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

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, RagnarokDel said:

This goes far beyond journalistic ethics. They are likely in legal troubles with the FTC.

Adoredtv doesnt do storage review.

Yes, this was a paid review that wasnt disclosing it. This is in clear violation of FTC rules.

The funny thing is that there are sources that confirm what is claimed.

Where is this grand proof that Intel paid Shrout Research for anything beyond the whitepaper? As of yet I have not seen anyone produce anything. There is a clear ethical violation at play here (and a pretty serious example of it at that) but proof of a paid review? Let's see something that would actually hold up in court.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Notional said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

He does quite a bit more than that.

 

I don't always agreed to every conclusion he drew in the videos I watched, but the good thing about them is that he always gives you the sources and the reasoning he used, which allows you to judge the claims by yourself and reach your own conclusions.

 

The fact that he stops to think about test results and information scattered around the internet as a whole is an inflow of fresh air in a landscape dominated by reviewers spitting out numbers without giving too much thought to it. I mean, we do need people running test, and we do need multiple people running the same tests, but someone at some point has to put all those results together to get anything more than a superficial understanding. Even if he would systematically draw stupid conclusions out of the data, just putting together the data in perspective is enough of a contribution in my view.

 

It's just my opinion, and by the look of it other peoples as well.

[Bullion]

4 hours ago, Enderman said:

Without even watching the video I can tell you that a bunch of people here are just jumping on the hate train without even thinking for themselves.

 

"Intel paid Shrout Research to make a white paper for, concluded in a favourable review on PCPer"

There is literally 0 evidence that the payment was the cause of the favourable review.

In fact, pretty much all other unpaid reviews of the 900p come to the same conclusion as pcper.

On top of that, intel paid for tests, not the review. Tests are not subjective unless they are manupulated or falsified.

Again there is 0 evidence of falsified tests.

 

Maybe try leaving your emotions out of this and look at the facts from an objective point of view.

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:

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Bullion
Added GamersNexus vid

[Razzy_85]

I quite like AdoredTV, I generaly find him unbiased, willing to take a pop at all sides, if he is wrong he steps up and admits it (apart from 1 video that I take issue with but he put forward a valid argument for it which I accept for him doing it but I still don't like why he did it). His "opinion" on where tech has/is/was heading has been pretty spot on so far. 

Other big name youtube/review places keep taking shots at him for calling out bullshit and have been extremely slow or just don't come forth with an apology to him. He brings forth facts and figures to back up his claims or theories and accepts the same in return to get to the bottom of things so I don't get why people take great umbridge to him.

I like hardware unboxed for alot of the same reasons but they don't take anywhere as near much flack for some reason.

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, Enderman said:

Without even watching the video I can tell you that a bunch of people here are just jumping on the hate train without even thinking for themselves.

 

"Intel paid Shrout Research to make a white paper for, concluded in a favourable review on PCPer"

There is literally 0 evidence that the payment was the cause of the favourable review.

In fact, pretty much all other unpaid reviews of the 900p come to the same conclusion as pcper.

On top of that, intel paid for tests, not the review. Tests are not subjective unless they are manupulated or falsified.

Again there is 0 evidence of falsified tests.

 

Maybe try leaving your emotions out of this and look at the facts from an objective point of view.

That's now how a conflict of interest and journalistic ethics work.

 

This concepts are very specifically made to deal with this exact kind of cases where you do reasonable things that could be misinterpreted or quesioned. It has little to do with proof and end results and everything to do wit the appearance of impropriety.

 

But of course most of you have spent 3 pages defending a basically indefensible practice for a serious journalist by:

 

1) Using whataboutism

2) Pointing out to non-journalists or fairly less formal reviewers that don't even do something as comparably questionable

3) Flat out ad-hominem of the story's source.

 

 

[Trixanity]

As long as full disclosure is there, it's fine.

 

However paying for work can skew things. If the payer gives instructions.

If the payer wants certain results they can be achieved through biased methodology. It's happened many times before. "We want X to be 4. Find a way to make that happen so we can put forward our new bill". That's just an example.

 

Probably not what happened here but I still see some conflict of interest. Same goes with paid reviews or sponsored reviews. But as long as it's disclosed in full the audience can make up their own minds 

[divito]

Wait, so because they happened to do a review of a product they were paid to do a white paper for, it somehow invalidates their work? What if other reviewers had sourced the white paper for their own reviews? Would it somehow be tainted because a video was made about it?

 

The notion of "availability" of drives is also kind of a misplaced argument. They were paid to develop a white paper, and would understandably get more drives to complete the necessary work. Why would standard reviewers receive more drives when they are not providing a service to Intel?

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's now how a conflict of interest and journalistic ethics work.

