|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
85.236.56.176
In Reply to: RE: Why was Audioquest given Stereophile.com as an "Open Letter" venue? posted by John Atkinson on January 31, 2016 at 07:41:55
Sadly, you don't seem to think your judgement is question, and that your are setting a bad precedent.This was between AQ and Waldrep. Why did you get involved? "Newsworthy"?
NO other website decided to publish the "open letter". Ask your self why. Because they knew it was none of their business.Were you after cheap web traffic?
Are you going to now publish all damage control responses from all other high end audio manufacturers who find them selves in a PR pickle? I would like an answer to that.
Edits: 01/31/16 01/31/16Follow Ups:
Mr. Garvey, where did you get your training in journalism or practical experience in publishing?
Thank you for your advice on how I should do my job.I believe you have thoroughly beaten this horse to death.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 01/31/16
Excuse me, but I'm getting totally confused with the issue here. News is news, whether it's good or bad. If anything, publishing the 'Open Letter' exposes the video to scrutiny more than it gives AQ cover. Perhaps other outlets ignored publication because they wanted to give AQ cover or just didn't want to get into the fray. You'd have to ask them about it.
It seems to me that this discussion should be about AQ, not JA.
-Rod
I respectfully beg to differ. JA decided to publish a response from a private company that has all other avenues available to it. An open letter from a CEO is NOT news. The story BEHIND it is news. This is clear as day. No, the editor's judgement is clearly in question.
The S'phile site has a link to Waldrep's original piece, shows us Low's "damage control" reaction, and JA just provided a link to Waldrep's response to Low. What's left?
I don't see S'phile doing anything to protect an advertiser by taking their side in this episode, nor is the mag hiding anything.
JA also posted a link to Mark Waldrep's response. If the story is news, then the response is news. Why does judgement come into this? What are the motives? To hurt AQ or help defend them?
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-Rod
Fair enough. But I look at it as a bad precedent.
The PROPER way, and I think deep down, Atkinson knows this, was to provide a link to AQ's response from either their web page or their facebook page. This is how every other "news" organization does it.
I think my question as to whether other letters from other high end companies who find them selves in PR trouble will be given the venue is 100% legit.
> The PROPER way, and I think deep down, Atkinson knows this...
Please do not project your own opinions and motivations on to me.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
You seem to operate in a bubble professionally. That is your prerogative.
> You seem to operate in a bubble professionally. That is your prerogative.
Indeed it is. The definitive job description for a magazine editor was
written by Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines: "All great
editors are men able to see how stories, episodes, and personalities flow
and merge one into the other to reproduce the pattern of a world that only
their own inner eye perceives."
> If I was the Publisher or owner of Stereophile I would ask the current
> editor to start grooming his successor, on the double.
Unfortunately for your argument, you are not the "Publisher or owner of
Stereophile." :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Is Mr Garvey in the cable business ... ?
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: