<story><title>The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments</title><url>http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/2013/01/david-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-/266958/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kevinalexbrown</author><text>Without delving into the specifics of Scientology, I am reminded of a grellas quotation: &quot;The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation.&quot;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;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&apos;s almost surely the reason Scientology would like to place a sponsored story there, in addition to, or in lieu of, more popular outlets.&lt;p&gt;In the coming transformation of journalism, institutions like The Atlantic, or newer upstarts like Svbtle, will have to consider sponsored posts and similar &quot;brand-lending.&quot; When they do, they&apos;ll have to decide whether they want to be a trusted brand, or an interesting one.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>cs702</author><text>Judging by this sponsored story, it seems that the people running The Atlantic have already decided to turn this august publication into an &quot;interesting&quot; brand.  It&apos;s a shame.&lt;p&gt;What doesn&apos;t make sense to me is that The Atlantic supposedly became profitable a couple of years ago -- see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic....&lt;/a&gt; -- which, if true, means they didn&apos;t actually need to do this!</text></comment>
<story><title>The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments</title><url>http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/scientology/archive/2013/01/david-miscavige-leads-scientology-to-milestone-year-/266958/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kevinalexbrown</author><text>Without delving into the specifics of Scientology, I am reminded of a grellas quotation: &quot;The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation.&quot;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;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&apos;s almost surely the reason Scientology would like to place a sponsored story there, in addition to, or in lieu of, more popular outlets.&lt;p&gt;In the coming transformation of journalism, institutions like The Atlantic, or newer upstarts like Svbtle, will have to consider sponsored posts and similar &quot;brand-lending.&quot; When they do, they&apos;ll have to decide whether they want to be a trusted brand, or an interesting one.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>snogglethorpe</author><text>Indeed ... and once lost, trust is very hard to regain.&lt;p&gt;I subscribed to the Economist through most of the &apos;90s, but did not renew my subscription following a rather blithe editorial saying Bill Clinton should resign.&lt;p&gt;I still have a measure of respect for them on non-controversial topics—they&apos;re very good at explaining technical details in a simple way, for instance—but my faith in their judgment is gone.</text></comment>