Critic's Corner

RE: The post does have a problem

72.70.245.129

In Reply to: RE: The post does have a problem posted by lancelot on May 16, 2008 at 10:28:30

I understand this quite differently. Lancelot writes:

"...when Hikejohn says, 'accepts too much BS from advertisers,' the only rational conclusion to that statement, IMO, is that advertisers are corrupting the neutrality of the review by the fact they advertise in the magazine. In other words, to some degree they *buy* the review."

I think that mixes two separate things together. To wonder if the claims made for a new product might have created a degree of preconception in the mind of a reviewer is not an accusation that a reviewer has purposely set out to falsify a review for business reasons. The debate can rage on as to whether either, both or neither occur, but they're not the same thing.

That may be linked to the whole "defamation" accusation -- people being upset by their own interpretive extension of the original post rather than what it actually said.

Follow Ups:

RE: The post does have a problem - Pat D 03:21:57 05/18/08 (4)
- nice to be beyond all that, isn't it Pat? (nt) - robert young 12:32:19 05/18/08 (3)
  - I beg your pardon! - Pat D 14:00:28 05/18/08 (2)
    - Dear Pat, YOU didn't claim it, I claimed it for you! - robert young 14:05:36 05/18/08 (1)
      - Yep. you've now stated it more generally. - Pat D 16:03:11 05/20/08 (0)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.