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

[Bullion]

19 hours ago, 5minutelurker said:

-Right of reply comes after the piece is out, otherwise you could coerce someone into not putting out the piece at all

This annoys me. The two sources he uses to outline ethics in journalism in the original video say that a right of reply should be sought and broadcast at the same time as the claims are being made. Even the Swedish Code of Ethics for Press, Radio and Television (where he is based) says the same thing.

 

He claims all he wants is pcper to make adjustments to material he thought needed it and to apologise and he would be happy. If he had sought a response before posting the original video the very minor changes needed could have been done and included in the original video and some of the claims he made, which have now been clarified, would not need to be made in error.

 

It seems he cherry picks data/sources to match his narrative, didn't include all relevant responses from pcper and doesn't provide links to source material so his viewers have to take his word as is without being able to double check or indepently analyse his claims - which is unfair, unprofessional and unethical.

 

I have watched a lot of his content, he produces content that is different, but this debacle has seen his credibility in my eyes go from positive to exteremly negative. His actions have real world implications to pcper, their staff and contributors; and the way he went about it is very unprofessional.

[Razor01]

24 minutes ago, Bullion said:

Quote

This annoys me. The two sources he uses to outline ethics in journalism in the original video say that a right of reply should be sought and broadcast at the same time as the claims are being made. Even the Swedish Code of Ethics for Press, Radio and Television (where he is based) says the same thing.

Its like this everywhere because it has to be, the basis for this is to ensure that  (lets say a journalist has source) to confirm that source isn't bull sh*ting to journalist and confirmation or non confirmation or no response is coming for the party being accused.  It actually is there to protect both the journalist and party he/she is doing the piece on.  Jim doesn't do due diligence on anything he talks about, that is why he gets so many things wrong.  In this case, he is hurting another person and doing a disservice to his viewers.  His viewers, most of them don't give a sh*t too!   Just look at the responses over on reditt, on his youtube page.  They praise him for his wrong doing.  This is typical of this generation of people, they don't want to be bothered with actually seeing what is going on.  If these people had some more understanding of the tech industry and how these reviews are done, Adored will not have any followers.  Look at what happened with Charlie from semi accurate, for quite some time he as the laughing stock of the tech journalists.  Because Charlie did mistakes just like Adored did, but not to the same gravity as he did, Charlie never made enemies with his peers he only made things up based on hearsay and rumors, and also gave AMD/ATi a day long BJ when ever they wanted .  What doesn't that sound like most of Adored videos?  Yeah.

Quote

I have watched a lot of his content, he produces content that is different, but this debacle has seen his credibility in my eyes go from positive to exteremly negative. His actions have real world implications to pcper, their staff and contributors; and the way he went about it is very unprofessional.

 

Yes some of his content is good, but when he starts going on about assuming things he doesn't know about or tries to make himself sound like he knows more about something then he really does or tries to sound like he is more intelligent about something then he really is, which he does in all of his videos, he falls flat on his face.  Yet these other reviewers don't call him out on it.  Why?  Because for them to go out of there way and correct a person that is just wrong so many times, is a waste of time.  Nor does it affect them in any regard.  Why does Adored have to go out of his way to correct another's review, when he has so many issues on his own things are are just much worse?  Because he has nothing better to do.  Ideal hands are Devil's........

[Canada EH]

Quote

journalistic ethics

LOL What a hypocritical statement, journalism lost ethics a long time ago!

[Razor01]

31 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

LOL What a hypocritical statement, journalism lost ethics a long time ago!

Although I do find that really funny cause there are many shows out there that tip toe on that line of ethical and outright bullsh*t.

 

No they haven't, do want to see my legal department's manuals on shows on TV?  Everything goes to legal before its aired too just to make sure things are copacetic, there is also many layers of fact checking too.  But not everything is caught, mishaps happen.  Like the newscaster that embellished stories a year or two ago.  He got punished for it, and fired. 

 

With Youtube reviewers there is no recourse though, cause Youtube can't be held accountable, they are just medium of distribution.  So well if the Youtube reviewer still gets his money from his followers, there is nothing anyone can do about it outside of taking said youtube reviewer to court, which we are talking global here, costs a sh*t load of money and these review sites probably don't make enough money to do such things, talking about 500 bucks an hour lawyers here.

 

Ask Linus if he would talk about something about a piece of hardware if he was unsure about a feature they said was in a product and the product didn't work that way, without asking them about it?  This is the same level of merit Jim should give when talking about other websites in videos.  Jim read something and saw  something were missing or incorrect in his view, instead of letting PCper know about his concerns, he created a video which condemned PCper without knowing the full facts of the situation.  He didn't do his due diligence nor did he do any fact checking.  These problems are recurring issues with all of his videos, not just this latest round of wham bam thank you for watching.

 

Take bias and ethics as different things, then you will understand the difference.  Are all people biased?  Yes they are to different degrees.  Are all people ethical.  Most journalist strive to be ethical because in good faith they know that is what their viewers are looking for.   Adored doesn't know about all these things, nor does most of his viewers care about these things, they want to see the wham bam, you're my bitch type of show.  Even though it was pointed out to him before by other reviewers.  They were "nice" well for vitriol about it with arguments instead of how Ryan handled it, and it didn't get through to Adored.  I doubt it will ever get through to him because of his repost of the video and responses on Twitter.

[Canada EH]

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

ause there are many shows out there that tip toe on that line of ethical

New York Post

Washington Times

CNN - Pro Hillary, Anti Trump

Fox News - Pro Trump, Anti Hillary

the list is endless of so called mainstream media, that is why the term FAKE NEWS is so abundant now, because its true. If people were actually informed they wouldnt listen to that dribble coming from CNN or Fox and the like.

 

I dont know what show I was watching recently, and the host said some BS line, and I knew it was an outright lie, because I heard the full statement from the original source. Yet they clipped the sound clip and spun it to get a reaction and get more viewers. Everyone seems to do it, so how can you trust anyone?

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Canada EH said:

New York Post

Washington Times

CNN - Pro Hillary, Anti Trump

Fox News - Pro Trump, Anti Hillary

the list is endless of so called mainstream media, that is why the term FAKE NEWS is so abundant now, because its true. If people were actually informed they wouldnt listen to that dribble coming from CNN or Fox and the like.

 

I dont know what show I was watching recently, and the host said some BS line, and I knew it was an outright lie, because I heard the full statement from the original source. Yet they clipped the sound clip and spun it.

 

Well what you just listed about CNN, Fox, that is bias, not ethical

 

Fake news is different then either of these although it fails to meet ethical standards, that is just making things up, which very few notable news broadcasts do and if they do, those people get punished just like I mentioned, the guy that did it was canned and lawsuits pending too.

 

Yes I have heard those types of spinsters before too, taking things out of context, which is done way more frequently now than in the past (but this has always been there).  Again, that is inherent bias of the person or program stating the content.

 

You just can't get away from it all.

 

I rarely watch news on TV anymore anyways, cause its been all bad for the past few decades lol.  If I want to know something, I do the research myself and figure it out, now on tech reviews, this isn't much of a problem most reviewers that have been around and are big are pretty good at what they do, and they all have merits for their testing methodologies, so its always good to just go to more than one place to get as much information to base your opinions on. 

 

But going to Adored, its not even worth it, outside of sh*t fling, his channel gives nothing that other reviewers already give.  His content is crap, its based on what others say. I don't know how old you are, but do you remember Heraldo Rivera?  If ya haven't seen his show from the early nineties, watch it, you would be surprised how you can parallelize what Adored is doing now, to that show, its amazing.  It was a tabloid talk show of the lowest degenerates, guess what adored is?

But here is the thing Heroldo ( akin to adored) doing it for one thing, views and hits and adored is being vindicated by his paying followers and their reactions to what is going on.  They only care about that, that is not journalism, that is sensationalism, or yellow journalism, which is extremely frowned up in the journalistic circles.  This is why Adored is made fun of by these guys in the past when he pointed them out in the past.  This time he took it a step too far, he directly pointed, with false accusations at people.  Which by all accounts is slander if damages are done.  And if physical harm comes to Ryan or his family members because of what he stated, oh hell ya that too can be pursued.  Now that is very hard to prove in the US because the accused must prove the damages, but if someone gets physically hurt because of it, that is easy to prove, at least that portion.  In the EU its even easier to prove, and the accuser must prove what he states is real, and if the other party is already uncooperative, its going to be damn hard to prove, if someone gets hurt because of the accuser stated, lol that is a walk in the park.  These aren't criminal charges but civil, so anyone thinking that can't happen and believe its not Adored's responsibility, should take note, it can happen and its not very hard to do if there are any damages.  Again a mistake he has made, he assumed its not his responsibility, in reality it is very much so, because he is the one that opened this can of worms.  His followers are the ones doing the actions based on his information which was false.

 

Now back to Adored, he can't make a tech video with mistakes in it.  Why?

 

1)  He can't do his own true reviews (lack of money or sponsors or what not)

2)  He doesn't have the technical knowledge to do such videos to begin with

3)  He is one arrogant SOB

 

How do I see these three for him to fix

 

1) he can't yet, he needs to make content that is on his own merits to help him get to the point he can, it takes time.  And if he continues down the path he is now, which he has been doing for years, since he started his channel, so I don't see him changing until he really gets hurt by what he does, he will end up being a pariah, just like Charlie of Semiaccurate became.

 

2) Keep asking questions to the guys have been doing it for years, he did that before when he wasn't doing videos, why did he stop now?

 

3) Personality issues, he needs to step back and make himself a better person by saying out load, "I don't know more than my peers". and believing it

 

Being arrogant is ok, if he knows his shit, which he clearly doesn't. And until his arrogance is subsided, he will not be in a position to learn.

 

When was the last time you heard someone start of a conversation, " I know more than you, so I'm going to correct you?" or have that type of mentality?  Ya already hate the guy already.  That is the situation Adored is in now.  so he is already 50% of the way to being a pariah.

[corsairian]

This seems like a non issue now. Seems like one guy got upset because he it got 1 drive instead of 4 that Shrout got. I am still going to watch Shrouts reviews. 

 

And anyone that posts information about where an online celebrity lives (or anyone period)  should be arrested or charged in some way.  They don't need their personal addresses plastered all over the internet. It's happened to Shrout, Linus, swifty, etc. That's just wrong in my book when people can't have privacy like that. 

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, corsairian said:

This seems like a non issue now. Seems like one guy got upset because he it got 1 drive instead of 4 that Shrout got. I am still going to watch Shrouts reviews. 

 

And anyone that posts information about where an online celebrity lives (or anyone period)  should be arrested or charged in some way.  They don't need their personal addresses plastered all over the internet. It's happened to Shrout, Linus, swifty, etc. That's just wrong in my book when people can't have privacy like that. 

I don't think you're seeing the larger issue here.

