|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.122.72.31
In Reply to: RE: What I am realizing is the reviewer community is a club... posted by Steve Parry on April 09, 2014 at 15:12:59
and its easy to show that its unethical to do a negative review.
We've been through this one before so in a nutshell:
A bad review can occur because:
1) the reviewer is incompetent at setup
2) the reviewer made a mistake and won't man up to it
3) the reviewer might have a personal beef with the manufacturer, unrelated to the product
4) the reviewer might be asked to write a negative review based on the fact that the manufacturer is not an advertiser
5) a product is damaged in shipment, and the manufacturer is not allowed to repair it
6) there could be politics with another manufacturer/advertiser
7) a magazine, wanting to show that they have 'hard hitting journalism' will select a sacrificial lamb (manufacturer), one that cannot fight back due to their small size or the like.
8) a reviewer/magazine is carrying out a vendetta against the manufacturer. This is not quite the same as 3)
I've seen all of the above.
If a product does not measure up to some sort of minimum standard, the best policy is to not write anything about it and return the un-reviewed product. Out of sight: out of mind.
If you look at Car and Driver, they have shootouts all the time. Imagine them doing a bad review of a car because it does not stack up to some unknown car of which nothing is revealed. That would never fly.
Follow Ups:
As someone who has spent more than 20 years as a journalist, with a professional degree in the field and time spent in a variety of roles from reporter to editor to publisher, I couldn't disagree more with either notion -- that negative reviews are unethical or that the proper policy when reviewing a product that doesn't measure up to minimum standards of performance is to return it to the manufacturer unreviewed.
I think just the opposite is true, professional responsibility sometimes demands negative reviews. Consumer electronics reviews are service journalism, nothing more. The responsibility of the reviewer is to provide information to readers to help them make better-informed buying decisions. At the very least never publishing a bad review when a products do warrant them -- because they sound bad, don't perform properly, have reliability issues, represent a lousy value, whatever -- does a disservice to readers by either giving the impression that everything is good, or that everything that's not reviewed isn't good. At worst it's putting the interests of the manufacturers -- many of whom are probably advertisers -- or at least the interest of maintaining a relationship with the manufacturers, ahead of the responsibility to inform the readers. That misplaced priority would, in my judgement, represent a breach of professional ethics.
Further, I'd say particularly in instances where -- if it ever happens -- a major manufacturer offers a project that purports to be an assault on the state of the art, and it doesn't perform to that level, it's the publication's responsibility to publish a negative review.
Having worked in a sort of trade publishing at one point in my career, I'm very familiar with the kinds of challenges faced by trade and specialty publishers whose advertisers, sources and readers all come from the same professional community. I'm also sensitive to the needs of a publication whose lifeblood is access to equipment to maintain relationships with manufacturers. These are businesses after all. Nothing's pure in this world. But specialty audio publishing seems to be an environment particularly fraught with, if not conflicts of interest certainly practices that give rise to the appearance of conflicts of interest -- the long terms loans and discounted prices made available to reviewers, for example; and the widespread practice of avoiding the publication of negative reviews is another practice that undermines credibility.
Jason Chervokas
As someone who has spent 38 years as an engineer, with a professional degree in the field, and time spent in a variety of roles from technician to engineer and CEO, it seems to me that a negative review remains an unethical act, in light of having seen all the reasons why played out at one point or another first hand. I listed these reasons in the post to which you responded.
Put another way, so far in high end audio I know of a greater number of negative reviews that are the result of politics rather than actual truth. Further, I had the opportunity to sit in on a conversation wherein I saw how money can affect the plans of a publisher, in this case one that is well-known. Thus I am aware of publishing organizations where the advertising and editorial stance are quite separate and I know of others where they are not.
Humans being what they are, the assumption that the *entire* publishing industry is on the up and up is unfortunately a foolhardy act.
I appreciate that you may find yourself well above some of the antics I have witnessed. At any rate due to my own first hand experience with this matter you will be unable to change my mind despite your sincerity. I think it important for you to understand that 'an exception' in this matter is what you may well be.
It's perfectly possible to write an unethical negative review -- as an act of revenge or something, or as pure libel with a reckless disregard for the truth -- just as it's perfectly possible to write an unethical rave -- like if you're paid off or something, or even when you write a rave about a piece of gear you're living with on a long term lone, which is tantamount to a pay off.
But the very act of writing a negative review is in no way unethical, and it's often the only responsible act for the journalist. And to my way of thinking any overarching policy to only publish positive reviews is inherently compromised and does a disservice to the readership.
The primary ethical responsibility of the journalist is to the reader -- to inform the reader fully and truthfully. The ethical responsibility to the subject of the review is fairness.
Like I said, specialty interest publishers, like trade publishers, face inherently compromising positions because their sources and advertisers come from a common pool and because they rely on access to be able to produce their product. No doubt some people in those areas do a better job maintaining their integrity than others. It may well be that the specialty audio press is a cesspool of compromised ethics, or it may be that there are a mix of good and back practitioners at work in the area, just like any area of human endeavor.
News enterprises typically have codes of ethics that are written and that practitioners are expected to adhere to. It would be interesting to know if the likes of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound have formal codes of ethics. If not, they should just like The New York Times or any other news organization does. And as I said previously I think long-term loans, discount pricing for reviewers, etc. are inherently compromising and certainly create and appearance of conflict of interest and should be done away with if the audio press wants to be taken seriously as an independent entity. And I have no doubt that on occasion in the history of the audio press worse breaches of ethics have occurred. But in no way is a negative review inherently unethical. And in no way is the reviewer's responsibility when confronted with a substandard piece of gear to not inform the readers but instead just inform the manufacturer.
Jason Chervokas
We're talking about gear reviewers in a magazine that gets its revenue from the manufacturers of that or similar gear. For this situation there is a always a potential conflict of interest. The decision to run the review with the will-not-disclose comparison was probably a bad one.
But if we ignore that issue, there is still the issue of "why do you read reviews?" If it is to find out what something is like, you are probably expecting too much. Better, I think, to read reviews to cue you in on what to listen for when *you* hear the gear. Reviews can be helpful there - sometimes they are right, sometimes not.
And sometimes reviews are just plain bad. I'm thinking 'way back to a review of double Advents (TAS?) where the reviewer endlessly compared them to KLH nines. Well I had double Advents, and KLH nines, and my ears say that whoever wrote that review was dead wrong on almost every point. Or maybe the Harry Pearson piece on the Tice clock, when he heard the enormous difference it made... even from another part of the house. It happens. (And there is no accounting for taste - mine •or• yours.)
Cut 'em some slack and enjoy reading them - some reviewers are worth reading just for their writing, but put a record on first and listen to the music.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
-
Your view of the appropriate responsibilities of the audio reviewer offers a refreshing candor and demands a level of behavioral changes that would put the needs of the street level audiophile ahead of those of the audio manufacturers and the reviewers and their editors. Of course, such a change would entail ending the cozy relationships that have been engendered over the years. Tipping over this apple cart would lead to a very different kind of audio reviewing then we now have. Reviewers would come down from their thrones and serve their real constituency, the people who actually purchase equipment at full cost, rather than the manufacturers who provide them with long term loans and sweet heart deals. The reality is, of course, that this radical shift is 'not in the cards', as the current relationships are historically entrenched and those who benefit are hardly desirous of surrendering either their positions or the benefits that they yield.
"If a product does not measure up to some sort of minimum standard, the best policy is to not write anything about it and return the un-reviewed product. Out of sight: out of mind."
The best policy for whom? Certainly not for potential users. That would simply erode what meager credibility reviews have to absolute zero.
Manufacturer's already have dealers, advertising, reputation, and hopefully pre-sales support to support their sales efforts, they don't need to have illicit reviewers also.
At least they shouldn't!
Rick
If reader does not read about a product, then maybe they won't also seek it out. It would not erode the reputation of reviewers- rather the other way around.
The problem here is that there are good number of ways that negative reviews are subject to problems outside of the review itself. How are you as a reader supposed to know that?
Ralph, I completely agree with your Car & Driver analogy - It would never fly.As for #4 on your list - Whew!
I don't know. That's some grassy knoll shit; But you would know better than I.Could you imagine if a reviewer was being pressured by a editor to do as you said because of advertising revenue, and it were caught on camera, tape, or witnessed by a co-worker? No more job for Mr. Editor because he would be hammered in the court of public opinion, not to mention the likelihood of prosecution under the various whistle blower protection laws.
I have dealt with this very thing where one of the employees that I represented as a local chairman put his hand in his sweatshirt pocket and hit record on his smart phone while the supervisor hung himself with words. The supervisor then veitamly denied that he would have ever have said such a thing. Now a he is a former supervisor.....
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Edits: 04/12/14
Regarding #4, amongst manufacturers, certain magazines had developed a reputation of sorts for that practice about 20 years ago. I was told/warned by a friend of mine at ARC. I do not know whether that practice is still in play today.
But as a manufacturer, that is something you have to look at when you look at doing a review.
One thing I forgot was the possibility of a bad review on account of the manufacturer refusing to give the reviewer the product for free. I was in a room at CES years ago and saw that one play out- that is why Gryphon was not represented in the US for a number of years. What I saw was the reviewer threatening the manufacturer that if they did not give the product to him, that he would write a scathing review, which is what he did.
Ralph;
Thanks for shining a light on reviewing that most of us consumers would never know of, much less encounter.
The fact (I'll call it that since I am taking your word) that a reviewer requested a free product in lieu of a favorable review is awful for a couple of reasons.
1) That a reviewer would be so bold as to request such a thing tells me that type of thing has been done before. This may explain his/her lack of shame in doing so.
2) That a reviewer is in such bad shape financially that he/she has to resort to such tactics. I presume this is being done because either the reviewer cannot afford the gear, or he/she intends to sell the piece to subsidize their income.
It makes me wonder just how many audio reviewers are making a viable living from reviewing only, without the support of another income/job. I'm guessing less than 25 in the world, but I may be far off the mark - dunno?
By viable I mean;
1) Own a home.
2) Own a decent car.
3) Have a retirement plan/pension that does not include social security.
4) Able to have a health, dental and vision plan that is either employee sponsored, or one is able to earn enough to pay the hefty premium out of money earned from their income.
5) Take a vacation every year that is not audio (work) related.
My father in law told me many years ago that if what you do doesn't meet the above criteria then it's not a job - it's a hobby.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
-but it seems to me that there really aren't that may reviewers on the take. I've only seen it twice.
I think your father was on to something.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: