BALTIMORE Earl Weaver, the fiery Hall of Fame manager who won 1,480 games with the Baltimore Orioles seemingly was engaged in nearly as many arguments with umpires, has died. He was 82.
Dick Gordon, Weaver's marketing agent, said Saturday that Weaver died while on a Caribbean cruise sponsored by the Orioles. Gordon said Weaver's wife told him that Weaver went back to his cabin after dinner and began choking between 10:30 and 11 Friday night. Gordon said a cause of death has not been determined.
The Duke of Earl, as he was affectionately known in Baltimore, took the Orioles into the World Series four times over 17 seasons but won only one title, in 1970. His .583 winning percentage ranks fifth among managers who served 10 or more seasons in the 20th century.
"Earl Weaver stands alone as the greatest manager in the history of the Orioles organization and one of the greatest in the history of baseball," Orioles owner Peter Angelos said. "This is a sad day for everyone who knew him and for all Orioles fans. Earl made his passion for the Orioles known both on and off the field. On behalf of the Orioles, I extend my condolences to his wife, Marianna, and to his family."
Weaver was a salty-tongued manager who preferred to wait for a three-run homer rather than manufacture a run with a stolen base or a bunt. While some baseball purists argued that strategy, no one could dispute the results.
"He was an intense competitor and smart as a whip when it comes to figuring out ways to beat you," said Davey Johnson, who played under Weaver in the minor leagues and with the Orioles from 1965 to 1972.
Weaver had a reputation as a winner, but umpires knew him as a hothead. Weaver would often turn his hat backward and yell directly into an umpire's face to argue a call or a rule, and after the inevitable ejection he would more often than not kick dirt on home plate or on the umpire's shoes.
He was ejected 91 times, including once in both games of a doubleheader.
Asked once if his reputation might have harmed his chances to gain entry into the Hall of Fame, Weaver admitted, "It probably hurt me."
Those 91 ejections were overshadowed by his five 100-win seasons, six AL East titles and four pennants. Weaver was inducted into the Hall in 1996, 10 years after he managed his final game with Baltimore at the end of an ill-advised comeback.
In 1985, the Orioles' owner at the time, Edward B. Williams, coaxed Weaver away from golf to take over a struggling squad. Weaver donned his uniform No. 4, which had already been retired by the team, and tried to breathe some life into the listless Orioles.
Baltimore went 53-52 over the last half of the 1985 season, but finished seventh in 1986 with a 73-89 record. It was Weaver's only losing season as a major-league manager, and he retired for good after that.
"If I hadn't come back," Weaver said after his final game, "I would be home thinking what it would have been like to manage again. I found out it's work."
Weaver finished with a 1,480-1,060 record. He won Manager of the Year three times.
"I had a successful career, not necessarily a Hall of Fame career, but a successful one," he said.
How much will all the inaugural events cost? It's hard to say.
While most events that occur in the capital have a hard-and-fast budget, the inauguration's many moving parts, safety concerns and large geographic reach make it hard to quantify – especially before the main event.
In 2009, ABC reported the total cost of Obama's first inauguration was $170 million. While incumbent presidents historically spend less on a second inauguration, it's unclear what the total bill will be this time around. Analysis of some of the known appropriations so far puts the total at $13.637 million, but it will no doubt be a much larger price tag when everything is accounted for.
RELATED: 12 Things You Didn't Know About the Inauguration
One of the main chunks missing from this year's tab is the budget for the Presidential Inaugural Committee – the group responsible for using donated money to put together this year's celebrations, including National Day of Service, the Kids' Inaugural Concert, the Parade and the Inaugural Balls.
In 2009, the PIC collected more than $53 million in donations, according to a report filed with the Federal Elections Commission 90 days after the inauguration.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Politically Dressed: Inauguration First Daughters Watch Video
While enthusiasm for the inauguration was running higher that year, it is possible the PIC will haul in more money this time around, as they have eliminated some of the self-imposed regulations on the kinds of donations they can accept. For his first inauguration, President Obama did not take money from corporations or gifts that exceeded $50,000.
In 2013, his committee did away with those rules. PIC spokesman Brent Colburn would not say why the change took place, insisting that each committee operates independently from the precedent set by the inaugurations before – even if staff like Colburn are repeats on the committee from 2009.