 

The biggest ethical problem was NOT the fact that one reviewer didn't get any Optane drives (or got only 1 instead of 4).

 

The big problem was the fact that Allyn, the PCPer employee who wrote the review of the drive, ALSO wrote the White Paper about the drives that Intel paid and commissioned Shrout Research to write.

 

Major conflict of interest.

 

And the disclaimer that PCPer added in after the fact, still doesn't mention that Allyn wrote both.

 

And it's on the very last page (of a 11 or 13 page review) - when it should be front and centre, on the first page, at the top.

 

People can shit all over Jim at AdoredTV if you want. I don't care - I don't even watch the channel. But please do not dismiss this very real issue just because Jim happens to be a douche.

[Razor01]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't think you're seeing the larger issue here.

 

The biggest ethical problem was NOT the fact that one reviewer didn't get any Optane drives (or got only 1 instead of 4).

 

The big problem was the fact that Allyn, the PCPer employee who wrote the review of the drive, ALSO wrote the White Paper about the drives that Intel paid and commissioned Shrout Research to write.

 

Major conflict of interest.

 

And the disclaimer that PCPer added in after the fact, still doesn't mention that Allyn wrote both.

 

And it's on the very last page (of a 11 or 13 page review) - when it should be front and centre, on the first page, at the top.

 

People can shit all over Jim at AdoredTV if you want. I don't care - I don't even watch the channel. But please do not dismiss this very real issue just because Jim happens to be a douche.

While I agree with that, its not whole heatedly the truth either. 

 

Did PCper reviewers make the white paper?  Yes, was the white paper biased?  No it wasn't it was made for a specific reason, testing methodologies for a new type of hardware.  Was the review slanted in anyway because of it?  No it wasn't.  The material that is in the review is still valid. 

 

Just because disclaimers weren't put up stating they created the white paper that gave information to do the review means anything.   If the white paper was never done they would have created the same testing model anyways, but this way they had the capacity to get information from Intel and get paid for it at the same time.

 

I do agree the disclaimers should have been put in there though.

 

There are two issues here, Jim's accusations of PCpers abjunct behavior with the review and whitepaper which was now know as false.  And Jim's ethical behavior of how he went about this.

[Mihle]

Someone said that AdoredTV doesn't share his sources.

 

That's wrong.... He links sources in the description of every video...

[dalekphalm]

56 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

While I agree with that, its not whole heatedly the truth either. 

Everything I said is fact. Please state specifics as to where it's not, and I quote, "whole heartedly the truth".

 

Quote

Did PCper reviewers make the white paper?  Yes, was the white paper biased?  No it wasn't it was made for a specific reason, testing methodologies for a new type of hardware.  Was the review slanted in anyway because of it?  No it wasn't.  The material that is in the review is still valid.

The fact that the white paper and the review weren't biased is literally irrelevant to the ethical issues. All that means is that they didn't also do something even worse, ethically.

 

That's what confuses me. People seem to be giving PCPer a pass, simply because the ends justified the means? No. We must hold them up to the proper ethical standards.

 

Quote

Just because disclaimers weren't put up stating they created the white paper that gave information to do the review means anything.  If the white paper was never done they would have created the same testing model anyways, but this way they had the capacity to get information from Intel and get paid for it at the same time.

Again, this is irrelevant. You're arguing that the ends justifies the means. The ethical issue is the lack of proper disclosure. And the obvious conflict of interest in that Allyn wrote both the White Paper and the Review.

 

This is unethical, regardless of whether each piece was still "objective".

 

Quote

I do agree the disclaimers should have been put in there though.

We definitely agree on this. Though PCPer definitely lost respect from me when they hid the disclaimer at the bottom of a multi page review. First page, at the top, very beginning. It's not rocket science.

 

Quote

There are two issues here, Jim's accusations of PCpers abjunct behavior with the review and whitepaper which was now know as false.  And Jim's ethical behavior of how he went about this.

I don't care about Jim. Did he behave badly? Sure. But to me, that's a totally separate issue, unrelated to the actual ethical issues of what PCPer did.

 

And as per PCPers "Adjunct" behaviour? While there may not be any bias there, there was 100% most definitely unethical behaviour. Was this accidental? Most certainly. But even now, they still have not 100% corrected the problem.

 

They did the bare minimum, by putting a vague disclaimer at the very end. PCPer still have not fully resolved the ethical issue in my mind. I suspect they won't, since in a few weeks, this will be a distant memory to everyone.

[Razor01]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Everything I said is fact. Please state specifics as to where it's not, and I quote, "whole heartedly the truth".

 

The fact that the white paper and the review weren't biased is literally irrelevant to the ethical issues. All that means is that they didn't also do something even worse, ethically.

 

That's what confuses me. People seem to be giving PCPer a pass, simply because the ends justified the means? No. We must hold them up to the proper ethical standards.

 

Again, this is irrelevant. You're arguing that the ends justifies the means. The ethical issue is the lack of proper disclosure. And the obvious conflict of interest in that Allyn wrote both the White Paper and the Review.

 

This is unethical, regardless of whether each piece was still "objective".

 

We definitely agree on this. Though PCPer definitely lost respect from me when they hid the disclaimer at the bottom of a multi page review. First page, at the top, very beginning. It's not rocket science.

 

I don't care about Jim. Did he behave badly? Sure. But to me, that's a totally separate issue, unrelated to the actual ethical issues of what PCPer did.

 

And as per PCPers "Adjunct" behaviour? While there may not be any bias there, there was 100% most definitely unethical behaviour. Was this accidental? Most certainly. But even now, they still have not 100% corrected the problem.

 

They did the bare minimum, by putting a vague disclaimer at the very end. PCPer still have not fully resolved the ethical issue in my mind. I suspect they won't, since in a few weeks, this will be a distant memory to everyone.

 

The fact of the matter is Jim by codes of journalistic ethics should have given Pcper a heads up, he didn't, we aren't talk about laws here where he doesn't need to, but ethics, which is the the topic of concern right?  This is very common in journalistic ethics, when a Journalist AKA Adored, accuses another party AKA Pcper, the right to respond is always given out prior to publication of article or video, or tv broadcast.  This is done to protect both parties just incase the information is not correct.  The way Jim portrayed the situation, is that PCper was "paid" to do the review through financing the white paper.  They were NOT paid to do the review, they were paid to do the white paper.  The white paper was done under another company too.  That is there so there is no conflict of interest.  Its the exact opposite of what Adored accused them of.  He doesn't know these things because well we know his videos....

 

Just as an example, if I make a 3d model under my company  to be sold online to anyone who buys it, but work at another company and use the knowledge of making of that certain model to create their model or vice versa, that is not conflict of interest.  Sharing across two different companies of said individuals learned from one project used in another project IS NEVER conflict of interest.  Understand the laws here.  Conflict of interest is if one company is hurt directly by another company if information is transferred that causes the damages, damages could be construed as one company also benefiting in a free marketplace too and or the person of one company benefits form the conflict created by the two companies, another words both companies must be doing the same things, same markets. These companies are not doing the same thing, one is a review company for the general public and the other gives information to tech companies about their products in controlled scientific environments, both companies are in the same market though, one of the two requirements is not there already.  So where in this case does Ryan Shrout research get hurt by the uplift of the said gained knowledge by the other company doing the review or vice versa?  What was even transferred, the testing methodology was transferred.  That is gained knowledge.  Again gained knowledge is never a conflict of interest.  Gained knowledge can't even be used in non competitive clauses either, so you think it can be used here?  Nada can't.  So the main factor which makes conflict of interest a reality is not there either!

 

And this is why I stated, we need to look at this two different ways, Ethics is not part of law, law is not part of ethics.  They can overlap to some degree yes, but never should they be one and the same.  A law abiding citizen might not be an ethical person because the law doesn't allow them to be in some circumstances.  Like lets say a person is getting the crap beaten out of him an ethical citizen should go in there and break up the fight right?  But in the process of doing so he pushes the other guy down and that guy gets hurt, now this ethical guy is now on the wrong side of the law.  So how does the law see this?  The law abiding citizen should call the cops first and wait, but in the mean time that guy getting the ass kicked out of him well.  Ethics and Law two separate entities.

 

Pcper ethically they should have put up that disclaimer.  But the need for it to be there, wasn't as gravitas as Adored made it out to be, once you read the back and forth of the email chain that is easy to see, added to that Ryan was glad to put it in, he wasn't fighting it, maybe this is new for him, who knows, but once the topic was raised, he was quick to react.  And that was just one of the three accusations Adored made, the other two were just plan out wrong too.  Adored never gave him a chance before he accused Pcper, Ryan.  That is not ethical.  We don't go to people and threaten to screw up their livelihoods because they make a mistake right?  I don't do that.  That is exactly what Adored did in this case, this isn't the first time either.  Watch his videos, he makes snide remarks about many well know reviewers to make himself look better.  Why he does this, he has no merits of his own.

 

 

[PopReference]

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

he fact of the matter is Jim by codes of journalistic ethics should have given Pcper a heads up, he didn't, we aren't talk about laws here where he doesn't need to, but ethics, which is the the topic of concern right?  This is very common in journalistic ethics, when a Journalist AKA Adored, accuses another party AKA Pcper, the right to respond is always given out prior to publication of article or video, or tv broadcast. 

I'm really sick of this stupid logic. NO you're wrong:

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=Rec(2004)16&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=B9BDEE&BackColorIntranet=FFCD4F&BackColorLogged=FFC679&direct=true

Quote

2. Promptness

The request for a reply should be addressed to the medium concerned within a reasonably short time from the publication of the contested information. The medium in question should make the reply public without undue delay.

Before someone asks: Some business standards are not everyone's standards.

[Razor01]

35 minutes ago, PopReference said:

I'm really sick of this stupid logic. NO you're wrong:

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=Rec(2004)16&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=B9BDEE&BackColorIntranet=FFCD4F&BackColorLogged=FFC679&direct=true

Before someone asks: Some business standards are not everyone's standards.

 

 

That is LAW that is not ethics.  Big difference as I stated you need to separate those two!

 

Right to reply as you are seeing it there is a law term when damages are done or could be done.  We are talking about ethics and mixed in to it laws, doesn't work that way, ethics are ethics, law is law.

 

If you want to know the differences between law and ethics.  Law is black and white whats on the paper, ethics is doing the right thing based on all information available.

 

http://www.mediahelpingmedia.org/training-resources/editorial-ethics/239-fairness-in-journalism

Quote

 

You should always offer the right of reply when making allegations. However, there will be some cases where this rule needs to be checked with senior editorial colleagues.

If, for example, you uncover information that you consider to be in the public interest and involves serious allegations against an individual or group, it might not be appropriate to approach those who are the focus of the piece of investigative journalism. This is particularly important if the information could lead to criminal arrest.

