 
|
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 |
84.190.105.75
In Reply to: Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those posted by jamesgarvin on February 26, 2007 at 11:16:45:
> The writer has a duty to disclose their bias to the reader.If the writer does not derive any income from the reader and is employed by parties that do not have interests wholly aligned with the reader where does this duty come from?
Follow Ups:
"If the writer does not derive any income from the reader and is employed by parties that do not have interests wholly aligned with the reader where does this duty come from?"The writer knows that a reasonable reader will rely, to some extent, on their words in making a purchase. The writer's duty is a moral, ethical duty, which, to some around here, apparently count for much. I would have assumed this to be self-evident, but, then, I have learned, more and more people are willing to abdicate duties when it benefits them.
You query is akin to asking what duty do you have not to murder someone for money if you can get away with it, and the law is not looking over your shoulder to politely remind you that you have a duty to your fellow man.
> You query is akin to asking what duty do you have not to murder
> someone for money if you can get away with it, and the law is not
> looking over your shoulder to politely remind you that you have a duty
> to your fellow man.I do not wholly agree with your analogy but rather than rework it I will try to illustrate by example the point that what is ethical is not absolute but depends on context and the readers expectations.
When you read an advert in a newspaper do you expect the text to be straightforward and honest or do you expect it to push the boundaries of whatever is allowable to promote whatever is being advertised? I hope you will agree that most people expect the latter and do not consider the writer of the advert to be unethical in doing what he is employed to do.
Of course, when reading Consumer Reports, government publications, etc... the relationship between the reader and writer is different and there is certainly a question of ethics since the reader expects to be informed rather than mislead.
An audiophile example. The commercial online audiophile publications employ people to create "reviews" in order to attract people to the adverts which provides their income. Many of these "reviews" are for wacko audiophile products and contain absurd claims about the performance of the products. Do you consider the authors of these "reviews" of wacko products to have the same moral obligation to report in a fair manner as a news reporter? Or is it simply free entertainment?
"When you read an advert in a newspaper do you expect the text to be straightforward and honest or do you expect it to push the boundaries of whatever is allowable to promote whatever is being advertised? I hope you will agree that most people expect the latter and do not consider the writer of the advert to be unethical in doing what he is employed to do."The difference is that the writer of the advertisement does not hold himself out as anything but a saleman of sorts, who the company employs to generate interest in their product. They know it. And you know it.
Contrast this with the audio writer who the company does not hire, and whose writings are not designed to sell product, but rather to educate you as to that product. An advertisement may educate you about the product, but its primary function is to educate you only so much as is necessary to part you with your dollars. The company may use the review to sell product, but the review itself was not generated with the purpose to sell product, though it may have that effect.
"Of course, when reading Consumer Reports, government publications, etc... the relationship between the reader and writer is different and there is certainly a question of ethics since the reader expects to be informed rather than mislead."
Taken in conjunction with your prior statement, you seem to imply that there is only black and white, not gray. Either the prose is an advertisement, or it is akin to Consumer Reports or government publications (though I cannot believe you would be so naive to believe that government report are not written to attempt for someone to buy something), there being nothing in between. Consumer Reports is in the business of making money, so do not be fooled into thinking there is no agenda. People who read audio magazines expect to be informed, but I suspect that they seek a deeper level of information than do those who read Consumer Reports. I do not read audio magazines expecting to be misled.
"An audiophile example. The commercial online audiophile publications employ people to create "reviews" in order to attract people to the adverts which provides their income. Many of these "reviews" are for wacko audiophile products and contain absurd claims about the performance of the products. Do you consider the authors of these "reviews" of wacko products to have the same moral obligation to report in a fair manner as a news reporter? Or is it simply free entertainment?"
I think you are confused. People who write opinions, be it for audio, cars, or politics, are not reporters. They are editorialists. Check out your local newspaper. The masthead will have a "news" department, and an "editorial" department. They have different jobs, and holding one to the standard of another is like holding your car to a standard for washing machines.
