|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.193.12.6
There has been some grumbling on the Asylum in the past week that
Stereophile's review coverage is biased toward advertisers. I have
pointed out that that is not the case, but inmates seem unconvinced.
So, as I was working on the list of contenders for our April issue's
"Recommended Components" listing this morning, it was a very easy
task to provide some hard data.
I took the list of every brand that has received more than a nominal
mention in Stereophile -- ie, was written about in a formal review,
a follow-up review, or in Sam's, Mikey's, Art's, Kal's, and John
Marks' column -- and split it into current advertisers in Stereophile
and non-advertisers. (I did this from memory, so I admit there may be
a couple of errors in either direction. If so, please let me know.)
The data: we have published review opinions in this period on products
from 40 advertisers. However, we have also published review opinions
on products from 50 non-advertisers. So those who continue to
insist that there is a correlation need either to withdraw that
accusation or explain why these data are not relevant to their argument.
40 Advertisers: AudioPhysic, Ayre, B&W, Balanced Audio Technology,
Bellari, Bryston, Cary Audio Design, Cayin, Chord, Conrad-Johnson,
Continuum, dCS, DeVore Fidelity, Exposure, Finite Elemente,
Focal-JMlab, Genesis, Graham Engineering, Halcro, Harbeth, HeadRoom,
Linn, Mark Levinson, Monitor Audio, Musical Fidelity, Naim, NHT,
Outlaw, Quad, Simaudio Moon, Sonus Faber, Spendor, Sutherland,
Thiel, Usher, Velodyne, Viola Audio Laboratories, VTL, Whest,
Wilson Audio Specialties
50 Non Advertisers: Alesis, Art Audio, Audio Analogue, Audio Research,
Audio Valve, Audiopax, Bryston, Channel Islands Audio, Consonance,
Cyrus, DaVinci Audio Labs, Denon, Dynavector , Eastern Electric,
Ensemble, Esoteric Audio Research, ESP, First Watt, Genelec, Grace,
Hagerman Audio, Hannl, Hartley, Horning, Hotei, Jasmine Audio, KEF,
Lipinski Sound, Locus, Magnum Dynalab, Music First, Nirvana, Nola,
Olive, Panamax, Peak Consult, Penaudio, Placette, PS Audio, Ray
Samuels Audio, Shun Mook, Sonic Euphoria, Sound Quest, Sugden Audio,
Triangle, Trigon Elektronik, Viva Solista, Wallytools, Wharfedale,
Yamamoto.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
The primary problem with Stereophile is the strong bias toward favorable reviews which seems to lead to an enormous recommended components list.The list would provide much more value if it was 90% shorter ... and also included a NOT recommended list of components reviewed that year (a very short list!).
The odds of a favorable Stereophile review are so high that if you merely assume the component received a favorable review, you will almost always be right, and won't have to read the review!
In fact, I recommend reading the list of components reviewed in the table of contents and then going to an audio store to audition any component that interests you.
After the audition you may want to read the entire component review, although it would be redundant at that time.
Reading a positive review first is likely to bias an audition that follows.
Positive reviews are what the advertisers want, IMHO.
Doesn't matter if it's their products or others -- a high percentage of positive reviews keeps the advertisers happy. IMHO.
Stereophile readers, however, deserve more than "happy face" reviews.
The audiophiles who used to criticize Julian Hirsh reviews in Stereo Review and Sound & Vision are getting the same positive-review bias in Stereophile.
I challenge Stereophile to publish a list of reviewed components that are NOT recommended, and why they are not recommended (one sentence is fine) -- adding real value to the ridiculously large list of recommended components we see every year.
Stereophile offers a perfect example of how NOT to do a recommended components list!
But the list is not the core problem -- the root cause of the huge list is the positive review bias.
If that bias has absolutely no link to the fact that Stereophile is supported mainly by advertising, then I'll eat my hat.
> Red Herring data -- perhaps correct, but not important
Ah, Mr. Greene -- or may I call you "Bass Nut"? -- it must feel
good to be so righteous. Yet the fact is that you don't appear to
have comprehended my post and its data. I was clearly responding to
the statement made by Gregg Straley of Reality Cables on his
website that "Magazine [sic] like Stereophile and Absolute Sound
require you to advertise with them for about 6 months before they
review your products." I thought the fact that in 7 consecutive
issues of Stereophile, 48 out of 90 brands reviewed do _not_
advertise definitively proved Mr. Straley's statement false. Why is
that a "red herring"?
> The odds of a favorable Stereophile review are so high that if you
> merely assume the component received a favorable review, you will
> almost always be right, and won't have to read the review!
This is an old strawman argument that has been addressed both here
and in my magazine, Richard. As I have patiently but apparently
fruitlessly explained before, Mr. Nut, we attempt to cherry-pick
products for review on the grounds that they are worth writing about,
ie, will probably sound good. If we do that job perfectly, 100%
of the products we review will subsequently appear in "Recommended
Components." The fact that the percentage is less than 100% suggests
we should try harder at that goal. :-)
> a high percentage of positive reviews keeps the advertisers happy.
But no, we don't do this to please advertisers. Otherwise, how do
you explain why so many products from _non_-advertisers also appear
on the list? Why would we want to please those people? Or are you
going to retreat, as one inmate did a while back, into spluttering
that _that_ merely proves how tricky we are?You can get back in your box, now, Mr. Bass.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"Ah, Mr. Greene -- or may I call you "Bass Nut"? -- it must feel
good to be so righteous."RG: Meaningless character attack #1
.
.
.
"Yet the fact is that you don't appear to have comprehended my post and its data."RG: Meaningless character attack #2
.
.
.
"I was clearly responding to the statement made by Gregg Straley of Reality Cables on his website that "Magazine [sic] like Stereophile and Absolute Sound require you to advertise with them for about 6 months before they review your products." I thought the fact that in 7 consecutive issues of Stereophile, 48 out of 90 brands reviewed do _not_ advertise definitively proved Mr. Straley's statement false. Why is that a "red herring"?RG:
Someone slings mud at Stereophile.
Stereophile is bad!
You counter with statistics to prove him wrong.
Now Stereophile is good!
You win the "battle".However this was a meaningless "battle" over a false charge which served only as a distraction (red herring) from the real problem with Stereophile: -- Too high a percentage of positive reviews and far too many recommended components.
.
.
.
> The odds of a favorable Stereophile review are so high that if you
> merely assume the component received a favorable review, you will
> almost always be right, and won't have to read the review!YOUR REPLY:
"This is an old strawman argument that has been addressed both here
and in my magazine, Richard. As I have patiently but apparently
fruitlessly explained before, Mr. Nut, we attempt to cherry-pick
products for review on the grounds that they are worth writing about,
ie, will probably sound good. If we do that job perfectly, 100%
of the products we review will subsequently appear in "Recommended
Components." The fact that the percentage is less than 100% suggests
we should try harder at that goal. :-)"RG: The argument may be old but it is correct and can't be refuted by the infamous and lame "Julian Hirsch defense". Stereo Review readers also complained there were too many positive reviews. Hirsch defended himself by claiming his editors selected only very good components for his reviews. It was suggested that if a reader was very careful reading each word of a Hirsch review, he might be able to differentiate between good products and very good products.
In StereoReviewLand, just as in StereophileLand, virtually all products are above average!If Stereophile editors are so good at "cherry picking" above average products, then there's little need for publishing detailed reviews. Just present a "cherry-picked list" of products every month and readers can assume they are all good products. The probability of that assumption being wrong seems very low. The magazine could have one dozen components on each cherry-picked list -- versus only 4 or 5 full reviews every month. Much more useful for readers!
.
.
.
> a high percentage of positive reviews keeps the advertisers happy.
"But no, we don't do this to please advertisers. Otherwise, how do
you explain why so many products from _non_-advertisers also appear
on the list? Why would we want to please those people? Or are you
going to retreat, as one inmate did a while back, into spluttering
that _that_ merely proves how tricky we are?"RG:
Your analysis does not support the conclusion (I'm assuming the questions you write imply conclusions).
You review products from non advertisers for three reasons:
(1) You would be accused of favoritism if you did not
(2) You would have too limited coverage of all available products (many, perhaps most, manufacturers do not advertise in Stereophile)
(3) Non-advertisers today are potential advertisers tomorrow.Advertisers want to be confident the money they invest convincing Stereophile readers to buy their products over many months or years is not likely to be offset instantly by a negative review. They can be confident their investment will not be undermined by a negative review if the magazine rarely publishes negative reviews! This is true of Stereophile, Absolute Sound, Sound & Vision and possibly every magazine supported by advertising that wants to stay in business!
.
.
.
"You can get back in your box, now, Mr. Bass."
John Atkinson
Editor, StereophileRG: Meaningless character attack #3
PS: My local Birmingham Michigan library is one of the few that has Stereophile in its magazine collection -- maybe the only one!. I can read your magazine for free ... but I don't bother.Reason: Any magazine editor who thinks a 500+ Recommended Components list is useful, and writes: "If we do that job perfectly, 100% of the products we review will subsequently appear in "Recommended Components." " ... is the king of "Happy Face Reviews".
Move over Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Atkinson wants your title!
Mr. John Atkinson
Future Title: World Champion Audio Happy Face Review Editor
Richard,I don't see Stereophile (or any audio magazine) as a Consumer Reports. I don't want to read about components that sound bad. I do want to read about things that sound good or great, that have something special about them - something that might make me want to find out more - because I'm a connoisseur. By the way - you are, too.
And connoisseur magazines don't waste their readers' time by devoting column inches to bad cigars (Cohiba Esplendido = good, Swisher Sweets = bad), nor do Haut Horologie magazines cover ugly watches (Chopard, very elegant ... G-Shock, not so much). Same for magazines about fine wines, classic cars, etc.
Many people seem to be making the mistake that Stereophile somehow has the core responsibility of a consumer advocate magazine such as Consumer Reports. It does not. It is a journal for the audio connoisseur, regardless of the expense level the connoisseur is participating at, and it is with this in mind that they publish their reviews ... in order to inform the connoisseur of something they might like. Not of something they might dislike.
However, there may be room in the marketplace for an audio consumer-advocate magazine ala Ralph Nader. I don't know for sure ... I don't think I'd be interested in it, but I'm sure others might. How many others is hard to determine ... it'll take a brave soul such as yourself to try it out.
Cheers!
Chris
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Were I running the magazine, I'd categorize them as "advertisers" and "potential advertises" and treat them both with equal deference.
But that's just me. ;-)
__________________________________________________
Boo!
For a few days there was a sub branch in which John Atkinson stated which postings had prompted the creation of this thread and asking the authors to defend their posts. Although surprised to be named given the content of my previous posts I responded. If I recall correctly, I stated why my previous posts supported his view, responded to the topic of the thread expanding and supporting his view, and left the clarification of a previous comment that he had picked up on as a question.This evening when I looked to see if John had responded to the question I was surprised to see the sub branch had been deleted. Having scanned the rules none of the content that I can recall went even close to a violation but please correct me if I am wrong.
I can understand why John might appreciate the removal and I have no problem with the people running the site doing whatever they want. However, I am curious to know the reason?
> This evening when I looked to see if John had responded to the
> question I was surprised to see the sub branch had been deleted.
I had no involvement with its deletion, but I hadn't yet responded to
your message. If I remember correctly (and please correct me if I
haven't), your point was that as long as Stereophile reviewed _any_
products from companies that advertise, it could not be proved that
there was no connection between such advertising and our review
coverage. Is that correct? If so, then that would seem an impossible
standard for any publication to meet. And even if we applied such a
policy, in effect "punishing" companies that advertise by refusing to
write about their products, the moment one of the non-advertisers
decided to advertise following a review, we would be back in the
current situation.
However, if you examine the accusation to which I was responding,
vide the statement made by Gregg Straley of Reality Cables on his
website that "Magazine [sic] like Stereophile and Absolute Sound
require you to advertise with them for about 6 months before they
review your products," the fact that in 7 consecutive issues of
Stereophile, 48 out of 90 brands reviewed do _not_ advertise would
seem definitive proof that Mr. Straley's statement, which he now
admits was not based on his own experience but was hearsay, is
false.
If you still disagree, I would certainly be interested in learning
why?
I also note that despite my so far polite requests to Mr. Straley
to remove the false, misleading and defamatory text from his site at
http://www.realitycables.com/faq.html, he has not yet done so. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> If I remember correctly (and please correct me if I
> haven't), your point was that as long as Stereophile reviewed _any_
> products from companies that advertise, it could not be proved that
> there was no connection between such advertising and our review
> coverage. Is that correct?No, this was not the question. The above appears to be related to my answer to your question where I explained by example the meaning of correlation which you are misusing with "no correlation" even though your intended meaning can be deduced from the context.
In pulling me into this thread you had reworded a statement of mine and implied a change of meaning (I think). I simply repeated the statement in the form of a question to clarify if you actually disagreed with it. It was:
is the content of Stereophile designed to attract advertising?
and I emphasised that this did not mean using advertising to pay for content but the other way round in using content to attract advertising. The precise words will have been slightly different of course.
Given your job to run Stereophile profitably and the proportion of profitable income from advertising compared with that from magazine sales it hardly seemed a particularly contentious statement.
