Stereophile's refusal to review more low

I think that we are expecting too much from a business for profit. I see the mags as being a source of cheap entertainment (if you enjoy reading about gear) and would not expect them to run as a nonprofit consumer mag (though I doubt that they are 100% either). Even if there is an occasional mixture of fluff and fact, how many reviews have you, out there, ever read that were totally off track? I personally feel that the rating systems are a bit ridiculous taking into consideration what it is that is trying to be judged/rated and all of the variables involved, but feel the same way about most rating systems involving sensate things (wine, art & film, music, Hi-fi, etc.), but the ratings are also somehow fun to read. Many of the writers are personalities on the same level of greatness as Orson Bean, so either enjoy the greatness that is there or don't subscribe, but in any case please lighten up if you will.

I think that those who think it is too much to expect integrity from Stereophile and others who would make delivery of advertising revenue a pre-condition for a review in the magazine help to lower standards for all institutions. If we think that any for-profit enterprise is incapable of integrity, then it follows that most of our institutions in the U.S. are rotten. Is the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal inherently lacking in integrity simply because they accept advertising? Would they know the dangers of having the editorial department "report" to the advertising department? Do the publishers of these papers set up checks and balances in their operations in order to prevent the kind of problem in which Stereophile appears to gleefully engage? Do these papers know the importance of protecting something intangible such as their "name" or reputation, since without it, their tangible assets might eventually disappear? If we have heard the stories that if you don't advertise with Stereophile, you can forget about getting a review, can we envision the possibility that those five or six companies who comprise a very significant part of the advertising revenue have access to what gets reviewed and to what is said in those reviews, even if their control as to what is said is by tacit understanding only? If what we have "heard" about Stereophile's dealings seems plausible, even likely, and we can project on to that additional "misdeeds" which are likely to have occurred and which would further jeopardize the integrity of the magazine, why do we bother to read it and why do we care at all about what is inside? (As well as you, I am asking myself this last question)

Very well put, Ray.

Rayhall: I have worked for quite a few companies (large ones) in my life and only one out of the many had what I would call integrity (I stayed with them for 11 years) and yes, I do think that it is too much to ask in the real world. In other words, I do not take any information for granted from any publication. Why would I expect more from a stereo rag? In addition, why would I care?

Dekay: I too, have worked for many large companies. I am a data processing consultant and have seen the inside of many NYC Fortune 500 financial firms and I must agree with you: Integrity is low and fading rapidly. My point is that if you tolerate the low and rapidly fading integrity in all its forms, big and small, you will only accelerate it. I certainly don't take any Stereophile information for granted, as my posts on this thread should clearly demonstrate. I don't think in the greater scheme of things that a little audiophile magazine which might be sliming its reputation and, at the same time, insulting its readers' collective intelligence is my most compelling example of the moral crisis which exists, but if you love audio, as I know you do, and you read Stereophile, which you appear to, it would seem to me that you would have to care on some level that that which you read have some validity, utility and truthfulness. It is clear to me that the readers, by voting no, in other words, not buying Stereophile, are the only one's who can save it now, if half of what we hear about it is true. Why then, do you (and I, for that matter) continue to subscribe, read or give Stereophile any concern or credit? This question is rhetorical of course and doesn't require any answer. My previous post is not meant to attack you, as I think you have misperceived, but was meant to point out the incongruity of my, and perhaps your, actions given the disrespect that Stereophile is probably showing us by how it operates. Anyway, I could talk about these issues forever, and you'd all be bored. But if we can't trust anyone, we don't have a world. And when trust is broken on the micro level rather than the macro level, it is actually more destructive to the society as a whole and us, individually. It is more important that you can trust your doctor, your wife, your friends to serve your interest sometimes even at the expense of theirs than the president of the U.S or the chairman of Citibank. Not that my relationship with Stereophile resembles anything like my relationship with a wife or friend, but it is more personal than what I expect from the President or the chairman of Citibank. I rather expect the President and the corporate types to betray me if it is in their interest. Hope this isn't too idealist for you to relate.