Magazine Ethics - TAS

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.

I don't think the controversy over compensating reviewers with free equipment or deep discounts unavailable to consumers is new, its just become more of a focus because of some of the YouTube discussions. I doubt it will change. Most of the "reviews" in TAS and stereophile are not really reviews in my opinion-they are marketing pieces for manufacturers who enjoy a symbiotic economic relationship with the publications. Some publications-like Soundstage-seem to be more sensitive to maintaining independence. 

Even so, I still enjoy the mags and find a lot interesting information every month. They are not going to end the gravy train, that's just how it is. But I don't see a reasonable argument against full disclosure of the relationships. Everybody still gets their free stuff. I think maybe some do that, some don't. It just allows readers to make their own judgment concerning the credibility of a "review" based on all the relevant facts. Doesn't cost anybody anything. What's wrong with that?