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

[Hugsy Malone]

4 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I'm not denying that adored's allegations are unfounded. I'm just saying that it's my opinion adored is biased.

I think he would agree with you. I think he has said a few times in his videos that he will not buy green or blue (not sure if both) due to their practices. But he tries to present objective info.

[Energycore]

On 1/25/2018 at 9:50 PM, hey_yo_ said:

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

That's a different guy

 

On 1/25/2018 at 11:21 PM, NumLock21 said:

There are many who have learn about computers way before him, just because he can build a PC doesn't mean he's above all others. Want to be successful tech youtuber, then just make videos with the correct information, instead of bashing other tech channels as a desperate attempt to get views and subscribers. It's like that other channel for bashing LTT's RED camera video, both equally pathetic.

Hey look at that, a bunch of videos with correct, sourceable information!

 

Incoming link dump

Spoiler

 

I have my own theory about why Jim decided to go this deep into PcPer's dirt and I don't think it's got anything to do with snatching views. It seems like there's some tension between PcPer and Adored, and the video's comment section mention a bit of a fight that happened between them on Twitter. I was unable to find this fight on the tweet history but it seems to have woken the Angry Scotsman inside Adored.

 

 

On 1/26/2018 at 7:58 AM, porina said:

I'm still struggling to get my head around this. As parallel, I don't know if this scenario ever happened, say LMG were paid to do a sponsored technical piece (not review) on a product, which they then did. Later on, if they were to do a normal (not sponsored) review of an item using that technology, they would have to disclose they previously did a paid piece on the same tech? What if they weren't reviewing that product specifically, but made positive comments about it in passing while doing something else? 

 

I know, a lot of "what if"...

Maybe I got it wrong, but the video seemed to suggest that the review is at least partially a hard copy of the white paper. If that's correct, they didn't reuse the testing hardware and methodology from the white paper for their review, they used the white paper itself.

 

Again, if my understanding is correct, then they have presented to the consumer information which was written and designed to be presented to Intel, the company. The conflict of interest here is that you can surmise that PcPer would want to diminish the impact of any issues they encountered on their overall review because the data is straight for Intel's marketing. They could have been paid specifically to uncover these issues though, and relay them to the engineers.

[DocSwag]

13 minutes ago, Hugsy Malone said:

I think he would agree with you. I think he has said a few times in his videos that he will not buy green or blue (not sure if both) due to their practices. But he tries to present objective info.

I find that his bias seems to be shown only in the types of content he chooses to produce and his analysis of stuff pre-release (though the latter to a lesser extent). His analysis of actual reviews is pretty decent; it's just his other stuff that is biased.

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, Enderman said:

3) Please link me the journalistic code of ethics which you keep referring to, I'm interested to see what section says it is illegal for an article to reference data from tests performed by a sponsored entity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Quote

The principles of journalistic codes of ethics are designed as guides through numerous difficulties, such as conflicts of interest, to assist journalists in dealing with ethical dilemmas. The codes and canons provide journalists a framework for self-monitoring and self-correction. Journalism is guided by five important values. The first is honesty: a journalist should not make up news or share news that give off wrong impressions. The second is independence: a journalist should avoid topics they have an interest in. The third is fairness: a journalist should not tell the truth if it is with bad intentions. The fourth is productiveness: a journalist should be hard working and try to gather all the facts. The last value is pride: a journalist needs to be able to accept all credit for their work bad or good.[13]

Happy?

 

I'm very surprised at your reactions here @Enderman. You're an intelligent and thoughtful forum user. You should well know what a conflict of interest is.

 

The fact that the PCPer reviewer, is the same person hired by Intel to write a technical white paper about the Optane drive's capabilities, etc, is a clear conflict of interest. Whether he himself is an unethical person or not is irrelevant. He should have intentionally excused himself from the review.

 

PCPer, in my opinion, should have done the following:

1. At the start of the review, state clearly, verbally (in video form) or in bold, impossible to miss text (in written form), that one of their employees worked on the White Paper, which was created by a company also owned by Ryan.

