Magazine Ethics - TAS

@spenav 

Really interesting reply -- thank you.

Here's how I see it. I'd push back on the clean split between journalists stating facts and reviewers giving opinions. A good review does both — and the relationship between them is what makes it trustworthy or not. What's really at stake is *judgment* — not raw opinion (with no evidence or basis), not bare measurement (facts without context), but the disciplined act of weighing evidence, applying spelled-out aesthetic standards, and combining those to reach a considered conclusion. And not a foregone conclusion.

The deeper problem is that many reviewers aren't building toward a conclusion through careful listening. They already know (maybe unconsciously) they're going to like the gear — because access depends on staying friendly with manufacturers, and the business model runs on good relationships with advertisers. The "review" is written backward from a favorable verdict, and the impressionistic language — "incredible soundstage," "musical authority" — dresses up a foregone conclusion. We're asked to trust enthusiasm that was never at risk of turning out any other way. That's not judgment. It's performance.

A genuinely journalistic review makes an argument about aesthetics and tries to explain how this will translate for readers. It builds its impressions on a scaffolding of facts — comparison points, source material, system chain. When a reviewer says "the upper midrange added presence to vocals but made massed strings a little glassy on this recording through these speakers" — that's opinion *disciplined by facts*. You can work with it. You can ask whether your setup would interact the same way, whether your priorities would weight that tradeoff differently. That's judgment you can engage with.

You're right that we should choose gear based on what we hear. But reading about gear is only useful if you can tell the difference between fact-grounded evaluation and ad copy. The facts aren't opposed to the opinion. They're the difference between informed-opinon and baseless-opinion. That's what I'd call, instead, "judgement."

I was not impressed with RH's attempt to justify his view of ethics.  I don't mind that much if a magazine decides that it will thread the conflict-of-interest needle by simply not publishing a review of something that it cannot praise, and I think it is an open secret that's what these magazines do, so fine.

But each reviewer should fully disclose what benefits he has received and from which manufacturers or distributors within the prior 5 years.  I'm sure one of the reasons that is not done is that it would double the size (and expense) of the magazine.

I note, for example, that in the same issue of TAS containing RH's controversial comments, a review of the Aurender A-1000 appears to have panned the thing with faint praise, in a direct comparison to a Cambridge streamer.  It would be useful for readers to know which of those companies has done the author the most favors.  I assume the Cambridge unit was a long term loan; whereas the Aurender was a review sample.  Maybe not.  The failure to disclose in this instance leaves the reader questioning the validity of even a less-than-fawning review.

If you watch the videos, a manufacturer and distributor both have written stipulations from one of the magazines that they have to leave the equipment with them or the reviewer AND they have the right to sell the equipment in 3yrs and keep the money !  Also, they have gone on record saying they've been told that competitive foreign product reviews can be nixed by US manufacturers that advertise in the magazines.  It goes far beyond pay to play.

Hello bigtwin. In defense of review writers, you have to understand the nature of the business. These guys write for magazines that appeal to enthusuasts. The magazines sell advertising. That's what pays the bills. The best review is "I bought the review sample." The worst is "If you are in the market for whatever kind of gear is being reviewed, and it is in your budget range, you should consider this item."

Anything in betwen is somewhere between OK and so -so. You just "need to know the territory."

Enjoy the music.

I did click on the link and this was on the last page:

For the record...threads are deleted for various reasons. Redundancy is one thing. That said, there are (or could be) more reasons that is not up the membership to decide as to whether or not they remain intact or are deleted.

This is why we have a team of Moderators and an Admin team to decipher what is, and what isn’t acceptable on the What’s Best Forum.

We choose what’s best for a plethora of reasons that present a positive path forward. Along with useful, continued discussions and dialog.

Sounds like a scary cult to me. The Holy House of Positive Path Forward.