 

That is ethics right to reply.

 

Here is bbc's UK right to reply Ethical standards

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply/guidance-full

 

there is a big difference to what you posted which is the letter of the law vs what ethical right to reply is.

 

 

Quote

 

Providing a fair opportunity to reply to allegations requires providing enough time to make a response.

There is no set amount of time that must be given. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code simply states that the subjects of significant allegations must be given a "timely opportunity to respond".

The amount of time that is fair will change according to circumstances, including:

• the nature and complexity of the allegations. More detailed and complex allegations may require longer time for a response
• whether or not the allegations were already familiar to the subject of them. Detailed case studies that are completely new to the subject of an allegation may require more time to be thoroughly researched and responded to than cases or complaints that they are already familiar with
• the nature of the subject and their resources. With all other factors being equal, a large corporation with a sizable PR operation may be expected to respond quicker than a small business with just a few employees or an individual.
• whether there is a pressing need to broadcast in the public interest, for example because the reporting of allegations is likely to be frustrated by any delay, or because of the requirements of contemporaneous reporting.

 

further more BBC uses the Right to Reply as a fact checking method prior to publishing or broadcasting the piece

 

Quote

 

We have an obligation under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code to seek a response from individuals or organisations who are the subject of significant criticism or allegations of wrongdoing or incompetence. It is also responsible journalism to do so.

In addition to ensuring fairness to those coming under criticism, offering a right of reply can help achieve accuracy in our output. The response may serve as fact-checking and inform the nature of our allegations.

It is advisable to contact Programme Legal Advice as well as Editorial Policy when writing to seek a response to serious allegations of wrongdoing.

 

 

 

This has been common practice for at least a century now in journalism ethics.

[PopReference]

30 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

That is LAW that is not ethics.  Big difference as I stated you need to separate those two!

 

Right to reply as you are seeing it there is a law term when damages are done or could be done.  We are talking about ethics and mixed in to it laws, doesn't work that way, ethics are ethics, law is law.

 

If you want to know the differences between law and ethics.  Law is black and white whats on the paper, ethics is doing the right thing based on all information available.

 

http://www.mediahelpingmedia.org/training-resources/editorial-ethics/239-fairness-in-journalism

 

That is ethics right to reply.

 

Here is bbc's UK right to reply Ethical standards

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply/guidance-full

 

there is a big difference to what you posted which is the letter of the law vs what ethical right to reply is.

 

 

further more BBC uses the Right to Reply as a fact checking method prior to publishing or broadcasting the piece

 

 

 

This has been common practice for at least a century now in journalism ethics.

I don't know what's wrong with you that you don't get this but you literally did nothing with this post other then make yourself look stupid:

 

It's not a LAW it's a guideline. You can read over the material yourself but their's a difference between laws and these recommendations. Hers's more of the same if want to look further: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016804b2fa2

 

Your first link doesn't agree with your assertion that the right of reply comes before publishing.

 

I already said some business have their own standards and can't be placed on independent parties. But even your own reference doesn't match your ideal.

 

Quote

Formats for a Right of Reply

There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take.

Timing

Providing a fair opportunity to reply to allegations requires providing enough time to make a response.

There is no set amount of time that must be given. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code simply states that the subjects of significant allegations must be given a "timely opportunity to respond".

The amount of time that is fair will change according to circumstances, including:

• the nature and complexity of the allegations. More detailed and complex allegations may require longer time for a response
• whether or not the allegations were already familiar to the subject of them. Detailed case studies that are completely new to the subject of an allegation may require more time to be thoroughly researched and responded to than cases or complaints that they are already familiar with
• the nature of the subject and their resources. With all other factors being equal, a large corporation with a sizable PR operation may be expected to respond quicker than a small business with just a few employees or an individual.
• whether there is a pressing need to broadcast in the public interest, for example because the reporting of allegations is likely to be frustrated by any delay, or because of the requirements of contemporaneous reporting.

And I've already covered my opinion on how some media orgs treat reaching out for comment in this thread. So please stop with this dumb idea people keep spreading.

[Razor01]

14 minutes ago, PopReference said:

I don't know what's wrong with you that you don't get this but you literally did nothing with this post other then make yourself look stupid:

 

It's not a LAW it's a guideline. You can read over the material yourself but their's a difference between laws and these recommendations. Hers's more of the same if want to look further: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016804b2fa2

 

Your first link doesn't agree with your assertion that the right of reply comes before publishing.

 

I already said some business have their own standards and can't be placed on independent parties. But even your own reference doesn't match your ideal.

 

And I've already covered my opinion on how some media orgs treat reaching out for comment in this thread. So please stop with this dumb idea people keep spreading.

 

And is this a life threatening or criminal act that he must report without doing a notice of reply first?  Would Adored be put into a situation where its life threatening or his journalistic integrity be diminished by not giving a right of reply prior to release of the video.  No on both accounts, so he went over the line of ethics.  Simple as that.  Ethics are what he thinks is correct to do.  And in this case he is not correct in thinking someone is going to get hurt or Pcper was doing something negligent that would cause them to become a criminal.  It is impossible to support anything he did in this situation, because any journalist with experience will tell you that they wouldn't have done such things without a notice of reply.  How many publications or broadcasts have you read or heard, the party involved had no comment.  Or gave reasons to why something was done.  I have heard hundreds, if not thousands.  If everyone is doing this, why shouldn't adored do it, or why didn't he do it?  Why, simple Adored only cares about one thing, hits to his videos.  He doesn't give a shit about consumers. he doesn't care about ethics.  He doesn't give a shit about who he tramples to get his views and subs.  This is the same thing Charlie did at a whole new scale.  We don't need another Charlie or Semi-acccurate.