> However, if you examine the accusation to which I was responding,
> vide the statement made by Gregg Straley of Reality Cables on his
> website that "Magazine [sic] like Stereophile and Absolute Sound
> require you to advertise with them for about 6 months before they
> review your products," the fact that in 7 consecutive issues of
> Stereophile, 48 out of 90 brands reviewed do _not_ advertise would
> seem definitive proof that Mr. Straley's statement, which he now
> admits was not based on his own experience but was hearsay, is
> false.> If you still disagree, I would certainly be interested in learning
> why?I did not contribute to this thread either and so I do not know where the "still" comes from. Presuming you want me to comment for the first time on the truth or not of the comment on the web site then I will try to do so but obviously lack all knowledge of conversations between Stereophile and cable companies about advertising. Also I have never seen a paper copy of Stereophile and the adverts it contains and have only skim read a few cable reviews and a few cable company web sites.
For a company like Reality Cables (see phone contact for clue - a schoolboy perhaps?) I suspect the gist of the statement is probably about right and possibly optimistic. Maybe 12 months as suggested by someone else albeit in jest? However, I doubt very much that if a resourceless cable company like this rang Stereophile enquiring about a review they would be told 6 months advertising = 1 review. I expect they would get something along the lines of being established, more than 5 B&M dealers, early reviews for new manufacturers doing more harm than good, etc... which I can see easily getting translated into something like the quote on the web page.
Your attempted defence is invalid because it assumes that Stereophile reviews of products like cables (no difference in performance) are similar to reviews of components like speakers (significant difference in performance). Even a cursory glance at typical Stereophile cable and speaker reviews will show this is not the case: the speaker reviews are a bit odd but the cable reviews are out of order from the consumers point of view.
More correct data would be provided from the correlation between the reviewed cable manufacturers and the cable advertisers over the last few years. Of course, even a corrleation of 1.0 does not necessarily prove much since the major cable manufacturers are going to advertise in Stereophile and if their cables are the only ones reviewed what does it mean?
What proves something is banging on about the contents of the cable reviews and what they mean in terms of advertisers income. However, that is probably best left for someone else to start in a fresh thread.
> I also note that despite my so far polite requests to Mr. Straley
> to remove the false, misleading and defamatory text from his site at
> http://www.realitycables.com/faq.html, he has not yet done so. :-(John, this is a cable company and most of the statements on the web page are likely to be far more untruthful than the one you are objecting to.
Currently, Don T isn't welcome to post on this board. All posts, in reply
to his before the Random Electronically Timed Auto Response Delete
program extinguishes his post, will suffer collateral damage.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
is why folks seem to buy into the Stereophile bias so easily and yet seem to let the ezines off the hook. As a property within a large publishing concern, I'm sure that Stereophile has an advertising sales staff that is far removed from the editorial group. With ezines, that's not the case at all. Most commonly, the head honcho and primary reviewer is also the ad sales guy. Are products traded for ads? Are the reviewers a bit too cozy with the manufacturers?Joe's written a killer review for your product and would like to keep itt, but the accomodation price is a litte too high? If we throw in a free ad, can you reduce the price a bit?
Hey, I'm not accusing anyone, but why is Stereophile the one that is typically accused of this behavior when it's the least likely to indulge in it?
-Rod
Goodpoint.I have heard stories that could turn your hair white. Mostly about ezines. But also about a guy who used to write for Fi.
As I have written before, I don't have a problem with industry-accommodation sales at 50% of retail in the audio industry (for high end companies; mass-market and pro have narrower margins) because the sale is revenue-neutral for the company (dealer cost minus rep commission). I do have huge problems with steeper discounts (parts and labor cost, or just parts cost) because then the compnay is buying advertising.
But the reason I think that Stereophile is such a big target (and TAS apparently is not) is that for better or worse (SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF) the RCL dominates the field as nothing else does.*
And I don't blame John Atkinson for doing his job, I blame most audio companies for being totally tone-deaf to the music of marketing. Far too many audio companies expect Stereophile to do their marketing for them. We don't do that, we tell the readers what we think will help them make a decision whether to seek out a personal encounter with a product. It is the job of the companies to "tell their story," not our job.
I believe that an audio company run the right way should use a review in Stereophile as a leg of a tripod with other elements in the marketing mix. Too many companies try using one leg as a pogo stick. A healthy dealer base and meaningful product literature should be more important than what Stereophile says.
IMHO.
John Marks
*I think Stereophile's RCL dominates the market in general. However, and recognizing that the effect is weaker than in past years, I also acknowledge that a rave from HP will sell from 6 to 30 pieces of a very expensive component, to those who have to follow along behind him and have the cash to do so.
> I believe that an audio company run the right way should use a review
> in Stereophile as a leg of a tripod with other elements in the
> marketing mix. Too many companies try using one leg as a pogo stick.
> A healthy dealer base and meaningful product literature should be
> more important than what Stereophile says.
Amen, John. But acquiring "healthy dealer base" represents years of
hard work and the glittering allure of that magazine review is seen
by too many as a possible short cut. Such people forget that without
the established dealer base, the review can only have a very brief
effect on sales.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I think this gets back to my original thread what is the right balance
Stereophile seems to be a target for criticism....maybe because of its market influence
Secondly JA admits it "cherrypicks" or its reviewers do, equipment of interest or possible quality. Nothing wrong with that, given the plethora of "object d'art" out there!But their influence in the market place does create distortions... generally unintentionally.....apparently more than TAS.
Yet Sterophile provides measurements, which TAS has always eschewed yet it's criticised for bias.............go figure. Though I have often noted technical oversights in TAS which pass blamelessly through, though Sterophile love them or hate them at least have a consistent line over the years. I mean I cannot follow HP's proclivities, and I haven't seen any responcse from TAS reviewers other than Myles, who is I think a long time X-reviewers, and has written some very kind words.
I have been encouraged by JA's and JM's positive interest in the these criticisms.....AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE POSITIVE MOVING FORWARD DISCUSSIONS.... and get away from Who shot JFK? it was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald!!!!!!!!!!
Elvis was "All Shook Up" over the Kennedy brothers' having arranged for Marilyn Monroe to shuffle off this mortal coil prematurely.Elvis was shooting from the Grassy Knoll, of course.
The "Oswald" who was shot in the police station was an imposter.
The real Oswald stayed in Minsk, where he fathered Gil Shaham. Isn't the resemblance obvious?
# # #
In truth, there are two separate propositions at work here, and proof of one does not prove the other. If one accepts that LHO shot JFK (a near-miraculous feat of shooting, in that he could only fire three shots in the alloted time, and, as he had been shooting through an oak tree that was promptly cut down, one shot went astray by one block, so all that damage has to be accounted for by two bullets) that does not prove that he was "a lone nut."
