audience is not conducive to a free exchange of ideas. In publications that claim to make
unbiased and educated reviews of equipment which might constitute a substantial
economical investment, this has serious implications.
Reviewers and editors of audio and video publications carry an assumed authority as
experts. They do, to be fair, have more experience with a variety of equipment than the
average enthusiast does. Particular magazines will vary in practice, but the position
established by the nature of mass media provides an extreme potential for abuse.
Scholarly journals and trade magazines do have a great deal of peer review, but writers for
publications intended for the "average" (read less knowledgeable) consumer may assert
speculation or hearsay as technical fact without fear of embarrassing rebuttal. Individuals
without the least amount of understanding, let alone training, can comment on the workings
of the latest, or even the most conventional technology wearing a guise of authority, with
only their editor to answer to. In some cases, the editor, technical or not, may not be
qualified to make decisions about what is truthful and responsible to print, yet still not defer
the decision to someone better suited. Some editors might even be extremely qualified,
but also have an agenda as it relates to advertisers.
Although many very good publications address subjective and objective issues, others
may spread false rumours, or utter misinformation with what, on the surface, appears to
carry equal validity. If one doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the workings of
discussed material, it proves difficult to weed out the garbage from the cabbage. For those
publishers with false pretence, or a simple lack of understanding, mass media is a nice
machine indeed. Enter the trusty, rusty wrench, centre stage. (Now the matching centre
channel really pays off. Just listen to that grinding!)
On our beloved Internet, information, free for the most part, has many sources, and
depending on the forum, may undergo a vast amount of scrutiny with minimal effort from all
parties involved. Not to say that there isn't misinformation in abundance, but the opportunity
to cross-reference that information with other sources provides a significantly enhanced
ability to sift through opinions and possible fact so that we can decide what may be
considered more or less believable. It allows us to find answers that are sometimes more
or less complex than expected, but perhaps more reliable as a whole because the answers
which survive have done so under the trials of differing opinions, and occasionally chunks
of hard evidence. Even though the mass media does not always directly participate in this
process, it is discussed, and the content put forth often refuted as well as supported.
Because of this, reviewers have had, as of late, a much more difficult time making
unsubstantiated claims without risking their credibility, as the readers now have public
forums to discuss specific topics among those more knowledgeable. I believe it's about
time. Hopefully some good will come of it. And where does it leave the audio/video "rag?"
These "rags", referring to the less reputable and most guilty offenders, will have to adapt,
or hope to appeal to the shrinking demographic groups with enough discretionary income
to buy audio/video equipment and attract advertisers with no Internet access. If somebody
makes a technical statement that flies in the face of well understood physical properties,
they're going to have a heck of a time backing it up, especially since many technically
competent people have computers, and with them the means to traverse our electronic
universe. It is truly a brave new world. A bit scary, but perhaps all the more useful to those
who might fall victim to self-serving and self-appointed authorities who comment on the
most esoteric without understanding the most conventional. Reviewers, their editors, and
consequently, publishers themselves must take responsibility for the work they publish, or
suffer the aftermath of their actions.
That's not to imply that every journalist must take pains to think like some equation-spitting
robot. (Sadly, I know of at least one prominent school of journalism that encourages just
such training, right down to vocabulary.) Although objective analysis always lends more
substance to the pot, subjective evaluations will always play a part in any kind of interesting
work. The most personally rewarding media imparts an experience, as well as information.
The best incorporates both into a complementary entity. A list of technical information may
prove interesting for those inclined toward engineering, but for most of us, by itself, it's
pretty boring. It's really hard to reap any entertainment value from an audio magazine that
thoroughly measures a product and then simply repeats, "Yes, it's pretty much the same
thing as the last thing we reviewed, according to our tests. Here are the obscure
measurements that you can't understand without an engineering background with no
explanation as to their relevancy." If you're an engineer, it very well might be fascinating,
perhaps. Even so, most of us aren't (fascinated).
Measurements are good, as is factual understanding, but overwhelming the reader with
numbers and concepts does not facilitate comprehension. It's not very much fun either. The
material must be personable and entertaining for the targeted reader also, which makes
the responsible reviewer's job pretty daunting. To express a subjective, perhaps even an
emotional experience, while refraining from characterising features by such vague and un-
descriptive lingo as "pace", is indeed difficult. Let's face it. Most reviewers are quite
enthusiastic about their equipment. They should be, and it is very possible to get carried
away. It's also easy to play it safe and avoid controversy by not commenting on sonic
attributes and personal reactions, instead seeking guidance from the book reports sixth
grade drove through our life so thoroughly. A good reviewer, a reviewer worth the time to
read his or her work, must balance these objective measurements with personal
experience, hopefully even relating the two, while taking pains not to misrepresent a
product as something that it isn't. It does not serve the reader to have a reviewer
exaggerate sonic differences if, by every measurement, those differences may be truly
minimal. Nor does it serve the reader to have reviewers ignore differences that might be
relevant.
It seems like an impossible task to satisfy the entire spectrum of demands placed on the
reviewer striving for absolutely responsible and entirely factual creation. In truth, it is
impossible. Nobody can be an expert in all fields of any topic, as the implications of any
topic extend to other topics. Possibly, the most important thing I learned in school was that
many experts knew very little about information that their field did not directly address, even
though that information might carry great relevance regarding their speciality. They never
stopped to wonder because they thought they knew pretty much all of it. Psychologists were
an interesting bunch. (Engineers were "interesting" also, but usually in stranger, personal
ways.) Of course, there were the neuroscientists who knew the nooks and crannies of
neural pathways, the social psychologists who had barely predictive models which really
sometimes bordered on sociology, and the clinical psychologists who could label an
individual with a number of personality disorders. Psychology intrigued me because of how
much it really needed (needs) expanding on. Each academician had insights into
particulars of their areas of a field which usually contained a vast range of ideas even within
specific topics, some more supportable than others. None of them knew the entire picture,
and so spoke about what they did know, or believed to be true, and the better professors
encouraged discussion even if outside of their area of expertise so long as not to purely
speculate.
Similarly, hi-fi reviewers and their editors must make choices and suffer or benefit from
the consequences of an expanding forum - this Internet of communication which has caught
so many in its web. To make a statement of fact, one must prepare to substantiate it. To
make a statement of opinion, if simply for the sake of completeness, one must explain the
reasoning behind that opinion. To do otherwise, one must expect ridicule, deservedly.
For a somewhat mainstream publication, it makes sense, I think, to carefully blend a
variety of aspects. For example, make some simple and useful measurements in a first
pass (a square wave can show a lot about bandwidth, phase, response, and amplitude
linearity). Then, include subjective aspects as to provide enough insight as to help a reader
perhaps decide if such a product might be worth pursuing, but not with such terms which
apply only as abstractly to carry as much weight as pure imagination.
Sometimes it appears a difficult line to walk. All writers must expect criticism of their
ideas, especially as the Internet expands to give a louder voice to challenges that would
otherwise die on an editor's desk. But, so long as the editor and the writers work together
to keep their feet out of their mouths, there are that many more feet to stand on. It's
becoming a rough little village for those who would take on the soapbox, and I think it will be
all that much better for it. Content will determine success of publishing on the Internet, not
big money, glossy paper, or a hodgepodge of colourful glitz. Hurrah for the little guys. Throw
out the prose, and dodge the tomatoes in the meantime! It's gonna get messy.
Sociology
14th March 1999
Subject Lecturer: Amanda Beggs
