![]() |
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those posted by andy19191 on February 27, 2007 at 10:13:32:
"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?"An equipment review in Stereophile is not much different than a review of a movie. The reviewer presents her subjective take, and if you agree with their opinions on that and other reviews, you are likely to agree with them. Comparing and contrasting is key here, - if it sounds like a Krell, and you like a Krell, then you'll like it. That Cary sounds nothing like this Krell, - so if you hate Krell then you'll love this Cary.
"wacko products to have the same moral obligation to report in a fair manner as a news reporter?"
What you idiosyncratically, and on your own, with few others agreeing, - call "wacko" products and "fair" reporting is very, very, different than the reality and the rest O the world.
Please don't try to "trick" and "deceive" people with your opinions, stated so pompously and negatively, as though they were factual claims...
Come up to me with your 'what did you say?' and I'll tell you straight in the eye: DIY
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Wrong again! Your opinion does not constitute a fact. - Sordidman 12:09:05 02/27/07 (0)