 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.234.50.213
In Reply to: RE: I fear we inhabit different planets! posted by Bhasi on May 24, 2009 at 06:57:14
In other words, you are absolutely convinced that audio writers who accept discounts are corrupt, but you cannot explain how that corruption occurs. But you just know it happens. Thank you for making that clear.
Follow Ups:
SPJ (Society of professional journalists) Code of Ethics says. Journalists who act independently should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Either this code of ethics should apply to reviewers as part of the journalism profession OR audio reviewers are not journalists and only a marketing expense for manufacturers, importers and distributors.
The SPJ is an American body. Hi-Fi+ is a UK magazine. So the SPJ's code of conduct does not apply here. We are tied to a minimum standard; the strictures laid down by the Press Complaints Commission. The PCC's Code of Conduct makes no mention about professional associations, free travel and gifts. As few magazine editors and journalists in the UK belong to a trade body or organisation, the PCC's Code of Conduct - and any in-house strictures from a publishing house - are the overarching guidelines used in the UK media.
However, I am also bound by the Code of Conduct instigated by the Chartered Institute of Journalists, which lays down stronger guidelines on this matter. I am not going to reprint the entire document for brevity, but the salient points in that code are as follows:
- You will behave in a transparent way. This will include declaring your professional status in any publication in which you operate. You are not required to maintain the same professional name, but must seek not to practise deception on the reader or viewer at any time.
- You will not request or accept payment for the publication of editorial matter under whatever guise, including costs relating to colour separation of pictures or other devices, which compromise your editorial independence.
- You will not accept money, or any other inducement whatsoever, to manipulate editorial comment unless it is clearly identified.
My contributors (and the previous editor) are not necessarily members of the same governing body, so not have been subject to the same strictures in the past. I have already introduced a greater degree of transparency in disclosing interests and I will be instigating stronger integrity guidelines under my tenure, but putting these guidelines in place will take time.
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, from sunny ol' Englandshire
> — Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.>
Even perceived by conspiracy theorists with no real reason or logic?
> — Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.>
Taking a discount available to the entire industry, including review journalists who may have reveiwed the product negatively or not at all, does not compromise anyone's integrity.
If you believe it does, please explain how.
Otherwise I would question the ethics and conduct of one who makes blanket accusations without evidence or cause.
May I remind you of the letter YOU sent to playback magazine regarding the very independence of reviewers...
"How can we trust that you'll keep your editorial content independent from advertising considerations when you founding partners' products will be reviewed in your publication?"
Perhaps YOU could question your OWN ethics, or perhaps YOU had sufficient concern to write Playback magazine. In either cases, I suggest your conduct might not be as high as you think it is...
(nt)
... but we don't know which half."
I expect you're familiar with this oft-quoted complaint. No, the business of persuasion is not an exact science and no, I don't have the forensic skills to prove what you - disingenuously? - ask.
And yet:
Does anyone really believe that trade discounts, freebies, etc do nothing at all to influence reviewers' opinions, that such 'benefits' result in absolutely no feelings of gratitude or beholdenness, conscious or otherwise?
Of course, it would be silly to claim there's direct 1:1 reciprocity involved most of the time. Marcel Mauss wrote interestingly about this in his book The Gift in the 20's. I'm pretty sure Vance Packard had something to say about it, too, in his classic The Hidden Persuaders.
And to take a more life-or-death example, how delighted can any of us be by the thought that doctors' prescribing decisions have been subtly influenced by drug company-sponsored trips, meals, desk ornaments, etc, etc?
I'm not saying such marketing practices can be eliminated from every sphere of life - not even just the essential ones like medicine and audio! - but I do think consumers, at least, should bear them in mind when reading reviews or listening to recommendations, perhaps adding a few more grains of salt than they already do.
Going back to my original post, I'm still quite irked that I paid good money to read the editor waxing lyrical about the astronomically-priced Nordost Odin line when a month or two later I could have got his thoughts free as advertising bumpf. Sure, one doesn't begrudge anyone career success in an honest line of work, but it's sad that the magazine's reputation should be sullied by the 'niggling doubts' that will arise in many thoughtful readers' minds.
I fear we're going to have to agree to differ, Rob, but feel free to have the last word.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
