Critic's Corner

RE: "would we be better off if this article was not published?"

24.103.119.140

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: "would we be better off if this article was not published?" posted by Ivan303 on May 24, 2016 at 09:03:42

>Well, just about every reviewer not working for Stereophile would be!

Perhaps I am too hard-nosed, but I don't feel any responsibility for
publications other than my own and the writers for those publications.
We all hang out our shingles and offer readers what we feel relevant
and important and should be judged accordingly.

As I posted elsewhere in this thread, readers should be skeptical of _all_
publications that are supported by advertising. Look at how many reviews
are of products from non-advertisers. Look for adverts from a first-time
advertiser in an issue with a positive review of their product, especially
if that advert includes text from the review. Look for reviews of products
that don't actually have distribution in the publication's country,
especially if that product is featured on the cover and is supported by
advertising.

Read reviews to discover things you wouldn't have suspected: many reviews
published by mainstream webzines are actually based on press releases,
not on actual experience of the product, something the late J. Gordon
Holt used to call "reviewed in the box." And look to see who sells the
ads. If the editor is also responsible for selling ads, then who can tell
if that will affect his judgments or not. In print, we have the "Chinese
Wall"; on-line, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

All I am asking is that if you are skeptical of Stereophile, then apply
the same skepticism to everyone. Judge us all by the same standard.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Follow Ups: