View Full Version : Libel and you
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 12:02
**Moved to the general section**
Hello there,
As I am still a member of this forum, I thought I'd have to post my reasons for removing myself from a recent thread, and as it stands why I have to distance myself from this forum.
Journalists are often trained in libel law. Many of us have a heightened and perhaps enlarged sense of what can be considered actionable, and know the outcome of those actions. For the record, I was first trained in libel in the mid-1990s as a result of the Walker Wingsail Systems vs. Yachting World lawsuit (damages £1.5m + costs), and followed a series of substantial out-of-court settlements.
Put simply, libel is the publication of statements that exposes a person to injury or ridicule in the eyes of reasonable people.
A statement made that potentially damages the reputation of a person, or the office that person holds, or a company, are not libelous if the statement is true and thereby justified and fair comment. However the onus is on the person making the statement to demonstrate justification.
'True' in this context does not allow for 'a man in the pub told me' arguments. It doesn't even allow for 'I know it because everyone knows it' arguments... if you lack first-hand, documented statements that defend your position, the statement is defamatory. Although the defense that the statement was made in 'good faith' and 'reasonable belief' that the statement was true can be used, mistake of fact is very difficult to prove if you are stating supposition as fact.
Group defamation is usually harder to prosecute; if you say "all journalists are corrupt", those reasonable people cannot identify a specific group of journalists you are attempting to defame. Saying "the team at Shopping Bag Aficionado are idiots" is a group defamation, but again unlikely to be considered defamation because the opinion could be considered fair comment. However, saying "the editor of Shopping Bag Aficionado is corrupt" impugns both the position and the character of person holding that position and is potentially actionable.
Incidentally, suggesting a person is lax in the execution of their job without evidence to confirm that suggestion is one of the most common 'accidental' libels (the most common is 'getting it a bit wrong' - if someone has 15 convictions for robbery, but is on trial for armed robbery, calling them an 'armed robber' before conviction will land you in court... even if they are subsequently convicted for armed robbery). If you say 'the reviewer at Shopping Bag Aficionado got it wrong'... that's opinion and fair comment. Even saying 'the reviewer at Shopping Bag Aficionado got it wrong because he never opened the bag' demands evidence (the unopened bag).
Quoting a defamatory statement, even to quash that rumour, or to show both sides of an argument, usually ends up being just as defamatory.
As an editor of a consumer magazine, I have to distance myself from any such potential actionable statements, because they travel upstream, cause a lot of collateral damage and are also breathtakingly expensive. Having been through it once (even at one remove), I have no intention of repeating the experience, especially based on the actions of a third party.
As I also have no desire to see someone end up losing their house or business over making ill-conceived statements, I'm making this post.
I urge everyone to remember that publishing online is still publishing and if a statement is posted on a forum, it can be read by a reasonable person who is not a member of this forum simply by putting the right terms into a search engine.
If you want to know more (and I think you should), I recommend this site:
http://www.aubi06.dsl.pipex.com/law/libelcheck.shtml
Finally, if in the unlikely event that a magazine called Shopping Bag Aficionado exists, I apologise unreservedly for any unintentional slight on the unimpeachable reputation of the editorial staff of that fine (if probably imaginary) magazine. In my defense, I made a comprehensive search prior to producing examples and found that no such magazine currently exists.
In my defense, I made a comprehensive search prior to producing examples and found that no such magazine currently exists.
The word is 'defence' . You are clearly a US imposter and not the real Alan Sircom.
But seriously, sound points all. Especially that the burden of proof is on the person making the defamatory statement. I guess AoS chances at a libel trial would depend on whether the jury were subjectivists or objectivists.
'Members of the jury, I put it to you that all cables sound exactly the same' (outrage in the public gallery; a female juror faints).
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 14:15
The AOS position
Defamatory comments against the hi-fi trade and this includes magazines are actually against our ethos as it is written.
It is our belief that a mistake may have been made with one particular review and one that WHF themselves seem willing to address. Beyond such mistake, which may not even be the fault of the magazine, for example if there was a fault with the review sample as a result of damage in transit, we have no reason to believe that any foul play has taken place.
Indeed there are too many unsubstantiated rumours running up and down the hi-fi gossip grapevine and some of these rumours have made their way in our direction when we so much as dare to wax lyrical about a product that we happen to use.
