Magazine Ethics - TAS

I would also appreciate an article from Mr Harley about why his magazine shilled so relentlessly for MQA, whether he had any financial interest in MQA, and how he did  with that stake.  I am not holding my breath that it will ever happen 

I'm interested to go read this now. 

I have always loved the New Yorker's movie reviews, because they basically understand that their credibility is what makes people want to read them. All they are doing is helping readers decide about a movie ticket and a few hours of their time, but on the other side are large studio or independent makers' productions costing millions of dollars. And yet, they stick to their mission. 

Why? Because there is a line between marketing and journalism, hype and truth. So, the whole problem for me with product reviews (in magazines, Youtube etc.) is that they derive credibility from the overt or implied promise of truth but then wind up doing "marketing-lite" for the company. And it's devilishly hard to tell when that happens. Everyone becomes suspicious of every review. "We only review products we like," some say. To which the reader wants to reply, "Review some you don't like once in a while so we know you're willing to take a stand." 

The larger problem is that business almost always wins. People are willing to tolerate hype and marketing rather than support – with real money – journalism. Corporations buy news stations and papers or just influence them. We get fluff and hyperbole and propaganda, and lose connection with facts and the ability to self-govern.

Lemme see if I understand the premise of some here: a reviewer receives amplifier A, that he likes, for free and uses it in his system. Now we are questioning whether his favorable reviews of amplifiers B, C, D and E are valid? Does he get all the other amplifiers for free too? How long does he keep them in his system? Does he really like amplifier A or does he get paid to showcase it in his system for cash? Has he given good amplifiers bad reviews because the manufacturer would not cut him a favorable deal to acquire the amps? Frankly, some folks are quick to judge others. It’s hard to believe that these critics are honest. And please, stop calling equipment reviewers journalists, they are not. Most manufacturers give money back warranty for a certain period for you to review their product before you commit to keep them. Why don’t you do your own review? Me personally, I have no time to read bad reviews. What for? I read between the lines of the good ones and am always willing to return a product that doesn’t meet my expectations. 

Back in the 80s when I was in the biz someone would make the trip to HP’s lair with our equipment to make sure it was tested fairly. We were told in advance by his staff to not expect the product back if he liked it. 

I subscribed to TAS for one year, but was so irritated by the lack of critical information being on the verge of spreading lies, that I cancelled. For instance, Framer's 1 arc second is audible claim makes no sense if one cares to think about it for a second.

Or in a review of some Italian R2R DAC alleging they are the first ones to go back to this "ancient technology", completely ignoring existing R2R DACs. 

Where's the editor stopping such nonsense? Having had some editorial appointments with scientific journals, I know the role of an editor, and Harley completely fails at it.

I'm no hifi sage by a long shot, but if I can spot those errors, I have to wonder how much other misinformation did I not catch? That is when laughs & giggles about audio bling turns into annoyance. Nobody ain't got no time for that!

And then the relentless marketing mailings after I cancelled. They really appear to be desperate. They don't seem to get the memo.