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.
It is a sponsored piece, which it does state, though I may not have noticed it if it had not been pointed out to me. It makes me very uncomfortable about continuing to pay for a subscription to your magazine. As such, I have cancelled my subscription.
The reason that this makes me so uncomfortable is that it steps outside the boundaries of traditional advertising, and steps into the role of your content. This is not so dis-similar to television shows that are chock-full of product placement, but I think that this goes even a bit further than that. This would be content that has no value at all, except for selling a certain brand beer, parading itself as a television show, dressed in the corporate logo. That is what this is, content of no value, parading itself in the Atlantic brand.
I don't appreciate this. And, I certainly don't appreciate fluff pieces that bolster organizations like Scientology coming from a company that I pay to deliver me the news. By intertwining your content with paid-for commercial interests, I simply can no longer trust that the things that I read from you will be those of journalistic integrity.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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