Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama

since Erin's character has been a subject here, let me contribute. When I finished my speaker web site (a hobby and nothing more) I reached out to about 6 hifi/audiophile youtubers to ask if they had any feedback, would they used it for their research, etc. Nobody responded. I usually resend my emails once. Still no response. One had obviously reviewed it and used my lines from it in his next review - at least I knew he saw it. Erin was the 7th, I found his channel a few weeks later. He responded the same day, and gave me a lot of feedback, links and a contact I was happy to use. I have no idea who he is, where he is, I watched about 12 of his videos and enjoyed them all, and I sure know he is different, not a egoistic type A media star but a nerd with a big heart. I don't want to mention names of the ones who ignored me, but none of their reviews amount much beyond entertainment whereas Erin's reviews aim and reach much higher.

It's unfortunate that when someone is objective, he gets attacked, whereas all the wishy-washy, full of disclaimers, shiny, useless reviews live happily ever after.

@viridian from what I read, your point regarding how ASR acquires things to test is correct. I would only add that pretty much every review on ASR by the main honcho at least does identify the source of the item tested and disclaimers regarding review results based on uncertainties are also commonly cited. I find the reviews to be quite fair and valuable accordingly. Some reviews come out mostly rosy but seldom completely and others not so much, at all price points . It’s an imperfect process always to some degree but what isn’t? It’s just another source of diverse info that one can synthesize into their buying decisions that may not be available at all otherwise. No concrete information to inform buying decisions other than marketing literature is the worst case scenario. THe more information put forth in good faith, the better.

@atmasphere

Generally speaking, a negative review (not one that is positive with a few minor beefs) should be looked upon as unethical.

I must say, as someone who spent decades in the journalism business, for both big and small news organizations, this is pretty much 180-degree opposite to fundamental journalist ethics.

A journalist’s responsibility is first and foremost to provide true information to the readers, and in the case of the sort of consumer journalism that product reviewing is, where you’re helping readers make informed decisions, providing information about less than good product is crucial.

Of course, journalists have a responsibility to be fair with and about the subjects of their reviews. But their responsibility is not to protect the reputation of the manufacturer who delivers a subpar product by killing the negative review and returning the product to the manufacturer. That not only makes the journalist an agent of the manufacturer essentially but also erodes the publication’s credibility with readers, who are the customers you have responsibility to. It’s absolutely corrosive to journalism ethics and effectiveness.

Any of the reasons of competency offered as reasons to assume a bad review is being offered unethically or with ulterior motivation could equally apply to good reviews. There’s no reason to assume that one is any more competently or ethically delivered than the other.

Which is not to suggest that the audio press has ever been a bastion of journalistic standards -- there’s plenty that erodes reader confidence in the audio press: long term equipment loans, extremely cozy manufacturer and retailer relationships with journalists and editors -- but among those things, this unwillingness to publish bad reviews and the hermetic belief of where ones responsibility lies that suggests that the proper thing to do when encountering a bad product is not to inform the public but keep it from the public and inform the manufacturer instead, is a dozy.

The best answer to mediocre journalism, technical incompetence and the inevitable tensions between the editorial and business sides of the house (especially in enthusiast and trade publishing where your sources and your advertisers are often from the same community), isn’t just to throw one’s hand up and say, fine, let’s just publish puff pieces.

@ezwind 

Again, I'm not an expert but I'm not sure a finding of malice would be necessary. As I understand from a bit of googling, malice is required for a defamation finding against a public figures or officials.

Companies offering goods and services for sale have often been found by courts to be limited-purpose public figures in the context of defamation.  In this case there's a pretty closely on point precedent in the Bose v. Consumer Reports case the Supreme Court decided 40+ years ago, in which Bose was treated as a public figure. I don't think Bose even disputed the notion that it was a limited-purpose public figure in that case, IIRC.