In Reply to: Re: Be careful what you wish for... posted by cfcjb on February 25, 2007 at 17:10:51:
<< My wife has been a journalist with many of this country's finest newspapers and there's no way any credible publication would allow it's writers to accept gifts or discounts >>I guess things aren't what they used to be. One of this country's finest newspapers has egg all over its face from multiple recent scandals:
-- Judith Miller
-- The plagiarist whose name I forget
-- The smearing of Wen Lee Ho (I think that's the right name)I don't think it took gifts or discounts to achieve that level of shame.
<< There isn't an audiophile magazine out there that maintains proper journalistic standards. >>
And who gets to decide what is "proper"? You? Joseph Stalin?
Consumer Reports attempts to do something that would probably meet with your approval, but the end product sucks, in my experience. On the other hand, let me give you an example of something you would probably disapprove of.
Our policy is to always deliver the product to the reviewer in person. We can then explain how it works (reviewers are regular people too, that don't always take the time to read the manual) and make sure everything is operating satisfactorily. This process usually takes a few hours -- we will always share some music and sometimes we will share a meal.
We don't give out any trinkets or gifts (screwdrivers, watches, or whatever), but nonetheless sometimes a degree of friendship is formed. (And sometimes not.) Now, a suspicious person might fear that this friendship (however superficial) could taint the review. And I suppose that it could.
But if you don't trust the reviewer to keep business and personal life separate, there is a very simple solution. Don't read that magazine. It's a lot easier than trying to make rules about "perfect" behavior from magazines (or people in general). And if you don't believe that, try reading Plato's "Republic" sometime. Well-intentioned, no doubt. But the end results are also no doubt horrifying.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - Charles Hansen 17:50:13 02/25/07 (21)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - cfcjb 18:22:29 02/25/07 (18)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - Charles Hansen 20:18:58 02/25/07 (0)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - Charles Hansen 20:09:03 02/25/07 (16)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - cfcjb 20:33:46 02/25/07 (15)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - andy19191 23:25:56 02/25/07 (14)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - cfcjb 01:02:09 02/26/07 (13)
- Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - Sordidman 10:48:13 02/26/07 (11)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - jamesgarvin 11:16:45 02/26/07 (10)
- like I said -t - Sordidman 16:06:35 02/26/07 (0)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - andy19191 11:37:33 02/26/07 (8)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - jamesgarvin 08:46:43 02/27/07 (4)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - andy19191 10:13:32 02/27/07 (3)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - jamesgarvin 13:40:06 02/27/07 (1)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - andy19191 01:50:30 02/28/07 (0)
- Wrong again! Your opinion does not constitute a fact. - Sordidman 12:09:05 02/27/07 (0)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - Jay 12:38:00 02/26/07 (2)
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - andy19191 00:39:23 02/27/07 (1)
- in your opinion......... you can't have "misinformation" - Sordidman 12:02:50 02/27/07 (0)
- Re: Be careful what you wish for... - andy19191 03:21:07 02/26/07 (0)
- Re: "Our policy is to always deliver the product to the reviewer in person." - cdb 18:21:00 02/25/07 (1)
- Actually, it's not special at all. - Charles Hansen 19:31:37 02/25/07 (0)