PC Perspective accused of violating journalistic ethics *Update 2 with PCPer reply*

[Notional]

So Jim over at @AdoredTV has had a rocky relationship with PCPer over ethics and review methodology in the past. This time Jim calls out PC Per for outright journalistic ethics violation.

 

The issue surrounds the founder of PC Perspective: Ryan Shrout, who has launched a new company called Shrout Research (https://www.shroutresearch.com/). A company making paid white papers and other things for tech companies. An issue with availability of Intel Optane drives, that Intel paid Shrout Research to make a white paper for, concluded in a favourable review on PCPer. A review of 4 drives at a time when other larger review sites had less availability. To put it into perspective, LLT just uploaded their youtube vid of the 900p, and they where only given 1 drive:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Whereas PCPer had a 4 drive setup back in October 2017. (Image seens been removed, now only 2 drives).

The issue here, is of course, conflict of interest, which can result in massive bias and favourable reviews, which goes against the basis of journalism.

---

 

The video also points out anti Freesync nonsense that was never corrected. Enjoy.

 

 

It's important to note that this is just an accusation. I personally like PC Per and enjoy their reviews and podcast a lot (specifically the SSD reviews ironically). However, this is clearly a conflict of interest. I don't blame Ryan Shrout for making a research company in tech, but he can't do both at the same time. And he cannot have Allyn Malventano do both jobs and still be objective. Well, I guess he could, but it's simply too easy to question objectivity.

 

---

 

Update:

Jim did not ask for a comment from PCPer before uploading the video, and has closed it down until he gets a response.

 

https://twitter.com/AdoredTV/status/956983524002852866

 

---

 

Update 2:

After having made the original video private a few times, it looks like it's up again. @AdoredTV has uploaded another video with PCPer's official responses.

 

 

A full retort from Ryan has been published on reddit: 

Spoiler

 

 

(Thanks to @Taf the Ghost for the link). Do bare in mind that AdoredTV's videos are banned on that subreddit, so massive bias might be a thing. I don't know if Jim's profile is banned on that subforum.

 

Apparently, there has been some doxxing and threats towards Ryan from PCPer. This is both appalling, and well... irrelevant. That is for the police to handle. No one is free from critique under the guise of personal safety. But doxxing and threats are unacceptable and, of course, illegal.

At the end of the day, this is a case of journalistic ethics. Some believe laws and journalistic ethics are the same, but that is not necessarily the case. It has a lot to do with credibility and especially transparency. Most of what PCPer has done is fine, as long as they are transparent about it, and make it clear to everyone. That is something they have ignored and even with their new changes, it is clear they are adamant about it.

 

That being said, I think Jim from Adoredtv is overreacting about the perceived threat to him.

---

Sources:

AdoredTV link: https://youtu.be/Uw0ZzA9wTFE

PCPer review of Optane 900p: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Optane-SSD-900P-480GB-and-280GB-NVMe-HHHL-SSD-Review-Lots-3D-XPoint

Shrout Research: https://www.shroutresearch.com/

AdoredTV update link with PCPer reply: https://youtu.be/XHAQdukifvI

 

[Enderman]

So exactly what ethics were violated here...?

The conclusion of the reviews were pretty much the same.

This sounds more like a complaint from someone who is jealous they didn't get 4 drives and pcper did.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

The second I read AdoredTV, is the second my brain turned off.

Anything regarding that guy has to be ignored.

[PopReference]

This is a clearly crossing the line of ethical practice, at least in my view. I did remember the _Sync stuff and have noticed other odd practices but have viewed their reviews and content before.

I don't value PcPer as objective knowing this now.

[AresKrieger]

Tbf in the case of linus he often has issues getting things on time because Canada, AdoredTV quite clearly has biases based on his rants and a favorable review doesn't mean anything, now that doesn't necessarily mean PCPer was entirely ethical but it does mean this isn't a clear cut issue as their is nothing backing up said claims.

 

Additionally companies sponsor/hire out work all the time so that aspect is also no smoking gun by any means, if it were Linus would be a shill for AMD Nvidia and Intel paradoxically at the same time which he isn't.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

So exactly what ethics were violated here...?

The conclusion of the reviews were pretty much the same.

This sounds more like a complaint from someone who is jealous they didn't get 4 drives and pcper did.

Shrout Research was paid by Intel to make an Optane 900p white paper including new testing methodology for it. All 900p drives and testing methodology were used in PCPer review by same author of both White paper and PCPer review. This was a review of an optane drive that other review outlets had less access to.

 

4 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

The second I read AdoredTV, is the second my brain turned off.

Anything regarding that guy has to be ignored.

What a silly thing to say. What's wrong with his videos?

[NumLock21]

Why are people promoting that person's channel?

[mr moose]

 

1 minute ago, Notional said:

What a silly thing to say. What's wrong with his videos?

 

What's right about them.  Anyone can take shit dump on Intel and Nvidia for views.  

 

I tried watching a few of his videos, I can see why they appeal to some people, but for some of us it's like watching an ad.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What's right about them.  Anyone can take shit dump on Intel and Nvidia for views.  

 

I tried watching a few of his videos, I can see why they appeal to some people, but for some of us it's like watching an ad.

1

He generally has good methodology, admits his mistakes and has been spot on on his market forecasts. He's criticized AMD plenty of times and has concluded NVidia has won the GPU "war", so I don't see him treating any of the three differently.

[Notional]

10 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Why are people promoting that person's channel?

Because he has a point. If you don't agree, I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why?

[Enderman]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

Shrout Research was paid by Intel to make an Optane 900p white paper including new testing methodology for it. All 900p drives and testing methodology were used in PCPer review by same author of both White paper and PCPer review. This was a review of an optane drive that other review outlets had less access to.

 

What a silly thing to say. What's wrong with his videos?

1) Well it makes sense that they would test it differently since most drive tests just measure read and write speeds which is not what this drive excels at.

 

2) Unless you can prove that intel paid them to write a GOOD review, there is nothing wrong with a sponsored review, literally all tech news sites and reviewers including LTT get sponsored for their reviews, they rarely ever buy the product themselves.

 

3) The fact that one reviewer gets a product and another does not has nothing to do with "review ethics" it is simply that some reviewers have a larger audience or are favoured for other reasons. You can't expect every reviewer to get one of every product. Sometimes you just don't get one at all, for example Unbox Therapy wasn't given an iphone X so he had to go buy one. This is not "unethical" in any way.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) Well it makes sense that they would test it differently since most drive tests just measure read and write speeds which is not what this drive excels at.

 

2) Unless you can prove that intel paid them to write a GOOD review, there is nothing wrong with a sponsored review, literally all tech news sites and reviewers including LTT get sponsored for their reviews, they rarely ever buy the product themselves.

 

3) The fact that one reviewer gets a product and another does not has nothing to do with "review ethics" it is simply that some reviewers have a larger audience or are favoured for other reasons. You can't expect every reviewer to get one of every product. Sometimes you just don't get one at all, for example Unbox Therapy wasn't given an iphone X so he had to go buy one. This is not "unethical" in any way.

We're not talking getting a free product here.

 

We are talking a review sites owner having a second company hired to do a white paper. They used graphs and work from a paid job in their review belong to the same owner. That is by definition a conflict of interest. Whether it's an Intel product, AMD or that silver patch cable LTT reviewed once. Why would any consumer defend such practices? LTT very clearly states if a video is sponsored, and those videos are not reviews.

[XenosTech]

Some people are going to intentionally miss the point of this because it's coming from Jim.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

Some people are going to intentionally miss the point of this because it's coming from Jim.

Sadly it seems like it. The interesting part at the end though, is that it sounds like other review outlets encouraged him to do so. Of course, that is his claim. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, Notional said:

We're not talking getting a free product here.

 

We are talking a review sites owner having a second company hired to do a white paper. They used graphs and work from a paid job in their review belong to the same owner. That is by definition a conflict of interest. Whether it's an Intel product, AMD or that silver patch cable LTT reviewed once. Why would any consumer defend such practices? LTT very clearly states if a video is sponsored, and those videos are not reviews.

And you're suggesting that because they made real money instead of getting a free product that now their reviews are biased to be positive?

 

LTT has made videos before, sponsored (with real money) from companies such as AMD and others, and shown graphs and data made by AMD and others.

 

I don't understand why you think this is something new and surprising from people who do reviews for a living.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Sadly it seems like it. The interesting part at the end though, is that it sounds like other review outlets encouraged him to do so. Of course, that is his claim. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I'll have to watch the full vid whne I wake up... Need to get some shut eye 

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Some people are going to intentionally miss the point of this because it's coming from Jim.

Who is jim and what does that have to do with intel paying reviewers for accurate testing methods for a new technology...

