 
|
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 |
81.4.165.30
In Reply to: I keep saying the same thing over and over again, but nobody seems to care. posted by Charles Hansen on February 18, 2007 at 11:50:47:
Charles,If someone associated with your company was guilty of misconduct, you'd reprimand that individual or sack him and then do what was in your power to rectify the damage, because it's the right thing to do and because your company's reputation hinges on it.
What suggests to you that this instance elsewhere is condoned, supported, tolerated or otherwise improperly dealt with? I'd think it a bit farfetched to condemn an entire organization for the misbehavior of one employee. Errors of judgment and behavior do happen, unfortunately. You'd expect a suitable response from the company then, of course.
I have no insights into this case except that your strong feelings on it suggest that rather than being the case of an erring individual who should be promptly fired, an entire organization (its editor or publisher in your words) are at fault to properly handle the matter and distance themselves from the wrong doing.
Could it not be that this matter is being dealt with appropriately but internally? Or is it because that individual continues to get published there that it appears to you this misconduct was tolerated without proper consequences?
I'm merely asking this because it seems a bit hard to believe that an established company would be so lax in their response and just 'let it ride'. And unless there was solid evidence that the company at large was indeed neglicent in their response, it would be premature to condemn an entire organization for what one of its -- hopefully now ex -- employees did.
Follow Ups:
> If someone associated with your company was guilty of misconduct,
> you'd reprimand that individual or sack him and then do what was in
> your power to rectify the damage, because it's the right thing to
> do and because your company's reputation hinges on it.
You addressed this to Charlie, Srajan, but I have a relevant comment
to make. Many years ago, I found out quite by accident that one of my
reviewers had worked out a deal with a manufacturer whose product he
had reviewed so that he could purchase that product. He would
demonstrate the product in his home and for every sale that resulted,
he would receive a commission that would go against the money he still
owed on the purchase.
This behavior didn't affect the review or the magazine, as it occurred
after the event. Nevertheless, the next day, I terminated that
reviewer's relationship with Stereophile, and that is what I would
have done had the reviewer in question in the cable case worked for
me -- if he did what he has been accused of. He has gone on record as
saying that it wasn't him who sold the cables but a friend to whom he
had loaned them. I was also told at the recent CES that the publisher
has since reimbursed the cable manufacturer for the cost of the cables.
A magazine relies on mutual trust between editor and writers and
between itself and its readers. Questionable behavior puts both those
relationships at risk.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"A magazine relies on mutual trust between editor and writers and between itself and its readers. Questionable behavior puts both those relationships at risk."Well said, John. Anything which undermines the integrity of the review process must be avoided. Any member of a magazine staff or editorial group who knowingly violates that integrity, and who is proven to do so beyond reasonable doubt, must be terminated from the publication immediately.
Otherwise, readers are helpless to sort wheat from chaff...a critical function that the free press was founded to help them do.
David W. Robinson
Editor, Positive Feedback Online
I concur wholeheartedly, John. Trust is the commodity necessary to even run a publication where contributors don't work out of a common office in plain sight of the boss. With trust comes the potential for abuse, either deliberately or because of misunderstandings or lower standards by the person thinking (or pretending) he's still on the straight and narrow.The only issue -- or question, really -- I had with Charles' stance was that, *without further information*, it sounded as though the organization was negligent to follow up when the story broke. Your information now suggests that the publisher has made repairs from his end. That at least is encouraging.
Truly, all of us in this field are open to this potential type of abuse. The only thing we can do is to install a no-tolerance policy, make sure our staff is informed to the letter and all its implications and terminate offenders when we find out about transgressions. That's the most troublesome aspect - finding out about it when ill-meaning individuals will work through 3rd or fourth parties and other means to disguise their actions and hide their involvement.
Thanks for throwing this bit of additional info into this thread, John. It dissolves a bit the very uneasy feeling that even the management of a high profile outfit was confused about what the right thing was to do in the wake of the event. Shit, unfortunately, happens from time to time. How quickly and comprehensively one cleans it up then becomes the operative challenge.
< < it sounded as though the organization was negligent to follow up when the story broke. Your information now suggests that the publisher has made repairs from his end. > >I suppose there is some room for interpretation here, but in my opinion not much.
Let's suppose for a moment that we swallow the reviewer's far-fetched story about "saying that it wasn't him who sold the cables but a friend to whom he had loaned them". As a manufacturer, I for one, would not be happy if the gear I loaned for review was loaned to a reviewer's "friend". Especially without my permission. And especially if that "friend" sold the gear. But as I said, that story seems far-fetched to me. I can't imagine that I would loan a "friend" some hi-fi equipment and he would sell it on Audiogon without my knowledge. But maybe I just have higher standards for friendship than do some.
As far as I have been able to determine, there has been no action taken against the reviewer. I don't work at the magazine, so I'm not privy to all of the internal goings-on. But he certainly has not been fired which is what JA correctly did in a somewhat similar situation over a decade ago.
As far as "repairs", I am told that the publisher (not the reviewer) has repaid the manufacturer for the cables. So in some sense, the situation has been "repaired". However, in my opinion there has been a large violation of trust between the magazine and the manufacturer, as well as the magazine and the readers, that has not been repaired. YMMV.
flogging and humiliation off of the table. I agree with Srajan, in that it will no doubt be dealt with and there is no reason to take an entire organization to task over what one person has done.
...that's a pretty flimsy excuse - "a friend I loaned them to sold them" - sorta like the dog ate my homework.The reviewer should be fired, IMO, since his actions resulted in damage to the magazine's reputation and credibility - really the only thing it has.
Back in the mid-1980s, a TAS reviewer who was a professional photographer traded some photography work to a manufacturer for some equipment. The policy was that any equipment purchases had to go through the magazine. The reviewer was publicly fired.
< < Back in the mid-1980s, a TAS reviewer who was a professional photographer traded some photography work to a manufacturer for some equipment. The policy was that any equipment purchases had to go through the magazine. The reviewer was publicly fired. > >Steven Stone, as I recall. I seem to recall HP also firing some other employees for infractions of the rules.
s
...didn't Stone live in Boulder or move there after his incident?Actually I was back in Boulder on the 10th and thought of you as we drove west on Canyon toward the mountains - told my wife your story.
(nt)
With respect to the topic here in general and not your particular post, it's nice to know that there are some publications in this country (none of them, apparently audio publications) who will publish the truth (verified, second sources etc) regardless of having to then face messy legal battles (as a poster above says), regardless of how it affects their "position" in the community, etc. Lots of lofty words in these current posts, but not much follow up in print, in my opinion. Glad that JA fired the guy. Not so glad no one will just lay the facts out. I don't think Im atypical of readers outside the "in group" who would sure like to avoid reading or believing anything said accused reviewer wrote in the future, and who would like to make their own decision as to whether to read or continue to read the mag in question (bleep 'um to paraphrase Hansen, or embrace 'um to paraphrase you).
I really don't get it either. I agree with you. As I said below, the level of indignation and outrage does not calibrate with the whispers and secrecy that follow it. It kind of dulls the senses to the point where one is forced not to care one way or the other.
Unlike some civilian inmates here who say they're gonna abruptly cancel their subscriptions, I see no reason to come to any conclusion at all. No names, no rebuttal or statement from the other "U.S. magazine", no statement from the cable maker. Can Charles or anyone from S'phile even state with certainty that no action -- other than reimbursing the cable manufacturer -- was taken by the mag the reviewer works(ed) for? IMO this should have been kept "inside" until ALL the facts could be ascertained and stated publicly without claiming "legal issues" prevent doing so.
> No names, no rebuttal or statement from the other "U.S. magazine",
> no statement from the cable maker.
Actually, the cable "maker" was telling all and sundry about what had
happened at the recent CES.
> Can Charles or anyone from S'phile even state with certainty that no
> action -- other than reimbursing the cable manufacturer -- was taken
> by the mag the reviewer works(ed) for?
At CES, the reviewer concerned told anyone who would listen that it
was his friend who had sold the cables, not him. The manufacturer
concerned is the one who is telling people that he was reimbursed by
the publisher. But whether or not the reviewer is still working for
the magazine in question, that remains to be seen.
Regarding the anonymity, I regret that this is necessary. I wait to
see if the magazine's editor is going to publicly address this matter.
My point is that according to the tale told by the aggrieved
manufacturer, there appears to be a possible breach of ethics by a
writer for a magazine not Stereophile. Yet contrary to the endless
accusations of improper behavor that are leveled at Stereophile on
a continuous basis without any basis in fact, all you people are
bending over backward not to accuse this other magazine of anything
amiss. It seems that a double standard is in operation here.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"...all you people are bending over backward not to accuse this magazine of anything amiss. It seems that a double standard is in operation here."
I don't think you were speaking of my posts, as I have never accused Stereophile or any other magazine of any sort of wrongdoing, here or elsewhere. In fact the generous way you and your writers make yourself available here has always pleased and amazed me. I was merely wondering why no one, while raising the hue and cry, will name mames, and, while I appreciate that you say you "regret" that you cannot do so, it will remain a mystery to me why not.
Regards,
I, too, know the names of the cable company and the reviewer. However, I was not party to the transaction, nor was anyone else here. It would be morally and legally inappropriate, if not irresponsible, to comment on what attorneys refer to as "facts not in evidence". Some of what we say on a public forum could turn out to be, at the very least, partially incorrect. Such misinformation could further damage reputations. Rumor and innuendo are rampant, the townspeople are carrying pitchforks and torches, and one magazine is already suffering financially to some degree. Right or wrong, it's their legal and ethical problem to deal with.Regarding disclosure, it is clearly the responsibility and right of the participants to shed light upon these matters, if they choose to do so. We may all be holding our breath for a very long time. Again, we were not direct parties to the transaction.
what color is the "audio wall"?
