Stereophile's refusal to review more low

True, but what I think the last two comments fail to realize is that the advertising wouldn't be there if not for us. That is, the subscription holders. WE are the targeted group that these advertisements are aimed at, are we not? The strong implication made by Ehider above educates us to some disapointing realities. For starters, we have a magazine under fire here that seems to have possibly lost its course insofar as that its original goal was to educate the reader about this industry and the wares it would hope that we purchase. If a product submitted for review performed well, we would be told about it honestly and without reserve. If same said product performed poorly, the SAME RULE APPLIES! The aforementioned implication instructs us that this is absolutely not the case.
Folks, the issue isn't economics. Allow me to assure those of you who read this post that I am keenly aware of money, its value, what it means and what it does not. If anyone wants me to accept that I must knowingly be misguided in order to keep any enterprise afloat is sorely mistaken. There is a responsibility on the part of any publication, be it magazines, the 11 o'clock news, or my high school newspaper to report that which is newsworthy. And, to do it fairly and honestly. I feel sorry for those who accept less. Not only do you give the go-ahead to those who would cheat you, but ultimately - you get what you deserve.

I guess you could interpret the comment that Stereophile wanted to see ad revenue before a product-for-review submittal as meaning that that product would then get a good review as well, but that's not how I interpreted it. Stereophile has leverage with manufacturers - with as established as they are, the manufacturers need them worse than they need the manufacturers (at least individually), so it seems plausible to me that they could be saying, "show me some ad revenue before you submit a product for review" while still feeling free to communicate honestly about how the product performed.

Certainly, a purist quest for "the best" would be limited by such a policy, but I think it's outside the scope of a single magazine to review everything anyway, so I don't really expect to Stereophile to find the holy grail. I do expect them to report accurately and honestly on all products reviewed, and don't think that their purported policy precludes that. -Kirk

years ago, s'phile made a comment about stereo review referring to there reviews alnog these lines: "of all the speakers i have reviewed, this speaker is definitely one of them." well, now that stereo review own s'phile, it's getting closer to that... s'phile, for all intents & purposes, now *is* stereo-review. most telling for me, was when jgh, s'phile's founder, left the magazine to write for tas. ya, i still read & enyoy s'phile, but i take it all w/a grain of salt re: the equipment... i'm more interested in the info about the direction the industry is taking. between the rags, this site, other sites (like arthur salvatore's), conwersations w/store owners, mfr's, etc., i come to my own conclusions about what's worth looking into... no *one* source should be used by anyone as a basis for seeking audio nirvana - spread out the feelers in as many different directions as possible.

doug s.

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)