I expect people in editorial fields to give me their opinion. I expect that they have biases, which I should know about so that I may weigh whether their opinions are reliable, to me. A news reporter is simply that - they provide information, without overtly interjecting their opinions.
Using an "audiophile" example, you can turn to the "industry update" section in Stereophile, and read about some company that has been sold to another company, and where their new headquarters will be, or what products they will release, etc. That is an example of reporting. The equipment reviews contain mostly editorial content. Yes, I expect a different standard for each.
Wacko audiophile products? Hard to comment without concrete examples.
Thanks for the response and we have at at least partial agreement.We agree on the ethics of adverts and that being misleading is not necessarily an ethical issue. The readers expectations are relevant.
We agree, I think, (your reply was a bit tangential) that there would be ethical issues if mislead when the reader pays the commercial rate for information (e.g. Consumer Reports) or the writer is the readers representative (e.g. government). In these cases there is a clear relationship between reader and writer and an expectation of honesty which does not exist with the adverts example.
> Taken in conjunction with your prior statement, you seem to imply that there is
> only black and white, not gray.Far from it, I gave three examples and the third is grey unlike two which were supposed to be clear.
Commercial online audiophile sites generate "reviews" for wacko products like clever clocks and Klaus's resonating cup. These "reviews" contain outrageous claims for the efficacy of the products that far exceed anything that the manufacturer could ever put in a paid-for advert which is, presumably, the point. Now is the writer ethically wrong to make these outrageous claims or is it reasonable to expect the average man in the street to understand that he is reading a promotional spoof and have a bit of laugh? Of course, some audiophiles may take the reviews at face value and there is an indirect commercial advantage to the writer (no advertisers, no income).
As an ethical issue it is grey but speaking personally I did not read either review as an attempt to deceive precisely because the claims were outrageous rather than subtle. This is what makes something a spoof or a joke. I have also not paid the writer in any way and I am freely reading what others have paid to put up on the web and so can see no reason to expect what is there to serve my interests or be truthful.
"An audiophile example. The commercial online audiophile publications employ people to create "reviews" in order to attract people to the adverts which provides their income. Many of these "reviews" are for wacko audiophile products and contain absurd claims about the performance of the products. Do you consider the authors of these "reviews" of wacko products to have the same moral obligation to report in a fair manner as a news reporter? Or is it simply free entertainment?"An equipment review in Stereophile is not much different than a review of a movie. The reviewer presents her subjective take, and if you agree with their opinions on that and other reviews, you are likely to agree with them. Comparing and contrasting is key here, - if it sounds like a Krell, and you like a Krell, then you'll like it. That Cary sounds nothing like this Krell, - so if you hate Krell then you'll love this Cary.
"wacko products to have the same moral obligation to report in a fair manner as a news reporter?"
What you idiosyncratically, and on your own, with few others agreeing, - call "wacko" products and "fair" reporting is very, very, different than the reality and the rest O the world.
Please don't try to "trick" and "deceive" people with your opinions, stated so pompously and negatively, as though they were factual claims...
Come up to me with your 'what did you say?' and I'll tell you straight in the eye: DIY
> > "If the writer does not derive any income from the reader and is employed by parties that do not have interests wholly aligned with the reader where does this duty come from?" < <In the case of Stereophile, it comes from editor John Atkinson's repeated claims, here and elsewhere, that the magazine's #1 first loyalty and responsibility is to its readers, period (or words to that effect).
~Jay
> In the case of Stereophile, it comes from editor John Atkinson's
> repeated claims, here and elsewhere, that the magazine's #1 first
> loyalty and responsibility is to its readers, period (or words to that
> effect).But from the outside one can only judge based on the content and that rather suggests otherwise where a conflict exists between the interests of the magazine/writer and the probable interests of the reader. The probable arises because one can make a case that it is in the interests of audiophiles to be misinformed about the performance of audio equipment.
when talking about subjective subject matter...
Come up to me with your 'what did you say?' and I'll tell you straight in the eye: DIY
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 ]