 

This concepts are very specifically made to deal with this exact kind of cases where you do reasonable things that could be misinterpreted or quesioned. It has little to do with proof and end results and everything to do wit the appearance of impropriety.

 

But of course most of you have spent 3 pages defending a basically indefensible practice for a serious journalist by:

 

1) Using whataboutism

2) Pointing out to non-journalists or fairly less formal reviewers that don't even do something as comparably questionable

3) Flat out ad-hominem of the story's source.

 

 

1. it's not  whataboutism if the people are presenting examples of why they don't think it is a problem.

3. it's only ad-hominem if they are attacking the person instead of the argument,  in this case some are saying adoredtv is the problem and thus a direct argument.  

[Misanthrope]

On 1/26/2018 at 5:51 AM, divito said:

Wait, so because they happened to do a review of a product they were paid to do a white paper for, it somehow invalidates their work? What if other reviewers had sourced the white paper for their own reviews? Would it somehow be tainted because a video was made about it?

Yes:

 

https://rtdna.org/content/guidelines_for_avoiding_conflict_of_interest

 

"Will the private actions of a journalist with a news source or newsmaker give the appearance of an unprofessional connection? Audience members may react with suspicion to revelations of friendships or romances that develop between journalists and their sources—particularly if there is ongoing coverage of a beat or story. Journalists and their managers must realize relationships that would be perfectly acceptable between other adults might not be viewed in the same way when there is also a journalist-source relationship."

 

It is literally the very first item.

 

On 1/26/2018 at 6:01 AM, mr moose said:

1. it's not  whataboutism if the people are presenting examples of why they don't think it is a problem.

3. it's only ad-hominem if they are attacking the person instead of the argument,  in this case some are saying adoredtv is the problem and thus a direct argument.  

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.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, 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.

1. You call it validating because you disagree, they call it presenting examples because there is nothing to argue.

3. Between 2nd and 3rd post, with that many likes, it appears they is not alone in their appraisal of the situation. 

 

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

1. You call it validating because you disagree, they call it presenting examples because there is nothing to argue.

3. Between 2nd and 3rd post, with that many likes, it appears they is not alone in their appraisal of the situation. 

 

1 and 3: Not arguments as to why this isn't conflict of interest for a journalist.

 

Which was my point to begin with, thanks for spinning the wheels to show, again, how there's actually no argument as to why this is "ok" other than "The end result wasn't bad" and a general failure to comprehend what ethics in the context of journalism mean.

[porina]

That ethics stuff is too complicated for me, but as a random thought, does it matter at all that PCPer and Shrout Research are different legal entities?

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, porina said:

That ethics stuff is too complicated for me, but as a random thought, does it matter at all that PCPer and Shrout Research are different legal entities?

It would get even more complicated and dare I say possibly even legally questionable. See LMG & Floatplane as to all of the legal chicanery involved in those kinds of arrangements.

[Carclis]

16 minutes ago, porina said:

That ethics stuff is too complicated for me, but as a random thought, does it matter at all that PCPer and Shrout Research are different legal entities?

Absolutely. It's the same issue Linus encountered when he started up FloatPlane and for that reason he placed Luke in charge (and made him leave Linus Media Group) so that there was no conflict of interest that could affect other channels that decided to use their platform.

 

6 hours ago, Enderman said:

"Disclosure: This paper was commissioned by Intel. All testing, evaluation, and analysis was performed inhouse by Shrout Research and its contractors. Shrout Research provides consulting and research services for many companies in the technology field, other of which are mentioned in this work."

 

The review included links and information about where the data came from. The review itself was not commissioned at all.

Maybe you are having trouble telling the difference between a commissioned review and a review using data from tests which happened to be commissioned.

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.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

3. Between 2nd and 3rd post, with that many likes, it appears they is not alone in their appraisal of the situation. 

 

Let's see:

1) Someone creates a thread here, title: "Tornado about to hit New York". Source in OP is a CNN article/video about the tornado.

2) First few replies are "CNN sucks!". Lots of people agree/like said replies.

 

Question: is a tornado about to hit New York or not?

 

[porina]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Let's see:

1) Someone creates a thread here, title: "Tornado about to hit New York". Source in OP is a CNN article/video about the tornado.

2) First few replies are "CNN sucks!". Lots of people agree/like said replies.

 

Question: is a tornado about to hit New York or not?

Is it actually a tornado?

Define "hit"? Direct hit? Glancing blow? Vague effects?

[Notional]

4 hours ago, Derangel said:

Where is this grand proof that Intel paid Shrout Research for anything beyond the whitepaper? As of yet I have not seen anyone produce anything. There is a clear ethical violation at play here (and a pretty serious example of it at that) but proof of a paid review? Let's see something that would actually hold up in court.

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.

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's just my opinion, and by the look of it other peoples as well.

 

The problem with opinions is that they are rarely based on empirics or facts. And popular opinion has never been a good guide for what is factual.

3 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:

4

He very clearly doesn't get it.

We don't know that. But if he didn't, I agree, that is not good.

 

Shrout research is not independent of PCPer. That is the entire issue. Neither is the author of the white paper and the reviewer, as it is the same exact person. 

 

Smart on their part? Well, it's efficient. But it's also a conflict of interest. It might also be an FTC violation, and it might hurt their credibility long term.

 

Allyn's reviews are generally top notch on the SSD front. The problem here is the lack of disclosure and conflict of interest.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

36 minutes ago, porina said:

Is it actually a tornado?

Define "hit"? Direct hit? Glancing blow? Vague effects?

Exactly. It's not about our feelings with respect to the source; it's about those other questions.

[divito]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes:

 

https://rtdna.org/content/guidelines_for_avoiding_conflict_of_interest

 

"Will the private actions of a journalist with a news source or newsmaker give the appearance of an unprofessional connection? Audience members may react with suspicion to revelations of friendships or romances that develop between journalists and their sources—particularly if there is ongoing coverage of a beat or story. Journalists and their managers must realize relationships that would be perfectly acceptable between other adults might not be viewed in the same way when there is also a journalist-source relationship."

 

It is literally the very first item.

These aren't private actions though. The company providing white papers is publicly acknowledged, as are their "staff" if you can call two people a staff. 

The other aspect is that, if this review and the results were different from other reviewers, then a case of impropriety could be made for sure. If testing results were falsified, invalidating what Intel paid for, then this would be uncovered fairly easily.

[porina]

28 minutes ago, Notional said:

Shrout research is not independent of PCPer. That is the entire issue. Neither is the author of the white paper and the reviewer, as it is the same exact person. 

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"...

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, XenosTech said:

It's not any different to me paying you to do review and then tell you how to craft your methodology to make it look good. Both are bad for the consumer in the end.

That depends, did they tell reviewers to do something that no one would ever do in the real world? The problem with the Ryzen/Broadwell-E thing was that no one in their right mind would have ran a Broadwell-E CPU with dual channel RAM or any of the other deficits that AMD requested (I'm almost positive there were a few things, but I can't remember anything other than the memory thing) be done to bring Broadwell-E down to the level of Ryzen.

[DocSwag]

11 hours ago, Notional said:

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.

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.

2 hours ago, Razzy_85 said:

I quite like AdoredTV, I generaly find him unbiased, willing to take a pop at all sides, if he is wrong he steps up and admits it (apart from 1 video that I take issue with but he put forward a valid argument for it which I accept for him doing it but I still don't like why he did it). His "opinion" on where tech has/is/was heading has been pretty spot on so far. 

Other big name youtube/review places keep taking shots at him for calling out bullshit and have been extremely slow or just don't come forth with an apology to him. He brings forth facts and figures to back up his claims or theories and accepts the same in return to get to the bottom of things so I don't get why people take great umbridge to him.

I like hardware unboxed for alot of the same reasons but they don't take anywhere as near much flack for some reason.

I do disagree, see my above comment.

[Misanthrope]

17 minutes ago, divito said:

These aren't private actions though. The company providing white papers is publicly acknowledged, as are their "staff" if you can call two people a staff.

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

[Carclis]

2 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.

He covers this in the video admitting that all journalists are biased but stating that it is their responsibility to use methodology that doesn't allow for it. The problem is PCPer used the results published in their white paper sponsored by Intel to come to their conclusions. Now let's look at what a white paper is shall we...?

Wikipedia

Quote

In business-to-business marketing

Since the early 1990s, the term "white paper" has been applied to documents used as marketing or sales tools in business. These white papers are long-form content designed to promote the products or services from a specific company. As a marketing tool, these papers use selected facts and logical arguments to build a case favorable to the company sponsoring the document. B2B white papers are often used to generate sales leads, establish thought leadership, make a business case, or inform and persuade prospective customers, channel partners, journalists, analysts, or investors.

White papers are considered to be as a form of content marketing or inbound marketing; in other words, sponsored content available on the web with or without registration, intended to raise the visibility of the sponsor in search engine results and thus build web traffic. Many B2B white papers argue that one particular technology, product or method is superior for solving a specific business problem. They may also present research findings, list a set of questions or tips about a certain business issue, or highlight a particular product or service from a vendor.[10]

Do you see the issue with using this material designed specifically to showcase a product in its best light to form the basis of a conclusion to your review now?

[DocSwag]

10 minutes ago, Carclis said:

He covers this in the video admitting that all journalists are biased but stating that it is their responsibility to use methodology that doesn't allow for it. The problem is PCPer used the results published in their white paper sponsored by Intel to come to their conclusions. Now let's look at what a white paper is shall we...?

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