In future it will be reasonable to work within the spirit of our ethos as it has existed since the beginning and not make any defamatory comments about the motives of anyone in the hi-fi trade even with irrefutable proof. We can comment on given product or given methodology as we see or hear it but that's the full extent of anything remotely negative we may wish to say.
Certainly from the perspective of AOS and its admin, it's a case of people in glass houses...
Hi Alan,
Thanks for commenting and explaining the position with regard to libel. I understand and accept what you have said.
I have edited my original remark on the WHF thread, whilst still retaining the essence of the point I was making, as I do feel strongly about this. However, if you consider that there still exists anything written which is in fact libellous then please direct me to it and I will look into it accordingly.
My (personal) position on this situation though is quite clear:
I abhor corruption of any description in life, and in this instance, the notion (let's put it that way) of the results of equipment or cable reviews in hi-fi magazines being artificially influenced, either positively or negatively, as a result of commercial bias, favouritism through personal relationships with suppliers and manufacturers, 'funny handshakes', or however you wish to put it. I don’t think this is all that happened in the instance of the Mark Grant cable review in WHF, but I do feel it was a factor, along with a simple lack of professionalism and a significant degree of ineptitude on the part of the staff at WHF.
Whether you care to admit it or not (and I completely understand why you wouldn't), 'inappropriate behaviour' *does* occur in the industry and in business in general. To deny it exists, in my opinion, is to live in cloud-cuckoo land - and more importantly, brushing it under the carpet to protect the interests of certain companies or individuals is not what I'm about or (in this instance) AOS.
Therefore as co-owner of this forum I'm in a position of influence to expose situations in the industry which I feel are, shall we say, 'not whiter than white', and I will continue to do so whenever I feel that it is appropriate, although what I will do in future is stop short of actually accusing someone of being 'bent'. I would apologise for that.
Thing is, last night you were being rather stubborn by firmly putting your 'I'm and editor of a hi-fi magazine' hat on, and in some ways, rather irrationally (although understandably) defending the interests of your fellow reviewers/editors elsewhere to the detriment of getting to the heart of the problem - namely that the review of the Mark Grant G1000HDs was at best 'badly judged', and it was this that I found frustrating and which prompted me to make my remark.
Anyway, if you've chosen to distance yourself from AOS for the reasons you've outlined then I respect that and am of course sad to see you go. I do enjoy reading much of what you write both on forums and in your magazine, as you're a knowledgeable and intelligent writer and also what seems like a nice chap.
However, at the same time I cannot allow my respect and admiration for you as a person and hi-fi magazine editor to get in the way of doing what I think is right by exposing the 'corruption' that exists in certain areas of the industry and my desire to defend the interests of the 'underdog', or in this case small business. I feel very strongly about this and so unfortunately I must prioritise sticking up for what I believe is right over appeasing your personal sensibilities or those of any other magazine editor.
I'm afraid that's the cold hard facts of the situation. However, should you decide it inappropriate to continue contributing here then I respect your decision and wish you well for the future. I hope you can succeed in turning around a magazine (Hi-fi+) that in my opinion is a pale imitation of its former self, so best of luck with that and I hope there are no hard feelings! :cool:
Regards,
Marco.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 14:46
I abhor corruption of any description in life, and in this instance, the notion (let's put it that way) of the results of reviews of equipment or cables in any hi-fi magazine being artificially influenced, either positively or negatively, as a result of commercial bias, favouritism through personal relationships with suppliers and manufacturers, 'funny handshakes', or however you wish to put it. I don’t think that’s all that happened in the instance of the Mark Grant cable review in WHF, but I do feel it was a factor, along with a simple lack of professionalism and a significant degree of ineptitude on the part of the staff at WHF.
I think the correct way to approach this is to question the methodology and indeed challenge what is written but stop short of making any accusations of foul play. If you do the first two with a degree of thoroughness people are left to make their own minds up about the latter.
Filterlab
18-02-2010, 14:59
I believe that in this country we have free speech and free opinion. If we share these opinions in a public domain we are not liable for libel. Isn't that the cornerstone of democracy?
A forum is opinions and nothing else.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 15:01
I guess as long as it is expressed as an opinion and not a defamatory accusation you are ok.
'I believe that in this country we have free speech and free opinion. If we share these opinions in a public domain we are not liable for libel. Isn't that the cornerstone of democracy?'
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the law relating to libel if you believe that.
Making a statement that reflects adversely on another person's honesty and/or competence to do their job is libellous unless you can prove that they have been dishonest and/or incompetent. The UK libel laws are amongst the toughest in the world.
