 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
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: The correct principle is that a rising tide raises all boats posted by chervokas on June 13, 2014 at 13:21:09
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.
Follow Ups:
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
-
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
