|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those posted by jamesgarvin on February 27, 2007 at 13:40:06:
Thanks for the response and we have at at least partial agreement.We agree on the ethics of adverts and that being misleading is not necessarily an ethical issue. The readers expectations are relevant.
We agree, I think, (your reply was a bit tangential) that there would be ethical issues if mislead when the reader pays the commercial rate for information (e.g. Consumer Reports) or the writer is the readers representative (e.g. government). In these cases there is a clear relationship between reader and writer and an expectation of honesty which does not exist with the adverts example.
> Taken in conjunction with your prior statement, you seem to imply that there is
> only black and white, not gray.Far from it, I gave three examples and the third is grey unlike two which were supposed to be clear.
Commercial online audiophile sites generate "reviews" for wacko products like clever clocks and Klaus's resonating cup. These "reviews" contain outrageous claims for the efficacy of the products that far exceed anything that the manufacturer could ever put in a paid-for advert which is, presumably, the point. Now is the writer ethically wrong to make these outrageous claims or is it reasonable to expect the average man in the street to understand that he is reading a promotional spoof and have a bit of laugh? Of course, some audiophiles may take the reviews at face value and there is an indirect commercial advantage to the writer (no advertisers, no income).
As an ethical issue it is grey but speaking personally I did not read either review as an attempt to deceive precisely because the claims were outrageous rather than subtle. This is what makes something a spoof or a joke. I have also not paid the writer in any way and I am freely reading what others have paid to put up on the web and so can see no reason to expect what is there to serve my interests or be truthful.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Who said reviewers are journalists, subject to those - andy19191 01:50:30 02/28/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
