MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

14 January 2013

Idiocracy The Atlantic posts a paid story from the Church of Scientology: link
It's the current State of Journalism. If you have enough bucks, you can make a (formerly) prestigious publication (appear to) say anything you want.
posted by oneswellfoop 14 January | 21:24
Every now and then I feel a small stirring inside, a soupcon of admiration, which is a vestige of respect for The Atlantic.

And then they publish something like this - or a Hanna Rosin piece - and I remember their greatest days really were in the late nineteenth century.
posted by Miko 14 January | 23:05
Seems like Miko and I are antagonists more often than not, but in this case, I agree 100%.
posted by Ardiril 14 January | 23:34
The MeFi thread is hilarious, and led me to the wonderful evangelical Archie comics, which made my night.

Seems like Miko and I are antagonists more often than not

I sometimes disagree with you but I don't really consider you an "antagonist." I disagree with plenty of people sometimes and agree with plenty of people other times. No right thinking person, however, could help but snicker at the Atlantic's stumble over the Thetans here.
posted by Miko 14 January | 23:54
Bwahahaha
posted by Miko 14 January | 23:56
I saw it was too strong a word as soon as I hit Post.
posted by Ardiril 15 January | 00:56
They pulled the 'sponsored content' already.
It's interesting how this causes outrage. Maybe because people feel they're being misled.
I had a similar wtf moment when I saw what askmefi looks like when logged out; how all the ads are made to look as much as possible like content in typography and layout.
At least these things still spell out (in tiny grey font) that they're sponsored content. While Obama legalised secret propaganda aimed at their own population. But that doesn't seem to create much interest there.

ok, I'm teasing you guys by saying 'their own' and 'there'. I know this is predominantly a US site
posted by jouke 15 January | 02:25
Wow. I haven't read the Atlantic for many years now but really?
posted by arse_hat 15 January | 02:39
jouke I think beyond the journalistic ethics it's about social/intellectual ecosystems too. Atlantic readers are more likely to be very skeptical of Scientology and offended that an at least upper middle-brow mag is going to post that. if they'd posted something like "Visit Singapore!" from a tourism department that'd be different
posted by Firas 15 January | 03:15
Good point Firas.
posted by jouke 15 January | 03:35
statement:

We screwed up. It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It's safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we're working very hard to put things right.


posted by Firas 15 January | 12:32
Well put, Firas.

I saw it was too strong a word as soon as I hit Post.

I feel better about that!
posted by Miko 15 January | 18:51
I feel the same as Miko about the Atlantic, but in the relative desert of mainstream journalism that we currently have, they are better for the most part than other outlets. I realize that's not saying much, but I guess I'm so tired of what has happened to journalism since Ted Turner brought us 24 hour news that even something that is marginally better seems pretty good.

I think I'll go comment on some youtube videos now...
posted by eekacat 15 January | 22:08
I see what you mean, eekacat. When I go peruse a magazine stand (setting aside online mags for a minute), maybe 5% of them are interesting...and I even read a lot of food/home/garden mags, so that's saying something. It's better than most of what's out there. I tend to have a habit of comparing everything to an ideal, rather than to everything else, and compared to everything else the Atlantic doesn't totally suck. It's just that I wish it were a lot better, and it almost is, but then it doesn't get there.
posted by Miko 15 January | 22:36
Yes, you're right, Miko. It (The Atlantic) really isn't all that great. It's just not that bad. If it were a restaurant, and it was within walking distance, I might go there once in awhile, but it's not something I'd go out of my way for.

I actually got a subscription for a year to the Atlantic for my wife who likes to read it online. I got a promotional rate for it which was a bargain. When the renewal came up for it I offered to continue the subscription for her, but she said no. So like that restaurant, when articles appear online that are interesting, we'll read them, but as far as going out of our way to subscribe, we'll pass.
posted by eekacat 16 January | 21:52
OMG BUN...waitaminute... || If you give me any four letters I will glue melatonin on a cactus leaf for you

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN