The Atlantic suspends the Scientology advertorial | Hacker News Reader

The Atlantic suspends the Scientology advertorial

m.theatlantic.com

170 pointsmmastrac79 comments

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.

Um, yes, this was definitely not an attempt to do an evenhanded or professional job of reporting on the Church of Scientology. You are right.

Well, at least it was clearly mentioned that it was a sponsored article. There are so many times that articles are "bought" by advertisers or other parties while the contents pretend to be legit (not specific to The Atlantic, I am talking about the press in general).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial

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.

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.

> 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...

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.

... 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.

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.

From what I read, they're pretty good indeed. Time magazine's "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" article @ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

Yes, they are that good. Why do you think they make celebrity recruiting so important and celebrity members so prominent? It's celebrity endorsement, like any other commercial.

1) it wasn't an article

2) why do you assume that the Church of Scientology feels bound to be honest about how many members they've gained in a Church of Scientology advertisement?

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.

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.

I would have preferred no comments to moderated comments.

> 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?

The second.

Some free-thought comments did get through. My favorite went something like "This is great! How much does it cost to join?"

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...

I enjoy the writing in the Atlantic as much as the next guy. (Edit: and to their credit, here is a slightly more interesting story they did on Scientology in 2011: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/scientology-... )

That said, it's not hyperventilating to point out that prohibiting dissenting comments on articles, even if they are shameless (and paid-for) advertising, is pretty much bullshit.

I mean, The Atlantic is a private company, they have the right to do whatever they want, squelch whatever discussion they like. The First Amendment doesn't apply to posting on websites. But they get to deal with the fallout that comes with it, and it looks like they either didn't anticipate exactly how badly their shameless cash grab would be taken, or they didn't think there was anything wrong with essentially putting their good name and credibility behind something as controversial (charitably speaking) as scientology.

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.

Is there a difference between the two? I always assumed that I could ignore all the web articles and assume it would magically appear on my Kindle when the new edition came out.

I always figured there was stuff in the print/digital edition that isn't on the website, but I never really bothered to check either. Guilt assuaged either way I suppose.

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."

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.

The best way to finish the New Yorker is to not feel as if you need to read every article that it contains. I routinely skip the fiction pieces as I am not a big fan of short stories, and the same goes for most of the critical pieces.

Oh, I don't stress about it too much. And yeah, I have no use for their fiction or poetry, but sometimes their criticism can be interesting.

They'll run more scientology crap in a few months time once you've all forgotten and nobody's looking, don't worry.

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...) 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.

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.

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...

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

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...

> 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.

Personally, I don't mind the print ads too much, although they are annoying. There are some physical mitigations that make them obvious - they are typeset differently, have a "special advertisement section" footer, and are sometimes printed on a different stock than the regular magazine. It is easy to detect where they begin and end.

The Atlantic's article has almost none of these features. The only way I knew that it was sponsored was because of HN, and I had to go back and see the "Sponsored" banner near the top. Still, "Sponsored" doesn't really mean much either.

The closest thing to being an magazine ad would be those full-screen things that sites like Forbes have, with a "continue to site" link at the top.

Scientology the orginisation is not a protected class even if there followers are so the Atlantic is free to avoid doing business with them for any reason just like GE.

As to rejecting content advertisements are often blocked for all sorts of reasons. YouTube has a lot of funny adds that where pulled for bing in poor taste among other things. 'Sponged content' often faces strictor hurtles as people are far more likely to notice and be offended by it.

Yes, it's quite a misstep by the Atlantic.

All that said, please do be civil in your comments. (And I'm addressing that to the community, not just to jerrya.)

> I don't understand the "sponsored" content gambit

Newspapers are in a lot of trouble, some are in so much trouble that they have taken to whoring themselves. There isn't much to understand here.

Pretty sure newspapers and magazines have been running advertorials since forever. If that's whoring, then it's not new. Anyway, the entire fabric of society is soaked with advertising, so who really cares?

It intentionally blurs the line between advertising and editorial. Publishers prerogative, but you can't maintain a blue ribbon content brand without the distinction.

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... (dated Jan 14, 2013. Weirdly uncritical, simple praise for a book on Scientology)

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

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/scientolog...

"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.

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.

They just traded the Scientology article back in for HN traffic.

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.

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...

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.)

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.

"Church of Scientology of Israel"

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.

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

Mirror link: http://i.minus.com/iCziY2iQpxWav.jpg

Via: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/16l4b4/the_atlantics_s...

Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...

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

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

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.

I recorded a short screencast to capture the pace of the upvotes https://plus.google.com/105550226241566085548/posts/YxafettT...

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

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

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.

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).

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.

To quote the illustrious Popehat: "When you outsource your marketing you outsource your reputation."

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

happy reading:

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

One word: Good.

4 words: too little, too late.

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.

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.

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.

"I saw the article—there were plenty of negative comments"

Before they started censoring negative comments and downvoting all but positive sockpuppet accounts.

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.

I saw this and thought of you: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-is-a-...

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?

I can say, having been on the inside of Atlantic Media a little over a year ago, people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off about revenue there. They've made it into the black through aggressive advertising sales and extreme cost-cutting/staff demands (trying to make "startup hours" the norm, like working to 10pm, letting seasoned journalists walk and replacing them with interns and recent grads), but they were still taking on water whether anybody wanted to admit it. I'm happy I left before it got this bad.

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.

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.

My city's main newspaper has been using more noticeably vague titles in their social media posts, presumably to gain more ad views. They have also been forced to stop publishing a paper on Sundays. Very sad.

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.

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com