Fuel for Media Cynics

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 01:31

Quote:
Google also yielded this little gem, lest we think that Scientologeny is the only go-to for famous folk's religionism.

I think it's kind of a neat list to read through, though naming authors like Oswald Chambers and Charles Spurgeon who are famouse BECAUSE of their Christian writings as famous Christians in literature is kind of silly. Though I suppose someone would complain if they were left off . . .

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 05:15

Interesting, I see no ads (apart from several 'inhouse' ones, for some or other CNN service and Time subscription). Aha, a reload brings one for a bank, another one travel to Cyprus, and on the title page there are three separate ads for Nokia 7710... Perhaps because of my preference for 'international' flavour of the site or non-US IP?

Posted by: Phoenix42

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 06:10

Advertiser links are provided by Yahoo! Search Marketing through its Content Match product. Content Match pairs its listings with related content on CNN.com article pages and section fronts. The listings are determined by the relevancy of keywords, which advertisers bid on, to the content of the specific CNN.com page. For additional information on becoming an Yahoo! Search Marketing advertiser and to learn more about how business listings are distributed on CNN.com and other top Web sites, please visit Yahoo! Search Marketing.

Nothing new, just a computer grabbing the ads.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 11:45

Quote:
lest we think that Scientologeny is the only go-to for famous folk's religionism.

It's not so much that these people are following Scientology, but the fact that they are promoting Scientology to the masses, who are then just that much more likely to fall into their bilking schemes. People are free to believe whatever hogwash they want (and while I consider pretty much all deist religions hogwash, Scientology is in a whole different league), but when that "religion" not only charges to attend, but restricts information about the basic tenets of the religion (whether that's so that people can't just do it on their own or so that newbies don't immediately see how insane it is), that "religion" becomes highly suspect at best. Add on to that the damage they seem to cause to individuals (see Lisa McPherson, Jeremy Perkins, Albert Jaquier, or so many others, not to mention the people who were "only" bilked out of their life savings) and I cannot just let it be.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:22

Quote:
Interesting, I see no ads (apart from several 'inhouse' ones, for some or other CNN service and Time subscription). Aha, a reload brings one for a bank, another one travel to Cyprus, and on the title page there are three separate ads for Nokia 7710... Perhaps because of my preference for 'international' flavour of the site or non-US IP?

I have never bothered to tweak any CNN (or Yahoo) settings that I recall, so I assume I am getting the "default". Yesterday, I would get 4-5 ads. This morning, when I hit that same story, I get just these two:

What is Scientology?
Ever wondered "What is Scientology?" Check out this site and find out for...
whatis.scientology.org
The Religion of Scientology
A very accurate description of the religion of Scientology is given herein,...
www.rtc.org

So maybe the number of ads reduce as the story ages?

I wonder what Chinese Katie Holmes fans see

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:26

Quote:
Nothing new, just a computer grabbing the ads.

I decided that I couldn't find that comforting. It is the end result that I still find disagreeable. It seems inconceivable and fantastic, but imagine a different CNN puff piece on something like "No Child Left Behind" where the same algorithms produce paid links to "Up-With-People"-type Web sites covertly funded by the government. Now I know that sounds ridiculous....

'Twould be very convenient for CNN to say "just a computer". What's their take?

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:35

Quote:
Scientology is in a whole different league

From the standpoint of secrecy and decitfulness, the only near-competitor I can think of would be the Moonies, but they seem to have diverted their energies into commerce "Oh, no we're not Moonies!" and never reached the aggressive heights of Scientology's truth control via copyright/IP.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:37

Well, the fact of the matter is that the CoS has probably pumped way more money into buying up those keywords than anyone else can do.

Are you suggesting that Yahoo should not accept that money? On what grounds? Would that mean that IBM wouldn't be allowed to buy IBM keywords? I mean, I'm not a big fan of the CoS or corporate personhood, but I don't think I want to see that sort of censorship, either. And they are ads after all. I suppose it would be nice if CNN pointed that out a little better, especially since it looks kinda like it could be a sidebar.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:39

My uncle got into Scientology years ago and was taken for a LOT of money. He has serious mental problems now (the FBI-came-and-took-away-all-of-his-guns kind), but I don't know if any of that was caused by getting invovled in Scientology.

On a related note, this is the uncle who stayed with us two Christmases ago and when the air conditioning guy rang the door bell said, "If that's the FBI, don't tell them I'm here." And he was totally serious.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:43

That's almost exactly the kind of person they're looking for. When you add onto it that they are totally against any psychiatric treatment, and regularly "compensate" for it by prescribing vitamins ... well, draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:50

Quote:
Well, the fact of the matter is that the CoS has probably pumped way more money into buying up those keywords than anyone else can do.

