I agree @allofme. Conflicts of interest for digital journalists is a relatively new area (see for instance https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Digital-Journalists-Emerging-Practices/dp/0415858844 from 2014) but the basic concepts go back to biblical times. Personal conflicts of interest should be avoided wherever possible, but where not possible or practical should at least be clearly disclosed.For me, the criteria for an audio journalist are pretty simple:
1. Technical nous, so that the gear they listen to is set up sensibly. An example of how not to do it is Stereophile's review of the Oladra, which left all sorts of configuration queries open — at least with dCS gear.
2. The ability to write an informative, enjoyable review. I think Michael Fremer does this well.
3. No fence-sitting. If I can't tell what they actually think of a piece of gear or music then what's the point?
4. Impartiality. This one warrants a few paragraphs on its own...
I think it's important that anyone purporting to be a reviewer is actually a journalist, rather than a PR consultant or shill. Wouldn't we'd all question the motives of someone directing us to a car dealership/restaurant/tuk-tuk if we had a hunch they were incentivised to do so? Why should audio reviews be any different? Aren't they just florid press releases otherwise?
Topical example: I enjoyed Roy Gregory's writings and respected his opinions (in the belief that they were objective) for a long time. Right now I feel I've been taken for a fool. Whether or not there is truth to Roy's claims about darTZeel in the now-locked thread, he seems to be lying low rather than providing any further evidence or commenting about any conflicts of interest.
From my perspective the optics are horrible. Maybe some here see the same picture but don't think it's a biggie.
I like Roy's writing, and he passes #1 and #2 of my criteria above. He may well have written negative reviews and pass #3 also. Respect if so! Until recently, however, I had no idea Roy and his wife had the relationships they do (each other, plus CH Precision, Wadax, and Nordost in the past — see https://gy8.eu/intro/). Why not list these relationships on each review, @RoyGregory or at the very least link to them in every review so that it's not up to your readers to go digging?
Two things can both be true here:
1. You can provide a valuable service by calling out potential trouble for a manufacturer.
2. You can have conflicts of interest.
For me, though, picking #1 and not making #2 crystal clear right there and then — not cool. I hope others feel similarly, though I write only on my own behalf.
Declaration of interests: I sell a few brands in New Zealand (website in my profile — I do not sell darTZeel, however), and am a darTZeel owner (NHB-18NS and NHB-108 Model Two, bought used at prices I would pay again tomorrow even knowing what I know). I have had a few very pleasant interactions with Hervé, and others at the factory. He seems to be a gentleman and takes excellent care of his customers — even if, like me, they bought used. I see this as my end-game amplification (bar some NHB-468s one day, perhaps ;-)) and don't tend to churn equipment so I may never resell or only do so so long in the future that depreciation has come out in the wash. I do of course care about service though, and hope that the gear I own continues to sound wonderful long after I've shuffled off. I suspect my nephew may have his eyes on it...
Enjoyable idea for a thread, @Elliot G.
I see being a review journalist and writing positive reviews of equipment for which his wife is engaged as a PR consultant with the specific task of soliciting positive reviews as a substantial conflict of interest. So I would have thought the prudent course of action here would be to have a policy of not reviewing any equipment that Marketing Effects represents or has represented. Roy seems to have done almost the exact opposite.
If a large number of people knew about this and didn't react I think it speaks volumes about journalistic standards in our dear industry. I wonder what other conflicts of interest might be lurking just beneath the surface?
Just my 2¢ worth.