RELATED: Inauguration Weekend: A Star-Powered Lineup
The PIC also won't say how much they have already collected or even what their goal was. Colburn explained that these are "moving budgets," which won't stabilize until after the inauguration.
They have, however, released the names of donors on their website weekly. As of Friday afternoon, they were up to 993 donors.
Another leg of the costs is covered by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. They take care of the swearing-in ceremony and the Congressional luncheon. For those events they have a total budget of $1.237 million, down by about $163,000 from 2009. Whereas the PIC budget comes from donations, the American taxpayers foot the bill for the JCCIC.
Beyond those two inauguration-focused groups, there are a myriad of broader organizations that spend money on the inauguration as well.
RELATED: Plenty of Room at the Inns for 2013 Inauguration
A Congressional Research Service report from December says the government spent $22 million reimbursing local and state governments and the National Park Service for their participation in the 2009 inauguration, but that figure is low. The D.C. government alone received twice that amount, according to the mayor's office. Officials from D.C., Maryland and Virginia estimated their total need to be $75 million.
NPS got an appropriation from Congress of $1.2 million so far this year, according to communications officer Carol Johnson, and another $1.4 million went to the U.S. Park Police.
Cristina Traina says in his second term, Obama must address weaknesses in child farm labor standards
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Cristina Traina: Obama should strengthen child farm labor standards
She says Labor Dept. rules allow kids to work long hours for little pay on commercial farms
She says Obama administration scrapped Labor Dept. chief's proposal for tightening rules
She says Labor Dept. must fix lax standards for kid labor on farmers; OSHA must enforce them
Editor's note: Cristina L.H. Traina is a Public Voices Op Ed fellow and professor at Northwestern University, where she is a scholar of social ethics.
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama should use the breathing space provided by the fiscal-cliff compromise to address some of the issues that he shelved during his last term. One of the most urgent is child farm labor. Perhaps the least protected, underpaid work force in American labor, children are often the go-to workers for farms looking to cut costs.
It's easy to see why. The Department of Labor permits farms to pay employees under 20 as little as $4.25 per hour. (By comparison, the federal minimum wage is $7.25.) And unlike their counterparts in retail and service, child farm laborers can legally work unlimited hours at any hour of day or night.
The numbers are hard to estimate, but between direct hiring, hiring through labor contractors, and off-the-books work beside parents or for cash, perhaps 400,000 children, some as young as 6, weed and harvest for commercial farms. A Human Rights Watch 2010 study shows that children laboring for hire on farms routinely work more than 10 hours per day.
As if this were not bad enough, few labor safety regulations apply. Children 14 and older can work long hours at all but the most dangerous farm jobs without their parents' consent, if they do not miss school. Children 12 and older can too, as long as their parents agree. Unlike teen retail and service workers, agricultural laborers 16 and older are permitted to operate hazardous machinery and to work even during school hours.
In addition, Human Rights Watch reports that child farm laborers are exposed to dangerous pesticides; have inadequate access to water and bathrooms; fall ill from heat stroke; suffer sexual harassment; experience repetitive-motion injuries; rarely receive protective equipment like gloves and boots; and usually earn less than the minimum wage. Sometimes they earn nothing.
Little is being done to guarantee their safety. In 2011 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis proposed more stringent agricultural labor rules for children under 16, but Obama scrapped them just eight months later.
Adoption of the new rules would be no guarantee of enforcement, however. According to the 2010 Human Rights Watch report, the Department of Labor employees were spread so thin that, despite widespread reports of infractions they found only 36 child labor violations and two child hazardous order violations in agriculture nationwide.
This lack of oversight has dire, sometimes fatal, consequences. Last July, for instance, 15-year-old Curvin Kropf, an employee at a small family farm near Deer Grove, Illinois, died when he fell off the piece of heavy farm equipment he was operating, and it crushed him. According to the Bureau County Republican, he was the fifth child in fewer than two years to die at work on Sauk Valley farms.
If this year follows trends, Curvin will be only one of at least 100 children below the age of 18 killed on American farms, not to mention the 23,000 who will be injured badly enough to require hospital admission. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, agriculture is one of the most dangerous industries. It is the most dangerous for children, accounting for about half of child worker deaths annually.
The United States has a long tradition of training children in the craft of farming on family farms. At least 500,000 children help to work their families' farms today.
