![]() |
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: I found his article a little sanctamonious... posted by cfcjb on February 25, 2007 at 16:28:17:
>To be able to write a credible review you have to be completely
>impartial. Accepting any gift, no matter how small, jeopardizes that
>impartiality and thus has the ability to taint the review process.
It's good point, but when does the perceived value of the gift
become relevant? Reviewers and editors are literally besieged with
tchochkes of various kinds -- watches, pens, CD wallets, tote bags,
rolling bags, letter openers, notebooks, USB flash drives, key rings,
pen knives, flowers, bottles of wine and liquor -- and it is
impractical, even impolite to go through a press release package that
you receive in the mail and pick out all this stuff to be returned.
I deal with this schwag by giving it away. Does that still make me
unethical? And I admit to being just as bad -- a manufacturer who
visits my office often gets Stereophile CDs pressed upon him. Or even
a Stereophile shirt or a Stereophile CD opener. And how about those
Stereophile wine glasses? (http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/756)
And yes, I have accepted dinner invitations from manufacturers whose
products I review. But I have also bought those same manufacturers
dinner. Doesn't that even up the ethical books? For example, last
month a manufacturer offered me a ticket to the Met which would
otherwise gone to waste. I agreed provided I bought us dinner at the
Met's restaurant before the performance. The face value of the ticket
was $220; dinner came to almost $300 with wine and tip. I felt that
ethically, the books were balanced. Perhaps you disagree, feeling that
I should never fraternalize with manufacturers? Yet my conversations
with industry figures are _never_ social.
I address this question in my March "As We See It," BTW, by defining
a gift that crosses the line as one being worth more than $100. If
you are not a Stereophile reader, both that essay and Art Dudley's
will be available in our free online archives at www.stsreophile.com
on Monday March 12.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Reality... - John Atkinson 13:39:30 02/26/07 (24)
- JA is a Gentleman....... - Bill the K 09:45:24 02/27/07 (0)
- Re: Reality... - TomLarson 20:03:47 02/26/07 (0)
- Re: Reality... - cfcjb 15:12:33 02/26/07 (6)
- Re: You really need to start your own magazine.... - alan m. kafton 15:27:43 02/26/07 (5)
- Re: You really need to start your own magazine.... - cfcjb 15:34:10 02/26/07 (4)
- Re: There should be no quid pro quo.... - alan m. kafton 16:14:49 02/26/07 (3)
- Re: There should be no quid pro quo.... - cfcjb 16:23:41 02/26/07 (2)
- Re: I ain't laughing. [nt] - alan m. kafton 17:11:27 02/26/07 (1)
- And here I was getting ready to offer to pay for his - Bruce Kendall 18:23:11 02/26/07 (0)
- Perception - bjh 15:02:47 02/26/07 (8)
- Reality (not Perception) - John Atkinson 16:31:02 02/26/07 (2)
- "*A* Bass Ale"?! You show remarkable restraint, sir, nt - clarkjohnsen 11:01:29 02/27/07 (0)
- Re: Reality (not Perception) - Charles Hansen 20:03:56 02/26/07 (0)
- That's an awfully ambitious agenda you've got there! - Bruce Kendall 15:41:56 02/26/07 (4)
- Voicing an opinion is not such an awfully ambitious agenda, is it? nt - bjh 19:24:52 02/26/07 (1)
- Send me an email - Bruce Kendall 18:54:53 02/27/07 (0)
- Yes... a *happy* hobby... girls, for instance... Uh oh... waitaminnit... nt - clarkjohnsen 15:59:19 02/26/07 (1)
- No, no, that was an excellent suggestion. - Bruce Kendall 18:27:41 02/26/07 (0)
- Er... - Steve Eddy 14:21:36 02/26/07 (1)
- Back pack with wheels (NT) - John Atkinson 14:27:56 02/26/07 (0)
- Re: You forgot to disclose.... - alan m. kafton 14:02:55 02/26/07 (3)
- Re: You forgot to disclose.... - cfcjb 16:07:57 02/26/07 (2)
- Re: No.... - alan m. kafton 16:12:51 02/26/07 (1)
- Re: No.... - cfcjb 16:21:59 02/26/07 (0)