<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on A note about editorial ethics and product reviews ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-20T05:31:58-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I have only seen the]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3538529]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[end of it! ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3538529]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Bundy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:24:07 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Correcting...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537990]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;I fear Big Brother&quot; to &quot;I love Big Brother&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537990]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:07:17 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Soon followed by Autocontent - and then every post we read is a turing test]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537647]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sooner or later they'll have semantic match checking, as a spin-off of Machine Translation. After all, the first step of translating something, is to understand the meaning.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537647]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:56:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Suddenly . . .]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537552]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I fear the appearance of &quot;culture context check&quot; features in word processor applications, to go with &quot;spell check&quot; and &quot;grammar check&quot; features.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537552]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:50:19 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It was...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537466]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... more about britches than bridges, wasn't it?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537466]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:26:21 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Spell check isn't much help for that...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537458]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[since breech is spelled correctly, even if it's the wrong word.BTW, have you seen that movie, &quot;The britches of Madison County?&quot;  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537458]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:43:22 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[true, that]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537350]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[About half of good engineering is removing impediments.  About another half is automation.  Automation already exists by default, in spades, in an economic market; all that remains is removing impediments.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537350]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:10:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Often what constitutes good engineering...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537225]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... is removing impediments.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537225]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:14:32 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That's my experience as well]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537073]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[NTJ.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3537073]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 06:46:49 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[conflicts of interest . . .]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536868]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The subject of conflicts of interest is one of keen interest to me, as a bit of an ethical theorist and economic engineer at heart.  The &quot;economic engineer&quot; part might sound odd, coming from a free market economic individualist, but there it is.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536868]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:21:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[yep]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536893]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That's my experience, too.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536893]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:20:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I'll speak for me.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536867]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have never been asked to do so, either -- and, like you, I don't pay attention to who advertises with TR, though right now I see an IBM ad, and I vaguely recall having seen some Microsoft ads.  Anyone who thinks I'm taking money to give Microsoft positive reviews hasn't been reading very closely, anyway.In about half a dozen years of writing literally hundreds of articles for TechRepublic (edit: averaging something like one every 4.5 days -- more often toward the end, less often toward the beginning), my experience with regard to reviews and expressing my own views has not varied one whit from what you describe.  The few times I have been asked to alter the content and views in my articles, there have been zero correlations with any vendors, products, or service providers that I discerned.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536867]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:16:04 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I can't speak for everyone]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536762]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But as a writer for TechRepublic, I have never been asked by anyone in TechRepublic to favor one view over another or to color the facts in any way.  I don't even know who advertises with TechRepublic.  My editor corrects my mistakes, but she doesn't alter the meaning of my articles at all.  I feel free to call things as I see them -- if I didn't, I wouldn't continue writing for them.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536762]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:47:51 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That's a pretty good idea.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536784]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I bet a lot of generally ethical companies would be happy to pay for frank public reviews of their products, but if they pay someone directly they could never be sure of objectivity, no matter how much they insist on it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536784]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:37:41 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Just to be clear]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536771]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[TechRepublic writers are paid to do product reviews -- but they're paid by TechRepublic (CBS Interactive), not the product's vendor.  That should mean that the market pressure of that payment is directed towards producing a fine journalistic result, rather than trying to sell the product.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536771]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:32:59 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[funding firewall]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536698]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think a funding firewall, aka &quot;Chinese wall&quot;, approach to funding product testing might work reasonably well.  A middleman organization constituted to fund in-depth product testing and reviews could be chartered to direct no more than, say, 40% of its testing and review funding toward vendor-requested reviews.  All review directives offered to testers would be given in the same format with the same requirements and rates according to a standard, vendor-neutral funding schedule.  Funding sources could be kept confidential (including keeping them secret from testers/reviewers) for a period of eighteen months, then publicly declared, to maintain the funding firewall.  Thus, vendors could fund the organization for the purpose of getting independent, in-depth testing and reviewing performed and published.It might be worthwhile to the vendors for the simple fact that &quot;there's no such thing as bad press,&quot; at least in cases where there's basically no mindshare for the product in question at all.Someone should be paying me for advice on innovative business models.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536698]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:45:35 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wow. Geez. Gah.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536180]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Those are some pretty interesting facts. I hadn't mentioned it before, but I had been wondering what the  employer might be getting out of a review even if the reviewer doesn't receive any inducement other than the employer directing them to review the product.  What you have noted can certainly lead to the reviewer/reporter's (well, all of them, as a class) integrity being suspect, which just further motivates me to question the ethics of the publisher as well.Oddly enough, I can see someone accepting money to take the time to thoroughly review a product, especially if they are an expert, and wouldn't have otherwise examined the item. IOW, being paid for their time as a tester rather than getting a fistful of nickels for an article. But that should be fully disclosed ahead of time, and neutrality would still be suspect anyway.  I mean serious testing of a complex product here, not &quot;My impression after playing with the iPhone 5 for two days&quot;.  Yet this sort of thing is still better served by independent funding of the researcher, rather than payment from the vendor, and certainly not in sly perks.Really though, even if you have a few people that you've come to trust and respect for such reviews, everything should be suspect until you can confirm information and compare opinions from other sources.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536180]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[seanferd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:51:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The &quot;shill&quot; comments...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536124]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... are the only comments that rankle me. I've had the same experience, where in successive weeks I've been accused of &quot;shilling&quot; for Microsoft and Apple, or Microsoft and Google, or whatever bizarre pairing of competitors, because I had the audacity to say something nice or negative about a product... and I try my best to only use non-opinion, provable statements (and mark opinions as such).That said, I've discovered a few things about disclosure. First, disclosures tend to not be as obvious as you and I make them. I know too many writers who feel that a tiny link buried in their bio is ample disclosure, knowing full well that no one will ever see it. Secondly, many writers don't disclose everything. I know for a *fact* (because they told me directly) that there are writers who have accepted trips from vendors to go to conferences and conventions but do not feel the need to disclose it when writing about those conferences and conventions, because no money exchanged hands... never mind the fact that the travel and accommodations expenses the vendor covered were valued at hundreds if not thousands of dollars. To me, that is completely unacceptable. And sadly, that seems to be common practice for vendors. In the last few years, I've received countless offers of trips (not just free entry to a convention as a reporter, but the travel/lodging fees on the vendor's dime... some were even overseas trips!).Lately though, I've had a number of offers of outright payment to write articles. It is always couched in some sort of indirect language that is designed for you to not feel like they are bribing you. I understand it; in an increasingly crowded and noisy environment, it is hard to get attention and a few reviews on sites like TechRepublic can make or break a product or a company. At the same time, any company that chooses to do business like this is one that I am immediately cautious about. How many other reviews in the press of their products were compensated? Are their astroturf blog posts about them? What other business practices do they cut corners on? Etc.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536124]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:59:18 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Don't be sorry ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536068]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I appreciate any help I can get! You are correct and as it was late and I was tired I can't even blame spell check on this one... ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536068]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Bundy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:35:42 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Breech?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536028]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sorry to be pedantic, but I think the word we mean to use is &quot;breach.&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354588-3536028]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[stevec@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:45:40 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