Farm parents, their children, and the American Farm Bureau objected strenuously to the proposed new rules. Although children working on their parents' farms would specifically have been exempted from them, it was partly in response to worries about government interference in families and loss of opportunities for children to learn agricultural skills that the Obama administration shelved them.
Whatever you think of family farms, however, many child agricultural workers don't work for their parents or acquaintances. Despite exposure to all the hazards, these children never learn the craft of farming, nor do most of them have the legal right to the minimum wage. And until the economy stabilizes, the savings farms realize by hiring children makes it likely that even more of them will be subject to the dangers of farm work.
We have a responsibility for their safety. As one of the first acts of his new term, Obama should reopen the child agricultural labor proposal he shelved in spring of 2012. Surely, farm labor standards for children can be strengthened without killing off 4-H or Future Farmers of America.
Second, the Department of Labor must institute age, wage, hour and safety regulations that meet the standards set by retail and service industry rules. Children in agriculture should not be exposed to more risks, longer hours, and lower wages at younger ages than children in other jobs.
Finally, the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration must allocate the funds necessary for meaningful enforcement of child labor violations. Unenforced rules won't protect the nearly million other children who work on farms.
Agriculture is a great American tradition. Let's make sure it's not one our children have to die for.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Cristina Traina.
KIEV: Ukrainian prosecutors on Friday accused jailed former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko of organising the 1996 murder of a lawmaker, saying she could face life imprisonment if found guilty.
Tymoshenko, serving a seven-year jail term for abuse of power, has been informed by prosecutors she is now a formal suspect in the murder of Yevgen Shcherban, Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka told reporters.
Third seed Serena Williams wins despite hitting herself in the face with her racket
Defending champion Victoria Azarenka also into Australian Open third round
World No. 2 Roger Federer and third seed Andy Murray ease to wins
Rafael Nadal to make his return to action at tournament in Chile next month
(CNN) -- Serena Williams once again battled through the pain barrier to advance at the Australian Open on Thursday, but this time the American third seed's injury was entirely self-inflicted.
After rolling an ankle during her first round win the 15-time grand slam champion hit herself in the face with her racket as she brushed aside Spanish teenager Garbine Muguruza 6-2 6-0.
It left her anxiously checking her mouth for damage.
"I think it happens to everyone, but I have never busted it wide open like that," the five-time Melbourne winner told reporters after setting up a third-round meeting with Japan's Ayumi Morita.
"So, yeah, I was like, 'Oh, no. I can't have a tooth fall out.' That would be horrible."
Read: How women cracked tennis' glass ceiling
Williams allayed any fears her ankle would hinder her progress at the tournament, saying she felt no discomfort -- although she did take painkillers.
"I didn't feel anything today," the 31-year-old added. "Obviously when you go out to play you're heavy on adrenaline and you're really pumped up.
"Usually I feel injuries after the match, but so far, so good. I felt pretty, much better than I ever dreamed of expecting to feel.
"I feel everybody in the tournament probably is on some sort of pain relief ... I don't do injections. Just tablets."
Williams remains on course for a semifinal showdown with world No. 1 Victoria Azarenka after the Belorussian took just 55 minutes to beat Greece's Eleni Daniilidou 6-1 6-0.
Read: Luckless Baker suffers fresh injury setback
If the top seed seemed like she was a woman in a hurry, it was because she was trying to avoid getting sunburned in the scorching Australian heat.
"I was trying to play fast," said the 23-year-old, who will play American Jamie Hampton in the third round. "The first match I got a little bit sunburned. You don't want to make that mistake again.
"I was prepared for it, you know. I think everybody knew few days before that that it's going to be really hot. Even at 11 a.m. you could really feel it. I wasn't sure if we were playing with closed roof or open roof.
"Right before the match I saw it was closed. I thought, 'Wow, good.' It wouldn't be so hot. It wasn't a problem."
Eighth seed Petra Kvitova was stunned by world No. 53 Laura Robson, going down 2-6 6-3 11-9 in a match which lasted three hours at finished at 00:30 local time.
Britain's Robson recovered from 0-3 down in the final set to reach the third round of the event for the first time, and she will next meet American 29th seed Sloane Stephens.
Former world No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki continued her bid for a maiden grand slam title with a 6-1 6-4 defeat of Croatia's Donna Vekic. The Danish 10th seed's next opponent will be unseeded Ukrainian Lesia Tsurenko.
