Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961011104232.00665a98@mailhost.mnsinc.com> > I attended a seminar at Photopro in Washington D.C. this spring where > the > speaker rather passionately explained how he was no longer welcome to > contribute to a couple of unspecified magazines for which he had been a > regular. The reason was he had been publicly critical of the products > of a > key advertiser. Given the large number of ads in the popular photo > mags it > is unfortunate but not surprising that their editorial policy is heavily > influenced by advertisers. It does happen, but not in a magazine who's editor has a grasp of the realities of editing a publication in the long term. I have never been asked to remove negative comments from a review, though I have written reviews which caused editors to receive flack and threats of litigation from the suppliers. In every case the editor stood by me, and the company backed down (because the comments were true). In one case a review sealed the fate of a UK made computer (in the opinion of other IT journos, and the MD of the company, who has since agreed with me about my view of its faults), though interestingly in that case the company *didn't* make a fuss. But you have to remember that a negative review is *much* harder to write for precicely these reasons. You have to check and double check that a fault is really there, that it's present on more than one example (hard if the subject of the review is in short supply), and you have to document everything in order to have a defence if they come after you in law. And all this for UKP200 (or less) per 1000 words... dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk | "The loss of an old man david@cassandra.compulink.co.uk | is like the destruction Kilburn, London, England. | of a library"