Magazine Ethics - TAS

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? 

re ethics: in today's climate: being ethical, fair, kind is not rewarded. Lying, scamming, cheating, bullying is the norm. The truth does not matter, defending lies at all costs and at anyone's expense has become a virtue.

Objectivity at a review publication would be as rare as a politician focusing on his campaign promises

Well I hope Woo Audio sees this and lets me write a stellar review for their flagship headphone amp.  

Would people rather pay, say, $150 a year for a subscription and eliminate all conflicts of interest or continue to get it for less, or free, and deal with these issues?

That's basically the choice, as far as I can tell. You get what you pay for.