Roberta Vinci has never been beyond the third round in Melbourne but the No. 16 from Italy will have a chance to address that against Russia's Elena Vesnina after recording a 6-3 6-2 victory over Akgul Amanmuradova of Uzbekistan.
In the men's draw, second seed Roger Federer and world No. 3 Andy Murray both continued their strong starts to the tournament with emphatic victories.
Switzerland's Federer, looking for an Open era-record fifth Melbourne triumph, was rarely troubled as he beat experienced Russian Nikolay Davydenko 6-3 6-4 6-4.
Next up for the 17-time grand slam winner is Australian rising star Bernard Tomic, who Federer beat in the fourth round of last year's tournament.
"I think there's always excitement about Aussies playing here," Federer, 31, told reporters. "I played him here last year. The crowd was great. I played him in Davis Cup. Crowds were fair there, too. I expect something similar.
"Hopefully we're going to live up to the expectations and live up to the match. Hopefully it's not going to be a bad match. I don't want that to happen."
Murray was beaten by Federer in the 2010 final, but having clinched his first grand slam title at last year's U.S. Open the Briton will be hoping to win in Melbourne having twice been a runner-up.
He set up a third round encounter with Lithuania's Ricardas Berankis after a comfortable 6-2 6-2 6-4 win against Portugal's Joao Sousa.
Sixth seed JuanMartin del Potro eased past German Benjamin Becker 6-2 6-4 6-2, while French seventh seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga battled to a straight-sets win over Japan's Go Soeda.
Meanwhile, former world No. 1 Rafael Nadal will make his long-awaited return to action at the Chile Open in Vina del Mar early next month.
Spain's 11-time grand slam winner has not played since injuring his knee at Wimbledon last June, and had to delay his planned comeback in Melbourne after suffering an illness in December.
Nadal will also play in another South American clay-court tournament, the Brazil Open starting on February 11, as he seeks to regain fitness ahead of his French Open title defense.
ALGIERS, Algeria About 30 foreign hostages are still unaccounted for three days into a bloody siege with Islamic militants at a gas plant deep in the Sahara, Algeria's state news service said Friday.
The militants, meanwhile, reportedly offered to trade two American hostages for terror figures jailed in the United States, according to a statement received by a Mauritanian news site that often reports news from North African extremists.
It was the latest development in a hostage drama that began Wednesday when militants seized hundreds of workers from 10 nations at Algeria's remote Ain Amenas natural gas plant. Algerian forces retaliated Thursday by storming the plant in an attempted rescue operation that killed at least four hostages and left leaders around the world expressing strong concerns about the hostages' safety.
Algerian special forces resumed negotiating Friday with the militants holed up in the refinery, according to the Algerian news service, which cited a security source.
The report said nearly 100 of the remaining 132 had been freed by Friday, but it could not account for the remainder.
Militants on Friday offered to trade two American hostages for two prominent terror figures jailed in the United States: Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheikh," who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist convicted of shooting at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
The offer, according to a Mauritanian news site that frequently broadcasts dispatches from groups linked to al Qaeda, came from Moktar Belmoktar, an extremist commander based in Mali who apparently masterminded the operation.
It could not be independently confirmed.
Algeria's government has kept a tight grip on information, but it was clear that the militant assault that began Wednesday with an attempted bus hijacking has killed at least six people from the plant — and perhaps many more.
Play Video
Deaths and survivors in Algerian hostage rescue
Workers kidnapped by the militants came from around the world — Americans, Britons, French, Norwegians, Romanians, Malaysians, Japanese, Algerians. Leaders on Friday expressed strong concerns about how Algeria was handing the situation and its apparent reluctance to communicate.
British Prime Minister David Cameron went before the House of Commons on Friday to provide an update, seeming frustrated that Britain was not told about the military operation despite having "urged we be consulted."
At least one American, Mark Cobb, who had hidden in a meeting room, is known to have gotten out of the gas plant, CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports.
One high-ranking source in the U.S. government told CBS News that four Americans had been freed, one of them injured, after the raid.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday the U.S. is working with the British and Algerian governments to assess what's happening on the ground. Speaking Friday at Kings College in London, Panetta said the U.S. is "working around the clock to ensure the safe return of our citizens."
Panetta said the terrorists should be on notice that they'll find no sanctuary in Algeria or North Africa.
He said anyone who looks to attack the U.S. will have "no place to hide."
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said President Obama was receiving regular updates from his national security team and was in constant contact with the Algerian government, stressing that "our first priority is the safety and security of the hostages. "
Terrorized hostages from Ireland and Norway trickled out of the Ain Amenas plant, 800 miles south of Algiers, the capital. BP, which jointly operates the plant, said it had begun to evacuate employees from Algeria.
On Friday, up to around 20 people, including some Americans, were being evacuated from the country, a spokesperson for the U.S. African Command said. AFRICOM said those with injuries would recieve medical treatment en route to Europe, but would not specify the extent of the injuries or the final destination within Europe for the evacuees.
"This is a large and complex site and they are still pursuing terrorists and possibly some of the hostages," Cameron said. He told lawmakers the situation remained fluid and dangerous, saying "part of the threat has been eliminated in one part of the site, a threat still remains in another part."
Algeria's army-dominated government, hardened by decades of fighting Islamist militants, shrugged aside foreign offers of help and drove ahead alone.
The U.S. government sent an unarmed surveillance drone to the BP-operated site, near the border with Libya, but it could do little more than watch Thursday's military intervention. British intelligence and security officials were on the ground in Algeria's capital but were not at the installation, said a British official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.
A U.S. official said while some Americans escaped, other Americans were either still held or unaccounted for.
El Mokhtar Ould Sidi, editor of the Mauritanian news site ANI, said several calls on Thursday came from the kidnappers themselves giving their demands and describing the situation.
"They were clearly in a situation of war, the spokesman who contacted us was giving orders to his colleagues and you could hear the sounds of war in the background.... He threatened to kill all the hostages if the Algerian forces tried to liberate them," he said.
With the hostage drama entering its second day Thursday, Algerian security forces moved in, first with helicopter fire and then special forces, according to diplomats, a website close to the militants, and an Algerian security official. The government said it was forced to intervene because the militants were being stubborn and wanted to flee with the hostages.
Militants claimed 35 hostages died when the military helicopters opened fire as they were transporting hostages from the living quarters to the main factory area where other workers were being held.
The group — led by a Mali-based al Qaeda offshoot known as the Masked Brigade — suffered losses in Thursday's military assault — but garnered a global audience.
The militants made it clear that their attack was in revenge for the French intervention against Islamists who have taken over large parts of neighboring Mali. France has encountered fierce resistance from the extremist groups in Mali and failed to persuade many Western allies to join in the actual combat.
Even violence-scarred Algerians were stunned by the brazen hostage-taking Wednesday, the biggest in northern Africa in years and the first to include Americans as targets. Mass fighting in the 1990s had largely spared the lucrative oil and gas industry that gives Algeria its economic independence and regional weight.
The official Algerian news agency said four hostages were killed in Thursday's operation, two Britons and two Filipinos. Two others, a Briton and an Algerian, died Wednesday in the initial militant ambush on a bus ferrying foreign workers to an airport. Citing hospital officials, it said six Algerians and seven foreigners were injured.
APS said some 600 local workers were safely freed in the raid — but many of those were reportedly released the day before by the militants themselves.
One Irish hostage managed to escape: electrician Stephen McFaul, who'd worked in North Africa's oil and natural gas fields off and on for 15 years. His family said the militants let hostages call their families to press the kidnappers' demands.
"He phoned me at 9 o'clock to say al Qaeda were holding him, kidnapped, and to contact the Irish government, for they wanted publicity. Nightmare, so it was. Never want to do it again. He'll not be back! He'll take a job here in Belfast like the rest of us," said his mother, Marie.
Dylan, McFaul's 13-year-old son, started crying as he talked to Ulster Television. "I feel over the moon, just really excited. I just can't wait for him to get home," he said.
The al Qaeda-linked terrorists holding Americans and other Westerners hostage at a gas plant in Algeria have now demanded the release of two convicted terrorists held in U.S. prisons, including the "blind sheikh" who helped plan the first attack on New York's World Trade Center, in exchange for the freedom of two American hostages, according to an African news service.
The terror group calling itself the Masked Brigade, which raided the BP joint venture plant in In Amenas early Wednesday, reportedly contacted a Mauritanian news service with the offer. In addition to the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, they demanded the release of Aifia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist who shot at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2008.
At least three Americans were being held hostage by the militants when the Algerian military mounted a rescue operation at the facility Thursday that reportedly resulted in casualties.
Five other Americans who were at the facility when it was attacked by the terrorists are now safe and believed to have left the country, according to U.S. officials.
Reports that dozens of hostages were killed during the Algerian military's attempt to retake the compound have not been confirmed, though Algeria's information minister has confirmed that there were casualties. It's known by U.S. and foreign officials that multiple British, Japanese and Norwegian hostages were killed.
Mike Nelson/AFP/Getty Images
Algeria Hostage Situation: Military Operation Mounted Watch Video
According to an unconfirmed report by an African news outlet, the militants said seven hostages survived the attack, including two Americans, one Briton, three Belgians and a Japanese national. U.S. officials monitoring the case had no information indicating any Americans have been injured or killed, but said the situation is fluid and casualties cannot be ruled out.
On Friday morning, a U.S. military plane evacuated between 10 and 20 people of unknown nationalities from In Amenas.
British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament today that the terror attack "appears to have been a large, well coordinated and heavily armed assault and it is probable that it had been pre-planned."
"The terrorist group is believed to have been operating under Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a criminal terrorist and smuggler who has been operating in Mali and in the region for a number of years," said Cameron.
Cameron said Algerian security forces are still in action at the facility. On Thursday, he said that the situation was "very bad … A number of British citizens have been taken hostage. Already, we know of one who has died. ... I think we should be prepared for the possibility for further bad news, very difficult news in this extremely difficult situation."
The kidnappers had earlier released a statement saying there are "more than 40 crusaders" held "including 7 Americans."
U.S. officials had previously confirmed to ABC News that there were at least three Americans held hostage at the natural gas facility jointly owned by BP, the Algerian national oil company and a Norwegian firm at In Amenas, Algeria.
"I want to assure the American people that the United States will take all necessary and proper steps that are required to deal with this situation," said Panetta. "I don't think there's any question that [this was] a terrorist act and that the terrorists have affiliation with al Qaeda."
He said the precise motivation of the kidnappers was unknown.
"They are terrorists, and they will do terrorist acts," he said.
The Church of Scientology is also at fault for thinking the advertorial would survive The Atlantic readers' scrutiny, Ian Schafer says.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The Atlantic published and pulled a sponsored Scientology "story"
Ian Schafer: On several levels, the ad was a mistake
He says the content was heavy-handed and comments were being moderated
Schafer: Experimenting to raise revenue makes sense, but standards should be clear
Editor's note: Ian Schafer is the founder and CEO of a digital advertising agency, Deep Focus, and the alter ego of @invisibleobama. You can read his rants on his blog at ianschafer.com.
(CNN) -- "The Atlantic is America's leading destination for brave thinking and bold ideas that matter. The Atlantic engages its print, online, and live audiences with breakthrough insights into the worlds of politics, business, the arts, and culture. With exceptional talent deployed against the world's most important and intriguing topics, The Atlantic is the source of opinion, commentary, and analysis for America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." -- The Atlantic 2013 media kit for advertisers
On Monday, The Atlantic published -- and then pulled -- a story titled "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year." This "story" went on to feature the growth of Scientology in 2012.
Ian Schafer
Any regular reader of The Atlantic's content would immediately do a double-take upon seeing that kind of headline, much less the heavy-handed text below it, shamelessly plugging how well Scientology's "ecclesiastical leader" Miscavige has done in "leading a renaissance for the religion."
This "story" is one of several "advertorials" (a portmanteau of "advertising" and "editorials") that The Atlantic has published online, clearly designated as "Sponsor Content." In other words, "stories" like these aren't real stories. They are ads with a lot of words, which advertisers have paid publications to run on their behalf for decades. You may have seen them in magazines and newspapers as "special advertising sections."
The hope is that because you are already reading the publication, hey, maybe you'll read what the advertiser has to say, too -- instead of the "traditional" ad that they may have otherwise placed on the page that you probably won't remember, or worse, will ignore.
There's nothing wrong with this tactic, ethically, when clearly labeled as "sponsored" or "advertising." But many took umbrage with The Atlantic in this particular case; so many, that The Atlantic responded by pulling the story from its site -- which was the right thing to do -- and by apologizing.
At face value, The Atlantic did the right thing for its business model, which depends upon advertising sales. It sold what they call a "native" ad to a paying advertiser, clearly labeled it as such, without the intention of misleading readers into thinking this was a piece of journalism.
But it still failed on several levels.
The Atlantic defines its readers as "America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." By that very definition, it is selling "advertorials" to people who are the least likely to take them seriously, especially when heavy-handed. There is a fine line between advertorial and outright advertising copywriting, and this piece crossed it. The Church of Scientology is just as much at fault for thinking this piece would survive The Atlantic readers' intellectual scrutiny. But this isn't even the real issue.
Bad advertising is all around us. And readers' intellectual scrutiny would surely have let the advertorial piece slide without complaints (though snark would be inevitable), as they have in the past, or yes, even possibly ignored it. But here's where The Atlantic crossed another line -- it seemed clear it was moderating the comments beneath the advertorial.
As The Washington Post reported, The Atlantic marketing team was carefully pruning the comments, ensuring that they were predominantly positive, even though many readers were leaving negative comments. So while The Atlantic was publishing clearly labeled advertiser-written content, it was also un-publishing content created by its readers -- the very folks it exists to serve.
It's understandable that The Atlantic would inevitably touch a third rail with any "new" ad format. But what it calls "native advertising" is actually "advertorial." It's not new at all. Touching the third rail in this case is unacceptable.
So what should The Atlantic have done in this situation before it became a situation? For starters, it should have worked more closely with the Church of Scientology to help create a piece of content that wasn't so clearly written as an ad. If the Church of Scientology was not willing to compromise its advertising to be better content, then The Atlantic should not have accepted the advertising. But this is a quality-control issue.
The real failure here was that comments should never have been enabled beneath this sponsored content unless the advertiser was prepared to let them be there, regardless of sentiment.
It's not like Scientology has avoided controversy in the past. The sheer, obvious reason for this advertorial in the first place was to dispel beliefs that Scientology wasn't a recognized religion (hence "ecclesiastical").
Whether The Atlantic felt it was acting in its advertiser's best interest, or the advertiser specifically asked for this to happen, letting it happen at all was a huge mistake, and a betrayal of an implicit contract that should exist between a publication of The Atlantic's stature and its readership.
No matter how laughably "sales-y" a piece of sponsored content might be, the censoring of readership should be the true "third rail," never to be touched.
Going forward, The Atlantic (and any other publication that chooses to run sponsored content) should adopt and clearly communicate an explicit ethics statement regarding advertorials and their corresponding comments. This statement should guide the decisions it makes when working with advertisers, and serve as a filter for the sponsored content it chooses to publish, and what it recommends advertisers submit. It should also prevent readers from being silenced if given a platform at all.
As an advertising professional, I sincerely hope this doesn't spook The Atlantic or any other publication from experimenting with ways to make money. But as a reader, I hope it leads to better ads that reward me for paying attention, rather than muzzle my voice should I choose to interact with the content.
After all, what more could a publication or advertiser ask for than for content to be so interesting that someone actually would want to comment on (or better, share) it?
(Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said native advertising accounts for 59% of the Atlantic's ad revenue. Digital advertising, of which native advertising is a part, accounts for 59% of The Atlantic's overall revenue, according to the company.)
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ian Schafer.
LONDON: Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers on Thursday said that his controversial striker Luis Suarez could face punishment from the club after admitting that he dived to try to win a penalty in a league game with Stoke City.
In an interview with Fox Sports Argentina, Suarez admitted "falling" during October's 0-0 draw between the clubs at Anfield, prompting Rodgers, who had defended him from criticism at the time, to hit out.
"I think it is wrong. It is unacceptable. I have spoken to Luis and it will be dealt with internally," said Rodgers. "(Diving) is not something we advocate. Our ethics are correct."
Rodgers spoke to Suarez on Thursday and said he had been "totally understanding on where I am coming from as manager of the club.
"What was said was wrong. He takes that and we move on," he added.
Suarez hit the headlines for a theatrical fall in the Stoke game after he went to ground under a challenge from Marc Wilson in an unsuccessful attempt to win a second-half penalty.
FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce was moved to describe Suarez's tumble as "cheating", adding that the tendency for players to easily fall to the ground was a "cancer" in the game.
Suarez has been accused of diving at regular intervals during his time in England and he admitted in the interview that he had gone down on purpose.
"I was criticised for trying to win a penalty by falling in a match against Stoke," said the Uruguay international. "It's true I fell because we were drawing against Stoke at home and we needed to do something.
"But afterwards, the coaches of Stoke, Everton, all of them, came forward. I came to realise that the name of Suarez was a (newspaper) seller."
Suarez sparked controversy again earlier this month when he handled the ball prior to scoring Liverpool's winning goal in their 2-1 victory at non-league Mansfield Town in the FA Cup.
"The other day, a ball hit my hand without me meaning it to," he said. "I kissed my wrist (in celebration) and everyone started rounding on me."
Suarez also claimed that foreign players are treated differently to home-grown players in the Premier League.
"It's difficult," he said. "It's what Carlitos (Tevez) said, it's what Kun (Sergio Aguero) said: foreigners, and especially the South Americans, are treated differently to local players."
Suarez added that his run-in with Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, which saw him hit with a 40,000 fine pounds and an eight-match ban for racial abuse, was long forgotten.
"When people come and insult me, saying I'm South American, I don't start crying. It's something that stays on the pitch, part of football. My conscience is clear," he said, before claiming that Manchester United control the British press.
"They've got a lot of power and they'll always help them."
Barack Obama's hand lies on a Bible held by Michelle Obama as he is sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on January 20, 2009.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Dean Obeidallah: President Obama will take presidential oath with his left hand on two Bibles
Obeidallah: Presidents swear to uphold the Constitution, so why not use that document?
The Constitution doesn't mention a Bible, he says, and two presidents didn't use one
Obeidallah: John Quincy Adams swore on a book of laws, emphasizing his first loyalty
Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a political comedian and frequent commentator on various TV networks including CNN. He is the editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report" and co-director of the upcoming documentary, "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @deanofcomedy. Join Dean for a live discussion from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET Thursday about using Bibles in presidential swearing-in ceremonies. He will respond to your thoughts in the comments section below. Have questions for him? Ask in advance with a post.
(CNN) -- U.S. presidents should not be sworn into office with their hand on a Bible.
At Monday's inauguration of his second term, President Barack Obama will raise his right hand and place his left on not one, but two Bibles: One owned by Abraham Lincoln and the other by Martin Luther King Jr.
Dean Obeidallah
The Constitution requires he give this oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
You might recall that at his 2009 inauguration, President-elect Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts played some kind of "mad libs" with this oath during the swearing-in ceremony, muddling it so badly that they had to redo it a few days later.
But why does the president swear on a Bible? Why doesn't he place his hand on the U.S. Constitution -- the very document he's promising to "preserve, protect and defend"?
The Constitution does not require that the president take the oath of office by swearing on a Bible. That would have been a very simple requirement for the constitutional drafters to include. To the contrary, the Founders wanted to ensure that Americans of any faith -- or no faith -- could hold federal office.
They set it forth plainly in Article VI: "... No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Placing a hand on a Bible while reciting the presidential oath is simply a tradition started by George Washington. Indeed, two presidents, Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams, did not use a Bible at their swearing-in ceremonies.
Although Roosevelt's reasons are unclear, John Quincy Adams' reasons could not be more plain.
Adams, the son of President John Adams, was a religious man. But he chose to be sworn in with his hand on a book of U.S. laws. He wanted to demonstrate that he recognized a barrier between church and state and that his loyalty was to our nation's laws above all else.
Adams also refused to campaign for the presidency because he believed it was beneath the dignity of the office to make promises that might not be kept. Clearly, Adams was not a man who acted because of tradition alone. He had to truly believe in what he did.
Some will argue that swearing on the Bible ensures the president adheres to his oath. But let's be honest: We have seen presidents and other elected officials swear to uphold the laws of our country with their hands on a Bible and go on to break many laws and ethical rules. It comes down to the person's moral code, not a 30-second oath.
And just so it's clear, my objection is not only to the Bible. I would hold the identical view if it were the Quran, the Book of Mormon or any other religious scripture.
The Founding Fathers made it clear that the U.S. Constitution, "...shall be the supreme law of the land." It is the living legacy they bestowed upon us. It is the framework for our government. And as such, that's the document our president should place his hand on.
It should be clear to all that the president views the Constitution as our nation's genesis.
Editor's note: Join Dean Obeidallah for a live discussion from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET Thursday about taking the oath of office on a Bible. He will respond to your thoughts in the comments section below. Have questions for him? Ask in advance by posting a comment.
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Dean Obeidallah.