"If it ain't music, it might as well be a barkin' dog"
I don't believe I have ever posted anything remotely resembling an accusation of unethical or dishonest behavior at S'phile. I disagree with some of your policies but I've never claimed you were dishonest or shady.I asked "Can Charles or anyone from S'phile even state with certainty that no action -- other than reimbursing the cable manufacturer -- was taken by the mag the reviewer works(ed) for?"
So far neither you, Charles, nor anyone else seems to know. If the guy has already been fired then what reason is there to besmurch the mag? If he isn't fired I'd like to hear the rationale for that before I conclude the mag's ethics are egregiously lacking -- which may *be* my conclusion in the end. Do you know that in fact no action will be taken by the mag the reviewer works for?
I would have said the same things were it S'phile, and fail to see a double standard.
< < If the guy has already been fired then what reason is there to besmurch the mag? > >This issue first came to light four or five months ago. (Sorry I can't be more precise, I was in the hospital under heavy medication and don't recall the exact dates.) Yet the latest issue still has articles by the reviewer and still lists his name on the masthead.
In the meantime, there has been enough time for Stereophile to hear about the events (obviously well after the other magazine found out) and write and publish editorials pertaining to this type of behavior. There has also been enough time for the cable manufacturer to be reimbursed.
I suppose that it's possible that there has been some "double-secret probation" type of punishment that has occurred. But as JA pointed out, the cable manufacturer has been open with other industry members about the happenings and he hasn't been given any indication that any other action has taken place.
I personally expect that things will be rectified eventually, but am also disappointed that it is taking this long. However, I understand that there are practical considerations at work as well. To give an example (and not trying to start a fire here, so don't be offended if you support Bush), there are those who believe that Bush 43 has committed several impeachable offenses. However, they are reluctant to make formal charges because (if successful) the successor would be equally guilty. So sometimes a different strategy is called for. Perhaps some similar strategizing is taking place at the other magazine, I don't really know.
z
nt
...is dead.Jim
some might say that the precipitous offing of Saddam Hussein freed him (his legacy) from the stain of far greater crimes against humanity, he *and* his accomplices that is.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Unless the mag's readership is somehow kept in the dark about this episode, I don't know how they could avoid getting rid of the guy. Even if they succeeded in keeping the subscribers ignorant, aren't manufacturers gonna shy away from giving them review samples and ad $$, as have you?BTW -- no danger of offending me with that example of impeachment.
Well, not me re double standard. I would dump the other mag in a moment if I knew for sure what mag it was. I have to guess it's TAS but that could be a bad guess. What I object to is the lack of knowledge on it. I dont go to ces I dont go to your hifi show (although it's a goal) but I do do what? Subscribe (faithfully and long term) to your mag. So I rely on it in some sense for info. What I get on the current topic is that it aint you babe...ok. Who is it? That's the unanswered question. There aren't too many print rags out there...no one here (I gather) reads sensible sound. Like someone above said, hifi+ and TAS are the same. Inner Ear is from Canada and we know Canadians are honest! Positive Feedback isn't print and its editor chimes in, so it's not him. If it were sound and vision no one would care. I dont see Hansen ads in TAS the last couple of months I looked at. So I conclude it's TAS. Other readers of these posts are making their own conclusions and maybe acting on them--ie canceling subscriptions etc. (And even if I had gone to ces, no one would have spoken to me, let alone confided in me!).
"My point is that according to the tale told by the aggrieved
manufacturer, there appears to be a possible breach of ethics by a
writer for a magazine not Stereophile. Yet contrary to the endless
accusations of improper behavor that are leveled at Stereophile on
a continuous basis without any basis in fact, all you people are
bending over backward not to accuse this other magazine of anything
amiss. It seems that a double standard is in operation here."My Gawd!
A "possible breach of ethics by a writer for a magazine not Stereophile" occurs and, if the accounts here are reliable, Stereophile responds with *two* articles in the March edition, and at least one of its reviewers is ranting, albeit speaking for himself only, like Don Quixote ready to take on the ills of the world!
Wow! And if one were to interpret this as grand standing and opportunism, what?, you'll find you whining doubly about a "double standard"?
What a spectacle!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
From the tenor of the 'insider' posts, it seems to me like the facts are clear. But you are right...it's all inuendo and hearsay and gossip at this point AND will lead some (see post above re strategy for figuring it out--which I think is an 'ok' strategy) to cancel subscriptions "in error". But it also seems to me like the fun of being 'in the know' is just too irresistable for those in that position to either keep quiet or proclaim their fact finding finished and publish the results.
Yes, and this 'insider' mentality, when broadened to include various types of players in and around the industry, is a sign of how sick the industry really is.
.. that until the "appropriate" parties involved disclose what actually occurred we are unable to form an accurate opinion.I would think that the publication, supposedly involved, that relys on the largess of its readers, manufacturers of equipment and advertisers as well as stock holders would want to have the sordid mess cleaned up.
Until that is done we are left to personal conjecture and will respond in a variety of ways. Such as pull advertising, cancel subscriptions, no longer submit equipment for review, sell their stock et. al.
While it is true that you should not judge an organization, by the act of one indivdual, that organization will be so judged if it refuses to clear up the matter.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]