Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those

"When you read an advert in a newspaper do you expect the text to be straightforward and honest or do you expect it to push the boundaries of whatever is allowable to promote whatever is being advertised? I hope you will agree that most people expect the latter and do not consider the writer of the advert to be unethical in doing what he is employed to do."

The difference is that the writer of the advertisement does not hold himself out as anything but a saleman of sorts, who the company employs to generate interest in their product. They know it. And you know it.

Contrast this with the audio writer who the company does not hire, and whose writings are not designed to sell product, but rather to educate you as to that product. An advertisement may educate you about the product, but its primary function is to educate you only so much as is necessary to part you with your dollars. The company may use the review to sell product, but the review itself was not generated with the purpose to sell product, though it may have that effect.

"Of course, when reading Consumer Reports, government publications, etc... the relationship between the reader and writer is different and there is certainly a question of ethics since the reader expects to be informed rather than mislead."

Taken in conjunction with your prior statement, you seem to imply that there is only black and white, not gray. Either the prose is an advertisement, or it is akin to Consumer Reports or government publications (though I cannot believe you would be so naive to believe that government report are not written to attempt for someone to buy something), there being nothing in between. Consumer Reports is in the business of making money, so do not be fooled into thinking there is no agenda. People who read audio magazines expect to be informed, but I suspect that they seek a deeper level of information than do those who read Consumer Reports. I do not read audio magazines expecting to be misled.

"An audiophile example. The commercial online audiophile publications employ people to create "reviews" in order to attract people to the adverts which provides their income. Many of these "reviews" are for wacko audiophile products and contain absurd claims about the performance of the products. Do you consider the authors of these "reviews" of wacko products to have the same moral obligation to report in a fair manner as a news reporter? Or is it simply free entertainment?"

I think you are confused. People who write opinions, be it for audio, cars, or politics, are not reporters. They are editorialists. Check out your local newspaper. The masthead will have a "news" department, and an "editorial" department. They have different jobs, and holding one to the standard of another is like holding your car to a standard for washing machines.

I expect people in editorial fields to give me their opinion. I expect that they have biases, which I should know about so that I may weigh whether their opinions are reliable, to me. A news reporter is simply that - they provide information, without overtly interjecting their opinions.

Using an "audiophile" example, you can turn to the "industry update" section in Stereophile, and read about some company that has been sold to another company, and where their new headquarters will be, or what products they will release, etc. That is an example of reporting. The equipment reviews contain mostly editorial content. Yes, I expect a different standard for each.

Wacko audiophile products? Hard to comment without concrete examples.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.