I guess as long as it is expressed as an opinion and not a defamatory accusation you are ok.
You don't want to be 'guessing' where the law is concerned.
It's OK to say a review is wrong. It's OK to say that you fundamentally disagree with the review. It's not OK to say, or even imply, or repeat someone else's words to the effect that the reviewer or magazine is corrupt, or that the reviewer is incompetent, unless you have proof.
Filterlab
18-02-2010, 15:12
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the law relating to libel if you believe that.
Making a statement that reflects adversely on another person's honesty and/or competence to do their job is libellous unless you can prove that they have been dishonest and/or incompetent. The UK libel laws are amongst the toughest in the world.
I'm not talking about libel law, it doesn't apply in this case. I read through the thread in question, and the comments are written as opinions and personal thoughts. For an organisation to bring legal action against a forum thread would be laughed out of a lawyers office long before we were all sued. As individuals we would have huge defence from a freedom of speech standpoint, as opinions can be aired on a public forum.
Find me a libellous comment on the thread, one that would make Haymarket actually decide to take very costly and time consuming legal action.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 15:14
Joe, you just did, repeat someone's words....
I would never say a reviewer was incompetent but I'd feel comfortable in saying that a particular review was flawed and was therefore not written competently.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 15:16
It is worth noting that this particular thread has stood the test of time:
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48019385/m/5371956252/p/1
You should read up on some of the libel cases reported by Private Eye. Publishers and authors are sued, or subjected to injunctions all the time for expressing opinions, which have in many cases been quite safely published in the USA and other countries. That's why the UK gets lots of 'libel tourists'.
See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898172.ece for an example of this.
I doubt that WHF would sue, because it would backfire on them if they did, but don't go thinking that if you preface a remark 'in my opinion' it protects you from the libel laws. Imagine if you wrote 'In my opinion person X is a child abuser'. Do you think the 'in my opinion' bit removes the libel?
Hi Joe,
I sympathise with your view in the strictest sense (as indeed Alan outlined earlier), however if I wish to imply (with very good reason) that I think someone or something is corrupt then I shall do so and accept the consequences, if indeed in this instance there are any.
I'm sure that if I looked into things in sufficient detail I could find sufficient evidence to confirm my accusations...;) This sort of thing is rife in business (not just in the hi-fi industry), so I'm afraid that we have to face up to reality. I wouldn't say these things if I didn't feel very strongly they existed.
The fact is that some things in life *are* indeed corrupt, and it is necessary to expose them for the benefit of public knowledge. This is exactly what I will do, and use the voice I have here to showcase what I consider are rather 'jaundiced' magazine reviews or anything else of a similar unjustly biased nature :)
Marco.
Filterlab
18-02-2010, 15:22
Imagine if you wrote 'In my opinion person X is a child abuser'. Do you think the 'in my opinion' bit removes the libel?
Legally it puts it straight into a grey area, as it's an opinion.
Private Eye may well be getting sued all the time, but then again they sue all the time, it's part of their game.
Joe, you just did, repeat someone's words....
I would never say a reviewer was incompetent but I'd feel comfortable in saying that a particular review was flawed and was therefore not written competently.
That's OK, because you're questioning the methodology of a particular review rather than the reviewer's competence.
Another example in times gone by was an actress who succesfully sued a critic who wrote that she 'couldn't act'. If he'd limited his observations to the one performance ('Ms X's performance in this role left a lot to be desired')he'd have been OK.
Legally it puts it straight into a grey area, as it's an opinion.
Private Eye may well be getting sued all the time, but then again they sue all the time, it's part of their game.
I don't recall Private Eye ever suing anyone.
Filterlab
18-02-2010, 15:28
I don't recall Private Eye ever suing anyone.
Do you work for their legal department?
Filterlab
18-02-2010, 15:38
No. Do you?
No, but one of our clients works with them on their counterclaims, a rather wealthy and successful client. :)
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 15:42
Marco,
My statements yesterday were to try and prevent what was becoming a situation whereby one person libels another. That patently failed and I had to take more drastic measures, as best I could. I still hold by those measures.
However, I still maintain that you can't have it both ways. If you want a magazine to not simply write positive reviews of everything, accept that some reviewers will not agree with you. I know of no product that is a universal good and what will sound good in one system will fail to sound good in another. This is not indicative of corruption, it's indicative of all systems and all people not being exactly alike. But that isn't the point.