2. Allyn should have excused himself from the review, and another PCPer reviewer should have performed the review

 

Whether Allyn can remain objective isn't the question - as from an Ethics point of view, he should never put himself in a position where his objectivity and bias could be questioned to this degree.

 

You seem focused on the fact that "his review isn't wrong". That's not the point. The point is that a conflict of interest like that - especially one NOT DISCLOSED is most definitely unethical to begin with.

[Razzy_85]

40 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I still believe he is overall amd biased, as evidenced by some of his, in my opinion, ridiculous videos such as the amd master plan ones. As well, he's even admitted (in this pcper video) that he is amd biased.

I agree he is AMD biased, he has even said so why in his videos BUT he also tears AMD to shreds in his vids if they are deserving on it. 

I myself have an intel system as it was the best at the time compared to AMD. I am waiting for the ryzen refresh to decide my upgrade and it clocks better than current then my money will be going to AMD as I just don't want to give intel anymore cash due to them sitting on their arse and for shitty business practises but thats just me, everyone is different and EVERYONE has a bias, he atleast acknoweleges his and still gives a great opinion I think.

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, Bullion said:

This guy gets it.

 

Firstly, AdoredTV is not practicing as he preaches and does not offer the opportunity to PCPER a right of reply - unethical journalistic practices.

 

Secondly, Shrout Research, among other things, undertake certification and validation. Tech companies will pay independent 3rd parties to certify and validate their claims. There are many other industries (both public and private) where product claims, efficacy of policy, customer satisfaction etc. are examined/ tested/ verified via independent 3rd parties to give credibility to those claims. Lets say a Govt Dept focussed on improving health outcomes, it is far better for an independent 3rd party to track outcomes (via appropriate methodology) to give credibility to any results rather than the taking the Govt Dept's word.

 

That PCPER used data from tests they undertook in the white paper for a review, its smart on their part because they can monetise the time taken to undertake the tests across 2 platforms, there is not anywhere enough evidence to say they have no editorial independence.

 

Steve at Gamers Nexus just last week talked about, and highly praised, the work of Allyn on his SSD reviews and linked to the Shrout Research white paper:

 

AdoredTV did confront PCPer on Twitter, and he shows it in the video. (Well, except for the whitepaper/review partz but the other parts about freesync mistake he did)

[Mahoney]

oh boy

 

 

 

[Drak3]

10 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

What's that? Is that a new game, it sounds like a game...

Only if you consider mobile freemium gardage to be games.

[FratStar]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

The journalistic ethics specifically states that they SHOULD avoid topics they have an interest in, not that they HAVE to. While it can call into question their journalistic integrity, the main issue is that the article did not disclose the use of data from the white paper. 

 

I did not read the whitepaper so I do not know if they copied and pasted full sections (which is even more damning if you ask me). From an admittedly quick glance I do not see any glaring similarities, but I have to go through the text to truly determine that.

 

PcPer's initial optane receive of the 600p basically showed it getting spanked by other SSDs due to their testing methodology. They created a new testing methodology, which they are using to for all their future reviews. The new methodology does not paint the competing products in a negative fashion so the use of white paper data is not a problem in my eyes. The only issue is the lack of disclosure. Whether or not Allyn worked on the review is irrelevant if they were going to use the same testing methodology to begin with for all future reviews of SSDs, the numbers would be within the margin of error.

 

We need to focus on the lack of disclosure (which looks to be an oversight) all other points are quite frankly moot when the content of the review can't even be called into question especially when other independent outlets achieved similar results and conclusions.

[Derangel]

2 hours ago, Notional said:

You're missing the point entirely. No one says the review has been paid for. What is being accused is that there is a conflict of interest. A strong bias, which will lower the credibility of the work. And as others have stated, this could be an FTC violation.

You clearly did not read the post I replied to nor my entire reply. Do so before talking to me further or do not reply to me again.

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, Enderman said:

2) It was disclosed, as I pointed out 7 times already.

Can you cite exactly where they disclosed that Allyn was also the author of the white paper, where a lot of their info and testing methodology came from? Post a screen shot of the link/disclaimer?

 

Because I've been reading through the PCPer review, and I haven't seen a single mention of it yet. It's definitely not on the first page or the last page, that I could see.

 

So, if the "disclosure" is hidden in a difficult to find location, then it's irrelevant, and not a proper disclosure. It should be at the very top of the first page of the review, in bold text, easy for anyone to see.

Eg:

Quote

Disclaimer: Allyn was author of the white-paper in which testing methodology was created and tested. This white paper was a paid product, by Shrout Research, which Allyn is also an employee. The White Paper was commissioned and paid for by Intel.

BAM, problem solved. Ideally, I would still prefer Allyn to completely excuse himself from the review, and have another employee at PCPer perform the review - that would be the proper ethical way to handle this situation. But at least if a proper disclosure was present, we could objectively decide for ourselves if there was foul play.

 

3 hours ago, Carclis said:

May I ask where the relevant links are as I could not find them or disclosure within the review? This sort of information should have been in the introduction for the sake of integrity.

Agreed - I cannot find the "disclosure" either.

1 hour ago, porina said:

I'm still struggling to get my head around this. As parallel, I don't know if this scenario ever happened, say LMG were paid to do a sponsored technical piece (not review) on a product, which they then did. Later on, if they were to do a normal (not sponsored) review of an item using that technology, they would have to disclose they previously did a paid piece on the same tech? What if they weren't reviewing that product specifically, but made positive comments about it in passing while doing something else? 

 

I know, a lot of "what if"...

So, in these situations:

1. LMG should disclose that the original video is sponsored (They're pretty good at this these days, little worry there).

2. If LMG later went on to review the same item: They should STRONGLY disclose that they previously did a sponsored video of the same item. They should re-do any testing/review/methodology, to ensure accuracy and reduce potential bias.

3. If they weren't reviewing the product, but just said passing positive comments (lets say on the WAN show), I don't think there's any problem there - though if they wanted to absolutely cover themselves, adding another disclosure doesn't hurt.

 

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

You clearly did not read the post I replied to nor my entire reply. Do so before talking to me further or do not reply to me again.

You and @Notional need to both cool your jets. You're essentially agreeing with each other, largely. @Notional did overlook the other comment, that was in fact claiming it was a paid review - this is fact. But no need to bite his head off because of it. A simple "You might have misread or misquoted" would have sufficed.

[Okjoek]

13 hours ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

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

Anything regarding that guy has to be ignored.

I disagree. I hold Jim (AdoredTV) in pretty high regards as a tech reviewer. He's bias for sure, but he's a great journalist IMO.

[divito]

48 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

In the review? At the time or after the fact?

Well I mean, Shrout Research was announced on the website months before that article ever came out. The association was made public on their website. Maybe not attached to that specific review, but the data is the same.

As has been stated before, they're a company that is paid to be an 3rd party to verify testing methodology and results. The fact that they used that work and morphed it into a review doesn't negate the results of their other company, unless they're shown to be fraudulent. 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, divito said:

Well I mean, Shrout Research was announced on the website months before that article ever came out. The association was made public on their website. Maybe not attached to that specific review, but the data is the same.

As has been stated before, they're a company that is paid to be an 3rd party to verify testing methodology and results. The fact that they used that work and morphed it into a review doesn't negate the results of their other company, unless they're shown to be fraudulent. 

Whether it was fraudulent or not is irrelevant to the discussion (except only in that, fraudulent actions would be even more serious than this).

 

One could argue that the vast majority of people who will read the PCPer review, will have never even have heard of Shrout Research, let alone having seen and read the press release about the company months before this review on their website.

 

The point is that a conflict of interest exists. Not that it was acted upon negatively.

 

Had PCPer openly and clearly stated this in the review, in bold, in impossible to miss text, then there wouldn't really be an issue here. They did not do this.

[divito]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Whether it was fraudulent or not is irrelevant to the discussion (except only in that, fraudulent actions would be even more serious than this).

 

One could argue that the vast majority of people who will read the PCPer review, will have never even have heard of Shrout Research, let alone having seen and read the press release about the company months before this review on their website.

 

The point is that a conflict of interest exists. Not that it was acted upon negatively.

 

Had PCPer openly and clearly stated this in the review, in bold, in impossible to miss text, then there wouldn't really be an issue here. They did not do this.

I'm not denying disclosure would be good, and was probably more advisable than simply re-using their own data. The alternative would have been to have someone other than the white paper author make the post, but even then, that wouldn't satisfy the people thinking there is some nefarious reviewing going on.

But in the event that they were even more highly ethical, essentially any product that they were contracted for a white paper, wouldn't be able to be reviewed by PCPer. I'm not sure I like that precedent, as a consumer or as a former reviewer.

[dalekphalm]

25 minutes ago, divito said:

I'm not denying disclosure would be good, and was probably more advisable than simply re-using their own data. The alternative would have been to have someone other than the white paper author make the post, but even then, that wouldn't satisfy the people thinking there is some nefarious reviewing going on.

But in the event that they were even more highly ethical, essentially any product that they were contracted for a white paper, wouldn't be able to be reviewed by PCPer. I'm not sure I like that precedent, as a consumer or as a former reviewer.

Ethically, they should have done the bare minimum:

Clearly stated the potential bias/conflict of interest, at the beginning of the review.

 

I don't think that's simply being "more advisable". That should be the baseline.

 

Second, I think that more specifically, they should have clearly stated the potential bias, and also, had someone else work on the review. Allyn should have excused himself.

 

It's the same reason why, say, a Judge cannot take on a case that happens to deal with a company he works part time for. Sure, the Judge will probably be totally upstanding and won't abuse the situation, but it's still improper, and should be avoided.

 

Yes, even if they posted the notice, and had someone other than Allyn write the review, there would be people still yelling biased. But that doesn't matter. Let them yell.

 

It's up to each consumer to decide how biased and how objective a review is. It's up to the reviewer to ensure all the proper disclosures have been made, so that the consumer can make an informed decision.

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, Energycore said:

Hey look at that, a bunch of videos with correct, sourceable information!

"The Great Coffee Lake Con Job" "Con Lake Confirmed" What does that even mean? So Intel did a paper launch of Coffee Lake, so what.  Con Lake Confirmed?! Intel stopped reporting the actual turbo clock on Coffee Lake, who the f*ck cares. You either run at stock clocks and never bother with the turbo cause it's really difficult to notice it or overclock the hell out of them, where turbo boost don't even matter. Do you see other tech channels acting like the sky is falling, just because Intel has decided to stop posting about the turbo clock for Coffee Lake, no.

If the video he posted has correct information, well then good for him. But I'm not going to bother watching any of it cause I don't give a crap about what this person says, after bashing on other tech channels. Hey when you want to be successful, then try your best to be successful by working hard to make your video stand out. Once you start bashing other tech channels. all of your reputation goes down the drain. Now if anyone still wants to watch this person's videos and believe in what he says, then it's your choice. No one is stopping you. Also he seems pretty new into this enthusiast tech stuff, so he can either pipe down by respecting other tech channels, or just go back to working with UNIX.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you cite exactly where they disclosed that Allyn was also the author of the white paper, where a lot of their info and testing methodology came from? Post a screen shot of the link/disclaimer?

 

Because I've been reading through the PCPer review, and I haven't seen a single mention of it yet. It's definitely not on the first page or the last page, that I could see.

 

So, if the "disclosure" is hidden in a difficult to find location, then it's irrelevant, and not a proper disclosure. It should be at the very top of the first page of the review, in bold text, easy for anyone to see.

Eg:

BAM, problem solved. Ideally, I would still prefer Allyn to completely excuse himself from the review, and have another employee at PCPer perform the review - that would be the proper ethical way to handle this situation. But at least if a proper disclosure was present, we could objectively decide for ourselves if there was foul play.

 

Agreed - I cannot find the "disclosure" either.

So, in these situations:

1. LMG should disclose that the original video is sponsored (They're pretty good at this these days, little worry there).

2. If LMG later went on to review the same item: They should STRONGLY disclose that they previously did a sponsored video of the same item. They should re-do any testing/review/methodology, to ensure accuracy and reduce potential bias.

3. If they weren't reviewing the product, but just said passing positive comments (lets say on the WAN show), I don't think there's any problem there - though if they wanted to absolutely cover themselves, adding another disclosure doesn't hurt.

 

You and @Notional need to both cool your jets. You're essentially agreeing with each other, largely. @Notional did overlook the other comment, that was in fact claiming it was a paid review - this is fact. But no need to bite his head off because of it. A simple "You might have misread or misquoted" would have sufficed.

I did not entirely intend it to come off as I was trying to "bite his head off", I have a habit of being overly blunt sometimes. I don't have a very good filter between my brain and how I express my words. This is especially true when reading that after getting only a few hours of sleep due to being in pain all night. So I should have waited until I was in a bit less of a "I really don't care how he takes this" attitude. So @Notional I apologize for my tone and word choice. The point, however, still stands. Please try to make sure to carefully read both what a person has typed (the entire thing) and what they are replying to (also, the entire thing)

 

2 hours ago, Mahoney said:

(Tweets)

Interesting. I actually think some of that speaks to how seriously he takes the topic. I don't have a ton of experience with his video output aside from some of his off the wall predictions but I like that he was willing to acknowledge his mistake and explain his reasoning for pointing it out before it happens again. In this situation I'd have to agree with him, these violations should be pointed out when they happen the first time. It is important for the site to see these issues and work to correct them so that there isn't a second time. With that in mind, I also think the person replying to him is right. Jim should have given PCPer time to reply before publishing and I hope that he is serious about correcting that in future videos.
 

39 minutes ago, divito said:

I'm not denying disclosure would be good, and was probably more advisable than simply re-using their own data. The alternative would have been to have someone other than the white paper author make the post, but even then, that wouldn't satisfy the people thinking there is some nefarious reviewing going on.

But in the event that they were even more highly ethical, essentially any product that they were contracted for a white paper, wouldn't be able to be reviewed by PCPer. I'm not sure I like that precedent, as a consumer or as a former reviewer.

Disclosure isn't just good, it is vital for trust and reputation. Every site and every reviewer needs to decide for themselves how immune they are to bias in these situations and decide on a plan going forward. If the site and reviewer feel they are capable of providing a fair review of a product or company they have had some personal involvement with then they may go forward with the review, as long as that involvement is clearly stated in the review itself in a place where the audience will see it. For all the BS that came along with it, Gamersgate did end up causing a change to a lot of game reviewer's policies. Some sites have taken to being clear about review sources, some sites have implemented policies where a person cannot review a game they crowd funded, Giant Bomb won't review any games from Super Giant because their good friend, and a former EiC of Gamespot works there, and so on. This kind of change needs to hit tech reviews as well.

[LAwLz]

Just some random thoughts I have, which are entirely based on what I have seen in this thread. I have not looked at the review or video.

 

1) If PCPer reused content from their white paper then they should have disclosed that. If they did not disclose it in a clear way then they deserve some shit for it.

2) I don't believe PCPer's review got swayed by the fact that they made a white paper on it. If I could give two shits about SSD benchmarks I would cross reference PCPer's review with other reviews to see if it showed signs of bias but I can't be bothered and will just assume it held the same high standard as their other works.

3) Adored is one of the worst tech-youtubers I can think of. The guy is extremely biased and has built his entire channel based on causing drama between him and other reviewers, and sucking AMD's dick. This is not the first time he accused/implies that reviewers are biased. I legitimately don't know if I should laugh or cry at the people who think he is a valid source of information. He is the Keemstar of the tech world.

4) Adored is throwing rocks in his glass house. He did not even attempt to talk to PCPer before attacking them and siccing his rabid fanboys on them. Wanna talk about ethics? Maybe you should make sure you aren't an unethical fucktard before accusing others.

 

 

What should Adored have done? He should have contacted PCPer in a calm and nice manner, asking them to put in disclaimers in their review. That way the issue could have been corrected without causing a bunch of drama.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

I did not entirely intend it to come off as I was trying to "bite his head off", I have a habit of being overly blunt sometimes. I don't have a very good filter between my brain and how I express my words. This is especially true when reading that after getting only a few hours of sleep due to being in pain all night. So I should have waited until I was in a bit less of a "I really don't care how he takes this" attitude. So @Notional I apologize for my tone and word choice. The point, however, still stands. Please try to make sure to carefully read both what a person has typed (the entire thing) and what they are replying to (also, the entire thing)

No worries. I don't agree with the post you answered that states it was a bought review. I've never posted that opinion myself here. The reason I answered your post was merely to reiterate my opinion on what the issue in this particular case is. So it wasn't an attack on you but rather nipping that idea in the butt, as a lot of people has brought up. @dalekphalm is right that it is probably just a misunderstanding.

[Yoinkerman]

Were you guys born yesterday? Disclosure and the facade of paid influence has been happening in the tech world since forever

[Derangel]

7 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

Were you guys born yesterday? Disclosure and the facade of paid influence has been happening in the tech world since forever

And that makes it a good thing or acceptable?

[Misanthrope]

On 1/26/2018 at 10:49 AM, divito said:

Well I mean, Shrout Research was announced on the website months before that article ever came out. The association was made public on their website. Maybe not attached to that specific review, but the data is the same.

As has been stated before, they're a company that is paid to be an 3rd party to verify testing methodology and results. The fact that they used that work and morphed it into a review doesn't negate the results of their other company, unless they're shown to be fraudulent. 

...So in other words, it wasn't?

 

Gotcha.

 

On 1/26/2018 at 12:11 PM, Yoinkerman said:

Were you guys born yesterday? Disclosure and the facade of paid influence has been happening in the tech world since forever

 

On 1/26/2018 at 6:04 AM, Misanthrope said:

1. Fine: it's still validating questionable behavior by pointing out it's common and henceforth acceptable.

3. It is the second reply on the thread and the most liked one so far.

 

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

Were you guys born yesterday? Disclosure and the facade of paid influence has been happening in the tech world since forever

@Misanthrope agreed - just because the tech industry has been doing shitty things, and not following ethical journalistic integrity, does not give them a pass.

 

I mean, hell, Sponsored Review disclosures were only just a thing within the last few years - before that, lots of reviews were sponsored without us knowing at all.

 

[divito]

2 hours ago, FratStar said:

The journalistic ethics specifically states that they SHOULD avoid topics they have an interest in, not that they HAVE to. While it can call into question their journalistic integrity, the main issue is that the article did not disclose the use of data from the white paper. 

 

I did not read the whitepaper so I do not know if they copied and pasted full sections (which is even more damning if you ask me). From an admittedly quick glance I do not see any glaring similarities, but I have to go through the text to truly determine that.

 

PcPer's initial optane receive of the 600p basically showed it getting spanked by other SSDs due to their testing methodology. They created a new testing methodology, which they are using to for all their future reviews. The new methodology does not paint the competing products in a negative fashion so the use of white paper data is not a problem in my eyes. The only issue is the lack of disclosure. Whether or not Allyn worked on the review is irrelevant if they were going to use the same testing methodology to begin with for all future reviews of SSDs, the numbers would be within the margin of error.

 

We need to focus on the lack of disclosure (which looks to be an oversight) all other points are quite frankly moot when the content of the review can't even be called into question especially when other independent outlets achieved similar results and conclusions.

This. It'll be interesting to see how their future posts unfold given this new methodology and aspects of their other company.