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

And you're suggesting that because they made real money instead of getting a free product that now their reviews are biased to be positive?

 

LTT has made videos before, sponsored (with real money) from companies such as AMD and others, and shown graphs and data made by AMD and others.

 

I don't understand why you think this is something new and surprising from people who do reviews for a living.

I'm saying that any conflict of interest generally disqualifies the review as objective. It doesn't have to, but it is suspicious and simply makes PCPer less credible.

 

Yes they have, and (by law) they have disclosed that in the videos. That is not the case in the 900p PCPer review. 

 

Because this does seem to be something new. The lack of disclosure might not only be journalistically unethically but might even violate laws of disclosure.

[XenosTech]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Who is jim and what does that have to do with intel paying reviewers for accurate testing methods for a new technology...

I remember certain people getting mad at AMD for telling LTT and other outlets how to benchmark vega to make it look good... Or was it TR ?

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I remember certain people getting mad at AMD for telling LTT and other outlets how to benchmark vega to make it look good... Or was it TR ?

The issue was less that and more them telling reviewers to benchmark HEDT Intel in dual channel mode.

[Derangel]

Just now, Notional said:

I'm saying that any conflict of interest generally disqualifies the review as objective. It doesn't have to, but it is suspicious and simply makes PCPer less credible.

 

Yes they have, and (by law) they have disclosed that in the videos. That is not the case in the 900p PCPer review. 

 

Because this does seem to be something new. The lack of disclosure might not only be journalistically unethically but might even violate laws of disclosure.

There is a potential there, but nothing in the article itself really sticks out to me as unfair or biased. Same with skimming through the comments and reading Allyn's responses to questions and comments. That said, they really should have disclosed this. Allyn works for Shrout Research. If he worked on the white paper he was paid to work on this product. That does not make it a sponsored review, but it does make not disclosing it a huge ethical violation. This is something PCPer should be called out on and something they need to address going forward. Any potential conflict of interest needs to be exposed. It doesn't matter if the conflict is really there, anything that appears to be one should always be made apparent to people reading or watching reviews. I believe that reviewers should also reveal where they got hardware from, even if it's just in vague terms like "hardware provided for review by supplier" or "hardware purchased for review" and this should be revealed before the review even starts. If a written review, it should be in bold letters. If a video review, it should be something clearly stated before the actual review starts. The tech industry does a pretty piss poor job of disclosing things.

[Enderman]

24 minutes ago, Notional said:

I'm saying that any conflict of interest generally disqualifies the review as objective. It doesn't have to, but it is suspicious and simply makes PCPer less credible.

 

Yes they have, and (by law) they have disclosed that in the videos. That is not the case in the 900p PCPer review. 

 

Because this does seem to be something new. The lack of disclosure might not only be journalistically unethically but might even violate laws of disclosure.

You think that reviewers not disclosing sponsorship is something new???!?

Did just discover yesterday what a computer is or something?

 

Anyway, what was paid for is the testing, not the subjective opinion that a review is meant to give.

The test results would not change whether something was paid for or not, unless they are falsifying data which I highly doubt from a company like pcper.

Unless you can prove that the data was falsified there is nothing clearly unethical about this...

It is very common for companies to outsource testing of products in the technological sector.

[Orcblood]

I value both PC Per and Adored highly. I never thought of them as being bias. To be frank I always thought PC Per were more AMD supportive than Nvidia or Intel or at least Josh. Seems like every week they are brining up at least one AMD topic in their weekly show and not in a negative way. With the whole Freesynce thing I think that was just a bit sloppy and lazy on their part and I believe they later concluded it was indeed cause of overdrive as said in the video. Yes they probably could of been more forthcoming and helpful there. As far as them covering the whole RX 480 power debacle, it was them that discovered the issue first so I feel like they felt obligated and energized to do extensive analysis and updates on the issue with all the attention they were getting. Not because they were eager to show an AMD flaw but that they were the first journalists to just find something somewhat significant.

[captain_to_fire]

Is this the guy that Linus had a beef with? I think he mentioned someone in the WAN show like last year?

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

You think that reviewers not disclosing sponsorship is something new???!?

Did just discover yesterday what a computer is or something?

 

Anyway, what was paid for is the testing, not the subjective opinion that a review is meant to give.

Is there a point to that whataboutism? Does it make it better that others haven't disclosed similar things?

 

Yet the testing and opinion were done by the same person. That is a conflict of interest. Why would you defend something like that?