And if they have anything remotely approaching genius, their focus on owning the information territory of Scientology is it.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that Yahoo should not accept that money? On what grounds? Would that mean that IBM wouldn't be allowed to buy IBM keywords? I mean, I'm not a big fan of the CoS or corporate personhood, but I don't think I want to see that sort of censorship, either.

I'm not positively sure what I am suggesting. Other than getting swept away by the occasional (very nice!) wedding photo, I think I have maybe recently arrived at the conclusion that *everything* is borken, but have no suggestions on repair manual.

Quote:
And they are ads after all. I suppose it would be nice if CNN pointed that out a little better, especially since it looks kinda like it could be a sidebar.

This is in the realm of what concerns me. Any newspaper, say the Boston Globe, could suffer a lapse in judgement and publish an uncritical puff piece on Katie+CoS -- no examination of CoS background included. But could CoS then call the Globe and say "Hey, we want to run 5 ads next to your puff piece!"?

edit: or automatically cause 5 ads to be placed next to the puff piece?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 12:55

Or, perhaps more accurately, inside your puff piece.

I think that's the heart of the problem. (Well, outside the fact that this tripe should exist outside the pages of People and Us.) There needs to be a stronger delineation between story content and ad content. It's usually obvious in print media, but when it becomes less obvious, they tend to point it out, doing something like printing "ADVERTISING SECTION" over the top. But in this case, the ads look exactly like their (semi-)legitimate sidebar survey right below it, and there's no indication that it's advertising content other than the "What's This" link. At least, that link should be changed to read "Advertisements".

Edit: Oh, wait. It does say it there, but my AdBlock was killing the image(?!) that said "Advertiser Links".

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 13:11

If I recall correctly, the Scientologists maintain a special support infrastructure for movie stars and famous people, with the (entirely reasonable) theory that famous practitioners of the religion make for free advertising. As such, you can expect Ms. Holmes to be slathered in Scientology-branded love and foot massages. However, Mr. Cruz has recently demonstrated that he actually supports some of the weirder aspects of Scientology (particularly their anti-psychologist stance). This could lead in some interesting directions. Let's assume that Mr. Cruz and Ms. Holmes break up, which would seem altogether typical for "starlet" couples. Previously, you'd have to be "in the know" to be aware of Mr. Cruz's (or Mr. Travolta's) religious beliefs, but now it's openly discussed in an AP story, on Oprah, and elsewhere. This means that the post-breakup coverage will also likely discuss the relevancy of Scientology. Maybe, one of the reporters on the scene will actually get into the weirder aspects of the cult, interviewing ex-members, talking about "operating thetans" and all of that malarky. Should be fun, and could well cause lasting damage to Scientology if done right.

Meanwhile, for what it's worth, the only ads that made it through my AdBlocker were text ads referring to Dawson's Creek shwag.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 13:54

All the weird-ass stuff is protected under corporate secrets laws, though, so the CoS has solid legal recourse to sue the pants off of people who distribute that information. I'm not saying that that's ethical -- religions should be open (at least the Masons don't largely go around suing people) -- but it's pretty solid legally. As such, I don't see any big-name news source trotting out that information out of fear of reprisal. I'm sure Julf could tell us all about that, assuming he's not under some sort of gag order.

Time already had a very negative cover story on Scientology back in 1991, and were sued by the CoS (dismissed a decade later). It didn't seem to do a lot of good. Maybe a different viewpoint or just a new story would help, though.

Posted by: julf

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 13:59

Quote:
I'm sure Julf could tell us all about that, assuming he's not under some sort of gag order.

No gag order here. I can definitely state that the CoS legally declares itself "A commercial company incorporated for the purposes of law as a church", and considers their teachings proprietary commercial secrets (and, of course, protected by copyright)

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 15:25

This article explains a lot about the beliefs of CoS. In fair warning, since it is from the Christian Research Institue the perspective is more of a comparison to orthodox Christian doctrine, but there is plenty in there about what is publicly available regarding the phiolosphies and teachings of CoS.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 14/06/2005 19:18

Seems a pretty solid overview, even if it does look at it in comparison to Christianity rather than on its own. But that's the author's prerogative, and doesn't make it any less accurate.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 15/06/2005 01:13

Quote:
Previously, you'd have to be "in the know" to be aware of Mr. Cruz's (or Mr. Travolta's) religious beliefs, but now it's openly discussed in an AP story, on Oprah, and elsewhere.

How previously was previously? I thought it had been common knowledge for several years, now...

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 15/06/2005 01:15

Quote:
This article explains a lot about the beliefs of CoS.

As far as I can tell, the defacto anti-CoS site is http://clambake.org/.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 15/06/2005 01:27

Quote:
Nothing new, just a computer grabbing the ads.

Yeah, the ad-grabbing algorithm has needed some work for quite a while, now.

My favourite CNN ad/story combo:

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 15/06/2005 10:37

Quote:
How previously was previously? I thought it had been common knowledge for several years, now...

I'd say the difference is that Joe Sixpack who had never even heard of Scientology didn't know anything about what stars might have been members of the cult. That awful Travolta Battlefield Earth thing raised awareness in the geek community but still never really reached Joe Sixpack. Now, however, with the Scientology thing being discussed on Oprah, in AP stories, and so forth, the game changes. For this very reason, there's been a lot of press discussion about whether Cruz was hurting himself with respect to drawing negative publicity to his films.

Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 20/06/2005 01:49

Damn, never knew you were that Julf. I was following along with the various Co$ dabacles on the net 10 years ago. And now here we are again. Funny thing is that I had just been talking about this very subject (and Co$ legal actions) with my girlfriend a few nights ago.

My stance: It's a for-profit corporation and should be treated as such. That means no special tax status or other breaks.

I think I'd resort to murder after getting bilked by Co$ before I'd attempt suicide. But that's just me. For now I'll make my silent protests by continuing to download, as opposed to donating to the box-office, movies from Co$ supporters/members. Woohoo, that means I'm good to go for Batman.

Bruno

Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 20/06/2005 01:54

Unless someone has been living under a rock (for a very long time), they've known Travolta, his wife kelly Preston and Tom Cruise were/are $cientologists. I'm thinking most people (who know anything at all about these actors) would have known for 10 years at the very least. Joe Sixpack more than anyone would know. Certainly before the typical cybergeek, as Mrs. Sixpack reads The Sun, The Globe, People, Us and all the other rags that have likely mentioned this in the past. What they may not have known (what I didn't know until recently) was that Nicole Kidman never joined the the Co$ while with Cruise.

Come on, there were even protests in Germany and Greece surrounding Cruise movie premieres back in the day because of Co$. Does Germany still not recognise Co$ as a religion? If so, good for them!

I'm not hearing as much about Co$ right now as I remember hearing during the early 90's.

Bruno

http://www.freekatie.net - you too can help

Posted by: julf

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 20/06/2005 05:54

Quote:
Damn, never knew you were that Julf.

Fortunately there are not too many of us

But my friend Karin Spaink has been in court with them since 1996, and it's still going on... She has the Fishman Affidavit on her web page.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 20/06/2005 13:09

Wow.. reading through those documents brought to mind another litiguous entity with darned similar tactics.. the BSA.

Blah.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 20/06/2005 14:31

Heh. I saw "BSA" and assumed "Boy Scouts of America".

BTW, your link is screwed up.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 24/06/2005 15:10

Just ran across this article which claims that, at them moment anyway, the Cruise Holmes thing is working in favor of CoS.

I don't know why, but the statement in the article of " . . . this incident started with a galactic shake-up 75 million years ago, when an alien ruler sent billions of subjects to this planet to solve an overpopulation problem. These "thetan" souls dispersed and invaded humans." makes me think of Douglas Adams. I wonder if among these aliens were telephone sanitizers?

Edited to add the Golgafrincham link

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 24/06/2005 15:31

Amusingly, a Google News search on cruise scientology turns up some 1400 articles. Still, no matter how much positive press there is, Cruise is doing a great job of making a fool out of himself.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 24/06/2005 16:14

Quote:
It's like you could be a Christian and be a Scientologist.

Well, until you hit OTIII, where you find out that God, Satan, and Jesus were false memories implanted in your body thetans that 75 million years ago. That pretty much counts out being Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. So that counts out about 3.5 billion people.

Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 24/06/2005 16:29

Maybe he is going crazy.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 24/06/2005 16:47

Oh, that's brilliant.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Fuel for Media Cynics - 24/06/2005 20:23

Entertaining reading: a transcript of Cruise on the Today Show. Looks like Tom nearly blew a gasket when talking about psychoactive medication. Too bad he didn't electrocute the host...

Fuel for Media Cynics