Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
October 22, 2005 - 6:40pm
#1
Should ethical constraints be imposed on for-profit audio publications?
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
All true, but there is no need to single out audio. It is true across the board in consumer reviewing, which is not held to the standards of refereed science journals. Consumer's Union claims superiority because they do not accept advertising, but unfortunately they do not have top-level specialist expertise either. I trust a number of publications (including Stereophile) in a number of consumer fields after years of observing them criticize advertisers as well as praise them. I think that the bigger question than integrity is competence. It takes significant discrimination to decide which magazines to trust based upon their expertise. There are a lot of magazines in every subject area which display expertise at the level of either reprinting manufacturer's press releases or worse, printing the opinions of novice reviewers.
In any case, fortunately the Constitution discourages censorship in the name of ethics.
SixMoons.com has the right idea: http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/reminder/reminder.html
Surely, you jest. With all due respect, let me suggest that we subscribers to audio publications have ultimate power of oversight regarding the publications. If, and when, we suspect skullduggery, we may simply cancel our subscriptions. We can act as individuals in our own interest. Some things don't "take a village".
Not for nuthin', but JA was on top of this back in 1988.
Check it: http://www.stereophile.com/historical/502/index.html
And - yes - we hold these standards still today.
Looks like SixMoons.com got "the right idea" from STEREOPHILE. Which is fine.
I don't think SixMoons' main man, Srajan Ebean, was a Stereophile reader or even in the US back in 1988 when I wrote that article, Stephen. But the general policies on reviewer ethics I described back in 1988 are still in effect today. Readers can find more of my thoughts on this subject, and on the relationship between the magazine and advertisers at:
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/746/ and http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/366/
I also write about our review policies in my "As We See It" in the current, November issue. I urge those who question my or the magazine's ethics to read that essay.
And Clay was right on the money when he wrote in this thread "we subscribers to audio publications have ultimate power of oversight regarding the publications. If, and when, we suspect skullduggery, we may simply cancel our subscriptions."
That is the ultimate sanction readers can apply to magazines they feel have betrayed their trust.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Yes, they should not be able to steal my equipment, after that I don't care!
I think it's stupid to challenge magazines about supposed ethical lapses because they take advertising. You can call me a synchophant (if you can pronounce it or I can spell it) but I have posted this other places perviously. Editors and reviewers are not stupid (though sometimes they play it on TV) if they review gear that does not live up to subsequent expectation, they are cutting their own throats. I often do not agree with the details of a review, but generally the gist of it is accurate. NO TWO AUDIOPHILES WILL EVER AGREE. Why should mags have to agree with you?
Besides, what audiophiles do you know with ethics, why should magazines be held to a higher standard than it's readers???
Hi, Kurt,
Should ethical constraints be imposed on audio publicatons? Sure. Why not? As long as I get to determine the ethical rubric, and they are MY constraints, MY shackles, MY punishments (to be meted out on MY whims). The first rule would be, of course, no equipment shall be reviewed unless I like the manufacturer and, in all fairness, the equipment he designs. The second rule is, I get 10% of all gross sales for any equipment favorably reviewed. I like this game. I think I may even run for Congress -- awww, hell, why not PRESIDENT? Clifton, Gerald. That's C-L-I-F-T-O-N. Vote for Clifton. Cheers, Clifton.
I once thought of running for office on a platform of synchronizing the traffic signals. "Make one light, make'em all!"
I'd bankrupt the city if I had to, but traffic would move by gosh!
No need to run, Monty -- when I'm elected, I shall appoint you Secretary of Transportation AND Czar of Traffic Expediting. Instead of, "Race you to the next light!" it will be "Race you to the next county!" -- salary will be paid by the taxpayers, of course, and you get a free listening room filled with the components of your choice, for meditation on public policy. Cheers, Clifton
Reminds of that old Seinfeld bit...
The only time they let you run red lights is in your funeral procession.
What irony, the only time they let you make good time is after you're dead!
Buh-dump-bump.
_________________________________
In my world, tailgating would get the guy in front of you the ticket - for not getting out of the gol' durn way!