AdoredTV responds to PC Perspective's response to Journalistic Ethics Accusations and The Right To Reply

[RagnarokDel]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

I think you should just #update the last thread because it's the same bit of news, just a new video about it. That's the same way we'd do updated news otherwise. We might merge the threads if you don't mind.

nobody reads the first page when they've already done it.

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Look at the list of his videos, he should just stay quiet.

 

 

Have you read ryans response?   The contrast between the two is incredible.  Ryan doesn't shy away from admitting when he or his colleagues should have done something different (and have changed things to comply), but his reasoning is very well layed out and anyone can take their pick if they accept it or not.  The amusing thing is Adoredtv should be (if he was consistent) dragging pcper over the coals for also working with AMD and not disclosing that when he did the 1800X review and told everyone it was the better price/perf option.

[Taf the Ghost]

PcPer is in a tough spot here, as they did get broadsided by a hit-piece. However, hit-pieces are quite legal in the States, and "right of reply" is more about formal courtesy than legal protection. (In the States.) 

 

But, if AdoredTV had found a follower in the States, they could have bundled the information together and filed a formal complaint with the FTC. At bare minimum, PcPer screwed up quite badly and exposed themselves to legal issue, at worst they've done illegal paid-sponsorship without proper disclosure. PcPer has to tread really lightly to avoid a major problem with the Feds, if someone wants to push it.

 

Regardless of the previous issues between PcPer & Jim, this is about Ethics in Tech Journalism. PcPer had best clean up this issue, as Jim really does have the high-ground here.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

PcPer is in a tough spot here, as they did get broadsided by a hit-piece. However, hit-pieces are quite legal in the States, and "right of reply" is more about formal courtesy than legal protection. (In the States.) 

 

But, if AdoredTV had found a follower in the States, they could have bundled the information together and filed a formal complaint with the FTC. At bare minimum, PcPer screwed up quite badly and exposed themselves to legal issue, at worst they've done illegal paid-sponsorship without proper disclosure. PcPer has to tread really lightly to avoid a major problem with the Feds, if someone wants to push it.

 

Regardless of the previous issues between PcPer & Jim, this is about Ethics in Tech Journalism. PcPer had best clean up this issue, as Jim really does have the high-ground here.

Ryan claims he has addressed this previously:

 

Quote

The company and my position there is listed on my Twitter profile. We often link to ShroutResearch.com in stories posted on pcper.com. We have discussed Shrout Research on the podcast. I have answered questions about the company in mailbags from user-submitted questions. It is listed in my pcper.com profile page. Most (probably all) stories posted on MarketWatch or similar sites list my relationship to both companies. We link to the Shrout Research white papers (including the 900P paper) in some PC Perspective stories.

It isn't a direct disclosure on the review in question so some people will still be pissed, but it definitely indicates he was not intentionally hiding anything.

[AresKrieger]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

AdoredTV's requests if they wanted the accusations video to remain private.

That sounds an awful lot like blackmail

 

Regardless the evidence showed to speculate ethics issues was essentially baseless from my perspective, and Adored has biases that I cannot ignore relevant to this topic.

[Energycore]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

That sounds an awful lot like blackmail

 

Regardless the evidence showed to speculate ethics issues was essentially baseless from my perspective, and Adored has biases that I cannot ignore relevant to this topic.

I disagree with your opinion, however I really liked the way you worded it. You're not trying to push your opinion as fact. More people should be like this.

 

The biases bit might be debatable, I for one am torn on whether to think that he's AMD-biased or not as he has come out against AMD pretty hard in the past, even suggesting that RTG has no hope whatsoever anymore in trying to compete against Nvidia. He's admitted to being AMD biased though, to an extent.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why? PC Per acted unprofessionally and were unethical.

When family and personal safety, photos of their house get pulled into the mix, it just becomes a big mess. Its time for both sides to leave this behind and be mature. You can't unpublish an article and you cant take back accusations.

Its not ethical at all to involve Ryans family and on a personal level Ryan. Being objective is one thing but safety is a different story. Not that PCPerspective is in the complete right - both sides need to tone it down. If they cant be mature about this why take any side seriously. If they want to be childish and resort to this nonsense let them both be.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I for one am torn on whether to think that he's AMD-biased or not as he has come out against AMD pretty hard in the past, even suggesting that RTG has no hope whatsoever anymore in trying to compete against Nvidia. He's admitted to being AMD biased though, to an extent.

 

I am not afraid to admit that he reminds me of Zmeul, just he loves AMD rather than hates them.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

When family and personal safety, photos of their house get pulled into the mix, it just becomes a big mess. Its time for both sides to leave this behind and be mature. You can't unpublish an article and you cant take back accusations.

Its not ethical at all to involve Ryans family and on a personal level Ryan. Being objective is one thing but safety is a different story. Not that PCPerspective is in the complete right - both sides need to tone it down. If they cant be mature about this why take any side seriously. If they want to be childish and resort to this nonsense let them both be.

you cant unpublish an article sure but you can fix the disclosure problems, and in both the article and the video he did the bare minimum to count as "addressed", he added a small disclaimer in the conclusion which should also be on the first page, and in the video the tittle is the same and its incorrect they only added a link in the description with no explanation as to why someone should read the other article, very easy to miss, what is a ghosting comparison between 2 displays is being posted as freesync vs g-sync, they should just put the video down or really changing the tittle. 

The family card here has no ground to stand at all, as jim isn't responsible for what other people do.

[PopReference]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I am not afraid to admit that he reminds me of Zmeul, just he loves AMD rather than hates them.

Okay, NOW I think you've gone too far. 

[AresKrieger]

17 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I disagree with your opinion, however I really liked the way you worded it. You're not trying to push your opinion as fact. More people should be like this.

Well the way I see it this is a he said he said situation with some idiots from reddit mucking things up incredibly, so it basically comes down to who you believe and while I have no reason to believe PCPer as I don't know them I do know Adored and their videos often make me cringe and though he on occasion criticizes AMD he often does from a constructive criticism perspective  (which he doesn't do with green or blue)

 

Either way given that this is the tech industry it would not surprise me if there were something to this but there is not way to prove or disprove anything, well unless one of them admits they were wrong.

[Taf the Ghost]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Ryan claims he has addressed this previously:

 

It isn't a direct disclosure on the review in question so some people will still be pissed, but it definitely indicates he was not intentionally hiding anything.

As I said in the comment you quoted, "At bare minimum, PcPer screwed up quite badly and exposed themselves to legal issue". There's a fine line with this stuff that has to be maintained with a pretty sharp edge, otherwise these problems come up.

 

Though, personally, I noticed the subtext to the video that was probably lost on a few people. This wasn't really a hit-piece, but a "warning shot". It's clear there are factions inside the review space and one of the dividing lines is money from tech companies. AdoredTV just found it an interesting enough of a topic to invest some time in. I do hope the rest of the space is paying attention, though, as this isn't a small issue. (At least the Tech Press hasn't started hating their viewers.)

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

you cant unpublish an article sure but you can fix the disclosure problems, and in both the article and the video he did the bare minimum to count as "addressed", he added a small disclaimer in the conclusion which should also be on the first page, and in the video the tittle is the same and its incorrect they only added a link in the description with no explanation as to why someone should read the other article, very easy to miss, what is a ghosting comparison between 2 displays is being posted as freesync vs g-sync, they should just put the video down or really changing the tittle. 

The family card here has no ground to stand at all, as jim isn't responsible for what other people do.

If we go back to the real world, Jim should tell people not to go as far as that on a personal level. He has a commitment to stop his fans from doing this. PCPer is just words on a page, while familty is very real.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

 

The family card here has no ground to stand at all, as jim isn't responsible for what other people do.

I wonder if you'd still feel the same after being doxxed yourself?

 

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

If we go back to the real world, Jim should tell people not to go as far as that on a personal level. He has a commitment to stop his fans from doing this. PCPer is just words on a page, while familty is very real.

Jim has no responsibility to police anyone that follows him if he has made no statements attempting to incite people against PcPer. Defaulting to the "I got Doxxed" is a common defensive play these days. Sometimes it's real; sometimes it's fake. No clue in this situation, but odds are it took 10 minutes of looking to find Ryan. It's the modern world, unless you've spent a lot of time hiding yourself, you're pretty easy to find.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

As I said in the comment you quoted, "At bare minimum, PcPer screwed up quite badly and exposed themselves to legal issue"

That's what I am talking about though.  It might be hard to press legal charges because he previously told his viewers and readers that such a link exists.  Besides that, it's the fcc that needs to bring such charges and I believe their hands a full right now.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, mr moose said:

That's what I am talking about though.  It might be hard to press legal charges because he previously told his viewers and readers that such a link exists.  Besides that, it's the fcc that needs to bring such charges and I believe their hands a full right now.

Us Americans and our alphabet soup of Agencies.  It's the FTC, btw.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

 

Note how long that page is.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Us Americans and our alphabet soup of Agencies.  It's the FTC, btw.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

 

Note how long that page is.

FCC/FTC/ABC whatever, they can all take a good hard look at what's going on and then bury the issue under paper work.

I am still going to abstain from deciding if pcper did anything wrong, I mean partly because I am old and don't care, but also because this shit has been going on since day dot and it seems to be just as bad now as it ever was on tv while the internet is a little calmer.  And finally because I see both sides of the debate and the only person who seems to have had an issue is this adoredtv (who didn't have an issue when Ryan was being paid by AMD I might add).  It really is personal opinion here I think.

[David89]

36 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

If we go back to the real world, Jim should tell people not to go as far as that on a personal level. He has a commitment to stop his fans from doing this. PCPer is just words on a page, while familty is very real.

 

First of all, i have to ask: Why are north Americans so afraid of taking blame for oneself and admit that they did something wrong? In Europe, it's common courtesy that if you have your personal info anywhere to be found, it is your fault - Period. Now, lets go further in to reality:

If someone threatens you, because someone else focused on you, that's not the fault of the person who brought attention to a situation that you created in the first place! It's also not the responsibility of that person. You screwed up in the first place and it's your responsibility to go to the police, or the governing institution that handles those threats. Jim NEVER threatened PCPer in ANY personal way. He threatened to put the video viewable again, but for one thing, that's something entirely different, because the video is not harmful in any personal way. And for the other, it has nothing to do with the family.

 

PCPer are not "just" words on a page - they have been written by someone, that put his name deliberately on to that page. If you can't handle any backlash, you should not do that, because anyone can come to the same conclusion Jim did. He just put the same thought process in to a Video. In Germany, a Phone Book entry is entirely voluntary for example. Nowhere Jim has said to pull up to the house with pitchforks, post pictures or anything.

He is not responsible for the actions of those who threatened PCPer's family. He is also not responsible what his Fan base does, because in his Video Jim never even mentioned anything like that. All he did was say, PCPer was wrong, presented the facts for why and made arguments why this should be handled different.

 

(Edit: I just realized my sentences are sometimes a bit complicated. Sorry for that - i do hope that what i tried to put in to words is understandable)

[Deus Voltage]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And finally because I see both sides of the debate and the only person who seems to have had an issue is this adoredtv (who didn't have an issue when Ryan was being paid by AMD I might add). It really is personal opinion here I think.

Incorrect. Watch from 30:01 on the original video by AdoredTV.

 

Quote:

"This is the Radeon Pro Website, where you can purchase Vega on Amazon with an affiliate link that should be owned by AMD. Amd are the ones that should be getting the commission for each sale through their own website. But instead, PC Perspective, will be getting paid around 4-5% for every single Vega Frontier Edition sale. These cards were how much? 1500$, 5% of that? How many people do you think actually bought these cards through Radeon Pro website? And as if that wasn't bad enough, this is extremely important information. This is a direct link, basically going straight to the item with PC perspective Affiliate tag, PC perspective will know exactly how many of these AMD have sold through the website. I have got absolutely no words to describe how I feel about this" 

 

[XenosTech]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

I disagree with your opinion, however I really liked the way you worded it. You're not trying to push your opinion as fact. More people should be like this.

 

The biases bit might be debatable, I for one am torn on whether to think that he's AMD-biased or not as he has come out against AMD pretty hard in the past, even suggesting that RTG has no hope whatsoever anymore in trying to compete against Nvidia. He's admitted to being AMD biased though, to an extent.

He's always admitted his bias to AMD but he always gives credit to which ever party when they are deserving of it.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

I am not afraid to admit that he reminds me of Zmeul, just he loves AMD rather than hates them.

Though his rants were always negative and extrememly dumb t times. I do miss him.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The amusing thing is Adoredtv should be (if he was consistent) dragging pcper over the coals for also working with AMD and not disclosing that when he did the 1800X review and told everyone it was the better price/perf option.

Well That's a matter of POV, as a business or a normie that might be true since 9/10 times they won't OC their hardware (especially the business) but for gamers and enthusiast it would be poor value compared to the 1700.

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, johnukguy said:

Journalists don't always allow a response before publication. The guidelines set out that responses generally be made after publication. There is no duty to warn people beforehand if they've been busted for doing something shady. At least outside of the US, those caught being unethical don't get a say beyond presenting any relevant facts that substantiate their position. Journalists don't run stories by people to see if they agree or not. That's PR, not journalism. According to the Code of Press Ethics which was established by the Media Organizations Convention, "The right to reply is granted when this request is considered to be justified and reasonable." It's not an automatic right, for everything, before publication, but something that is offered by the journalist, when appropriate, at their discretion.

There is no legal requirement but depending on context it's common courtesy to at least request a comment when publishing a hit piece (if we can call it that). Otherwise an article can quickly become one-sided. 

 

In this case, I don't think 'warning' the subject has any bearing on the article. Especially when the point was to pressure the subject to submit corrections to articles written. That was the goal and it has been achieved albeit in an ugly manner.

 

It could also have been achieved through personal contact saying he's making a news story about said grievances and in the process ask for comments and corrections but saying the story will run in X days even with corrections and both sides would have walked away satisfied. The only point where you could argue this should not occur is if you could prove there was malicious intent. If that was the case I feel any 'rights' go out the window. Ultimately they're colleagues who both have histories that aren't perfect so the pot calling the kettle black doesn't help anyone but stir things up.

 

Half of the accusations levied can't be proven, so there is a libel angle PCPer could play if we flip the situation. I'm assuming PCPer won't which would look bad either way.

 

I'm not saying they should be protecting each other because of a shared profession as some do but treating each other with respect and maybe even give them the benefit of the doubt. The story would be less juicy I'm sure but right now it almost looks like a grab for a bigger audience. 

 

Whether it's shady is in the eye of the beholder but remember we judge others on their actions but ourselves on our intent. It's too murky to say they're in cahoots with Intel. Innocent till proven guilty and all that. Of course that doesn't absolve them from not making relations clear and that's the core problem and the only wrongdoing that can be proven and it's a glaring one at that. It was stupid to think they could do that.

 

I don't think it's PR to allow a response before running a story. It would be PR to not be critical of obvious wrongdoing.

 

AdoredTV would need to dig deeper if he wants to find actual dirt. Perhaps it is there. No one knows. It's all speculation right now.

[Okjoek]

I think Jim (AdoredTV) is in the right here.

 

Many give him stick for being biased for AMD which I feel is true, but I feel he's a good journalist and in this case investigative journalist.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

If we go back to the real world, Jim should tell people not to go as far as that on a personal level. He has a commitment to stop his fans from doing this. PCPer is just words on a page, while familty is very real.

Because telling assholes on the internet not to do something always works so well. No, he has no commitment to anything. His fans being assholes is not his fault, it is the fault of those fans. Its called personal responsibility. Unless Jim actually told people to doxx and harass Ryan he is not responsible for their actions. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and choices, not some random third party that never encouraged them to do anything.

[Castdeath97]

Honestly this didn't need to get this flammatory   

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I am not afraid to admit that he reminds me of Zmeul, just he loves AMD rather than hates them.

I swear I almost completely forgot about him, he got banned it seems. Too bad...