|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
117.240.209.39
In Reply to: RE: Will some of you guys PLEASE "yIn Suq"??? posted by John Atkinson on February 02, 2016 at 10:28:59
Also good know you are yet again a majority of one.I will also be waiting to see if all other manufacturers will be given the platform to address the "community" when they hit a few rocks in the water.
Edits: 02/02/16Follow Ups:
> Also good know you are yet again a majority of one.
You keep saying this or a variant as if it were some kind of issue with
my role as Stereophile's editor. You also lecture me me on how I should
do my job; say that if you were the owner or publisher of Stereophile you
would force me into early retirement because of the decisions I make; yet
you have yet to answer the question put to you by other posters what your
background in publishing is to be so sure of what you write.
I gave you the best job description for a magazine editor yesterday, from
Henry Luce: "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."
What this means is that I am given carte blanche by the management of the
company that owns Stereophile to decide what content is appropriate to
offer readers of the print magazine and surfers of the magazine's website.
In that respect, there is no editorial board to whom I report, nor even
an editorial director. The only people to whom I report are the magazine's
readers and as Stereophile has a larger circulation than all other
English-language high-end audio print magazines combined, those readers
seem to be okay with my decisions. And as that is the case, so are my
company's management.
When that changes, you have a point. But until that time, you don't.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
You have not answered a question posted to you THREE times..will you be posting any all Open Letters by other manufacturers?
I will answer: I was a contributing editor to a major university newspaper for 4 years. I interface with contributors and editor to high profile entertainment publications weekly. I have never been a professional editor or journalist.
I have no interest in your corporate structure.
I have every absolutely every right to voice my opinion that I would prefer a transition. And orderly one at that, contrary to the assertion of another trolling poster.
You can continue to defend your decision with highly questionable reasoning and excuses, and it was your decision to make, no doubt, but NO OTHER PUBLICATION took the bait. I am also free to point that out.
For the record I do not believe in corporate oversight of editorial decisions.
> > You lecture me me on how I should do my job...yet you have yet to
> > answer the question put to you by other posters what your background
> > in publishing is to be so sure of what you write.
>
> I was a contributing editor to a major university newspaper for 4 years.
> I interface with contributors and editor to high profile entertainment
> publications weekly. I have never been a professional editor or
> journalist.
Thank you for clarifying the context for your questions. The reality is
that you have no relevant experience to call my behavior as a magazine
editor into question. All I can suggest is that if you are that unhappy
with how I perform my job, you should stop subscribing to Stereophile.
> > I am given carte blanche by the management of the company that owns
> > Stereophile to decide what content is appropriate to offer readers of
> > the print magazine and surfers of the magazine's website. In that
> > respect, there is no editorial board to whom I report, nor even an
> > editorial director.
>
> I have no interest in your corporate structure.
Yet you repeatedly questioned my authority to make the editorial decisions
with which you disagreed. I offered you an explanation in response to
your questioning but now you say you are _not_ interested?
> You have not answered a question posted to you THREE times...will you be
> posting any all Open Letters by other manufacturers?
As no-one else has approached me, nor is there any way of my knowing if
such a letter would be newsworthy or not, your question cannot be answered
other than by saying "it depends."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
No, I did not question your authority, I questioned your judgement. Please quote back where I questioned your authority to publish what you please?
Yet, Still no answer to my question , just more Butt Hurt ...... Smh
I had asked before to no avail, is Mr Garvey a cable manufacturer ? industry affiliation ...?
Garvey does bring a lot of angst to the table, frankly if SP had never posted the letter and Mr Garvey hadn't blown a gasket over it , i would never have had a clue as to the issue at hand with AQ ...
Thank you both ..:)
Would it have really been that different had it appeared in a paid ad? Seems to me the item was newsworthy enough to print.
I'm only interested in the substance. I've been following this on Waldrep's web site since the beginning. Waldrep seems surprised, bewildered, even bothered by all the attention it's getting. I'm always interested to see how people deal with problems I wouldn't know where to begin tackling. There are a lot of those out there. Will this die out and interest in it fade quickly? That's my hunch, this is hardly world shattering news to some of us. Or will it just drone on interminably? Seems to me it's going to grow rather old fast. AQ has some internal problems to sort out. Usually that's time for a re-org and maybe one or two heads rolling. The only thing unusual from my point of view was how obvious and blatant it was. Usually it's more subtle.
"Would it have really been that different had it appeared in a paid ad?"
Yes, it would have been better. Let them use their own resources and pay up to do damage control. Oh wait, they did not have to..it was a "press release", so it got printed for FREE, by ONE editor.
Major newspapers accept "open letters" from corporations for a fee. As they should.
Sounds rather vindictive. I thought it was just the hobbyists who flamed each other. Looks like a fight has broken out between Mark Waldrep and Michael Livorgna on Waldrep's web site.
I have no dog in this fight. My interconnect supplier is the Dollar Store and my speaker wire supplier is Home Depot. I buy the Trisonic Chinese interconnects because I know how they sound and I don't buy the supposedly better Acoustic Research wires at the same price because I'm not into experimenting with wires. But then I'm not an audiophile. I'm also not in this industry....thank god for that. :-)
Why am I not surprised with Lavorgna? He immediately struck me as a phoney and one who laps up manufacturer bullshit like sweet honey. Interesting, the so called neutral press strongly defends Audioquest.Oh doesn't his buddy Mejias work there as "marketing manager"? Laughable.
This is looking worse and worse by the day.Waldrep:
"Michael Lavorgna has no qualms about making personal attacks against me in response to my recent discovery about the falsified YouTube video involving AudioQuest HDMI cables (a revelation that has been confirmed by Amir at the What's Best Forum and acknowledged by Bill Low, the CEO of AudioQuest) or the Regen audio device. He has done so in a private email thread to other journalists and accessory makers. Here's a couple of his less than polite comments to over 70 members of the audio community:
"Mark gets 'booted' (his words) from the CTA Audio Board so he turns that into a badge of honor by playing the evangelical outsider. Pathetic."
"Because Mark blows his whistle without knowing what he's talking about, time and again. That he may have gotten lucky this time is of no consequence to me.
"If Mark did not have it out for AudioQuest, or if a more rational person had come across the questionable video, they very well might have contacted AQ with their concern and we would not be having this conversation."
Edits: 02/02/16
I see no problem with Stereophile Magazine publishing Bill Low's letter.
I see no problem with Marc Waldrep publishing his findings of AQ's advertising on his blog site.
That's what freedom of the press is all about. Free speech and a free press are needed most not when people agree but when they disagree even to the point of anger. There are laws for libel and slander that allow for compensation for deliberate lies about people. I don't think that's at issue here. I think it's good that disagreements like these are aired in public. I'm just a spectator watching what's going on.
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: