Stereophile's refusal to review more low

Patmatt, we seem to see this scenario a bit differently. From here it appears that Stereophile does "have the best intentions for those who keep their business afloat." "Those" being the manufacturer's who advertise in their magazine. The readers are just the poor schmucks in the audience who keep the manufacturer's going. That makes us a secondary entity, at best, in Stereophile's pecking order.

Oh, they will *claim* the high ground with regard to the reader as to do otherwise would be paramount to suicide. No readers mean no advertising dollars. But publishers know which side of their bread is buttered. In this case the advertisers are sunny-side up and all slicked down. We're the ones left in the face down position. At least there's butter somewhere in the picture. Maybe a little will run our way...

Hope the butter won't be rancid, Fpeel, by the time it reaches us!

My father worked for Meridith Publishing (Hearst) for 40 years and the subscription income does not even generally cover the printing expense of a magazine. It is the advertising dollars that make it profitable. I am not making any accusations against any publishers, just stating the reality of the industry.

Especially at a buck an issue.

True, but what I think the last two comments fail to realize is that the advertising wouldn't be there if not for us. That is, the subscription holders. WE are the targeted group that these advertisements are aimed at, are we not? The strong implication made by Ehider above educates us to some disapointing realities. For starters, we have a magazine under fire here that seems to have possibly lost its course insofar as that its original goal was to educate the reader about this industry and the wares it would hope that we purchase. If a product submitted for review performed well, we would be told about it honestly and without reserve. If same said product performed poorly, the SAME RULE APPLIES! The aforementioned implication instructs us that this is absolutely not the case.
Folks, the issue isn't economics. Allow me to assure those of you who read this post that I am keenly aware of money, its value, what it means and what it does not. If anyone wants me to accept that I must knowingly be misguided in order to keep any enterprise afloat is sorely mistaken. There is a responsibility on the part of any publication, be it magazines, the 11 o'clock news, or my high school newspaper to report that which is newsworthy. And, to do it fairly and honestly. I feel sorry for those who accept less. Not only do you give the go-ahead to those who would cheat you, but ultimately - you get what you deserve.