Magazine Ethics - TAS

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. 

@viridian  So call me naive.  I read the article and took it at face value.  Apparently, based on every post made, I'm the only one that wasn't in on the joke.  I'll try to meet your higher standards in the future.  For your edification, the term BigTwin is the long held nickname for the larger V-Twin engines found in Harley-Davidson motorcycles.  Anything outside the Sportster 883/1200 class. 

@spenav I appreciate your point of view even though I may not fully agree. No reason we can’t have a polite discussion about what has become an issue of considerable currency. I think by any definition if someone receives some form of gratuity from a manufacturer and then purports to write a “review“ of products from that manufacturer or  competitors that is a conflict of interest. Nothing illegal or inherently unethical about that. There are three ways to deal with a conflict of interest. First, the reviewer can eliminate it. Second, there can be full disclosure of the details of the conflict and then readers can make their own assessment of whether it matters. Third, the conflict can be ignored and undisclosed, meaning the readers of these reviews don’t have all of the relevant facts. It seems to me that the first two choices are reasonable, ethical approaches. Do yoi disagree?

I think your point about whether a reviewer is a journalist is interesting and I’ve wondered about how they considered themselves. If they are indeed journalists that is an appellation that carries with it certain obligations. I think I’ve heard some of them refer to themselves as journalists but I don’t know the answer and it’s an interesting question