 

Ethical guidelines for almost all journalists are higher standards than the letter of the law.  Jim wants other journalists be ethical, he better be damn well too.  If you want crack pot sensationalism, go under an umbrella and prey to Adored, he will give it to you by the buckets.

 

You don't want to be responded to, then don't post at all, this is a public forum expect you will get responded to if you post.  Fair enough?

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

This is unethical, regardless of whether each piece was still "objective".

 

We definitely agree on this. Though PCPer definitely lost respect from me when they hid the disclaimer at the bottom of a multi page review. First page, at the top, very beginning. It's not rocket science.

 

I think the issue here is that what constitutes an ethical behaviour is subjective.  For many people Ryan has made no secret of his work for Intel or that he uses information gained from said business, at worst for these people the lack of a disclaimer was merely an oversight.  For others it is the end of their respect for PCper.   Either way what is ethical to one person is not to another.

 

I don't think I have seen anyone here actually say that there shouldn't have been a disclaimer,  But the heated debate over what constitutes unethical behaviour and given some people don't see the hypocrisy,  that should be concerning.  Because we should treat all journalists the same, if Pcper can't be trusted for failing to disclose the white paper then adoredtv should also be distrusted for making erroneous claims regarding pcper's articles on freesync.   Consistency in how people behave tells us more about their ethics than one or two instances that could just as easily be chalked up to error (not saying it was an error, just saying we can't discount it was). 

 

For me, payments to a reviewer that serve no obvious purpose and are hidden by all parties are unethical if not disclosed for what they are ( I don;t think many would argue they aren't).  however failing to specifically disclose a business arrangement that serves a specific purpose and is not hidden (but actively talked about and promoted on same channel/website and linkedIN profiles) is not so much about ethics but more about failing to cross the t's and dot the i's.    I just can't see Ryann,  who's job relies on a reputation for accuracy and honesty, willingly risk it over such an obvious omission.  I mean they have nothing to lose and only more to gain by bragging about doing the validation work.

 

Had pcper been smaller and needing to take a risk to get their foot in the door then I could buy it was intentionally unethical,  but let's be realistic, by the time you get to the stage where Intel is hiring you to do their whitepapers and independent validation then you are not really a small timer.     

 

[PopReference]

23 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

And is this a life threatening or criminal act that he must report without doing a notice of reply first?  Would Adored be put into a situation where its life threatening or his journalistic integrity be diminished by not giving a right of reply prior to release of the video.  No on both accounts, so he went over the line of ethics.  Simple as that.  Ethics are what he thinks is correct to do.  And in this case he is not correct in thinking someone is going to get hurt or Pcper was doing something negligent that would cause them to become a criminal.  It is impossible to support anything he did in this situation, because any journalist with experience will tell you that they wouldn't have done such things without a notice of reply.  How many publications or broadcasts have you read or heard, the party involved had no comment.  Or gave reasons to why something was done.  I have heard hundreds, if not thousands.  If everyone is doing this, why shouldn't adored do it, or why didn't he do it?  Why, simple Adored only cares about one thing, hits to his videos.  He doesn't give a shit about consumers. he doesn't care about ethics.  He doesn't give a shit about who he tramples to get his views and subs.  This is the same thing Charlie did at a whole new scale.  We don't need another Charlie or Semi-acccurate.

 

Ethical guidelines for almost all journalists are higher standards than the letter of the law.  Jim wants other journalists be ethical, he better be damn well too.  If you want crack pot sensationalism, go under an umbrella and prey to Adored, he will give it to you by the buckets.

 

You don't want to be responded to, then don't post at all, this is a public forum expect you will get responded to if you post.  Fair enough?

What is your problem? You read like you're freaking out over nothing. The medium did not need to reach out for comment before posting, that is it. The medium posted the received reply in the same place. Done.

 

If you care about ethics at all why not read, and understand, those links you sent me earlier and compare them to the behavior of Ryan and Allyn before just imagining the motives for anyone else first. You're no moral arbiter for me, just focus on the reality of the situation.

 

and please don't freak out at me just because you might be wrong

[Razor01]

26 minutes ago, PopReference said:

What is your problem? You read like you're freaking out over nothing. The medium did not need to reach out for comment before posting, that is it. The medium posted the received reply in the same place. Done.

 

If you care about ethics at all why not read, and understand, those links you sent me earlier and compare them to the behavior of Ryan and Allyn before just imagining the motives for anyone else first. You're no moral arbiter for me, just focus on the reality of the situation.

 

and please don't freak out at me just because you might be wrong

 

 

I'm not freaking out, if you feel I'm saying something too forceful, that is your feelings.  Sorry to have freaked you out lol.

 

I'm not the one who stated don't reply to me did I?  You responded to me with agitation after I pointed out what others in the journalistic circles are doing.  That is, their moral obligations are higher than what you linked to, which was the letter of the law.  You didn't like that, and stated you already know about those things, yet you circumvent the issue as if I'm freaking out.  No, no no.  don't try to shift this away from what you said to my replies are bad, I not calling you any names, or flaming you just having a discussion with you.  What you just did is what a person does when they are uncomfortable with a person that presents something that is tangible against their statements and does not know how to react because now they are in a corner.  Its not my problem, even though I talked about it because the other person responded to me.  Don't try that with me.  You aren't going to get far.

 

Ryan and Allyn, I have already stated they should have written a disclaimer, but since they didn't they must be given a chance to explain themselves, why they didn't, this is the same ethical reasoning Adored should adhere to, yet he forced the issue on Pcper instead of asking them to make the corrections first. 

 

Go through Adored's videos and see how many times he has made mistakes, write them all down and then ask him to correct them all.  See how he will respond to you.  Do just one of his videos this one we are talking about right now, and see if he will retract the accusations that were false?  You think Pcper is the villain here, so when Adored makes a mistake just like Pcper did, you should keep it equal right?  if Adored does the same mistakes or similar mistakes you should vilify him too right?

 

Ryan had no qualms about updating the article with the disclaimers.  If there was anything shady going on, he would not have done so correct?  Or are you going to argue that this is something I stated too?  The disclaimers are there now, some people may not be happy they are at the end of the article but guess what, ever commercial I have watched in the past decade, they are at the end of them.  So maybe that is why its at the end. 

 

Now lets go to the other two accusations that were false.  At the moment of sending out a right to reply, those two accusations would have been squashed.  Adored would not have made those mistakes.  As I stated it goes both ways, protecting both parties involved.

[PopReference]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

I'm not freaking out, if you feel I'm saying something too forceful, that is your feelings.  Sorry to have freaked you out lol.

 

I'm not the one who stated don't reply to me did I?  You responded to me with agitation after I pointed out what others in the journalistic circles are doing.  That is, their moral obligations are higher than what you linked to.  You didn't like that, and stated you already know about those things, yet you circumvent the issue as if I'm freaking out.  No, no no.  don't try to shift this away from what you did on to me.  That is what a person does when they are uncomfortable with a person that presents something that is tangible against their statements and does not know how to react because now they are in a corner.  Its not my problem, even though I talked about it because the other person responded to me.  Don't try that with me.  You aren't going to get far.

 

Ryan and Allyn, I have already stated they should have written a disclaimer, but since they didn't they must be given a chance to explain themselves, why they didn't, this is the same ethical reasoning Adored should adhere too.  Ryan had no qualms about updating the article with the disclaimers.  If there was anything shady going on, he would not have done so correct?  Or are you going to argue that this is something I stated too?  The disclaimers are there.

 

Now lets go to the other two accusations that were false.  At the moment of sending out a right to reply, those two accusations would have been squashed.  Adored would not have made those mistakes.  As I stated it goes both ways, protecting both parties involved.

1 hour ago, PopReference said:

I don't know what's wrong with you that you don't get this but you literally did nothing with this post other then make yourself look stupid:

 

It's not a LAW it's a guideline. You can read over the material yourself but their's a difference between laws and these recommendations. Hers's more of the same if want to look further: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016804b2fa2

 

Your first link doesn't agree with your assertion that the right of reply comes before publishing.

 

I already said some business have their own standards and can't be placed on independent parties. But even your own reference doesn't match your ideal.

1 hour ago, PopReference said:

Formats for a Right of Reply

There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take.

Timing

Providing a fair opportunity to reply to allegations requires providing enough time to make a response.

There is no set amount of time that must be given. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code simply states that the subjects of significant allegations must be given a "timely opportunity to respond".

The amount of time that is fair will change according to circumstances, including:

• the nature and complexity of the allegations. More detailed and complex allegations may require longer time for a response
• whether or not the allegations were already familiar to the subject of them. Detailed case studies that are completely new to the subject of an allegation may require more time to be thoroughly researched and responded to than cases or complaints that they are already familiar with
• the nature of the subject and their resources. With all other factors being equal, a large corporation with a sizable PR operation may be expected to respond quicker than a small business with just a few employees or an individual.
• whether there is a pressing need to broadcast in the public interest, for example because the reporting of allegations is likely to be frustrated by any delay, or because of the requirements of contemporaneous reporting.

And I've already covered my opinion on how some media orgs treat reaching out for comment in this thread. So please stop with this dumb idea people keep spreading.

 

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, PopReference said:

 

your quotes are messed up or you have no response....

 

you do realize who the Committee of Ministers are right?  They work with parliaments across the world to create the laws in each country that is part of them.  Yeah what you linked to is laws they have created, each country that is part if this committee have their own but use these as their guidelines.  These guidelines are for international laws.

 

[PopReference]

On 1/30/2018 at 10:05 PM, Razor01 said:

your quotes are messed up or you have no response....

 

you do realize who the Committee of Ministers are right?  They work with parliaments across the world to create the laws in each country that is part of them.  Yeah what you linked to is laws they have created, each country that is part if this committee have their own but use these as their guidelines.

 

yeah I think it ate my stuff I'll try and fix it.

 

If it's a law I guess you can convict adored for breaking it, lol.

 

Whatever, my last post got lost in the LTT cracks.

@Razor01

Basically, I think you're writing is strange at best and you're not making good points.

 

If you want to talk details about what AdoredTV got wrong, please do I wont care to comment.

 

My only problem was this right of reply stuff and how people keep making up their own ideas about it and their wrong. Also the points from my previous post weren't addressed.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, PopReference said:

yeah I think it ate my stuff I'll try and fix it.

 

If it's a law I guess you can convict adored for breaking it, lol.

cool np.

 

It not a convicitable offense unless damage is done, which I serious doubt anyone would go that far lol.

 

I just want to see Adored do the same things he preaches. every single video he has posted thus far has far worse mistakes than what Pcper did.  Adored has made so many mistakes about how these companies are run and how these products are made, basing his conclusions off of erroneous methodologies. 

 

He can't be a preacher and trash others while not taking the high road and giving a chance to the other media outlets he talks about.  Just doesn't work that way.

Its like me trying to make you look like an ahole for a typo.  That's not fair

 

Typo's happen, mistakes and oversights happen, its not a perfect world, neither you nor I are perfect or anyone in this world for that matter.  If we can't give people a chance to change a mistake, if it was a true mistake, everyone will be a convict.

[dalekphalm]

25 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

cool np.

 

It not a convicitable offense unless damage is done, which I serious doubt anyone would go that far lol.

 

I just want to see Adored do the same things he preaches. every single video he has posted thus far has far worse mistakes than what Pcper did.  Adored has made so many mistakes about how these companies are run and how these products are made, basing his conclusions off of erroneous methodologies. 

 

He can't be a preacher and trash others while not taking the high road and giving a chance to the other media outlets he talks about.  Just doesn't work that way.

Its like me trying to make you look like an ahole for a typo.  That's not fair

 

Typo's happen, mistakes and oversights happen, its not a perfect world, neither you nor I are perfect or anyone in this world for that matter.  If we can't give people a chance to change a mistake, if it was a true mistake, everyone will be a convict.

If you want to hold AdoredTV accountable for their own ethics violations? That's cool. In fact, I applaud that, and encourage you to do so.

 

I have no stake in AdoredTV. I don't subscribe to them, or watch their channel.

 

What I do not like, though, is how people are outright dismissing the issue with PCPer and the disclaimer, simply because AdoredTV also seems to not follow proper journalistic ethics (not to mention a lot of people seem to outright dislike Jim).

 

Both parties can be wrong at the same time.

 

Now, with that in mind, is PCPer and Ryan, et al, intentionally violating ethics? I don't think so. I don't think there's anything intentionally malicious about their actions.

 

But violating ethics does not require intentional malice.

 

Furthermore, the idea that putting the disclaimer at the end is okay because that's what commercials do? That's kind of unusual, and I personally don't think that's an apples to apples comparison.

 

If this were a single page review, or a short video, that might be effective. But if the review is eleven (11) pages long, putting it at the end is at least somewhat disingenuous.

 

A disclaimer needs to be effective, for it to have any point. If someone isn't going to see the disclaimer, due to being placed in an inconvenient place, then why bother with it at all?

 

Others may disagree with this, and that's their right. This is simply my opinion, after all, but I do feel quite strongly that the position and content of the disclaimer is, quite simply, insufficient.

 

I'm sure PCPer will continue to put out quality content, but this has definitely affected my opinion of them negatively.

 

Does AdoredTV share some blame in causing that negative opinion? Only in so much as that it pointed out the situation to me. However, I never held a high or respected opinion of AdoredTV to begin with - so the claims that they also acted unethically are of no importance to me. They should be held to the same standards, of course, but since I don't give a shit about them in even the tiniest amount, it's simply not worth my effort to challenge them on it.

 

I'll leave that to others, who seem quite hung-ho about making sure AdoredTV "knows they were wrong".

 

For me, personally, PCPer could "resolve" the ethical situation in two ways:

1. Issue a formal apology for not putting a disclaimer in the review at first. - somewhat satisfied due to a public statement in which they acknowledge that a lack of disclaimer was in error

2. Modify the disclaimer in two ways:

2.a: Move the location of the disclaimer to the beginning of the review.

2.b: Adjust the language of the disclaimer to make it clear that Allyn wrote both the review, and the paid-for white paper, that was commissioned and paid by Intel.

 

If they did these two things, I would consider restitution 100% complete, and they would have my full and utmost respect again.

 

Though as I said earlier, I do not expect this to happen.

 

Edit: Just an update. I have read Ryan's public statement on Reddit. It's kind of an apology. They say they made an error in not putting a disclaimer, and they state that future reviews will try to be more clear about these things. I'd suggest that this fulfills requirement #1 for me, in how PCPer can make restitution.

 

They're at least halfway there. Though PCPer has made no indication they will modify the disclaimer wording, nor it's position.

[Razor01]

I can get behind that, an I agree with pretty much everything you stated. 

 

The concern about people hating Jim outright.  Its because of his attitude towards people, reviewers, that don't align with his way of thinking.  Jim has behaved this way to many others on other forums.  I remember the days he posted over at anandtech that was comical.  Hardware Unboxed and him went at it too because of comments he made in one of his videos sometime last year.  What he just did was not an isolated incident, its reoccurring in many different venues its not even ethics at this point.

 

Tell me this lets say you reviewed a product and had your methodologies or just making a random rumor article or video, that you thought were sound and fair.  But another youtuber comes along and bashes you on his channel for thinking a certain way because of how you wrote something or said something to this affect, I don't know why he said it that way because it makes no sense because this is how it really is.  Yes Jim has said things like this about anandtech, guru3d and others in his videos, while what he stated was wrong.  How the hell can all these sites be messed up lol when he himself gives explanations that are not based in reality.  And people believe him? He shouldn't be given an ounce of support for anything he does, even if its correct for him to do so.  Because he then takes that one good thing to justify everything he does.  That doesn't mean he should be condemned even if he does something good.  Just leave it as it is, because so far negative feed back hasn't worked with him.  Positive feed back made his head balloon to go down the route he just did with PCper.  He is a walking, talking path of destruction who only cares about himself.