are notoriously stubborn in many ways. They could
have done a dozen things to immunize themselves from the online entrants in
the early days. They didn't. Now they're having to deal with the consequence
of their arrogance and myopia in ways they've never imagined.

------
TheAmazingIdiot
I wonder how many subscribers and advertising clients threatened (or did) pull
their funding of The Atlantic?

The the time I saw it hit front page here, to now hasn't been that long. Must
have hurt their bottom line.

~~~
MartinCron
Or the sensibilities of their editorial staff, some of whom may not have even
known about it until it went out.

Damage is already done, though.

~~~
Pitarou
If they show that they take this screw-up seriously, then they could still
come out looking pretty good.

~~~
MartinCron
They'll have to do better than the one sentence non-reply they have posted,
but I totally agree. All organizations mess up, how they handle it can be
instructive.