Exposing corruption is a fine idea. But, please bear in mind that in doing so, the more potentially damaging the claim made, the more it has to be backed up with hard evidence. And anecdote does not count as evidence. By continuing to engage in a discussion that makes such actionable and unsubstantiated claims, my risk was corporate exposure to litigation... guilt by association, if you like. I have no desire to have that happen.
Let's put it this way. Had I printed the statement you made online yesterday in a magazine, Haymarket would eventually be richer to the tune of a six or seven figure sum, unless I had a large body of evidence to support my claims.
This is not a question of hurt feelings or protectionism. If you saw someone about to take a pair of wirecutters to a connected power lead, wouldn't you warn them?
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 15:52
I'm not talking about libel law, it doesn't apply in this case. I read through the thread in question, and the comments are written as opinions and personal thoughts. For an organisation to bring legal action against a forum thread would be laughed out of a lawyers office long before we were all sued. As individuals we would have huge defence from a freedom of speech standpoint, as opinions can be aired on a public forum.
Find me a libellous comment on the thread, one that would make Haymarket actually decide to take very costly and time consuming legal action.
The statement was toned down. And yes, they are costly and time consuming. Whether a company makes the next step depends on how tightly they want to police their reputation.
Put it this way, had it been my my position so impugned, there would have been a C&D letter issued now.
Filterlab
18-02-2010, 15:59
The statement was toned down. And yes, they are costly and time consuming. Whether a company makes the next step depends on how tightly they want to police their reputation.
Put it this way, had it been my my position so impugned, there would have been a C&D letter issued now.
I guess it would depend on how sensitive an individual or organisation are to comments made about their work.
DevillEars
18-02-2010, 16:47
I guess it would depend on how sensitive an individual or organisation are to comments made about their work.
Hi Filterlab,
Sensitivity is not really the issue here.
Where an individual or company is dependent on their reputation to make a living/survive, any spoken or written words that damage that reputation have the potential to impact their income/livelihood.
So, susceptibility to loss of income from reputation damage is more the issue than sensitivity.
Audio magazine contributors/reviewers fulfil the role of 'consultants' to the audio-buying population and their reputation and credibility is what keeps them in work. Damage their reputation/credibility and their 'employability' could just be impacted. Now, put yourself in their shoes and if someone impugned your reputation, how would you react?
Similarly, audio magazines' circulation/advertising sales are linked to their reputations in the eyes of the public. Damage their reputations and their sales (and income) would be jeopardised.
Allowing instances of reputation damage to go unanswered/unaddressed could be interpreted as tacit acceptance and really screw them - so they are virtually forced to take some action as 'damage control'.
Welcome to the world of freedom of expression! ;)
Dave
How can you go to court if you say publicly that a journalist is incompetent ?
Can journalistic competency be proved in some way ? :scratch:
DevillEars
18-02-2010, 17:06
How can you go to court if you say publicly that a journalist is incompetent ?
Can journalistic competency be proved in some way ? :scratch:
Hi Dimitri,
Trust you to raise the ultimate oxymoron as an example.... :lol:
Dave
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 17:15
How can you go to court if you say publicly that a journalist is incompetent ?
Can journalistic competency be proved in some way ? :scratch:
Competency isn't the issue, making allegations of corruption without substantive evidence... that's the issue.
If there's proof - allege away! But if the proof is anecdotal... oops!
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 17:16
...and that's it. Piece said. Job done.
Spectral Morn
18-02-2010, 17:24
The statement was toned down. And yes, they are costly and time consuming. Whether a company makes the next step depends on how tightly they want to police their reputation.
Put it this way, had it been my my position so impugned, there would have been a C&D letter issued now.
Not wanting to cause trouble any further, but quite a lot of more nasty things were said on several UK forums awhile back about You, Hi-Fi + and Roy Gregory in regard to the alleged links between Nordost and Roy when Roy was the sole person behind + and just as you took over. Have you sued them or those forums? or has Roy or even Nordost? To my knowledge no such actions have been taken(against those forums owners or the members who posted quite vile things at the time..though I suppose they could still be sued. You took part in many of those threads yourself at the time. Just curious.
Regards D S D L
Competency isn't the issue, making allegations of corruption without substantive evidence... that's the issue.
If there's proof - allege away! But if the proof is anecdotal... oops!
In that, I agree with you Alan. :)
Hi Alan,
My statements yesterday were to try and prevent what was becoming a situation whereby one person libels another. That patently failed and I had to take more drastic measures, as best I could. I still hold by those measures.
I understand and have no problem with that :)
This is not a question of hurt feelings or protectionism. If you saw someone about to take a pair of wirecutters to a connected power lead, wouldn't you warn them?
Sure, and I appreciate what you're saying - cheers!
However, I still maintain that you can't have it both ways. If you want a magazine to not simply write positive reviews of everything, accept that some reviewers will not agree with you.
Again I have no problem with that - in principle. However, unfortunately, you're completely missing the point.
Had, in the circumstances, the Mark Grant cables received, say, a more realistic four-star review where they were, for example, constructively criticised for not quite being up to the standards of the reviewer's current 'reference', or his particular tastes, or they didn't synergistically match well with the test system, then you wouldn't have heard a peep from me (or anyone else here), as that would've been perfectly reasonable.
However, it's the utterly diametrically opposed views between what was written in WHF and that of many users of the G1000HDs which strongly suggest something was badly amiss with the efficacy of their review.
As Steve correctly said:
If they gave the Veyron 2 stars because it was expensive to run and unsuitable for a family they could not be challenged for that.
But if they said it was slow....
Calling the Bugatti Veyron "slow" is as ludicrous as referring to the G1000HDs, thus (taken from the WHF review):
What really lets this cable down though, is its inability to get to grips with dynamics. Bonham’s trademark drumming becomes jumbled and confused, and the sound lacks cohesion and definition, ending up as a soggy, pulpy mass.
The fact is, such a description is completely at odds with what is heard by everyone who uses these cables, and how it intrinsically 'sounds'. Do you honestly believe that it would be so popular here if it performed how WHF described? Jeez, the Mark Grants retired a pair of £1000 Transparent Reference interconnects I was using up until that point... Trust me I don't use them just because they're 'cheap'!!
I'm afraid that there are times when certain opinions are just plain wrong, and there is a valid explanation for it. Otherwise we would end up giving credence to the notion that lemons are sweet and sugar is bitter, just because some misguided fool says so!
Although I can't go into too much detail at the moment, it has been brought to my attention that WHF have two test systems, one using an integrated amplifier, and one using a pre/power.
Mark was asked only to supply one set of cables for review, so if the system with the pre/power was used to test his cables, then another manufacturer's interconnects would've entered the equation in order to connect the preamp to the power amp (or CDP to preamp), therefore it is likely that there would've been sonic compatibility and/or synergy issues.
In order to achieve a balanced sound, the same interconnects (and ideally also speaker cables) must be used throughout the test system, otherwise you run the risk of ending up with a miss-mash of sonic signatures, and the music fails to gel.
Therefore, the question that begs to be asked is if another manufacturer's cables were part of the test system, how could the reviewer accurately differentiate between their sonic signature and that of the G1000HDs??? Or realistically blame the latter for a possible sonic mismatch with the former??
If the system with the integrated amplifier was used for the test, then of course that's a different matter entirely, as only one set of interconnects would've been needed (Mark's), but we need to know! The fact that the test system wasn't listed in the review is a significant contributory factor towards its lack of credibility....
Anyway, I suspect that Mark will soon be submitting a fresh pair of (undisputably fully functioning) G1000HDs for review to WHF, so it will be very interesting to see what the results are like second time around! ;)
Marco.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 17:48
Mark needs to submit two pairs for reviewing. This should suffice in the event of them using a pre/power amp setup. We know exactly what can happen when you mix interconnects between source/ pre and pre/ power.
This would go a long way to explain WHF's findings as written in their review.
twelvebears
18-02-2010, 18:11
What saddens me most about this whole episode, much more-so than all the posts about legal matters, is the lost business to a deserving manufacturer, due to the.. erm... confusion/cloth ears of a reviewer.
The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, WHF 'opinion', which far to many take as 'fact' does directly influence sales, as anyone who's worked in a hi-fi shop will confirm.
Still, I'm going to be buying a few pairs of the GH1000's so all's not lost...
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 18:14
Not wanting to cause trouble any further, but quite a lot of more nasty things were said on several UK forums awhile back about You, Hi-Fi + and Roy Gregory in regard to the alleged links between Nordost and Roy when Roy was the sole person behind + and just as you took over. Have you sued them or those forums? or has Roy or even Nordost? To my knowledge no such actions have been taken(against those forums owners or the members who posted quite vile things at the time..though I suppose they could still be sued. You took part in many of those threads yourself at the time. Just curious.
Regards D S D L
We discussed the matter at some length when I took over. It was felt best to let me burn the matter out through natural means and diplomacy. A Cease & Desist letter was put in motion for one particularly vitriolic site, but I spent a lot of time putting that particular fire out.
Most of the comments stayed on the right side of the line, anyway.
If there's nothing more, I have to leave...
Spectral Morn
18-02-2010, 18:17
We discussed the matter at some length when I took over. It was felt best to let me burn the matter out through natural means and diplomacy. A Cease & Desist letter was put in motion for one particularly vitriolic site, but I spent a lot of time putting that particular fire out.
Most of the comments stayed on the right side of the line, anyway.
If there's nothing more, I have to leave...
Thank you for your reply Alan.
It is a shame you feel you can't stay a member of AoS. I for one will miss your contributions.
Regards D S D L
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 18:19
Why leave? Have we not taken the appropriate action in accordance with your wishes?
Ammonite Audio
18-02-2010, 18:21
What has Mark Grant to say about all of this?
What has Mark Grant to say about all of this?
If I was Mark, I would stay away from this. ;)
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 18:27
Why leave? Have we not taken the appropriate action in accordance with your wishes?
It has nothing to do with appropriate action. My hands are tied, I'm afraid.
Spectral Morn
18-02-2010, 18:27
If I was Mark, I would stay away from this. ;)
Indeed, just what I was thinking.
Regards D S D L
We discussed the matter at some length when I took over. It was felt best to let me burn the matter out through natural means and diplomacy. A Cease & Desist letter was put in motion for one particularly vitriolic site, but I spent a lot of time putting that particular fire out.
Most of the comments stayed on the right side of the line, anyway.
If there's nothing more, I have to leave...
I hope to see you back on AoS soon, Alan, if your decision can change, of course. :)
Spectral Morn
18-02-2010, 18:37
I hope to see you back on AoS soon, Alan, if your decision can change, of course. :)
I suspect, but its only a guess, that Alan's bosses Absolute Multimedia UK have spoken. This is a real shame and I for one am really sorry this has happened. However I can understand why it has happened. When your employer issues a directive you either, have to go with it, fight it or leave. I don't really expect Alan to do anything other than go with it. Jobs are hard to find, something I know only to well.
Take care Alan.
Regards D S D L
Ah well, a pity, if it's the case... :(
Beechwoods
18-02-2010, 18:48
I'm coming to this thread late, and a lot has already been said that I agree with. Rob spoke earlier on about 'opinion' and 'opinion' is one of the main defences against accusations of libel, as far as I can tell (I'm no lawyer, but I can read)...
The thing that gets me is What Hi-Fi's 'opinion' of Mark's cable could well damage his livelihood, and WHF can write whatever opinions they like at the end of the day. By some of the tokens argued today, and the general (good) view of Mark's cables held by many here, that would make the original review libellous! The opinions expressed regarding the efficacy, reliability or motives of the reviewer and or their opinions are both unlikely to have the same impact on anyone's livelihood, and carry no more weight; both are just opinions in the end...
The opinions stated by WHF are limited to the sound of the cable. That's the difference.
The opinions stated by WHF are limited to the sound of the cable. That's the difference.
Yes, well, my opinion is limited to the journalist's written words, too... :lol:
Beechwoods
18-02-2010, 19:00
Precisely!
Hi Alan,
It has nothing to do with appropriate action. My hands are tied, I'm afraid.
Sorry to hear that you're definitely leaving. However, I'm not quite sure what kind of outcome you expected when deciding to enter this (somewhat thorny) discussion....
Anyway, I wish you well for the future, and should you be in a position to reassess your decision, you'll always be made welcome here.
Good luck with making Hi-fi+ as successful as possible! :cool:
Marco.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 19:34
Alan, your hands are tied by whom exactly?
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 20:09
Alan, your hands are tied by whom exactly?
Essentially, I was out on 'loan' to promote Hi-Fi Plus in the wider community, unless 'something happened'.
As of yesterday evening, I am no longer out on 'loan'. When in the past I have commented in support of other reviewers, it's usually because they too were limited to commenting through their own websites and forums.
So, I'm bowing out of this forum and all others.
Steve Toy
18-02-2010, 20:15
Oh, so the events of the last 24 hours are only a small part of the story then.
