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.