Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile?

Posted by Charles Hansen on November 21, 2017 at 19:00:37:
>> In this context, it means the "framer" is closing their mind to the possibility
that the forthcoming article may have legitimate information that they would
actually find relevant, perhaps even persuasive. <<

Is it possible that now you are framing Jim's forthcoming article? And even more disturbing is the possibility that Stereophile has already decided that it is their job to persuade people to like MQA. I suppose that all journalism is supposed to persuade readers to accept the POV of the writer. Then the reader needs to be on guard as to the motivations of the writer. Which seems to be the question at hand vis-a-vis Stereophile and MQA.

I think Rt66IndyRock's requests of Jim were made in the context of what would be required for Jim's article to be perceived as objective, and not simply to reach a foregone conclusion.