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 20:28
No they are not.
Unfortunately, the actions of the last 24 hours serve as a demonstration as to why most industries have formed the view that forums are toxic environments.
As of yesterday, I can no longer argue against that.
Now if there's nothing else, I have better things to be getting on with.
My opinion of the Hi-Fi press just dropped off the bottom of the scale . . .
Unfortunately, the actions of the last 24 hours serve as a demonstration as to why most industries have formed the view that forums are toxic environments.
As of yesterday, I can no longer argue against that.
Well, we're just sticking up for what we think is right, Alan! I don't think there's anything wrong with that :)
Anyway, we'll let you go now.
Marco.
My opinion of the Hi-Fi press just dropped off the bottom of the scale . . .
Yes, unfortunately his last remark could best be described as 'petulant'.
Marco.
Alan Sircom
18-02-2010, 20:44
Yes, unfortunately his last remark could best be described as 'petulant'.
Marco.
You are right, I apologise. I guess I'm smarting from having my wings clipped so heavily. I've spent the best part of a year working these forums and I'm going to miss doing the rounds in a way.
No worries, we're all human! :)
Marco.
Ali Tait
18-02-2010, 20:48
Nothing personal,but just shows why I don't bother with mags anymore..
Spectral Morn
18-02-2010, 20:49
You are right, I apologise. I guess I'm smarting from having my wings clipped so heavily. I've spent the best part of a year working these forums and I'm going to miss doing the rounds in a way.
I think Absolute Multimedia are being very short sighted Alan. Most of those who read Hi-Fi + are forum members as no doubt are those who read The Absolute Sound. I guess TAS policy of charging for back product reviews (unlike Stereophile on-line presence, which is free as a data base) I think they still do that ? (correct me if I am wrong) I think says it all really, and shows where their hearts are at (not you Alan by the way. I have nothing but respect for you, and like your review/writing style. Love and remember fondly your prose about "Smaller amplifiers orbiting the heavy gravity well of the Musical Fidelity .......{forgot which one} amplifier").
I really think TAS (Absolute Multimedia) has hit an own goal here in their reaction.
Regards D S D L
You guys use your English a bit too subtly. I'm almost sure I missed something... :(
Alan Sircom....
first Issue of HiFi World
(the one with the CD attached: Rory Block, Gregson & Collister,Ricard Thomson et all CD)...
I read your prose in that issue..Up there with Alvin Gold, Jimmy Hughes, Malcolm Steward..all those guys..)
Kudos Sir.
I agree, Gaz - that's when it was very good :)
They even used to do restaurant reviews!
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
19-02-2010, 00:19
I've kept out of these discussions so far, but I think AoS will be worse off for Alan's input.
............not so long after that 1st issue of Hi-Fi World, Alan made a phone call to tell me I'd just won a shiny new Naim CDI.
Steve Toy
19-02-2010, 04:19
I really think TAS (Absolute Multimedia) has hit an own goal here in their reaction.
I agree.
............not so long after that 1st issue of Hi-Fi World, Alan made a phone call to tell me I'd just won a shiny new Naim CDI.
HFW? Did you mean Hi-fi+, matey? ;)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
19-02-2010, 09:33
HFW? Did you mean Hi-fi+, matey? ;)
Marco.
No, Alan used to write for HiFi World.
I won the competition by using my 'skill and judgement' to answer a ridiculously easy question(s - can't remember which).
The tie-breaker was to come up with an advertising slogan for Naim to promote the CDI & CDS by using the letters N-A-I-M to form an acronym.
My effort was 'Now Analogue Isn't Mandatory', which I suppose crystallised the idea that Naim were pushing at the time of their first (late in the game) efforts with CD.
See above - Gaz's post No. 63
Ah, I see. I didn't realise that Alan used to work for a proper hi-fi magazine at one time - lol ;)
Good answer. I think you deserved to win!
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
19-02-2010, 10:36
Good answer. I think you deserved to win!
Thanks – Haha, it can't have been that good though, they never used it!
That CDI lasted me for a very long time – I only replaced it about 3 years ago when I got my Accuphase.
Incidentally, it was supplied by one of your former Glaswegian competitors – Stereo Stereo. I often wonder what must have been going through the guy's mind when he delivered it to me – a Linn/Naim dealer plugging a Naim component into my valve preamp from the US – I don't expect he was having any particularly complimentary thoughts!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.