Indeed, a recent doxumentary reported on in the UK Telegraph reportedly has on-camera interviews with Cuban defectors who said that Cuban intelligence was aware of Oswald and gave him at least tacit encouragement. And, leaving aside Castro's beastly record on human rights, had someone tried to kill me 14 times, I'd be a little pissed off too.
I am sure that the truth will leak out one little detail at a time, and the whole truth will be known only when all those who were alive on November 22, 1963 are safely dead.
By the way, I used to have a link to an academic paper that re-examined the statistical significance of the Bolt, Beranek & Newman acoustical studies that indicated indeed a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. The new study concluded that the proof was incontrovertible. FWIW.
Cordially,
FunnyBut since your on that subject...everyone seems to forget that JFK was not the only one shot that day Governor Connally sitting in front of JFK was also shot, strangely the two shots that entered JFK from behind also passed through into Connally in front, interestingly, A tough thing to do from the grassy knoll
I leave this paste which I think sums up the real evidence pretty well.
What is the difference between perception and reality: you can change reality!The Weight of the Evidence
You might think there isn't much actual proof that Oswald was the shooter. If you're a devoted follower of the conspiracy myth you might even think that of the 200 + people there that day, he's the one person that most definitely could NOT have been the shooter. You'd be wrong.
Oswald was spotted the morning of the assassination carrying a long, slender object in a paper bag. He told a neighbor the object was curtain rods. The paper bag was later found next to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the sniper's nest with trace fibers on it that matched a blanket in Oswald's garage. The curtain rods were never found for some strange reason.
Before Noon, five co-workers verified that when they left the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Oswald remained there, alone. Well after the fact (in a 1978 statement) one co-worker later claimed to have seen Oswald eating lunch in a booth on the second floor. But six other co-workers' statements, given separately, confirm that Oswald was not on the second floor at that time.
Oswald was spotted in the sixth floor window prior to the shooting. There are a fair number of witnesses who claim there was more than one person there, though. In more than one case the descriptions given match the physical appearance of the workers who were one floor below and watching the motorcade on their lunch hour. There were claims that prisoners in a nearby jail cell witnessed multiple occupants on the sixth floor, but of the two cells in view of the plaza, one was empty and the other afforded no direct view of the depository window. Likewise an eyewitness on the street who claimed to see more than one person was at a location that would have made it impossible for him to have seen what he claimed. On the other hand, there are two eyewitnesses who were in a good position to see the corner window of the sixth floor, and both of them made statements that confirm only one person, and their descriptions match Oswald very well. Enhanced film from two separate angles that capture the depository window also yield an image of only one person at the window at that time.
When the shots rang out there was, surprise, surprise, a great deal of confusion in Dealey Plaza, partly because it's a gigantic echo chamber and nobody could be sure where the shots were coming from, which is why 44% of the witnesses could not pinpoint the location of the shots. A full 88% stated that they only heard three shots, which also happens to be the number of shots fired by Oswald's rifle. Likewise, Oswald's co-workers, who were directly underneath the sniper's nest when the shots were fired not only heard the three shots, they also heard the sound of the bolt-action on the rifle and the sound of the spent shells hitting the floor above them.
Several witnesses also saw a rifle slowly withdraw from the open window on the sixth floor. A man named Howard Brennan not only saw the rifle, he saw Oswald firing it. He even gave a description to a uniformed police officer at the scene. To discredit this inconvenient testimony, many have pointed out that Brennan wears glasses, and did not have them on at the time. But Brennan is FARSIGHTED. He could see distances just fine.
One of the passengers in the motorcade confessed to smelling gunsmoke as the vehicles proceeded through Dealey Plaza, which has been used evidence that the gunfire was in front of the cars and not behind. But the passenger in question was riding in the fourth car, which was passing in front of the Book Depository when the shots were fired.
As for the eyewitness claims of a puff of smoke from the Grassy Knoll, there may very well have been a puff of smoke, but it's fairly unlikely it came from a gun. Modern ammunition is smokeless. As Gerald Posner points out in Case Closed "When Oliver Stone filmed JFK he could not find a rifle that emitted enough smoke to be captured on film when fired from the grassy knoll. Finally, he resorted to a props man pumping smoke from a bellows." There was also a steam pipe in roughly the same spot where witnesses claimed to have seen the smoke, and the wind through Dealey Plaza at that time was moving up to 20 miles per hour, which makes it unlikely any smoke would hang in the air for any length of time.
There is, in short, ample evidence that places Oswald where he needed to be, with rifle in hand, at the time the shots were fired from the Depository. According to his army records he was also an expert marksman, and he had plenty of time to make the shots despite what you might have read elsewhere.
The timing of the shots are calculated based on the Zapruder film, and there is a period of time during which the President's car is obscured by a road sign. The Warren Commission assumed that the first shot would be an accurate shot, and that that shot took place when the Kennedy was partly obscured. This would be the bullet that hit Kennedy in the neck, and wounded Governor Connally. We'll get back to it in a minute.
So if this was the first shot, a second and third shot had to have been fired in a very short span of time, too short a time for Oswald to have reloaded the bolt-action on the rifle. Which would be a problem if it were the first shot. But it was the second.
The first shot was fired when the car was just making its turn onto Elm Street, BEFORE it drove behind the street sign. Evidence for this is on the Zapruder film. Several people on the street can be seen looking upward in the direction of the Depository window. Connally himself was turning to look. Likewise, Kennedy stopped waving, and most tellingly, Abraham Zapruder's camera jiggled slightly when the noise startled him.
What happened to this first bullet was that it was deflected by a tree branch. When the location of Kennedy's car is matched up with the timing from the film and the angle Oswald's shot would have come from, the first shot would have had to have been through the branches of an oak tree. The deflected bullet fragments ricocheted into the concrete sidewalk some ways up Elm Street, and a chip of concrete hit a bystander in the cheek. The bullet, its jacket stripped by the branch (at the right angle, this is not just possible, it's likely,) probably disintegrated on impact.
The second bullet, the "magic" bullet, isn't very magic. It struck Kennedy in the upper back, exited at the base of his throat, entered Connally's right shoulder, exited below his right nipple, shattered his wrist and came to rest in his thigh. Now, to begin with, if the two men were sitting in the same positions (back flat, head facing front) this would be an impossible shot. But Connally's body is turned to the right and leaned slightly forward. Why? He heard the first shot and was turning around to see what it was. Likewise, the bullet was coming down from a steep angle and Kennedy was taller than Connally.
When the entire scene is put together again in a computer model the path of the bullet is nearly straight. The only time it alters course is when it enters Connally and glances off a rib. Until then it doesn't hit anything but soft tissue, which slows it, but does not stop it.
The "pristine" quality of the bullet has been called into question as well, and rightly so. It seems like a stretch that one bullet could come out of this so unscathed. In fact, when tests were done to determine how well a rifle bullet would survive after passing through a wrist bone (on a cadaver, of course) the results seemed to point to this being an impossibility.
Except the test was faulty. The bullet that struck the wrist of the cadaver was traveling at top speed from a close range shot and impacted directly with bone immediately. But the bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally had already traveled a few hundred yards before it struck, and then it was slowed down with each impact. It didn't hit Connally's wrist at top speed at all, but had lost nearly two-thirds of its velocity by then.
Likewise, it wasn't pristine. It was bent, slightly flattened, and it had lost some lead from its base, not coincidentally the same amount of lead also found in the bodies of Kennedy and Connally.
The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the head and blew the entire front portion of his head off. I've watched the Zapruder film many times and don't know how anyone can miss seeing the skull flap forward from a rear entry wound. It also seems obvious that his head's movement to the back and side are consistent with the shot because he was wearing a back brace at the time. Not only could he not duck, he couldn't fall forward, so what we are seeing is his head snap forward with the shot and then snap back after the impact. This is consistent with most of the physics I'm familiar with.
How All This Nonsense Got Started
The effort to discredit the Warren Commission report began almost immediately after its findings were released. This report is a fairly hasty construction, and I'll be the first to admit that if I were living in that time I would have trouble with it as well. Doubts were justifiably raised regarding some of the details, but at the same time, nobody had a better idea as to who might possibly replace Oswald as the assassin.
Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney, took care of that. You might remember him as the character Kevin Costner played in Oliver Stone's remarkable work of fiction, JFK.
Even a casual examination of Garrison's investigative techniques should convince the most ardent supporter that he was on something of a witch hunt. An example of his detective skills, from Posner:
"Garrison... took the number 1147, that appeared in Oswald's address book, multiplied it by 10, rearranged the numbers, subtracted 1700, and remultiplied. He said it resulted in 522-8874, the CIA's phone number in New Orleans, although he failed to mention it was listed in the phone book."
Garrison put a forward a lot of theories that seemed to have been based on nothing more than his own imagination and desire to see his name on the front page. But the problem is that a lot of what he had to say became "true" when repeated by other conspiracy buffs. This is a consistent problem. Investigative errors and suppositions in one book become unquestioned fact in the next.
There are a LOT of theories out there, all of them seemingly relying on hearsay and twenty year old memories, and occasionally outright lies. None of them have even remotely enough evidence to be seriously considered, not when compared to the evidence against Oswald. Worse, all of them rely on a huge chain of people "in the know," along with a huge number of bullets flying around Dealy Plaza, none of which have ever been recovered.
If you read some of the conspiracy literature you'll find that Oswald is, depending on the source, a co-assassin, an innocent patsy, or a hero. In the inscrutable search for the proof that someone else shot Kennedy we've gone so far as to deify his killer.
This does a tremendous disservice to the memories of the dead, and not just Kennedy. How do you suppose the family of Officer J.D. Tippit feel? Tippit, in the line of duty, was shot and killed by Oswald while attempting to question him on the street. How do we honor his memory? We accuse him of being part of the conspiracy.
Lee Harvey Oswald was not a great man. He was a wife beater and a pathological liar. He suffered from psychotic episodes and delusions of grandeur. He wanted to change the world, and unfortunately, he did.
The myth we've chosen to perpetuate is not just wrong; it's offensive. And the longer we believe it, the longer we spit on the graves of his victims.
Hi-I am too old and tired to do a point by point refutation of the questionable aspects of this excerpt. Like nearly all posts, it has many elements of factual truth, that are then undercut by faulty logic. Two shots did not hit Connolly, by the way, only one.
That LHO was a creep does not require as a matter of formal logic that any of these propositions also be true:
• LHO acted alone.
(When he claimed that he was just a patsy, it is possible that what he really meant was that he had been promised safe passage to Mexico and Cuba, not that he was innocent. There is conjecture that he was in the Dallas Theater to meet his contact for escape. There admittedly is far more evidence that LHO fired shots than most debunkers admit. However, all that evidence indicates is that LHO fired shots. At whose behest, and in expectation of help from whom, all that evidence is irrelevant to. Cui bono? Castro much more than LBJ or Dallas oil men.)• There was no Grassy Knoll shooter.
(The BBN acoustical study is near-conclusive. But the BBN study does not purport to establish that the Grassy Knoll shot struck its target. But, the reason JBK climbed onto the trunk was that JFK's occipital bone had skittered out onto the trunk, and in her shock, she said to herself 'They are going to need that when we get to the hospital." The motorcycle rider beside the limo was spattered with brain matter. Both of these facts are more consistent with a Grassy Knoll shot striking JFK in front of and above the right ear, taking out the right rear of his skull, back to the occipital bone, than an SBD shot. The rear wound is more likely an SBD shot, except it was not a neck wound, it was a back wound, and a blind hole. JFK's front neck wound is consistent with a long shot from TGK.)• There was no official cover-up.
(When LBJ found out about Operation Mongoose, he exclaimed [I believe it was to Bill Moyers] "The Kennedy boys were running a goddamn Murder Incorporated!" In the new documentary, a former FBI agent speaks of how the Mexico City investigation was curtailed on LBJ's orders after all of three days. LBJ knew that world opinion would be against the US and in favor of Cuba if the truth were known, and he did not want US hotheads pressing for nuclear retaliation against Castro.)• Jack Ruby was a lone nut.
(An associate of Melvin Belli claimed that Belli received a phone call from a Mob associate asking Belli to represent Ruby, except it was about 20 minutes before Ruby shot LHO. It was to the minute, however, on the original time table. There was some backing and forthing, and then LHO decided he wanted his sweater.)Sleep tight, America.
(This is not an obsession of mine. I used to be perplexed by the might have beens, but JFK was so drug-addled and unstable, had Oswald missed, we might have had a nuclear was. So now I am comfortable with it, it was fated to happen, and might have been for the best. Certainly, both JFK and RFK have much to answer for regarding Miss Norma Jean Mortensen. And I do wonder whether Ellen Rometsch is still alive.)
Cordially,
I think you will find Connally was shot twice, unless the CIA shot him afterwards!!!!!(kidding u know)
Once in the chest ( the shot that killed kennedy), and when lying in the limo in the wrist and thigh.
Interstingly a recent documentary using CSI type bullet tracking technology matched the film, and the forensic evidence for the shots: showed they matched up JFK's and Connally wounds and their relative positions quite accurately.Another post u might like
PS I am not saying LHO wasn't involved with others....who knows, just that it was quite reasonable and possible he did on his own without help.
The fact that crazy men have shot John Lennon, and Pope JP II I think suggests that someone can do these sort of things without outside assistance.Post
The Wounding of Governor John Connally
by Ron Hepler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Single (Magic) Bullet Theory continues to endure as the official version of the wounding of Governor John Connally. Many highly regarded critics of the Warren Commission, rightly dismiss the idea that one bullet wounded both men, but accept the general time frame of the Governor's wounding. But if the presence of a fact, or the lack of a necessary fact makes a theory impossible; then that theory must be discarded, and a new theory developed which includes all of the known facts. To date what has been occurring is rather to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit the existing theory. I would like to offer a different scenario of the wounding of Governor Connally; one that is observable on the Zapruder film, is backed up by numerous testimony, and is supported by scientific evidence.
When I first began studying this case I was attracted to the wounding of Governor Connally because little attention had been paid to it, yet it is central to the Single Bullet Theory. I had read about the Governor's Lapel Flap, shoulder drop, and puffed cheeks. While I recognized that the time separation between these events logically precluded that they were all the result of a single bullet strike, I had no reason to believe that the Governor had not been wounded during that time frame. In this commonly accepted view, the Governor was wounded shortly after the throat shot to the President, but long before the fatal headshot. But, two thirds of all ear witnesses of three shots, including Secret Service Agents William Greer and Roy Kellerman seated in the front of the limousine, tell a story diametrically opposed to this. These witnesses heard a single shot followed by a pause, then two shots in rapid succession.
THE CONNALLY'S ASSESMENTS
Governor Connally told the Warren Commission, "I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."(1) He elaborated to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "...so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (2)This sequence of events where the Governor turns to the left just prior to being hit is also reported by Mr. S.M. Holland, who was standing on the triple overpass, in Mark Lane's documentary film, Rush to Judgment -- The Plot to Kill Kennedy. "The first bullet, the President slumped over and Governor Connally made his turn to the right and then back to the left and that's when the second shot was fired and knocked him down to the floorboard."
Mrs. Nellie Connally supported her husband's description in her testimony to the House Select Commitee:
Mr. DODD: "So, you are still looking at the President and it is your recollection that you then heard what sounded like a second shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY: "Yes.
Mr. DODD: "Is that correct?
Mrs. CONNALLY: "Yes. What was a second shot."
Mr. DODD: "At that point your husband, Governor Connally, slumped over in your direction?"
Mrs. CONNALLY: "No, he lunged forward and then just kind of collapsed." (3)
What the Governor, his wife, and Mr. Holland aptly describe is Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum. It says that when an object in motion collides with a stationary one, all momentum will be conserved, or in other words all momentum will be accountable after the collision. This conservation of momentum results in the deceleration of the bullet, accelerating the torso as the bullet penetrates the body impacting bones, etc.IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT
When I learned of these statements concerning the impact of the bullet, it was immediately apparent that such forward motion would pinpoint the time of the impact within one frame of the Zapruder film, so I decided to look for that motion. At frame 224, the time of the Lapel Flap there is no motion that matches the description given by the Governor . So I looked at Frame 236, the shoulder drop, surely if the bullet drove his shoulder down it would have driven him forward; but no. What about frame 238, the puffing of the cheeks? Still no cigar. So rather than accept that the Governor was not yet wounded most researchers choose to ignore the statements of the two people most intimate with the event, the wounded man and his wife who was seated next to him at the time of the shooting.So I continued to let the VCR run in slow motion. During the headshot sequence I thought I saw the governor driven forward. I replayed the headshot sequence time after time at normal speed, in slow motion, and in single frame step mode, often covering the President with my hand so as to be able to focus completely on the Governor without my eyes being drawn to the headshot.
That was it. The bullet obviously impacted him under the armpit at frame 315 as he attempted to raise himself from his wife's lap. The first evidence of motion is visible at frame 316. He is driven forward as is shown in frame 321 and hits the back of the front seat at frame 323. He immediately collapses just as Mrs. Connally had described in frame 326. A second violent motion is noticeable at about frame 338 when run at normal speed. This motion is most likely the impact of the wrist shot that then goes on to cause the thigh injury. Evidence of the Governor's wounding after the headshot was noted by Robert Groden in his book, "The Killing of a President. (4) as Shot # 6.
...you're also the biggest target for crackpots.
In my opinion, advertising has some effect on reviewers, but the effect is a minor one, and not in a way that the conspiracy theorists suggest. Like Kal, when I get a new issue of Stereophile, I first read/skim the reviews and other articles I'm most interested in, and later get to ones that are of lesser interest to me. In the process, I can't help but be exposed to some ads, the same way that all readers are. Sometimes, if the product described in the ad intrigues me, I may make a mental note to check out the product, usually at CES or the Home Entertainment show. Once I've done so, and if my initial interest is supported by a closer look/listen, I may decide to review the product, subject to JA's approval and the product having the requisite 5+ US dealers. (As I said in another posting, he's never turned down my suggestion for a review.) An example of this role of advertising in influencing my choice of a product to review is the Avantgarde Uno. It was the ad that made me think of checking it out,and eventually led to a review.While ads have this "informational" value in selecting product for review (and, I should add that it's not only ads in Stereophile that provide this sort of information), the major influence on product selection is not advertising, but other factors, like industry scuttlebutt about a certain product being "hot" or having heard the product at a show. In my case, examples that immediately come to mind are the speakers from Dunlavy (sadly, the company is gone now) and the electronics from Balanced Audio Technology (still very much with us, of course). I heard both of them at shows, and what I heard convinced me to want to review them. As I recall, neither product had advertising in Stereophile at the time. That was simply not an issue. I'm currently pursuing the review of a speaker heard at CES that I've never seen ads for, and I have no idea--and don't care--whether they will ever advertise in Stereophile. (At this point, they have don't have 5+ dealers yet, so the review is temporarily on hold.)
... when assigned a review, either know nor care whether the item being reviewed is from an advertiser ... if they do know they probably don't care ... the business model argument doesn't make sense either ... the business is writing about audio, who else is gonna advertise, Frito Lay?
Rarely are we "assigned a review" as we tend to choose what we, as stand-ins for the consumer, want to try at home. But you are right that most of us do not "either know nor care whether the item being reviewed is from an advertiser."
"But you are right that most of us do not "either know nor care whether the item being reviewed is from an advertiser."
Is it just me or do others on here find this statement a bit curious, especially the part about "not...know{ing}" ?Mr. Rubinson:
Presumably, you're quite familiar with Stereophile and its advertisers inasmuch as you're one of its reviewers. I’d be surprised to learn that a reviewer did not follow his own publication closely. When you decide to review XYZ product I suspect you have a pretty good idea as to whether the company in question advertises in the magazine you write for. Admittedly, there are exceptions to every rule, but I suspect that if I were to provide you with a list of fifty audio companies, you could tell me (with a high degree of accuracy) which one's currently advertise in Stereophile or have done so in the past.
Their job is to review, not sell advertising. They get a piece of gear, put it in their system and write about it. As evidenced by their articles, they also interract with people from the manufacturer to better understand the design and certain features.I can't imagine anyone from the manufacturer's side bringing up the idea of advertising in the midst of such conversations; however, if it did I'd bet it would be greeted with a "rooty-toot-toot" response.
"Why should Kal or Art or any of the writers care..."Hi Bruce:
I have no quarrel with their not "caring" and I should have made that clear in my original post, but I am a bit surprised that Kal isn't more cognizant of ad content. I should think that anyone intimately acquainted with a publication would come to recognize most of his publications advertisers by sheer osmosis, if nothing else. But perhaps I'm giving these guys too much credit. :)
...when I was reviewing, I rarely paid attention to advertisers. Mostly I was so awestruck to have my article printed in the magazine that I noticed little else.I still don't notice ads.
Unless I own the product or have been considering it as a purchase, I'm not paying attention to ads, but to the editorial content.For example, you could describe an ad and I can tell whether or not I noticed it - but it's very unlikely I could tell you what company it's for.
Like that ad that's been running for years in the back of Stereophile with the talened young lady in a bikini top holding up a tube. I notice it every issue. But I couldn't tell you who the advertiser is...
I love that ad ... sigh ...
mt
I was expecting a long litany of "reverse osmosis" jokes. ;)
;~)
The guy who installs motors in Corvettes doesn't know what the final product will look like (aside from being a Corvette) either. And I suspect he doesn't care. As a consumer or potential buyer of that Corvette, though, you would be very much aware of the final product.
Did you see the scenes in "Commander In Chief" last night where she was pushed into the hand-grasp of one needy contributor after another? I feel the same way when manufacturers want to talk about their advertising in Stereophile rather than about their products. Fortunately, it does not happen too often.
but having been in that environment, it isn't too hard to picture.
I do not read Stereophile continuously from cover to cover. When a new issue arrives, I scan the TOC and go directly to the items of interest to me. Over the space of a week, I will read almost all of any given issue. In looking at the editorial content, I don't take any notice of an ad unless it is, in some way, visually striking to me. That could be because of the presence of a familiar image (Hey, didn't I review that?) or simply because of the esthetics. I never scan the back pages where the Manufacturer's Showcase, smaller ads and AudioMart ads are. (In fact, I just looked at the Feb. 2006 to find out the names of the sections.)So, am I totally ignorant of the ads? No, I see some. Do they make an impression? Very rarely. Could I pass your test? Mebbe since, using my knowledge of the industry, I might guess at a better than chance level.
The fundamental point is that, when I am considering getting a product for review, it simply never enters my mind to ask myself or to research whether a manufacturer advertises.
Thanks for a thoughtful and candid reply.
I can imagine what some reviewers might say to an editor who tried to steer them to a piece of gear or to an opinion ... writers tend to be (and I am one but in a different line of work) very, forgive me, opinionated ...
we do listen. I have reviewed products suggested to me by my editors but I have also declined as many. My choice.
I haven't had one since the format went from booklet to fancy magazine with shiny pictures. I too, was under the impression that you folks were "on the take" as they say.
Bill
I think Roy Gregory in HiFi+ wrote a wonderful reply to this issue. and although it would seem an obvious corollary that magazines are "in bed" with the reviewers in fact its a lot harder to show when you go to how it would work at the coal face.
You see a lot of HiFi manufacturers just don't have a lot of money to throw around at half starving reviewers. There not oil or drug companies, I mean look how many have gone out of business!!!. Even when their products were ones that people respected and were reviewed well.
I think we need to get away from conspiracy theories, and concerntrate on pushing for good journalism and reviews, not what's under the bed. I mean: Oswald did kill JFK despite 30 years of people trying to prove it was some-one else. Lets move on to critiques!
February Issue, Page 136, upper right - an ad from Art Audio, one of your 50 "non-advertisers" (they've apparently had that spot for months). And (okay this is semantics, but given coop advertising...)- First Watt on page 143.Some of the others ring a bell, but I'm not going through the entire year.
Sorry, I remembered that Art Audio ad and just thought I'd check it out.
> February Issue, Page 136, upper right - an ad from Art Audio, one of
> your 50 "non-advertisers" (they've apparently had that spot for
> months). And (okay this is semantics, but given coop advertising...)-
> First Watt on page 143.
Thanks for the correction. I did say that I compiled the list from my
memory of who was and who wasn't an advertiser. This makes the total
48 non-advertisers and 42 advertisers. Does't affect the conclusion.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I don't think Bel Canto has advertised, but Kal Rubinson reviewed the PL1A...
Stu
:-)
Only some. Those who actually read Stereophile know that the claims about reviews and advertising are baseless.The simple fact is that if you manufacture or sell a product that appeals to a hobbyist population, you're more likely to advertise in the publications that are read by that same population....no matter what.
Putting ads for hi-fi equipment in National Geographic, People, Entertainment Weekly or Sky & Telescope would be a tremendous waste of time and resources. Not advertising at all would be a waste of resources. It isn't that complicated.
I think the ration of non-advertisers to advertisers is much higher than JA's statistics would indicate.
And we are told over and over and over and over again that the money given to politicians in Washington are not some form of "Quit quo Pro" and that the money does not necessarily influence or "buy" votes.And you know what? We don't believe that either.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
in this scenario? Actually Mr. 303, the devious plot you suspect cannot exist. You see, in politics if you take bribes and kickbacks and play the game, you simply move on to a new cushy job when the time comes because the game never ends.In a hobby publication like Sterephile or TAS, there can be a tremendous geographical difference between the editor, advertising people and the manufacturer. Not only that, but the contributing writers do not take a blood oath of any sort. Name a reviewer who left writing and got a cushy job "advising" audio's equivalent of Halliburton. If there was any correlation between advertisers and reviews, it would have been exposed long ago, and common knowledge by now.
But no one who makes these claims has ever been able to support them. They just assume that is the case because a manufacturer buys advertising.
There have been some instances where I admit there have been unusually sparkling reviews of products and heavy advertising, but that was between www.GoodSound.com and Axiom speakers. I certainly can't claim there were any favors being bought by advertising, but I can say I would have been uncomfortable with the heaping and frequent praise being given if I were affiliated with the e-zine. That is just me.....I've been known to be completely anal about outward appearances.
So no offense, but I find claims of favorable reviews being purchased with advertising to be petty and ridiculous. The political example you gave, however, is reality.
It’s not about whether Cheney has Halliburton stock, it’s the system that is corrupt.It’s about who knows who, who owes who, who helps who, who’s in and who’s out.
The system is corrupt on its face.
Because of its business model, one should expect Stereophile would be obliged to support the interests of manufacturers and dealers as a CLASS. Why? Because they make up the advertisers. NOT individual manufacturers, on a Quid Pro Quo basis, but as a general class.
Subscribers, as a class, enjoy less obligation and should not expect their interests to be well served for a lousy $10 a year.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
I paid $12. What's up? Do I get a refund?
-Rod
and that's about it.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
I happen to know that to be true....
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
.
"Quid pro quo"?NEVER!
__________________________________________________
Boo!
..."Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get you."Just because it is explained over and over and even demonstrated with data, doesn't mean the conspiracy theorists will buy it.
"They can't handle the truth" - it doesn't fit into their skewed paradigm.
Ok, ok. You've got a list of 40 advertisers and 50 non-advertisers.Now Mr. Smartypants, tell us how many companies there are who have never advertised in Stereophile and have never had any of their products reviewed.
Ah HAH!
se
companies have never been mentioned there.rw
Bring em' on ... anything would be better that hearing than some old tired ones 2,561,908,347 times! :)
but 47.9% of all statistics are invented on the spot.
rw
its 99.0999%!
...regards...tr
;~)
ANd how many products Stereophile writers have asked for, that do not fit with editorial policy wonk (wank), only to be shot down behind the scenes from the TOP.Yet revews and endorsements of competing products akways make print. Oh what a mess.
Just another upscale dog show.
TC
"In spite of the ever increasing cost of living, it remains quite popular". S. Shackel
Also, did you get an opportunity to try out Crab Cake Benedict at the Bellagio this year?
STayed warm in Walla Walla this year. Mmmm crab cakes. I am spoiled tho, Vegas is a bit too far inland for seafood, crustaceans anyway. salmon seems to ice well, hada great chinook fillet at NYLV.Once you have had the hilltop ALe House's crab cakes w orange zest sauce in Seattle, nuthin will do.
TC
"In spite of the ever increasing cost of living, it remains quite popular". S. Shackel
I hope to get to Seattle one day soon.
> how many products Stereophile writers have asked for, that do not
> fit with editorial policy wonk (wank), only to be shot down behind
> the scenes from the TOP.
A fair question. The answer is close to zero. (I'd say zero, but there
may have been 1 or 2 over the years.)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
During the 15 years that I've been writing for Stereophile, there has not been a single instance where I asked JA if I could review a product and the request was turned down. The only occasion that came close to it involved a speaker that impressed me at a show, and I spoke to JA about reviewing it, but he said to wait, because the speaker was substantially different at every show, and was thus a "moving target." Sure enough, at the next show, the speaker was different again, and I eventually lost interest in reviewing it.
has appears in print, a policy related to determining manufacturer merit (for want of a better word), things such as period of time in business, number of dealers, etc.?I recall reading it but this could have been (many many) years ago. Perhaps it has been formally dropped or altered significantly (e.g. to reflect new business realities)?
> Wait up, isn't there a policy that has appears in print, a policy
> related to determining manufacturer merit (for want of a better
> word), things such as period of time in business, number of dealers,
> etc.?
To qualify for a full review in Stereophile, a product that is
distributed through the normal dealer network needs to be available
from 5 or more US dealers. For porducts that are sold direct, it is
much more of a judgment call on my part whether or not a product
qualifies for review. You can read about this continuing policy at
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/746/ .
For products that are covered in columns (no less rigorous reporting
but no measurements), the 5-dealer rule can be relaxed.
But Mr. Cain's question concerned products that my writers want to
write about but I forbid them to. I['d like to say there have been
_no_ instances of this, as I can't bring any to mind, but over the
past 20 years, there might well have been 1 or 2, hence my equivocal
answer.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
.
Interesting.You'd think that after a positive mention, a manufacturer would be more likely to buy an ad, thereby skewing your results in favor of the presence of ad copy, even if it was purchased after the fact.
How about even more analysis and looking at first time ad purchases after a positive review?
Of course, keep in mind that you are screwed no matter what. There will now be people who will accuse you of writing positive reviews in order to trawl for new ad space buyers! ;)
text not want not.
My speaker building site
...that most advertisers either:
- buy a block of ads, say in 3 consecutive issues, once they know their product will be reviewed, perhaps beginning with issue of the review,
- or buy one ad to coincide with the issue the review will appear in.I suspect very few, if any, manufacturers wait to see the results of a review before purchasing an ad.
Quid Pro Quo doesn't really make any sense at all, from a business point of view.In fact, it is by its very nature, it would limit Stereophile's opportunity to find new advertisers.
Especially if the assumption is that any review will give a company enough visibility for it to justify spending money on additional advertising.
A third list that would be interesting, would be the advertisers who get no or almost no mention in the editorial copy.And a fourth list -- if you really have some time on your hands -- would be an exploration of the correspondence (or lack thereof) between the number of ad pages purchased and the number of editorial mentions.
I think somewhere you left Krell off the list. I can't recall any review of their electronics in a while, but I do recall your review of their SACD player a few years ago. But, they don't seem to be a big advertiser.
But, seriously, JA, isn't measuring equipment more fun than this?!!
Kinda sorta like The Third Man, I gwess.I actually have kept an informal mental log of that, and, indeed, as far as I can recall, there are three or four advertisers or former advertisers whose products never seem to get mentioned.
I call this the "let's throw a virign in the volcano" school of marketing... . As in, no follow-through, just a propitiatory gesture. And of course if, keying off "propitiatory," I make an obscure spelling-bee joke about Gypsies really coming from India, I am a racist... . As well as a corrupt cloth-eared saleshack.
Nightingale is currently running lovely full-page ads that are mostly background photos and teeny little product cuts--AFAIK they don't even have US distribution; this might be their way of trying to line some up. Or, they are throwing a virgin into the volcano.
OF COURSE, these sentiments are all personal to me and nobody else.
The fourth list:
Here's a start:
darTZeel:
Ad pages: ZERO
Mentions: TOO MANY TO COUNT.
Howdja like them apples?
(Now I've got to tell J. Tinn that whatever he does, please don't buy any ads!)
Sincerely,
Actually, John, sorta like the third rail! Touch it and you die! ;-)Of course, I knew the answer to my questions before I even asked them -- or suggested, mostly in jest, that JA answer them.
But I hope you knew that.
All of which support JA's larger argument that there's no linkage between ad purchases and reviews, much less favorable reviews.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: